Okay, so, I'm not going to go on through this whole thing about one topic, but I have something to bitch about, what is that you may ask? well... THAT is child beauty pageants, yeah, child beauty pageants. What does this have to do with film? nothing really, but there IS a TV show called Toddlers & Tiaras, so it's close maybe, but anyway, I think this is pretty sick. It's one thing if the girls WANT to do it, however, there should be a line. Too many pageant mothers tear down these little girls for not being perfect, they keep them away from other things the girls would prefer doing and dress them up to look much older than they should. It's very wrong when the girls DON'T want to do it and the mothers force them to to live out their lives through their daughters. On top of all of this, the kids don't even get the money a lot of the time. They are exploited and the parents can't even put the money in a college fund or something? no! they either send it on themselves or pump it into another pageant! This is wrong and fuck the people that do this, one of the things I can't stand.
ANYWAY, I'm done with my rant... on to recommendations! My movie this time is Kick Ass, the film based on the comic about a kid who ends up dressing up like a superhero, getting his ass kicked repeatedly and gets in WAY over his head. The film isn't the greatest but it is very entertaining, and who doesn't like watching unbelievable amounts of violence and a foulmouthed little girl kill people? That just makes for a good film. My album is oOoOO EP from oOoOO, I'm not sure how to describe it but it's got everything from electronica to hip hop. It's pretty awesome.
Now, back to things that are just awful, I'm going to talk about some film makers whose movies I can't stand, Jared and Jerusha Hess. If you don't know who these people are, a mormon couple that worked on films like Napoleon Dynamite. Jerusha being from Omaha, Nebraska and Jared from Preston, Idaho. Anyway, I find the films they make quite dull and their sense of humor awful, but let's get into some of these horrid films shall we?
First is Napoleon Dynamite (2004) which is about a very boring kid who lives out in west butt fuck nowhere, and goes through the unimportant task of getting his equally boring friend elected as student body president. This film is so dull, has almost no sense of humor, not even a clever or dry one, and is, overall, just a horrible movie. What doesn't help it's case is the fact that every Junior High Schooler quoted every fucking line from the film twenty thousand times (just like the way everyone over quoted 300 to death). More or less Jon Heder does an amazing job of being dull and unfunny and everyone else in the film also does a great job at their horrible form of deadpan. The classic ending dance scene is fairly entertaining but does not make up for this flopping, dying, boring fart of a movie. I'm not sure why this film has such a huge cult following. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/synopsis
Next up for the couple is Nacho Libre (2006) which they co-wrote with Mike White. This film is a mild improvement over Napoleon Dynamite. Jack Black plays a fairly entertaining Catholic priest who wants to be a masked wrestler. It has more of that dull deadpan sense of humor that the last film had except this time is brought with the spastic flair that Jack Black possesses and his a bit more of Mike White's humor (which isn't necessarily better). The film is a blatant children's film and has none of the slight edge that the last had, but is a tad more funny, still not good though. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457510/synopsis
The last film the couple have to date didn't even make theaters, it was called Gentlemen Broncos (2009) and is about a boy who writes a sci-fi book that gest stolen by a famous author played by Jemaine Clement (from Flight of the Conchords). I haven't seen the film and it appears to be a bit better than the last two, but if these film makers prove anything it's that this film will probably end up being as dull and lacking humor as the last ones. I have very little hope for this film, even if it DOES have Jemaine Clement and Sam Rockwell, both of whom I enjoy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1161418/plotsummary
Anyway, those are some things I dislike. There are more, trust me, but that's what I have to talk about now...
To send you off well, here's an odd video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJu5eoAk3U&feature=related
Have fun y'all!
Showing posts with label Directors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Directors. Show all posts
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The Thirtieth Blow-- That's Just Weak Songwriting. You Wrote a Bad Song, Petey!
Now on to my fifth director post, the first one being about M. Knight Shyamalan, which can be read here, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/04/eleventh-day-what-twist.html (of course I suppose my first could technically be my Surreal post about David Lynch and Luis Bañuel). The second being about Kevin Smith, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/04/fourteenth-commandment-clerks-guy.html. The third was about Quentin Tarantino, which can be read here, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/05/twenty-first-issue-what-does-marsellus.html. Finally the fourth was about Terry Gilliam, which I did just a few days ago, http://onthetopicoffilm.blogspot.com/2011/06/twenty-eighth-discussion-only-american.html. Today, my fifth director post is going to be about another film maker that I enjoy, Wes Anderson.
I like the films of Wes Anderson, his odd, dry form of indie comedy. He's not the greatest, but I like him.
I'm gonna take a tangent for just a sec and post this (don't hate me), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8fv6Sw5O64, if you're a fan of Radiohead you might find this a funny as I did (or just be insulted), but anyway, back to business, Wes Anderson business.
Wes Anderson was born in Huston, Texas in 1969 and attended the University of Texas at Austin and graduated with a B.A. in philosophy. Anderson often works with many of the same actors and crew on many of his films. He's very methodical and is involved in every aspect of his films, he also uses a lot of primary colors throughout his movies. His first 5 films are all distributed by the Criterion Collection. Like my other director posts, I'll give you a brief rundown of his films...
Bottle Rocket (1996) was Anderson's first feature length film. The film was co-written by Owen Wilson and is based on a short film that was also directed by Anderson. Even though the film was a failure commercially, it did well critically and got some attention from other directors like Martin Scorsese. The movie tells the story of three guys you go on a robbing spree through Texas, after robbing a bookstore they end up staying at a motel where one of the group falls in love with a spanish-speaking maid. They end up trying a real heist and it all goes to hell, more or less. I thought the film was very humorous, it's a good start for Anderson (if you haven't seen his stuff), it's got a good amount of humor but is fairly dry, anyway, give this one a shot.
Anderson's next film is considered one of his best, Rushmore (1998) was also co-written by Owen Wilson and tells the story of an eccentric, intelligent and bored kid named Max Fischer and his friendship with a rich older gentleman, and their rivalry over the love of an elementary school teacher. The film goes through everything from Max getting kicked out of high school to his setting up an elaborate play about the Vietnam war. The film launched the career of both Anderson and actor Jason Schwartzman, and was the movie that restarted Bill Murray's acting career (ever wonder why he does mostly indie comedies now?). Anyway, this film is probably the best movie to watch to really get into Anderson's films, it's really funny and probably has more humor than his other movies which are generally extremely dry (but don't get me wrong, this movie is still VERY dry). It's a good film and one worth watching for sure.
Yet another film co-written by Owen Wilson was Anderson's third film, The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). The film tells the story of three siblings that were extremely gifted as children and how their lives fell apart, along with their parents' marriage. They are all put back into the same house with their family after something bad happens to each. The film focuses on the ironic and absurd, and has very intricate and, at times, hilarious humor. It's one of Anderson's best known works, including an all star cast and many award nominations, including an Academy Award nomination. The film is based on J.D. Salinger's Glass family. I thought the film was good, the story is excellent and intricate, it's very funny but may not be the best place to start for people who are new to Anderson. Make sure to watch it at some point in your journey through Anderson's films, or if you just want something different, it's worth it.
Anderson's fourth film is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), and was co-written with Noah Baumbach. The film tells the story of Steve Zissou who is an oceanographer who formerly had his own show about it. He goes out to hunt an allusive shark who ate his partner, and it tells the story of his finding his long-lost son and even includes a battle with a rival oceanographer AND pirates. The film didn't do very well critically or commercially, and is really only popular with Anderson fans. I didn't think the movie was all that bad, however, I wouldn't say it was Anderson's best film (I did like how all of the weird fish looked like clay animation). I'd say watch if you dig on Anderson films (or want to see Willem Dafoe play a German), but otherwise, it's not the best. It IS, however, still included in The Criterion Collection!
Next is probably my favorite Anderson film so far, The Darjeeling Limited (2007). The film was co-written by Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman. It's, more or less, a sequel to one of Anderson's short films, Hotel Chavalier (2007). The film tells the story of three brothers aren't very close who go to India for spiritual enlightenment and to find their mother, who is a missionary, after their father's death. They start off on a train ride across India, but get thrown off the train and have to find other routes to get where they're going. It got favorable critical reviews and was, in a way, a make up for his previous film. The film has good humor and one of my favorite scenes in an Anderson film (the scene with the pepper spray). I don't think this film is the most accessible Anderson film, but it should definitely be on your list of movies to watch. Like many of Anderson's film the soundtrack includes an original score along with a collection of British Invasion songs (in this one, it was a lot of The Kinks).
Anderson's most recent film was his 2009 stop-motion animated film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, which was based on the Roald Dahl novel. This film was Anderson's take on children's movies and is actually one of my other favorite films by him (the title of this post was taken from this movie). The movie combines Anderson's odd sense of humor with a child's odd sense of humor and it works surprisingly well, it's probably Anderson's most accessible film because it has the most blatant humor out of all of his movies. It tells the story of Mr. Fox, who attempts to come out of retirement and steal from the three meanest farmers in the land, only to get his nephew kidnapped and all of his animal friends forced underground. I know it sounds "kiddy" but it's actually really funny and totally worth a watch. The film got very positive critical reviews and was even nominated for a few Academy Awards.
Anderson's next film is stated for a 2012 release and will be called Moonrise Kingdom. It's co-written by Roman Coppola and will star Bruce Willis and Bill Murray and be set in the 60s. What I've heard of it sounds entertaining and I'll always be willing to go see a Wes Anderson film.
There it is, my fifth director post in the bag! I'm done now, it's cold and loud here and I'm going to go on to do something else. I'll leave you all with an album recommendation today, go listen to Helplessness Blues by Fleet Foxes, it's melodic folk with excellent vocal harmonies similar to Crosby, Stills and Nash. I've been getting into Fleet Foxes a ton over the last week and this is their most recent album... but anyway, take it easy and have a splendid day!
I like the films of Wes Anderson, his odd, dry form of indie comedy. He's not the greatest, but I like him.
I'm gonna take a tangent for just a sec and post this (don't hate me), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8fv6Sw5O64, if you're a fan of Radiohead you might find this a funny as I did (or just be insulted), but anyway, back to business, Wes Anderson business.
Wes Anderson was born in Huston, Texas in 1969 and attended the University of Texas at Austin and graduated with a B.A. in philosophy. Anderson often works with many of the same actors and crew on many of his films. He's very methodical and is involved in every aspect of his films, he also uses a lot of primary colors throughout his movies. His first 5 films are all distributed by the Criterion Collection. Like my other director posts, I'll give you a brief rundown of his films...
Bottle Rocket (1996) was Anderson's first feature length film. The film was co-written by Owen Wilson and is based on a short film that was also directed by Anderson. Even though the film was a failure commercially, it did well critically and got some attention from other directors like Martin Scorsese. The movie tells the story of three guys you go on a robbing spree through Texas, after robbing a bookstore they end up staying at a motel where one of the group falls in love with a spanish-speaking maid. They end up trying a real heist and it all goes to hell, more or less. I thought the film was very humorous, it's a good start for Anderson (if you haven't seen his stuff), it's got a good amount of humor but is fairly dry, anyway, give this one a shot.
Anderson's next film is considered one of his best, Rushmore (1998) was also co-written by Owen Wilson and tells the story of an eccentric, intelligent and bored kid named Max Fischer and his friendship with a rich older gentleman, and their rivalry over the love of an elementary school teacher. The film goes through everything from Max getting kicked out of high school to his setting up an elaborate play about the Vietnam war. The film launched the career of both Anderson and actor Jason Schwartzman, and was the movie that restarted Bill Murray's acting career (ever wonder why he does mostly indie comedies now?). Anyway, this film is probably the best movie to watch to really get into Anderson's films, it's really funny and probably has more humor than his other movies which are generally extremely dry (but don't get me wrong, this movie is still VERY dry). It's a good film and one worth watching for sure.
Yet another film co-written by Owen Wilson was Anderson's third film, The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). The film tells the story of three siblings that were extremely gifted as children and how their lives fell apart, along with their parents' marriage. They are all put back into the same house with their family after something bad happens to each. The film focuses on the ironic and absurd, and has very intricate and, at times, hilarious humor. It's one of Anderson's best known works, including an all star cast and many award nominations, including an Academy Award nomination. The film is based on J.D. Salinger's Glass family. I thought the film was good, the story is excellent and intricate, it's very funny but may not be the best place to start for people who are new to Anderson. Make sure to watch it at some point in your journey through Anderson's films, or if you just want something different, it's worth it.
Anderson's fourth film is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), and was co-written with Noah Baumbach. The film tells the story of Steve Zissou who is an oceanographer who formerly had his own show about it. He goes out to hunt an allusive shark who ate his partner, and it tells the story of his finding his long-lost son and even includes a battle with a rival oceanographer AND pirates. The film didn't do very well critically or commercially, and is really only popular with Anderson fans. I didn't think the movie was all that bad, however, I wouldn't say it was Anderson's best film (I did like how all of the weird fish looked like clay animation). I'd say watch if you dig on Anderson films (or want to see Willem Dafoe play a German), but otherwise, it's not the best. It IS, however, still included in The Criterion Collection!
Next is probably my favorite Anderson film so far, The Darjeeling Limited (2007). The film was co-written by Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman. It's, more or less, a sequel to one of Anderson's short films, Hotel Chavalier (2007). The film tells the story of three brothers aren't very close who go to India for spiritual enlightenment and to find their mother, who is a missionary, after their father's death. They start off on a train ride across India, but get thrown off the train and have to find other routes to get where they're going. It got favorable critical reviews and was, in a way, a make up for his previous film. The film has good humor and one of my favorite scenes in an Anderson film (the scene with the pepper spray). I don't think this film is the most accessible Anderson film, but it should definitely be on your list of movies to watch. Like many of Anderson's film the soundtrack includes an original score along with a collection of British Invasion songs (in this one, it was a lot of The Kinks).
Anderson's most recent film was his 2009 stop-motion animated film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, which was based on the Roald Dahl novel. This film was Anderson's take on children's movies and is actually one of my other favorite films by him (the title of this post was taken from this movie). The movie combines Anderson's odd sense of humor with a child's odd sense of humor and it works surprisingly well, it's probably Anderson's most accessible film because it has the most blatant humor out of all of his movies. It tells the story of Mr. Fox, who attempts to come out of retirement and steal from the three meanest farmers in the land, only to get his nephew kidnapped and all of his animal friends forced underground. I know it sounds "kiddy" but it's actually really funny and totally worth a watch. The film got very positive critical reviews and was even nominated for a few Academy Awards.Anderson's next film is stated for a 2012 release and will be called Moonrise Kingdom. It's co-written by Roman Coppola and will star Bruce Willis and Bill Murray and be set in the 60s. What I've heard of it sounds entertaining and I'll always be willing to go see a Wes Anderson film.
There it is, my fifth director post in the bag! I'm done now, it's cold and loud here and I'm going to go on to do something else. I'll leave you all with an album recommendation today, go listen to Helplessness Blues by Fleet Foxes, it's melodic folk with excellent vocal harmonies similar to Crosby, Stills and Nash. I've been getting into Fleet Foxes a ton over the last week and this is their most recent album... but anyway, take it easy and have a splendid day!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Twenty-eighth Discussion-- The Only American Python
I'm not necessarily expecting all of you to guess what this post is about by the title really, but if you can then you must either be a big fan of this film maker OR a huge fan of Monty Python...
ANYWAY... this post is about the works of one Mr. Terry Gilliam, in no way a favorite director of mine, but I DO enjoy some of his films.
I think I'm going to take this blog and opportunity to talk about Monty Python too, because, love it or hate it, the British comedy troupe was a major driving force in modern comedy. So, here we go, let's have some fun, shall we?
Terry Gilliam was born in 1940 in Minnesota, making him the only member of the Monty Python comedy troupe NOT to be born in Britain (see, my title makes sense). Gilliam began as an animator before going to Europe and joining the Monty Python group.
Monty Python was a British surreal comedy troupe from 1969 to 1983. The Pythons consisted of John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, and Gilliam. The group created the influential sketch comedy show Monty Python's Flying Circus that ran on the BBC from 1969 to 1974, the show launched the group and set them up for larger fame and movies and stage shows, albums and musicals. The group wrote and performed their own material and popularized absurdist comedy that influenced everything from Saturday Night Live to The Mighty Boosh. The films that were created by Monty Python were And Now For Something Completely Different (1971), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982), and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983). Even after the breaking of Python, many of the members went on to work together. One major Python collaborator who was never part of the troupe was Neil Innes.
However, this post is supposed to be about the post-Python career of Terry Gilliam, so let's get back to all that business...
The first film Gilliam directed was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which he co-directed with Python Terry Jones. I'm assuming that you've all seen this film (or at least heard the quotes from it WAY too many times), however, if you haven't, I would recommend it, it's a classic and really explains Monty Python. Gilliam even played the small role of Patsy in the film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/synopsis
Gilliam's first post-Python film was called Jabberwocky (1977). Starring Python alum Michael Palin as a boy in medieval times who has to slay the mythical dragon from the Lewis Carroll poem, who killed his father. I haven't seen the film so I have no first hand opinion of it, however, any opinion I have gathered is mixed. On one hand, the film did horrible with critics and horrible at the box office, on the other hand, it's a cult classic, so really, I'd say see it if you're a huge Gilliam fan. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076221/plotsummary
Gilliam's second film was Time Bandits (1981), and lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) for you, I HAVE seen this one! The film tells the story of a little boy who ends up getting pulled through time and space by a group of dwarves and their time and space map, eventually having to fight evil. The film is actually fairly entertaining (I remember watching it with my brother, he seemed to dig it too), they continually run into a couple named Vincent and Pansy (Michael Palin and Shelley Duvall, respectively), and a slew of famous characters from history and fiction such as Robin Hood (John Cleese), Napoleon (Ian Holm) and King Agamemnon (Sean Connery, yeah, that's right, Sean Connery), and they also end up on a ship that turns out to be the hat of a giant Polynesian man. Throughout the entire movie they're running from The Supreme Being (who is pretty much God) and eventually fall into the hands of Evil (more or less the Devil). I'd say this film is worth a watch, it's not the best film in any way, or even the best Gilliam film but it's funny and has all the whimsical style of Gilliam, it's a good (and more light hearted) introduction to his style, give it a shot, it's also one of the three Gilliam films to be included in the Criterion Collection. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081633/synopsis
Brazil (1985) was Gilliam's third film, and questionably, one of his best. It tells the story of a man in a dystopian country where the world is run by a tyrannical bureaucracy and runs on out of date and broken down machines, he rebels and ends up considered a terrorist. The film has been considered one of the best cinematic versions of George Orwell's 1984, even though it was not based on the book (however, it was heavily inspired by it). Many titles were proposed, such as 1984 1/2, but ultimately the film was named Brazil after the song that repeatedly appears throughout it, "Aquarela do Brasil". This film is the second of Gilliam's three films to be included in the Criterion Collection. Even though it didn't do very well outside of Britian, it became a major cult classic. I would recommend this film also (for I have also seen it), the film is a good combination of dystopian sci-fi and fantasy (I mean, the guy flies around on Icarus wings more or less). If you want a weird film with a decent political theme then check this one out, simple as that. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/synopsis
1988 brought Gilliam's next film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Even though his three films after Jabberwocky aren't actually related, Gilliam considers them a trilogy, he calls "The Trilogy of Imagination", the reason for this is that he sees it as a telling of life through the imaginations of men of different ages. Time Bandits being a child, Brazil being a middle aged man, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen being an old man. It tells the story of an old man named Baron Munchausen who tells his story of heroism in flashbacks and eventually saves a city from the Turks. The film was nominated for four Oscars (even though it won none), but only had a limited US release. I've never seen the film so I can't say how good it is personally, but it seems as entertaining and whimsical as Gilliam's movies before it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096764/synopsis
In 1991, Gilliam directed The Fisher King, starring Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges. It tells the story of a shock-jock who ends up helping a homeless man whose life he inadvertently ruined. The film did very well critically and, even though I've never seen it, I'd like to. I'd say see it, it sounds like a very touching film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101889/synopsis
Next up is another Gilliam film I have never seen, 12 Monkeys (1995). The film tells the story of a criminal that is repeatedly sent to the past in an attempt to stop the outbreak of a virus that will force Earth to migrate underground. The film also received positive critical reviews and is another film I'd like to see eventually. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/synopsis
Now at this point you're probably saying, "this kid has seen like, no Gilliam films, what the fuck is he writing this for?" well, we're coming up on, probably my favorite Gilliam film (and probably the reason I'm writing this), and THAT film is...
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), the film that is based on, what is considered, possibly one of the most impossible books to make a film out of. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a 1971 novel by Hunter S. Thompson. It's a fictional retelling of a drug induced trip Thompson and his attorney made to Las Vegas to cover a sporting event. For the longest time, the book was thought to be one that could never be adapted into a movie (along with Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, which was eventually made into a film by David Cronenberg). After many thoughts and false starts, the film was put into the hands of Gilliam and, in my opinion, he did an excellent job with it. As I have already stated, this film is my favorite Gilliam film (at least out of the ones I have seen). The film was a box office failure but has since become a cult hit and is the third Gilliam film to be included in The Criterion Collection. Johhny Depp does a good job of portraying a spastic Raoul Duke and Benicio del Toro plays an, at times, psychotic Dr. Gonzo. The drug hallucination scenes were done well (Gilliam's odd fantasy style fits the drug imagery great), and it follows the story as perfectly as a movie CAN follow a book. The film as a classic midnight movie and a hit with a wide audience (as it should be), really if you haven't seen this film, you really should, go out and see it. Even though The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas were not actually related, Gilliam considers them his "Trilogy of Americana" since they were written by other people and take place in North America, they also focused less on fantasy. ANYWAY... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/synopsis
Gilliam's film after that was 2005's The Brothers Grimm, which I HAVE also seen. It tells the story of two brothers who go around and tell stories then set up supernatural creatures to rid small towns of. Eventually they get hired to solve a REAL supernatural mystery. The film was okay but very childish and I don't know if I'd really recommend it, it's not one of Gilliam's best works, not too impressive. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355295/synopsis
2005 also saw the release of Tideland. I have never seen the movie but it seems very dark and I'd like to, it actually sounds better than The Brothers Grimm was. If you see it before me, tell me how it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410764/plotsummary
Finally is Gilliam's most recent film (and Heath Ledger's final film), The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009). It tells the story of an old immortal who can let people live their wildest dreams for a short amount of time, however, he has to attempt to save their souls from The Devil (Tom Waits). For this power though, he has to save so many souls or his daughter is forfeit to The Devil. When I heard that it was Ledger's final film appearance I had to see the film, and knowing that Tom Waits was in it only raised my excitement, unfortunately, it did not deliver. The film is not bad, don't get me wrong, it's just so painfully simple, there's no depth to it like a lot of other Gilliam films and overall the film wasn't great. I would say watch it, but don't be like me and get disappointed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/synopsis
Gilliam's next film will be The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, I don't know if I'll go see it, but if I DO, I'll let you know how it is.
Another fun fact was that Gilliam was supposed to direct the Harry Potter series but ultimately did not get it, fun fact! yeah... fun fact...
ANYWAY, there she is! The post on Terry Gilliam, hope you enjoyed it a bit, keep tuned in, and much like the title of the show were any Monty Python stars started, Do Not Adjust Your Set! there's more to come!
ANYWAY... this post is about the works of one Mr. Terry Gilliam, in no way a favorite director of mine, but I DO enjoy some of his films.
I think I'm going to take this blog and opportunity to talk about Monty Python too, because, love it or hate it, the British comedy troupe was a major driving force in modern comedy. So, here we go, let's have some fun, shall we?
Terry Gilliam was born in 1940 in Minnesota, making him the only member of the Monty Python comedy troupe NOT to be born in Britain (see, my title makes sense). Gilliam began as an animator before going to Europe and joining the Monty Python group.
Monty Python was a British surreal comedy troupe from 1969 to 1983. The Pythons consisted of John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, and Gilliam. The group created the influential sketch comedy show Monty Python's Flying Circus that ran on the BBC from 1969 to 1974, the show launched the group and set them up for larger fame and movies and stage shows, albums and musicals. The group wrote and performed their own material and popularized absurdist comedy that influenced everything from Saturday Night Live to The Mighty Boosh. The films that were created by Monty Python were And Now For Something Completely Different (1971), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982), and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983). Even after the breaking of Python, many of the members went on to work together. One major Python collaborator who was never part of the troupe was Neil Innes.
However, this post is supposed to be about the post-Python career of Terry Gilliam, so let's get back to all that business...
The first film Gilliam directed was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which he co-directed with Python Terry Jones. I'm assuming that you've all seen this film (or at least heard the quotes from it WAY too many times), however, if you haven't, I would recommend it, it's a classic and really explains Monty Python. Gilliam even played the small role of Patsy in the film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/synopsis
Gilliam's first post-Python film was called Jabberwocky (1977). Starring Python alum Michael Palin as a boy in medieval times who has to slay the mythical dragon from the Lewis Carroll poem, who killed his father. I haven't seen the film so I have no first hand opinion of it, however, any opinion I have gathered is mixed. On one hand, the film did horrible with critics and horrible at the box office, on the other hand, it's a cult classic, so really, I'd say see it if you're a huge Gilliam fan. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076221/plotsummary
Gilliam's second film was Time Bandits (1981), and lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) for you, I HAVE seen this one! The film tells the story of a little boy who ends up getting pulled through time and space by a group of dwarves and their time and space map, eventually having to fight evil. The film is actually fairly entertaining (I remember watching it with my brother, he seemed to dig it too), they continually run into a couple named Vincent and Pansy (Michael Palin and Shelley Duvall, respectively), and a slew of famous characters from history and fiction such as Robin Hood (John Cleese), Napoleon (Ian Holm) and King Agamemnon (Sean Connery, yeah, that's right, Sean Connery), and they also end up on a ship that turns out to be the hat of a giant Polynesian man. Throughout the entire movie they're running from The Supreme Being (who is pretty much God) and eventually fall into the hands of Evil (more or less the Devil). I'd say this film is worth a watch, it's not the best film in any way, or even the best Gilliam film but it's funny and has all the whimsical style of Gilliam, it's a good (and more light hearted) introduction to his style, give it a shot, it's also one of the three Gilliam films to be included in the Criterion Collection. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081633/synopsis
Brazil (1985) was Gilliam's third film, and questionably, one of his best. It tells the story of a man in a dystopian country where the world is run by a tyrannical bureaucracy and runs on out of date and broken down machines, he rebels and ends up considered a terrorist. The film has been considered one of the best cinematic versions of George Orwell's 1984, even though it was not based on the book (however, it was heavily inspired by it). Many titles were proposed, such as 1984 1/2, but ultimately the film was named Brazil after the song that repeatedly appears throughout it, "Aquarela do Brasil". This film is the second of Gilliam's three films to be included in the Criterion Collection. Even though it didn't do very well outside of Britian, it became a major cult classic. I would recommend this film also (for I have also seen it), the film is a good combination of dystopian sci-fi and fantasy (I mean, the guy flies around on Icarus wings more or less). If you want a weird film with a decent political theme then check this one out, simple as that. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/synopsis
1988 brought Gilliam's next film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Even though his three films after Jabberwocky aren't actually related, Gilliam considers them a trilogy, he calls "The Trilogy of Imagination", the reason for this is that he sees it as a telling of life through the imaginations of men of different ages. Time Bandits being a child, Brazil being a middle aged man, and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen being an old man. It tells the story of an old man named Baron Munchausen who tells his story of heroism in flashbacks and eventually saves a city from the Turks. The film was nominated for four Oscars (even though it won none), but only had a limited US release. I've never seen the film so I can't say how good it is personally, but it seems as entertaining and whimsical as Gilliam's movies before it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096764/synopsis
In 1991, Gilliam directed The Fisher King, starring Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges. It tells the story of a shock-jock who ends up helping a homeless man whose life he inadvertently ruined. The film did very well critically and, even though I've never seen it, I'd like to. I'd say see it, it sounds like a very touching film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101889/synopsis
Next up is another Gilliam film I have never seen, 12 Monkeys (1995). The film tells the story of a criminal that is repeatedly sent to the past in an attempt to stop the outbreak of a virus that will force Earth to migrate underground. The film also received positive critical reviews and is another film I'd like to see eventually. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/synopsis
Now at this point you're probably saying, "this kid has seen like, no Gilliam films, what the fuck is he writing this for?" well, we're coming up on, probably my favorite Gilliam film (and probably the reason I'm writing this), and THAT film is...
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), the film that is based on, what is considered, possibly one of the most impossible books to make a film out of. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a 1971 novel by Hunter S. Thompson. It's a fictional retelling of a drug induced trip Thompson and his attorney made to Las Vegas to cover a sporting event. For the longest time, the book was thought to be one that could never be adapted into a movie (along with Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, which was eventually made into a film by David Cronenberg). After many thoughts and false starts, the film was put into the hands of Gilliam and, in my opinion, he did an excellent job with it. As I have already stated, this film is my favorite Gilliam film (at least out of the ones I have seen). The film was a box office failure but has since become a cult hit and is the third Gilliam film to be included in The Criterion Collection. Johhny Depp does a good job of portraying a spastic Raoul Duke and Benicio del Toro plays an, at times, psychotic Dr. Gonzo. The drug hallucination scenes were done well (Gilliam's odd fantasy style fits the drug imagery great), and it follows the story as perfectly as a movie CAN follow a book. The film as a classic midnight movie and a hit with a wide audience (as it should be), really if you haven't seen this film, you really should, go out and see it. Even though The Fisher King, 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas were not actually related, Gilliam considers them his "Trilogy of Americana" since they were written by other people and take place in North America, they also focused less on fantasy. ANYWAY... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/synopsis
Gilliam's film after that was 2005's The Brothers Grimm, which I HAVE also seen. It tells the story of two brothers who go around and tell stories then set up supernatural creatures to rid small towns of. Eventually they get hired to solve a REAL supernatural mystery. The film was okay but very childish and I don't know if I'd really recommend it, it's not one of Gilliam's best works, not too impressive. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355295/synopsis
2005 also saw the release of Tideland. I have never seen the movie but it seems very dark and I'd like to, it actually sounds better than The Brothers Grimm was. If you see it before me, tell me how it is. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410764/plotsummary
Finally is Gilliam's most recent film (and Heath Ledger's final film), The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009). It tells the story of an old immortal who can let people live their wildest dreams for a short amount of time, however, he has to attempt to save their souls from The Devil (Tom Waits). For this power though, he has to save so many souls or his daughter is forfeit to The Devil. When I heard that it was Ledger's final film appearance I had to see the film, and knowing that Tom Waits was in it only raised my excitement, unfortunately, it did not deliver. The film is not bad, don't get me wrong, it's just so painfully simple, there's no depth to it like a lot of other Gilliam films and overall the film wasn't great. I would say watch it, but don't be like me and get disappointed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/synopsis
Gilliam's next film will be The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, I don't know if I'll go see it, but if I DO, I'll let you know how it is.
Another fun fact was that Gilliam was supposed to direct the Harry Potter series but ultimately did not get it, fun fact! yeah... fun fact...
ANYWAY, there she is! The post on Terry Gilliam, hope you enjoyed it a bit, keep tuned in, and much like the title of the show were any Monty Python stars started, Do Not Adjust Your Set! there's more to come!
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Twenty-first Issue-- What Does Marsellus Wallace Look Like?
So, I'm going to do a post about Quentin Tarantino, if you ask why, it's because I really enjoy his films. I've had a lot of people ask why I like Tarantino but I respect him and his films. It think he does a good job with what he does, he may be ridiculous and over the top but he does a good job satirizing the film styles he enjoys while paying homage to them at the same time.
He was born Quentin Jerome Tarantino in 1963 in Knoxville, Tennessee. Tarantino never went to film school or even college and worked at a video rental store paying attention to the movies people liked to rent. He has stated that he plans to retire at the age of 60, he's currently 48.
Tarantino's first film was destroyed in a fire, however, the screenplay still exists and was the basis for another film. He gain a huge amount of respect and attention with his first major motion picture Reservoir Dogs. He gained even greater international success with his hit second film Pulp Fiction and after that he's more or less been able to do whatever movie he feels like doing. Unlike other directors like James Cameron or Steven Spielberg for example, he didn't just turn to making popular, big budget, epic, blockbuster spectacles, he is true to what he started out doing and makes the campy, ultra-violent films that he likes.
One thing I enjoy about his films is his frequent use of nonlinear narrative, it's in almost all of his films and his purposeful use of campy b-movie techniques and motifs. He makes his movies interesting and fun to watch while telling a good story and delving deeper into issues and just random cultural topics.
Now, let's give you a little run down of his films (considering I've seen nearly all of them)...
Tarantino's fist amateur film was call My Best Friend's Birthday (1987), which is about a guy who's plans to do something good for his best friend's birthday keep going wrong. I've never seen it and most of it was destroyed in a fire. Only a half hour of the film remains.
Reservoir Dogs (1992) was his first major film and involves the happenings both before and after a failed jewel heist. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105236/synopsis.
The film is one the most classic Tarantino films (even if it's not his most well known), many fans believe that this is one of Tarantino's finest films. I did enjoy this film a lot, from the opening discussion about the meaning behind Madonna's "Like a Virgin" to the end. There are many iconic scenes in the film, such as the stand off between Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) and Mr. White (Harvey Keitel),
the torture scene with Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), or the mexican stand off at the end. The movie truly is a classic with Tarantino's signature of over the top violence and gore, lots of profanity, and mild doses of humor. It also has Tarantino's OTHER signature of a nonlinear story line. It skips around a lot, however, it's never really hard to understand or follow. The films also starred many actors who would go on to other Tarantino films, like Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, and Tarantino himself. Even though I enjoyed this film, I wouldn't say it was my favorite film by him. The movie was excellently done and had all of Tarantino's charm with a realness that hasn't been seen from him since Jackie Brown, however, I thought it was lacking something. Maybe it was plot elements, maybe it was something else, I don't know, it just wasn't my favorite. Worth the watch though, without a doubt.
Next up IS one of my personal Tarantino favorites, Pulp Fiction (1994). Which tells the separate, yet intersecting stories of a couple mobsters, petty criminals, drug addicts, fringe players and the like. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/synopsis. Pulp Fiction is probably the most classic Tarantino film and most likely his most endearing. It has everything thing that makes a Tarantino film a Tarantino film (a lot of which is in Reservoir Dogs also), you can tell that by his second film he polished his craft and it really shows. The dialogue is still iconic, the scenes are iconic, like the cheeseburger scene, the scene where Marvin (Phil LaMarr) accidentally shoots himself, the dance scene with Mia (Uma Thurman) and Vincent (John Travolta), the explanation of the gold watch and the dialogue about what Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) looks like (does he look like a bitch?). The grotesque violence mixed with humor is there, the pop culture references are there, the plot line is entertaining, the repeated motifs, the nonlinear narrative is there, the style that plays on whatever film genre he's using (in this case a kind of neo-noir), everything is there AND it has wonderful portrayals by John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson (who has become one of Tarantino's #1 collaborators). This movie you should probably watch right now, seriously, stop the blog and watch it. If you have it, watch it, if you don't, get it and watch it. If you've never seen a Tarantino film, this is the one to start with (trust me).
Tarantino's third film, Jackie Brown (1997) is not as well known as his first two, or any after really. It's about a flight attendant who gets mixed up in drugs and drug lords. I haven't seen all of this film, only a small part of it (however, I DID notice it was on the instant queue on Netflicks), so I can't really comment on it much, however, I'm sure it's at least worth a watch (but there are reasons why it's less popular I'm sure). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119396/synopsis. ANYWAY, there's that (and sorry about it).
Next came Kill Bill (part 1 released in 2003 and part 2 in 2004), his two part epic that is a play on everything from spaghetti westerns to old samurai flicks to gangster films. I liked Kill Bill, even though it's slightly ridiculous (I know that this is one of the films that Tarantino critics bring up). The film tells the story of a woman (played by Uma Thurman), who attempts to exact her revenge on the group of assassins that she previously worked for who tried to kill her on her wedding day. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266697/synopsis + http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0378194/synopsis. I'll start talking about this film by saying that the second volume has, what is probably one of my favorite characters (and definitely my favorite Tarantino character) ever, Pai Mei. The horribly stereotypical asian kung-fu master who hates everyone and is a very harsh teacher, I thought the character was hilarious. ANYWAY, the film is a revenge film (which is a common subject for Tarantino), it has the violence and the nonlinear story yadda yadda, you already know all of that, this one also has the kung-fu spoof feel. It's paying homage to old martial arts films (I mean Uma Thurman's jumpsuit in the first volume is pretty much the same as Bruce Lee's in The Game of Death), but, just like all Tarantino films, strongly pays homage to what came before.
A lot of people, namely the ones that criticize his films don't really realize that Tarantino is in love with film and wants to relive it and recreate it and have other people enjoy it too. He jokes about what he loves and pays his respects too. I respect that. Once again, in this film, there are tons of iconic scenes, like the fight with the Crazy 88, the scenes with Pai Mei (who is an iconic character, even if he IS modeled after other kung-fu characters), and the five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique. The film is definitely worth a watch, especially if you like campy kung-fu films.
The next film was Death Proof, which was one movie in the double feature Grindhouse (2007), the other film being Robert Rodriguez' Planet Terror. Death Proof tells the story of a stunt driver that uses his customized car to kill unsuspecting women. Now, I must say that I thought this was the worst Tarantino film I've seen. I won't ruin the ending for you, but it was just awful, in fact it ruined the entire film for me (I hate it when that happens). Anyway, I'm not going to say a lot about this film, it had Tarantino's style, it had the low budget feel and purposefully horrible editing and confusing jump cuts to make it feel like a 70s grindhouse horror. I just wouldn't recommend this one personally. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028528/synopsis
Tarantino's latest film (made in 2009) was the WWII revenge film remake of Inglourious Basterds (that's right, remake). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/synopsis. It told the story of a group of Americans who go into Nazi occupied France in an attempt to take out Hitler during a movie premier. The movie seemed to have more humor than a lot of Tarantino's previous works, with Brad Pitt's character being one of the more interesting characters in Tarantino's library. Christoph Waltz also played a delightfully demented Nazi commander, the character was excellently portrayed. It's another Tarantino film that is full of iconic scenes and lines, but unlike most Tarantino films, it is not done out of order, it DOES however have titles cards for each section (which is VERY common in his films). This movie includes another of my most favorite Tarantino characters, Hugo Stiglitz, who is a rogue Nazi that eventually joins the Basterds (and, more or less, a total badass). I think that this film will go down as a Tarantino classic, and one people will remember, if you haven't seen it yet, watch it for sure.
Tarantino has already announced his next two projects. The first once being a spaghetti western about a slave who goes and exacts vengeance on his former master, it's going to be titled Django Unchained, Christoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson have both been announced as part of the project. The film that was announced after that he will be doing a third volume of Kill Bill, the reason for the length between the installments was to give The Bride and her daughter at least ten years to get settled. I personally can't wait for either of these projects, both sound great.
Finally, I've found this photo of a statue of Bruce Lee in Hong Kong that I thought was cool and would share...
ANYWAY... there it is, hope you liked it, buh-bye...
He was born Quentin Jerome Tarantino in 1963 in Knoxville, Tennessee. Tarantino never went to film school or even college and worked at a video rental store paying attention to the movies people liked to rent. He has stated that he plans to retire at the age of 60, he's currently 48.
Tarantino's first film was destroyed in a fire, however, the screenplay still exists and was the basis for another film. He gain a huge amount of respect and attention with his first major motion picture Reservoir Dogs. He gained even greater international success with his hit second film Pulp Fiction and after that he's more or less been able to do whatever movie he feels like doing. Unlike other directors like James Cameron or Steven Spielberg for example, he didn't just turn to making popular, big budget, epic, blockbuster spectacles, he is true to what he started out doing and makes the campy, ultra-violent films that he likes.
One thing I enjoy about his films is his frequent use of nonlinear narrative, it's in almost all of his films and his purposeful use of campy b-movie techniques and motifs. He makes his movies interesting and fun to watch while telling a good story and delving deeper into issues and just random cultural topics.
Now, let's give you a little run down of his films (considering I've seen nearly all of them)...
Tarantino's fist amateur film was call My Best Friend's Birthday (1987), which is about a guy who's plans to do something good for his best friend's birthday keep going wrong. I've never seen it and most of it was destroyed in a fire. Only a half hour of the film remains.
Reservoir Dogs (1992) was his first major film and involves the happenings both before and after a failed jewel heist. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105236/synopsis.
The film is one the most classic Tarantino films (even if it's not his most well known), many fans believe that this is one of Tarantino's finest films. I did enjoy this film a lot, from the opening discussion about the meaning behind Madonna's "Like a Virgin" to the end. There are many iconic scenes in the film, such as the stand off between Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) and Mr. White (Harvey Keitel),the torture scene with Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), or the mexican stand off at the end. The movie truly is a classic with Tarantino's signature of over the top violence and gore, lots of profanity, and mild doses of humor. It also has Tarantino's OTHER signature of a nonlinear story line. It skips around a lot, however, it's never really hard to understand or follow. The films also starred many actors who would go on to other Tarantino films, like Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, and Tarantino himself. Even though I enjoyed this film, I wouldn't say it was my favorite film by him. The movie was excellently done and had all of Tarantino's charm with a realness that hasn't been seen from him since Jackie Brown, however, I thought it was lacking something. Maybe it was plot elements, maybe it was something else, I don't know, it just wasn't my favorite. Worth the watch though, without a doubt.
Next up IS one of my personal Tarantino favorites, Pulp Fiction (1994). Which tells the separate, yet intersecting stories of a couple mobsters, petty criminals, drug addicts, fringe players and the like. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/synopsis. Pulp Fiction is probably the most classic Tarantino film and most likely his most endearing. It has everything thing that makes a Tarantino film a Tarantino film (a lot of which is in Reservoir Dogs also), you can tell that by his second film he polished his craft and it really shows. The dialogue is still iconic, the scenes are iconic, like the cheeseburger scene, the scene where Marvin (Phil LaMarr) accidentally shoots himself, the dance scene with Mia (Uma Thurman) and Vincent (John Travolta), the explanation of the gold watch and the dialogue about what Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) looks like (does he look like a bitch?). The grotesque violence mixed with humor is there, the pop culture references are there, the plot line is entertaining, the repeated motifs, the nonlinear narrative is there, the style that plays on whatever film genre he's using (in this case a kind of neo-noir), everything is there AND it has wonderful portrayals by John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson (who has become one of Tarantino's #1 collaborators). This movie you should probably watch right now, seriously, stop the blog and watch it. If you have it, watch it, if you don't, get it and watch it. If you've never seen a Tarantino film, this is the one to start with (trust me).
Tarantino's third film, Jackie Brown (1997) is not as well known as his first two, or any after really. It's about a flight attendant who gets mixed up in drugs and drug lords. I haven't seen all of this film, only a small part of it (however, I DID notice it was on the instant queue on Netflicks), so I can't really comment on it much, however, I'm sure it's at least worth a watch (but there are reasons why it's less popular I'm sure). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119396/synopsis. ANYWAY, there's that (and sorry about it).
A lot of people, namely the ones that criticize his films don't really realize that Tarantino is in love with film and wants to relive it and recreate it and have other people enjoy it too. He jokes about what he loves and pays his respects too. I respect that. Once again, in this film, there are tons of iconic scenes, like the fight with the Crazy 88, the scenes with Pai Mei (who is an iconic character, even if he IS modeled after other kung-fu characters), and the five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique. The film is definitely worth a watch, especially if you like campy kung-fu films.
The next film was Death Proof, which was one movie in the double feature Grindhouse (2007), the other film being Robert Rodriguez' Planet Terror. Death Proof tells the story of a stunt driver that uses his customized car to kill unsuspecting women. Now, I must say that I thought this was the worst Tarantino film I've seen. I won't ruin the ending for you, but it was just awful, in fact it ruined the entire film for me (I hate it when that happens). Anyway, I'm not going to say a lot about this film, it had Tarantino's style, it had the low budget feel and purposefully horrible editing and confusing jump cuts to make it feel like a 70s grindhouse horror. I just wouldn't recommend this one personally. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028528/synopsisTarantino's latest film (made in 2009) was the WWII revenge film remake of Inglourious Basterds (that's right, remake). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/synopsis. It told the story of a group of Americans who go into Nazi occupied France in an attempt to take out Hitler during a movie premier. The movie seemed to have more humor than a lot of Tarantino's previous works, with Brad Pitt's character being one of the more interesting characters in Tarantino's library. Christoph Waltz also played a delightfully demented Nazi commander, the character was excellently portrayed. It's another Tarantino film that is full of iconic scenes and lines, but unlike most Tarantino films, it is not done out of order, it DOES however have titles cards for each section (which is VERY common in his films). This movie includes another of my most favorite Tarantino characters, Hugo Stiglitz, who is a rogue Nazi that eventually joins the Basterds (and, more or less, a total badass). I think that this film will go down as a Tarantino classic, and one people will remember, if you haven't seen it yet, watch it for sure.
Finally, I've found this photo of a statue of Bruce Lee in Hong Kong that I thought was cool and would share...
ANYWAY... there it is, hope you liked it, buh-bye...
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Fourteenth Commandment-- The Clerks Guy (revised)
So, this is probably going to be a short post, mainly I'm only going to talk about a few things. I've spent the last few days watching Sold Out: A Threevening with Kevin Smith, and I kinda want to discuss the man (by the way, that DVD is actually hilarious and I'd recommend watching it). I also have a few other things to say, but let's get on with it shall we?
Okay... I assume you know who Kevin Smith is. If you don't then he is a classic comedy director of such hits as Clerks, Mallrats, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and others. He is very iconic and his films generally have the same feel to them (he even has his own production company called View Askew Productions). I think Kevin Smith is a funny guy, I relate to him. He's an overweight comic book/film nerd who basically does what I want to do for a living. So I like Kevin Smith, and his movies. I thought Mallrats was pretty funny and Zak and Miri Make A Porno was decent, Clerks was excellent, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Dogma were a bit iffy but still pretty good. Now he's doing a horror film called Red State that look interesting. On top of that, his stand up is hilarious and informational about film making and I'd suggest watching it.
Kevin Smith is from New Jersey and studied film at The Vancouver Film School but dropped out half way through and took partial tuition reimbursement to fund the making of Clerks. I think that's pretty cool, he made it big with a deep and well recorded first film and did it all without completing film school. I mean, he got lucky that his first movie was so well recieved, but that's still pretty awesome to me (but maybe I'm just lame).
Clerks seems like a simple film at first but there is so much depth in it. There is so much attention to detail, so much philosophy found in pop culture references, subtle and dry humor and outrageous discussions. This movie has so much and, as someone who wants to do film, it's a very interesting film to watch. Make sure to see it if you like Kevin Smith (but if you do, you've probably already seen it) or just because it's a great comedy.
Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about Mr. Smith. I've been thinking about my own short film that I will attempt soon, the pieces are coming together but there are still holes. Hopefully I'll have something for all of you soon (if you're interested in what I have to do). I'm feeling like a failure of sorts with my crazy amount of school work and everything, but I'm hoping doing this will help me (and I'll have something to show for college). That's all for now, good bye y'all!
Okay... I assume you know who Kevin Smith is. If you don't then he is a classic comedy director of such hits as Clerks, Mallrats, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and others. He is very iconic and his films generally have the same feel to them (he even has his own production company called View Askew Productions). I think Kevin Smith is a funny guy, I relate to him. He's an overweight comic book/film nerd who basically does what I want to do for a living. So I like Kevin Smith, and his movies. I thought Mallrats was pretty funny and Zak and Miri Make A Porno was decent, Clerks was excellent, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Dogma were a bit iffy but still pretty good. Now he's doing a horror film called Red State that look interesting. On top of that, his stand up is hilarious and informational about film making and I'd suggest watching it.
Kevin Smith is from New Jersey and studied film at The Vancouver Film School but dropped out half way through and took partial tuition reimbursement to fund the making of Clerks. I think that's pretty cool, he made it big with a deep and well recorded first film and did it all without completing film school. I mean, he got lucky that his first movie was so well recieved, but that's still pretty awesome to me (but maybe I'm just lame).
Clerks seems like a simple film at first but there is so much depth in it. There is so much attention to detail, so much philosophy found in pop culture references, subtle and dry humor and outrageous discussions. This movie has so much and, as someone who wants to do film, it's a very interesting film to watch. Make sure to see it if you like Kevin Smith (but if you do, you've probably already seen it) or just because it's a great comedy.
Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about Mr. Smith. I've been thinking about my own short film that I will attempt soon, the pieces are coming together but there are still holes. Hopefully I'll have something for all of you soon (if you're interested in what I have to do). I'm feeling like a failure of sorts with my crazy amount of school work and everything, but I'm hoping doing this will help me (and I'll have something to show for college). That's all for now, good bye y'all!
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Twelfth Place-- There And Back Again
Alright, I'm going to kick off this post with something a tad off topic. I love beatboxing, I'm fascinated by it, I dabble in it a bit (I'm no good though) and I'm totally amazed by people who can do it well... So... My girlfriend Samantha and I found this website that's pretty cool, http://www.beatboxbattle.com/ (and I'm sorry if your computer isn't like mine and can translate it from German), but there's a guy on there named Skiller who is very good and if you enjoy beatboxing I'd say look it up, but anyway, on with the post...
Now if there's any one movie that I will be looking forward to in the next few years it's the two part film adaptation of The Hobbit, I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan (although, admittedly, Star Wars was always my primary nerd obsession of choice, but that's beside the point). I loved The Lord of The Rings, I read the books, watched the movies, looked up the history, did it all, but I'd always thought that The Hobbit was the best of the books (and many LOTR fans may disagree with that statement). Now, after years of rumors, they are finally and definitely making a Hobbit movie, and guess what, none other than Peter Jackson himself is coming back to direct. I'm psyched, and THIS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUvirzQ4P9A, just makes me that much more excited! To add yet ANOTHER rung to my ladder of excitement, Martin Freeman will be playing the roll of young Bilbo... AWESOME! If you don't know Martin Freeman, he played Tim Canterbury in the British Office, (another thing I'm a HUGE fan of) and Arthur Dent in the movie adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy (yet another thing I enjoy). So to know that he's playing Bilbo just makes me happy... also, Ian McKellen is returning as Gandalf, Andy Serkis is coming back as Gollum, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood and Christopher Lee are reprising their roles and they are in negotiations with Hugo Weaving and Ian Holm to come back as Elrond and Older Bilbo (respectively). Part one is planned to be released in 2012 and part two will be released in 2013 and I'll be there to see it.
Enough with the "nerding out" now (maybe). I like Peter Jackson (I dunno if you do, but I do). I thought what he did with The Lord of The Rings trilogy was great, it was a solid movie, a good adaptation of the book (with the exception of leaving Tom Bombadil out of the first one... and other little changes), and I wouldn't be as fine with anyone else directing the film. When Peter Jackson decided not to direct the film, New Line hired Guillermo Del Toro to direct the film. Now, if there was ANYONE that I would have liked to see do The Hobbit other than Peter Jackson, it would be Del Toro. There are probably a ton of directors that you like that could probably direct The Hobbit amazingly, and you're probably thinking "why would he want to see Del Toro direct The Hobbit? why not (insert director's name here)?" well the answer is... I like the way Del Toro does fantasy. It's slightly dark, slightly creepy, using make up and puppets over CGI, I liked The Hellboy movies and it would be interesting to see what he would have made The Hobbit. Del Toro was going to redesign the look of the Goblins and the Wargs and try to make the Mirkwood Spiders look totally different from Shelob. After all of the delays, however, Del Toro left the project. After this there were many other directors that were rumored to be on the project, but ultimately Jackson ended up as director once again.
But ANYWAY, enough with my excitement... I WOULD give you more information about the book or The Lord of The Rings in general, but you should either read the books or at LEAST watch the movies. I'll be there, first in line to see this new two part adaptation and I hope that I'll see you guys there too, and if you're a huge LOTR fan like me, you're welcome for the info (if you haven't already looked all this stuff up anyway). In other news, I'm totally swamped with work right now so my next few posts will probably all be very short and very few (if I'll be able to fit in any at all). This sucks cuz not only do I have to put off my blog, I also have to put off the writing of a script for my first short film (hopefully will be made shortly with the help of my friends). If I don't see you sooner I'll see you later... keep a look out for more posts, hopefully they won't take to long. Buh-bye.
Now if there's any one movie that I will be looking forward to in the next few years it's the two part film adaptation of The Hobbit, I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan (although, admittedly, Star Wars was always my primary nerd obsession of choice, but that's beside the point). I loved The Lord of The Rings, I read the books, watched the movies, looked up the history, did it all, but I'd always thought that The Hobbit was the best of the books (and many LOTR fans may disagree with that statement). Now, after years of rumors, they are finally and definitely making a Hobbit movie, and guess what, none other than Peter Jackson himself is coming back to direct. I'm psyched, and THIS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUvirzQ4P9A, just makes me that much more excited! To add yet ANOTHER rung to my ladder of excitement, Martin Freeman will be playing the roll of young Bilbo... AWESOME! If you don't know Martin Freeman, he played Tim Canterbury in the British Office, (another thing I'm a HUGE fan of) and Arthur Dent in the movie adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy (yet another thing I enjoy). So to know that he's playing Bilbo just makes me happy... also, Ian McKellen is returning as Gandalf, Andy Serkis is coming back as Gollum, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood and Christopher Lee are reprising their roles and they are in negotiations with Hugo Weaving and Ian Holm to come back as Elrond and Older Bilbo (respectively). Part one is planned to be released in 2012 and part two will be released in 2013 and I'll be there to see it.
Enough with the "nerding out" now (maybe). I like Peter Jackson (I dunno if you do, but I do). I thought what he did with The Lord of The Rings trilogy was great, it was a solid movie, a good adaptation of the book (with the exception of leaving Tom Bombadil out of the first one... and other little changes), and I wouldn't be as fine with anyone else directing the film. When Peter Jackson decided not to direct the film, New Line hired Guillermo Del Toro to direct the film. Now, if there was ANYONE that I would have liked to see do The Hobbit other than Peter Jackson, it would be Del Toro. There are probably a ton of directors that you like that could probably direct The Hobbit amazingly, and you're probably thinking "why would he want to see Del Toro direct The Hobbit? why not (insert director's name here)?" well the answer is... I like the way Del Toro does fantasy. It's slightly dark, slightly creepy, using make up and puppets over CGI, I liked The Hellboy movies and it would be interesting to see what he would have made The Hobbit. Del Toro was going to redesign the look of the Goblins and the Wargs and try to make the Mirkwood Spiders look totally different from Shelob. After all of the delays, however, Del Toro left the project. After this there were many other directors that were rumored to be on the project, but ultimately Jackson ended up as director once again.But ANYWAY, enough with my excitement... I WOULD give you more information about the book or The Lord of The Rings in general, but you should either read the books or at LEAST watch the movies. I'll be there, first in line to see this new two part adaptation and I hope that I'll see you guys there too, and if you're a huge LOTR fan like me, you're welcome for the info (if you haven't already looked all this stuff up anyway). In other news, I'm totally swamped with work right now so my next few posts will probably all be very short and very few (if I'll be able to fit in any at all). This sucks cuz not only do I have to put off my blog, I also have to put off the writing of a script for my first short film (hopefully will be made shortly with the help of my friends). If I don't see you sooner I'll see you later... keep a look out for more posts, hopefully they won't take to long. Buh-bye.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Eleventh Day-- What A Twist!
That's right, if you hadn't guessed by the title (but you wouldn't get the reference if you don't watch Robot Chicken), I'm gonna talk about M. Night Shyamalan, and my supreme hatred of his movies. Unlike his movies my blog WON'T have some shitty twist ending where you find out I actually love his films. Furthermore, I will openly warn you now, that I intend to be an asshole and tell the ending of his movies for two reasons: one, you probably already know them and two, if you don't I plan on saving you some time to go watch some GOOD movies. You'll know the ending, you won't have to sit through the rest. If you really REALLY want to watch them still, stop now and move along and no harm will be done.
Okay, I'll now give you a bit of background about this Indian-American man (I'll need to consult Wikipedia, I certainly have no information about him in my head). Shyamalan was born Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan in 1970 in Puduchery India. He spent his childhood in Philidelphia, Pennsylvania and attended school at New York University. ANYWAY... I think that's about all you REALLY need to know about him.
Let's start now with his break through movie The Sixth Sense. This was probably his most decent film, telling the story of a little boy who can see the ghosts of the wrongfully dead, who then ask for his help in correcting their end. Bruce Willis plays the boy's counselor, and, what do you know, it turns out that HE was dead the entire time! Shocking. Now this film wasn't all bad, the acting was decent, the story was intriguing and the twist was unexpected. The downfall of this film is the fact that once you know the ending, you might as well not bother watching it and of course EVERYONE spilled the secret immediately, thanks a ton world! Now with this paragraph you're probably thinking, "oh, he isn't THAT harsh on Shyamalan" haha, just wait, it gets worse, as his films do.
Speaking of "worse", let's move onto Signs. First off, let's talk about one major flaw with this movie... It stars Mel Gibson (blegh). The second problem with the movie is the fact that it is all aliens (and you should know I think aliens are a total cop out). I don't want to know that the writers of a movie are so uncreative that they choose aliens to explain the unexplainable. Finally, a major downfall of the movie is the fact that water kills the aliens. You would think a race that is smart enough to make it here from, God knows where, would know not to invade a planet that's mostly water... If water is their one weakness (maybe I'M the only one thy would think that). One plus of the movie is Joaquin Phoenix, in my opinion he is a fairly good actor, and anyone who is willing to nearly ruin their career to make a movie gets respect from me. Overall though, the movie wasn't my thing (to say the least) even though it got pretty good critical reviews.
So, now on to the The Village. Yet another Shyamalan film that Joaquin Phoenix could not save. The one major flaw with this film is the twist ending, one that has already been done before in a children's book called Running Out of Time by Margret Peterson Haddix. The story is that of a colonial town that no one can leave due to a monster that stalks the surrounding woods. When one of the young girls finally gets out, she discovers that the town is actually in modern times and the only reason she couldn't leave was because the adults of the town wanted to keep the children away from modern problems. Everything but the monster was already in Haddix's book. Not necessarily a problem, but I dislike Shyamalan, so the lack of originality is a strike... AND the movie was just poorly done overall.
Next up is Lady in the Water. It's a modern take on a fairy tale, with a man finding a water nymph and setting up a group of people to protect her from a wolf creature trying to kill her. This one doesn't really have the "Shyamalan twist" but the movie was horrible AND got very low critical reviews. Even though the movie was largely a disappointment, I couldn't totally hate it. I like Paul Giamatti AND I was intrigued by the story (I'm usually interested in fantasy and fairy tales). The movie was in no way a good movie, but it wasn't the worst movie ever by Shyamalan.
The Happening is an excellent example of a horrible Shyamalan film (and really just film in general). Not only did this pathetic piece of cinema have awful acting, but an equally awful story. One thing about this film was all of the "hubub" about the fact that it was Shyamalan's first R-rated movie (oh God! it's rated R! whatever will he do?!?!?! I can't WAIT to see what kind of CCCRRRRAAAAZZZYYY stuff he can do with an R rating!!). Anyway, the R rating didn't help this film at all, nothing in this film even really deserved the R rating. The most violence that was shown was the implication that a man was run over by a lawnmower. PLUS, I don't know why an R rating would make a movie more interesting anyway, you can add more hard hitting subject matter, but if you can tell a good enough story, it doesn't matter WHAT the film is rated. The acting was so bad, I mean the film starred Mark Wahlberg (who I will admit isn't ALWAYS awful) and John Leguizamo. The plot is what really did it for me though, I thought that the idea that a neurotoxin that made people kill themselves was interesting (and luckily the alien cop out wasn't used for this one). What ruined it was the fact that the neurotoxin came from the plants... and on top of THAT, is the fact that the main characters could out run it... AND were safe when inside (even though OTHER characters weren't safe inside). More or less this movie deserved the horrible critical response it got... please, do yourself a favor and never watch this movie.
Finally I'll talk about The Last Airbender. Now if you weren't aware, this movie is based off of a Nickelodeon cartoon called Avatar: The Last Airbender. Now what Shyamalan did with this film is take a pretty bad, but not totally horrible cartoon and make it into a really awful movie. The CGI was bad, the acting was bad, the pronunciation of the names was off, the story was off, pretty much everything was off. The ONLY thing that was interesting was the bending itself, it was kind of cool to see fire and water flying around (but that's literally the ONLY thing that was done decently). I'm not even going to say more about this film.
I haven't seen Devil or any of Shyamalan's other films, but I doubt I need to (I didn't even know how to spell Shyamalan til I did this post, another useless thing I know now). ANYWAY... this is a message for Mr. Night Shymalan himself...
M... can I call you M? Please, PLEASE stop, for the love of God stop making films... they progressively get worse and no one wants to sit through them anymore. Do the world a favor and get a more helpful job, please.
If you think this post is harsh I'm very sorry. There are a lot of things I like about India (like their delicious food) but M. Night Shyamalan isn't one... and if you were waiting for a twist... fine, I'll give you one. I, in no way, like the music of Seal, but whenever I hear "Kiss From a Rose" it takes me back to when I was 5 years old and Batman Forever came out. Now in my previous comic movie post I told you how horrible the original Batman films were (and I stick by that), but when I was 5, they were the shit. I loved them and that song reminds me of being a child and how much I loved super heros (mainly Batman) and movies. That's why I'll always (kind of) like that song... Unfortunately that was ALL unimportant, but there it is.
You guys have a wonderful day and if you LOVE M. Night Shyamalan, feel free to call me a bastard.
Okay, I'll now give you a bit of background about this Indian-American man (I'll need to consult Wikipedia, I certainly have no information about him in my head). Shyamalan was born Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan in 1970 in Puduchery India. He spent his childhood in Philidelphia, Pennsylvania and attended school at New York University. ANYWAY... I think that's about all you REALLY need to know about him.
Let's start now with his break through movie The Sixth Sense. This was probably his most decent film, telling the story of a little boy who can see the ghosts of the wrongfully dead, who then ask for his help in correcting their end. Bruce Willis plays the boy's counselor, and, what do you know, it turns out that HE was dead the entire time! Shocking. Now this film wasn't all bad, the acting was decent, the story was intriguing and the twist was unexpected. The downfall of this film is the fact that once you know the ending, you might as well not bother watching it and of course EVERYONE spilled the secret immediately, thanks a ton world! Now with this paragraph you're probably thinking, "oh, he isn't THAT harsh on Shyamalan" haha, just wait, it gets worse, as his films do.
Speaking of "worse", let's move onto Signs. First off, let's talk about one major flaw with this movie... It stars Mel Gibson (blegh). The second problem with the movie is the fact that it is all aliens (and you should know I think aliens are a total cop out). I don't want to know that the writers of a movie are so uncreative that they choose aliens to explain the unexplainable. Finally, a major downfall of the movie is the fact that water kills the aliens. You would think a race that is smart enough to make it here from, God knows where, would know not to invade a planet that's mostly water... If water is their one weakness (maybe I'M the only one thy would think that). One plus of the movie is Joaquin Phoenix, in my opinion he is a fairly good actor, and anyone who is willing to nearly ruin their career to make a movie gets respect from me. Overall though, the movie wasn't my thing (to say the least) even though it got pretty good critical reviews.
So, now on to the The Village. Yet another Shyamalan film that Joaquin Phoenix could not save. The one major flaw with this film is the twist ending, one that has already been done before in a children's book called Running Out of Time by Margret Peterson Haddix. The story is that of a colonial town that no one can leave due to a monster that stalks the surrounding woods. When one of the young girls finally gets out, she discovers that the town is actually in modern times and the only reason she couldn't leave was because the adults of the town wanted to keep the children away from modern problems. Everything but the monster was already in Haddix's book. Not necessarily a problem, but I dislike Shyamalan, so the lack of originality is a strike... AND the movie was just poorly done overall.
Next up is Lady in the Water. It's a modern take on a fairy tale, with a man finding a water nymph and setting up a group of people to protect her from a wolf creature trying to kill her. This one doesn't really have the "Shyamalan twist" but the movie was horrible AND got very low critical reviews. Even though the movie was largely a disappointment, I couldn't totally hate it. I like Paul Giamatti AND I was intrigued by the story (I'm usually interested in fantasy and fairy tales). The movie was in no way a good movie, but it wasn't the worst movie ever by Shyamalan.
The Happening is an excellent example of a horrible Shyamalan film (and really just film in general). Not only did this pathetic piece of cinema have awful acting, but an equally awful story. One thing about this film was all of the "hubub" about the fact that it was Shyamalan's first R-rated movie (oh God! it's rated R! whatever will he do?!?!?! I can't WAIT to see what kind of CCCRRRRAAAAZZZYYY stuff he can do with an R rating!!). Anyway, the R rating didn't help this film at all, nothing in this film even really deserved the R rating. The most violence that was shown was the implication that a man was run over by a lawnmower. PLUS, I don't know why an R rating would make a movie more interesting anyway, you can add more hard hitting subject matter, but if you can tell a good enough story, it doesn't matter WHAT the film is rated. The acting was so bad, I mean the film starred Mark Wahlberg (who I will admit isn't ALWAYS awful) and John Leguizamo. The plot is what really did it for me though, I thought that the idea that a neurotoxin that made people kill themselves was interesting (and luckily the alien cop out wasn't used for this one). What ruined it was the fact that the neurotoxin came from the plants... and on top of THAT, is the fact that the main characters could out run it... AND were safe when inside (even though OTHER characters weren't safe inside). More or less this movie deserved the horrible critical response it got... please, do yourself a favor and never watch this movie.
Finally I'll talk about The Last Airbender. Now if you weren't aware, this movie is based off of a Nickelodeon cartoon called Avatar: The Last Airbender. Now what Shyamalan did with this film is take a pretty bad, but not totally horrible cartoon and make it into a really awful movie. The CGI was bad, the acting was bad, the pronunciation of the names was off, the story was off, pretty much everything was off. The ONLY thing that was interesting was the bending itself, it was kind of cool to see fire and water flying around (but that's literally the ONLY thing that was done decently). I'm not even going to say more about this film.
I haven't seen Devil or any of Shyamalan's other films, but I doubt I need to (I didn't even know how to spell Shyamalan til I did this post, another useless thing I know now). ANYWAY... this is a message for Mr. Night Shymalan himself...
M... can I call you M? Please, PLEASE stop, for the love of God stop making films... they progressively get worse and no one wants to sit through them anymore. Do the world a favor and get a more helpful job, please.
If you think this post is harsh I'm very sorry. There are a lot of things I like about India (like their delicious food) but M. Night Shyamalan isn't one... and if you were waiting for a twist... fine, I'll give you one. I, in no way, like the music of Seal, but whenever I hear "Kiss From a Rose" it takes me back to when I was 5 years old and Batman Forever came out. Now in my previous comic movie post I told you how horrible the original Batman films were (and I stick by that), but when I was 5, they were the shit. I loved them and that song reminds me of being a child and how much I loved super heros (mainly Batman) and movies. That's why I'll always (kind of) like that song... Unfortunately that was ALL unimportant, but there it is.
You guys have a wonderful day and if you LOVE M. Night Shyamalan, feel free to call me a bastard.
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Second Chapter-- Surrealism
I'm pretty psyched about this blog of mine, so I think I'm going to do another post...
Let's start with a little recommendation/a bit about me, if you know me well, you know that I carry around a bag with a few of my art supplies and writing notebooks, I also generally have a few movies on me (for when life can't wait eh? *wink wink nudge nudge*)... but I think these movies deserve a viewing so I'll tell you what I have on me now. First off, two movies I mentioned in my last post, Black Swan and The Big Lebowski, two amazing (and very different) movies, and then I have Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Synecdoche, New York. All four movies are amazing, two are twisted dramas and the other two are comedy... but I would recommend any and all of them (and may touch on them later).
That's all besides the point though...
Let's start this off with a director... who is that director you ask? David Lynch is that director... I haven't seen too many Lynch films but my interest in him has been heightened by my gorgeous girlfriend Samantha who seems to also be intrigued by his work. I bought a copy of Eraserhead for her a while back and I must say that it is a very... unique debut.
For those of you who have not seen Eraserhead... well, prepare yourself for one of the strangest films you MAY encounter. It's done completely in black and white (as all great film school debuts should be, am I right?) and had a budget of $10000. The film includes such hard hitting topics as, a person's head falling off and his brain used as erasers, a women in a radiators singing, mutant babies, white noise, old men pulling levers in the Moon, and mini chickens leaking black fluid... and that's only the half of it. This is the movie that started our interest in Lynch (however it's not the first Lynch movie I've seen).
Here's the IMDB synopsis... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074486/plotsummary
My first Lynch film (because I know you were all asking when you read that) was Blue Velvet, which, in my personal opinion is a very fucked up film... what could you expect from it? a disembodied ear, Dennis Hopper inhaling gas and screaming into a woman's vagina, fellatio at knifepoint, drugs, an androgynous man singing the song "Blue Velvet" and voyeurism. This movie actually disturbed me slightly when I first saw it and made me question whether I wanted to watch Lynch (until I eventually saw Eraserhead). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/plotsummary
I'm a fan of surrealism (sorry to those of you who aren't), it may be pretentious and far reaching at times but it's intriguing and generally artistic (at times too artistic). The problem with surrealism is the occasional forfeit of plot... Many surreal paintings and films deal with dream imagery, and if there's one thing about dream imagery it's the fact that it's often changing, non-linear and confusing with little explanation (and films that include this, like Lynch's Mulholland Drive, use non-linear, confusing and only slightly connecting dream logic), it makes the movies ever changing, interesting and great for people with A.D.D. and a twisted mind... but hard to follow at times.
(Plot summary of Mulholland Drive for good measure... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/synopsis)
If you don't know much about surrealism, it's a artistic and cultural movement that started in the 1920s, evolving from Dadaism (which actually influenced many other major art and cultural movements). Not many films were made during the 1920s surrealist movement, however, the few films that were made were fairly influential... one of these was Un chien andalou, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020530/plotsummary) which is a 16 minute short film by Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí. This film includes many odd happenings and actually does some surprising (or I suppose they're not surprising since it IS surrealism) things for the 20s, such as show nudity and a man groping a woman and chasing her with the intention of rape. Luis Bañuel went on to create other influential surreal films and Dalí, as you probably know, was a very influential surrealist painter.
Well, I'm going to wrap this one up for now, I may come back with more on surrealism at a later date (hopefully I'll know more about it by then), but there are two surrealist directors to get you started, one old, one newer... Also to help you out I'll post the filmography of both!
Louis Bañuel:
Un chien andalou (1929)
L'Age d'Or (1930)
Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan (1933)
Gran Casino (1947)
El Gran Calavera (1949)
Los olvidados (1950)
Susana (1951)
La hija del engaño (1951)
Subida al cielo (1952)
Una mujer sin amor (1952)
El bruto (1953)
Él (1953)
La ilusión viaja en tranvia (1954)
Abismos de pasión (1954)
The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1954)
Ensayo de un crimen (1955)
El rio y la muerte (1955)
Cela s'appelle l'aurore (1956)
La mort en ce jardin (1956)
Nazarin (1959)
La fièvre monte à El Pao (1959)
The Young One (1960)
Viridiana (1961)
El ángel exterminador (1962)
Le journal d'une femme de chambre (1964)
Simón del desierto (1965)
Belle de jour (1967)
La Voie Lactée (1969)
Tristana (1970)
Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (1972)
Le fantôme de la liberté (1974)
Cet obscur objet du désir (1977)
PHEW! now that THAT'S over...
David Lynch:
Eraserhead (1977)
The Elephant Man (1980)
Dune (1984)
Blue Velvet (1986)
Wild at Heart (1990)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)
Lost Highway (1997)
The Straight Story (1999)
Mulholland Drive (2001)
Inand Empire (2006)
Lynch also has a ton of short films, a few music videos, a few TV shows and some online series' and has worked with Sparklehorse and Dangermouse on the album Dark Night of the Soul and even has his own album called BlueBob.
Also, I'm not going to delve into it yet, but I feel like it'd be wrong not to at least mention a certain director in a surreal post... I'll most likely discuss him later... Federico Fellini, who combined fantasy and modern real images and what is considered "baroque"
ANYWAY... that's all I have for you now, sorry for being so short but if you want more film bloggage check out this self proclaimed "movie douche"... http://musingsofamoviedouche.blogspot.com/
especially if you want some of that fringe horror shit!
See you later
Let's start with a little recommendation/a bit about me, if you know me well, you know that I carry around a bag with a few of my art supplies and writing notebooks, I also generally have a few movies on me (for when life can't wait eh? *wink wink nudge nudge*)... but I think these movies deserve a viewing so I'll tell you what I have on me now. First off, two movies I mentioned in my last post, Black Swan and The Big Lebowski, two amazing (and very different) movies, and then I have Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Synecdoche, New York. All four movies are amazing, two are twisted dramas and the other two are comedy... but I would recommend any and all of them (and may touch on them later).
That's all besides the point though...
Let's start this off with a director... who is that director you ask? David Lynch is that director... I haven't seen too many Lynch films but my interest in him has been heightened by my gorgeous girlfriend Samantha who seems to also be intrigued by his work. I bought a copy of Eraserhead for her a while back and I must say that it is a very... unique debut.
For those of you who have not seen Eraserhead... well, prepare yourself for one of the strangest films you MAY encounter. It's done completely in black and white (as all great film school debuts should be, am I right?) and had a budget of $10000. The film includes such hard hitting topics as, a person's head falling off and his brain used as erasers, a women in a radiators singing, mutant babies, white noise, old men pulling levers in the Moon, and mini chickens leaking black fluid... and that's only the half of it. This is the movie that started our interest in Lynch (however it's not the first Lynch movie I've seen).
Here's the IMDB synopsis... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074486/plotsummary
My first Lynch film (because I know you were all asking when you read that) was Blue Velvet, which, in my personal opinion is a very fucked up film... what could you expect from it? a disembodied ear, Dennis Hopper inhaling gas and screaming into a woman's vagina, fellatio at knifepoint, drugs, an androgynous man singing the song "Blue Velvet" and voyeurism. This movie actually disturbed me slightly when I first saw it and made me question whether I wanted to watch Lynch (until I eventually saw Eraserhead). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090756/plotsummary
I'm a fan of surrealism (sorry to those of you who aren't), it may be pretentious and far reaching at times but it's intriguing and generally artistic (at times too artistic). The problem with surrealism is the occasional forfeit of plot... Many surreal paintings and films deal with dream imagery, and if there's one thing about dream imagery it's the fact that it's often changing, non-linear and confusing with little explanation (and films that include this, like Lynch's Mulholland Drive, use non-linear, confusing and only slightly connecting dream logic), it makes the movies ever changing, interesting and great for people with A.D.D. and a twisted mind... but hard to follow at times.
(Plot summary of Mulholland Drive for good measure... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/synopsis)
If you don't know much about surrealism, it's a artistic and cultural movement that started in the 1920s, evolving from Dadaism (which actually influenced many other major art and cultural movements). Not many films were made during the 1920s surrealist movement, however, the few films that were made were fairly influential... one of these was Un chien andalou, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020530/plotsummary) which is a 16 minute short film by Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí. This film includes many odd happenings and actually does some surprising (or I suppose they're not surprising since it IS surrealism) things for the 20s, such as show nudity and a man groping a woman and chasing her with the intention of rape. Luis Bañuel went on to create other influential surreal films and Dalí, as you probably know, was a very influential surrealist painter.
Well, I'm going to wrap this one up for now, I may come back with more on surrealism at a later date (hopefully I'll know more about it by then), but there are two surrealist directors to get you started, one old, one newer... Also to help you out I'll post the filmography of both!
Louis Bañuel:
Un chien andalou (1929)
L'Age d'Or (1930)
Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan (1933)
Gran Casino (1947)
El Gran Calavera (1949)
Los olvidados (1950)
Susana (1951)
La hija del engaño (1951)
Subida al cielo (1952)
Una mujer sin amor (1952)
El bruto (1953)
Él (1953)
La ilusión viaja en tranvia (1954)
Abismos de pasión (1954)
The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1954)
Ensayo de un crimen (1955)
El rio y la muerte (1955)
Cela s'appelle l'aurore (1956)
La mort en ce jardin (1956)
Nazarin (1959)
La fièvre monte à El Pao (1959)
The Young One (1960)
Viridiana (1961)
El ángel exterminador (1962)
Le journal d'une femme de chambre (1964)
Simón del desierto (1965)
Belle de jour (1967)
La Voie Lactée (1969)
Tristana (1970)
Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (1972)
Le fantôme de la liberté (1974)
Cet obscur objet du désir (1977)
PHEW! now that THAT'S over...
David Lynch:
Eraserhead (1977)
The Elephant Man (1980)
Dune (1984)
Blue Velvet (1986)
Wild at Heart (1990)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)
Lost Highway (1997)
The Straight Story (1999)
Mulholland Drive (2001)
Inand Empire (2006)
Lynch also has a ton of short films, a few music videos, a few TV shows and some online series' and has worked with Sparklehorse and Dangermouse on the album Dark Night of the Soul and even has his own album called BlueBob.
Also, I'm not going to delve into it yet, but I feel like it'd be wrong not to at least mention a certain director in a surreal post... I'll most likely discuss him later... Federico Fellini, who combined fantasy and modern real images and what is considered "baroque"
ANYWAY... that's all I have for you now, sorry for being so short but if you want more film bloggage check out this self proclaimed "movie douche"... http://musingsofamoviedouche.blogspot.com/
especially if you want some of that fringe horror shit!
See you later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)