John Rambo, macho action hero and post-Vietnam icon, is alive and well in Thailand, having renounced his country of origin. He lumbers through the jungles, catching snakes and working iron for a living, until a group of Christian missionaries show up and ask him to take them up river into Burmese territory. At first, Rambo, who knows the heart of darkness, refuses; he tells them, “go home”. However, the pretty blonde (Julie Benz) convinces him that there may be goodness in the world still, and up the river they go. Of course, things go wrong for the missionaries, and Rambo needs to clean up the mess. We learn that Rambo can still use his bow and arrow, and that death is imminent for many.
As in the first film, Rambo is a conflicted man, uncertain still about his place in the world. He is as complex as a Rambo can be, which doesn’t say much. At least he’s more developed than the men of the Burmese military, who are without exception murderous, sadistic bastards. The worst of them is the shades-wearing, smoking (so he must be evil) general/commander/chief (I don’t know) with a penchant for young boys. I have a problem with movies using actual war crimes as springboards for spectacle-driven, mindless slaughter. Put this film next to Joffe’s “The Killing Fields” for some perspective. In a DVD extra feature, Stallone explains that the film raised awareness about the real situation in Myanmar (maybe it did, maybe it didn’t; would the fans care?); that doesn’t excuse the film from using that gruesome conflict for a cash-in on a two decade old franchise. Socio-political qualms aside, the film has lots of action and gore, but when all is said and done, barely 80 minutes have passed (in fact, I think it’s closer to 75 minutes) and, like one of Rambo’s numerous victims, you can’t help feeling that you’ve been done in.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Oozing, still moving
Robert Rodriquez’s “Planet Terror” is all you could hope for in a “Grindhouse”-style semi-apocalyptic zombie movie driven by wonderfully clichéd characters and a never-ending river of blood and pus. Released together with Tarantino’s “Death Proof”, which seemed to enjoy the most positive criticism, “Planet Terror” has a number of things going for it, most notably a stunning Rose McGowan (who also played the blonde victim in Stuntman Mike’s first ride in “Death Proof”). Her character, Cherry Darling, is a sexy, strong minded individual – considering this is a “Grindhouse” title – who loses a leg early on in the film. If you haven’t seen the trailers or posters for the film, then let it be said that Rodriquez’s use for her leftover stump is rather innovative. In addition to McGowan, Freddie Rodriquez makes a solid action hero (like in the ‘70s and ‘80s, he’s a hero with a past that few know of…) while Marley Shelton and Josh Brolin (who’s had a glorious time in cinema for the past two years) deliver able support.
The look of the film is pure Grindhouse: scratched prints; missing reels; colour bleeding across the whole film; and camerawork that adores the female frame, although Rodriquez’s lens is admittedly even fonder of the viscera splattering everywhere. “Planet Terror” has moments of true humour and horror that exist side by side with parody, pastiche and gore so exaggerated that it cannot be taken seriously for a second. I suspect that few South Africans are familiar with “Grindhouse” style movies, and I suspect that “Planet Terror” will win over few fans. Seeing that this “Grindhouse” endeavour by the Weinstein Company was a financial disaster, I further suspect that we won’t be seeing more of these, so we should enjoy what we have.
Note: there’s a trailer for a film called “Machete” before “Planet Terror” (“Our Feature Presentation”) begins, and oh, how I wished it could be this year’s actual “Grindhouse” release. The trailer is, of course, a faked trailer for a film that doesn’t exist. Note again: the single disc edition available in South Africa has only a handful of extra features. If time is limited but you really want to know how Rodriquez and his team created the visuals for “Planet Terror”, set aside the required time to watch the “10 Minute Film School” feature.
The look of the film is pure Grindhouse: scratched prints; missing reels; colour bleeding across the whole film; and camerawork that adores the female frame, although Rodriquez’s lens is admittedly even fonder of the viscera splattering everywhere. “Planet Terror” has moments of true humour and horror that exist side by side with parody, pastiche and gore so exaggerated that it cannot be taken seriously for a second. I suspect that few South Africans are familiar with “Grindhouse” style movies, and I suspect that “Planet Terror” will win over few fans. Seeing that this “Grindhouse” endeavour by the Weinstein Company was a financial disaster, I further suspect that we won’t be seeing more of these, so we should enjoy what we have.
Note: there’s a trailer for a film called “Machete” before “Planet Terror” (“Our Feature Presentation”) begins, and oh, how I wished it could be this year’s actual “Grindhouse” release. The trailer is, of course, a faked trailer for a film that doesn’t exist. Note again: the single disc edition available in South Africa has only a handful of extra features. If time is limited but you really want to know how Rodriquez and his team created the visuals for “Planet Terror”, set aside the required time to watch the “10 Minute Film School” feature.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Of reason and destruction
“The Dark Knight” plays like a gritty crime drama inspired by Scorsese and assembled to play like philosophy-as-spectacle. It works; this is a supremely well made film. Christian Bale returns as Batman, while Heath Ledger’s blood chilling Joker is a most formidable enemy. This is logic against chaos, order against anarchy, and caught up in it is Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent, a so-called “white knight” District Attorney aiming to rid Gotham City (which is stunningly realised in this film) of its suspicious Mafia elements. Let it be said that Ledger is truly magnificent, but much credit should go to the character himself, possessing no history, no origin, but who possesses a very particular view of human nature and brilliantly exploits it. Everyone – Bale, Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and an award worthy Gary Oldman – is at their best. They take the film and its themes seriously (and whew, there are many themes addressed here) and so do we.
The film opens with a bank robbery and for the next 145 minutes, the film oscillates between character driven moments with some sharp dialogue and the sheer spectacle of the action sequences; regarding the latter, the “transportation sequence” across the dark streets of Gotham rates as the most well crafted, well edited action set piece since Michael Mann’s “Heat” set the standard in 1995. There is time for reflection on the thematic content of the film but the movie is so packed with characters and intertwined events that the full impact of the film’s intellectual dimension only really dawned on me when I was out of the theatre. This is an achievement: intelligent entertainment on an epic scale, followed by discussions on the movie stimulated by the movie that go beyond the design of the Batsuit. (A minor – minor – complaint is that the film is so kinetic that it’s almost overwhelming.)
“Batman Begins” revitalised the tired franchise thanks to a detailed view at the vigilante’s origin, in particular the character’s psychology. “The Dark Knight” devotes no time to background information; it heads into action with all its pieces in place. We know the blues-and-blacks of Gotham, we know the stalwart Gordon, and we know how things ended with Rachel. Now things get worse. Everything action has a reaction, and here it ends in destruction and death. “The Dark Knight” seems to work in absolutes, at least according to what the characters say. However, based on what we see the film itself suggests a world that’s far more grey than black or white.
The film opens with a bank robbery and for the next 145 minutes, the film oscillates between character driven moments with some sharp dialogue and the sheer spectacle of the action sequences; regarding the latter, the “transportation sequence” across the dark streets of Gotham rates as the most well crafted, well edited action set piece since Michael Mann’s “Heat” set the standard in 1995. There is time for reflection on the thematic content of the film but the movie is so packed with characters and intertwined events that the full impact of the film’s intellectual dimension only really dawned on me when I was out of the theatre. This is an achievement: intelligent entertainment on an epic scale, followed by discussions on the movie stimulated by the movie that go beyond the design of the Batsuit. (A minor – minor – complaint is that the film is so kinetic that it’s almost overwhelming.)
“Batman Begins” revitalised the tired franchise thanks to a detailed view at the vigilante’s origin, in particular the character’s psychology. “The Dark Knight” devotes no time to background information; it heads into action with all its pieces in place. We know the blues-and-blacks of Gotham, we know the stalwart Gordon, and we know how things ended with Rachel. Now things get worse. Everything action has a reaction, and here it ends in destruction and death. “The Dark Knight” seems to work in absolutes, at least according to what the characters say. However, based on what we see the film itself suggests a world that’s far more grey than black or white.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Full frontal classic?
Nagisa Oshima’s “Ai No Corrida” (“(In) The Realm of the Senses”) is a joyless, soulless and worst of all pointless film. Released in 1976, the film caused major controversy due to its graphic (even by today’s standards) depiction of sexual obsession. The narrative revolves around a prostitute who falls in lust with the brothel owner’s husband, and the two strike up quite the affair. To be sure, there’s barely a scene where the two of them aren’t indulging in some sexual pleasure (a relative term) or another. We learn that the events are set in 1936, but only at the film’s end, courtesy of an abrupt voice over. There’s a shot of the male character walking down the road as troops march past, but that’s it – he is no more oblivious to their presence than the film itself.
The film inspires a revisit of that classic debate, “is it erotica or porn”? Erotica is as subjective an experience as humour, and that usually ends the debate for me. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone could really make an argument for the film as a work of erotica. It’s not porn, I think; Oshima’s camera is too detached, too unconcerned with angles, to be seen as arousing in the way porn is supposed to be arousing. Yet this doesn’t mean that the film is erotic; it is far too cold and dead to be that. I’m not even sure if the film explores sexual obsession, as has been claimed. “Last Tango in Paris” did that, and successfully so (also in the ‘70s – what an era!) but “Ai No Corrida” seems more like an uninvolved, mechanistic recording of sexual acts that become increasingly dangerous/perverted/sublime (take your pick).
In the end, Oshima’s film amounts to little more than a historical curio for the cineaste to see what exactly had sent censors into a spin more than three decades ago. Once I’d seen it, I knew (it was probably the insertion of the egg into the vagina that clinched it), and was otherwise none the richer for it. Rape, mutilation, asphyxiation – is it supposed to be a social commentary? Yes? On what? Oshima’s so concerned with shots of erect penises (penii?) that by the time the film’s done, he’s all spent, with nothing else to show.
“Ai No Corrida”. Enter at own risk.
The film inspires a revisit of that classic debate, “is it erotica or porn”? Erotica is as subjective an experience as humour, and that usually ends the debate for me. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone could really make an argument for the film as a work of erotica. It’s not porn, I think; Oshima’s camera is too detached, too unconcerned with angles, to be seen as arousing in the way porn is supposed to be arousing. Yet this doesn’t mean that the film is erotic; it is far too cold and dead to be that. I’m not even sure if the film explores sexual obsession, as has been claimed. “Last Tango in Paris” did that, and successfully so (also in the ‘70s – what an era!) but “Ai No Corrida” seems more like an uninvolved, mechanistic recording of sexual acts that become increasingly dangerous/perverted/sublime (take your pick).
In the end, Oshima’s film amounts to little more than a historical curio for the cineaste to see what exactly had sent censors into a spin more than three decades ago. Once I’d seen it, I knew (it was probably the insertion of the egg into the vagina that clinched it), and was otherwise none the richer for it. Rape, mutilation, asphyxiation – is it supposed to be a social commentary? Yes? On what? Oshima’s so concerned with shots of erect penises (penii?) that by the time the film’s done, he’s all spent, with nothing else to show.
“Ai No Corrida”. Enter at own risk.
Wall-E
A delightful and profound Pixar film featuring a better story, characters and technology than its audiences deserve. It’s a stunning feat (few expected a dialogue-free opening act), both a touching love story (not a romance; there’s a difference) and a cautionary tale (not a warning; there’s a difference). Regardless of the film’s politics, it also simply succeeds as superlative craftsmanship, and is a more than worthy follow up to “Ratatouille”. We all benefit from the end result when Pixar decides to push the boundaries and twist a few cinematic conventions. I cannot wait for "Up".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)