Reader Request: Requiem For A Dream (2000)

So today is the second of the reader requests, and this one was Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream as requested by Mae. So Mae this one is for you, enjoy and let me know if you agree/disagree/just don't care anymore.

Requiem For A Dream stars Jared Leto (he's that guy from 30 Seconds to Mars) as Harry, a young heroin addict. The movie follow Harry and his mother, girlfriend and friend as they each have to deal with their own addictions. As the addictions become worse, we each character sink to their lowest and their lives spiral out of control.

It is quite shocking, particularly the last 20 minutes and the montage when you see to what state the characters have been reduced to. I love the way Aronofsky keeps changing the ace of the film, it's always changing from this rapid drug-hazed blur, then back to normal again. You can barely keep up with it. It makes you feel really dizzy and sick. The best performance is clearly by Ellen Burstyn as Harry's mother, a woman who becomes addicted to amphetamine diet pills when trying to lose weight. It's sad to see people sabotaging their own lives.

This film is more about the nature of addiction than the drugs themselves. As Harry says early in the film 'Everyone has a fix' and that's true, it's only when we let them get out of control that they become a problem. Now, I'm not advocating a Charlie Sheen-esque drug habit or saying it's ok be a junkie as long as you hide it from everyone else (I look forward to your complaints), but I am saying know your limits and be prepared to live with the consequences.

While I really thought it was an excellent movie, it's so very depressing, you readers seem to love all things morbid, does anyone like cheerful movies like Singing In The Rain anymore?

Now I must go tackle my current addiction (Lee Marvin movies). Cheerio

Young Frankenstein (1974)

I've been covering some really dark and somewhat depressing movies lately and I think it's beginning to get to me. Also tomorrow I'm doing another reader request which will be Requiem for a Dream, although I haven't seen it before, I know it ain't no comedy. So it's time to watch something a little more lighthearted, something to tickle the so-called 'funny-bone'. I decided to watch Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein.

Young Frankenstein is the tale of Dr. Frederick Frankenstein (pronounced Fruhnk-ehn-steen, Gene Wilder) is the grandson of the infamous Dr. Victor von Frankenstein. After trying to avoid living in the shadow of his grandfather his whole life, Frederick inherits the castle in which the original Dr. Frankenstein carried out his well-known experiments. After finding the secret laboratory and the key to bringing a reanimating the dead, Fredrick finds himself trying to recreate the work of his grandfather with quite humorous results.

This is a spoof of all those old-fashioned horror movies we used to love and it i

s hilarious unlike its' modern equivalent (I'm talking about you, Scary Movie franchise). It really is a case of 'they don't make them like they used to' syndrome. The difference between the two is that Young Frankenstein is actually kind of clever, whereas Scary Movie is equal parts popular culture and toilet humour (not that that's not funny, it's just that style has been so over-used). The dialogue is quite witty too, obviously some of it is going to date but the majority of the jokes remain sharp.

It beautifully references the 30s horror movies that it sends up, it has those black and white misty settings and wonderful castles full of cobwebs and European villages that are so common in the films of this genre. While Gene Wilder is terrific as Frederick Frankenstein, it is Igor (Marty Feldman) that easily steals the show and is my favourite character. He's perfectly insane and really hams it up as this bug-eyed lab assistant, you can't help but find him both ridiculous and hilarious.

I'm happy to admit it has dated a little, some of the jokes have become a bit corny and at times it's a little over-acted. But the corny-ness is what makes it so loveable, they're like dad-jokes you know, so bad that they're kind of good in a backwards way.

And that's all folks, see you some time in the near future, most likely tomorrow night

Chopper (2000)

Today in my cinema studies class we watched Andrew Dominik's Chopper. I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and review it as well as do some sort of semi-complicated and thoroughly dry analysis of it. Of course I won't mix the two together or else we'd all fall asleep and I can't possibly have that happen again.

Chopper tells the story of Mark 'Chopper' Read, a convicted criminal turned successful author. This movie essentially details and contrasts his time in prison and in the outside world It's all based on his best-selling book From the Inside which he actually wrote while in jail.

I'm not really a fan of these 'new-age' Australian gangsters. TV series' like Underbelly and all these true crime specials don't really move me in anyway. Who do they think they are? Al Capone during prohibition? They certainly don't dress as sharply as your typical 1920s American gangster, as you can see they don't look anything like this which is a mighty shame...

Now that I've said this I should probably be careful, they'll be out for my blood. If I never blog again, you'll know what happened to me, oh and I expect at least one of you to avenge my death.

In reality Mark 'Chopper' Read is not someone I feel sorry for, he did what he did and there are consequences to that. Eric Bana does a remarkably good job of being Chopper (so good even the real Chopper agrees), he's cruel and paranoid with a real sick sense of humour. I found this movie does tread a very fine line between glorifying and condemning Chopper's actions.

In terms of style and production, it's a great movie. It doesn't dictate to its audience how to feel about certain characters and the blue lighting gives it this detached feeling, there's this coldness to it that makes it hard to attach yourself emotionally to any character. There is one particular drug taking scene that I thought was really well done, the footage speeds up recreating this high we see the characters experiencing.

So not my favourite movie of all time but I think it was worthy of the hype. see you later alligator, bye bye

Reader Request: Mysterious Skin (2004)

So today is the first official reader request, David Araki's Mysterious Skin. I think I should just say beforehand that it does deal with some heavy issues (namely child sexual abuse, sexual violence and paedophile themes) and that it's ok to find yourself uncomfortable, this isn't going to be a film that everyone can enjoy.

So this follows the lives of two boys, both finding their lives changed irreparably by sexual abuse. The first boy, Brian (Brady Corbet) has blacked out the event and is convinced he was abducted by aliens. Neil (Joseph Gordon-Levitt)on the other hand, longs for the relationship he had with his baseball coach, confusing it for love. While Brian is trying to figure out what happened, Neil search for love and finds himself in New York. When the two meet again, they realise that what has shaped them is not what it seemed to be.

Mysterious Skin does deal with issues people might find disturbing and may not be comfortable watching something like this. I completely understand, paedohilia is a horrific thing. But the way it's dealt with in this film is so sensitive and heartbreaking. The director went to great lengths to keep the child actors from being exposed to anything, everything is implied rather than explicitly stated. It's a brave move to tackle such a difficult and sensitive topic and I have to commend Araki for dealing with all in a mature and touching way.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the hero of the film, he is utterly convincing as the self-possessed Neil. The other actors also give believable performances but Gordon-Levitt is the clearly the standout.

And the soundtrack is amazing, it's scored by Harold Budd and Robin Guthrie (of the Cocteau Twins) and features Sigur Ros. It compliments the cinematography and really creates this dreamlike, atmospheric state that softens the harsh reality of the movie.

It is a wonderful film, but it's not something I could watch over and over again.

La Princesse De Montpensier (2010)

As I was saying earlier this week, the Alliance Francaise French Film Festival is closing up soon, tonight in fact. So I went on a little excursion (actually a big one, Balwyn is kind of far from my house) to go see one of the festival's movies on it's closing night. It was amazing how busy it was, I half expected to be the only one there. I chose La Princesse De Montpensier namely because of incredibly attractive Gaspard Ulliel, whom you might know from this ad (directed by Scorsese of course).

Sigh...

Anyway this film follows Marie (Melanie Thierry), a rich young woman who has fallen for Henri (Gaspard), however her father has promised her hand to the Prince of Montpensier (Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet). They marry but soon after she runs into Henri and realises her feelings have only become stronger. It's based on a short story by Madame de La Fayette, a 17th century French writer.

There's only so much you can say about any period drama, particularly one involving romance. I mean everything has kind of been done before, but it's well done here, the costumes are wonderful, the performances aren't always amazing but they're solid and the French setting is beautiful. Everything is shot beautifully, as you'd expect with a film like this. It's all a bit predictable really, but if you like this kind of genre, you'll definitely like La Princesse de Montpensier.

It was a quick one tonight, usually I have more to say but today I'm feeling rather deflated. Tomorrow is the first of what I hope will be many reader requests. And I think I have to say this a million times and I'll say it again... please, please, please if you want to say something/make a suggestion/tell me how crap this is please leave a comment, or alternatively email me at 6956750@student.swin.edu.au. I'm waiting to hear what you think.

Cleopatra (1963)

So today is the scheduled tribute to Liz Taylor and to celebrate her life and illustrious career, I found myself watching Joseph Makiewicz' Cleopatra. It's kind of ironic how this was actually a flop back in the day, now it's become one of the classics. It almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox to make and just made over half of the money back at the box office. The whole thing cost about $44 million to make which was absolutely ridiculous at the time.

Cleopatra, as you've already guessed, is about the life of Egyptian queen Cleopatra. It begins with Caesar (Rex Harrison), coming to Egypt to fix the relationship between joint rulers Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy (Richard O'Sullivan, who eerily looks like Napoleon Dynamite). Cleopatra seduces Caesar and overthrows her brother to become sole ruler of Egypt. After Caesar is assassinated by his senators, Cleopatra falls in love with Marc Antony (Richard Burton) and together they plan to rule Rome and Egypt.

Ok, first let's be honest, this is not a historically accurate version what happened. It's the Hollywood version, in reality Cleopatra married her brothers, killed her sister and also does some pretty mean things to people she doesn't like very much. Also, the costumes are an incredibly loose interpretation of what people wore in ancient Egypt. They look more like someone from Alexandria 40BC time travelled to the 60s and was inspired to take that look back to Egypt. It's just so colourful and not necessarily in a good way.

Cleopatra is in all ways an epic movie, it took nearly 3 years to make, it goes for over 4 hours (the original cut was 6 hours), you have the Taylor/Burton saga happening at the same time and the large volumes of costumes, sets and extras would have been an epic amount for that time (or even now for that matter). It's on this scale that put's a James Cameron film to shame. It seems to tick off a checklist of what people enjoy, including:

- Several battles

- Romance

- Dramatic death scenes

- 2 big dance scenes (as if one wasn't enough)

The length was a tad annoying, not because it got boring, but because sometimes I have to eat/go to the bathroom/do other homework. There was no way I was going to get the opportunity to see it all in one sitting. I found it very easy to watch, the dialogue was witty and the actors did a great job. Elizabeth Taylor is really the focus of the movie, nobody else has about 100 costume changes or rides into Rome on a giant Sphinx. And she can carry a film like this, she has a grace and elegance that makes her very easy to watch, not to mention a confidence like you'd expect Cleopatra to have. You get this feeling Cleopatra had to live up to the extravagant expectations that people had of her and she doesn't disappoint. Everything about this movie is extravagant.

I also think I want to watch Cecil B. DeMille's Cleopatra, with Vivienne Leigh as the Egyptian queen. I think I'll have to save that for later, too many other topics to cover with so precious little time. Until tomorrow, sleep well.

Cry Baby (1990)

The musical Hairspray is in town and you might be thinking about seeing it, or maybe you already have seen it. If you haven't, you should check out Cry-Baby first. I would call it Hairspray's funnier, smarter younger sibling. Both movies are from self proclaimed 'king of bad taste', John Waters (except the Hairspray with John Travolta is a remake). I'm not really a fan of the new Hairspray, in my opinion it had too much Zac Efron and not enough Christopher Walken.

Anyway, Cry-Baby is a parody of those silly teenage musicals like Grease. Wade 'Cry-Baby' Walker (Johnny Depp) is a juvenile delinquent who falls for Allison Vernon-Williams (Amy Locane), the queen of the squares. Soon after a chance meeting outside of school, Allison finds herself drawn into Cry-Baby's crazy world of rockabilly music, fast cars and loose women, much to the disapproval of her family and friends.

It's a corny movie and some people will like it for that, that's why it's become such a cult classic. However, there are times when the dialogue just make you cringe (eg. 'you got it Allison, you got it raw', extra emphasis on the raw). Allison is such an annoying character, her voice is about as painful as sticking a fork in your ear and it only gets worse when she sings. And you might notice there are some really stupid over-exaggerated sound effects that keep popping up at random.

But Cry-Baby is a cult phenomenon, what's bad about it is also what makes it so good, it needs to be cheesy to be appreciated. Johnny Depp is obviously the reason a lot of people will have seen this (because yes, he is so very good looking) there's so much more to it. The music is pretty good (for a musical), it nicely follows the rockabilly theme in the movie. Yeah it's a trashy movie, but that's John Waters' style, it's meant to be fun and a real piss-take of the oppressed 50s.

By the way, the girl who plays the drape Wanda (Traci Lords) was a porn star at some point (and an underage one at that). True fact.

Cheerio chaps, I'm off, but I have a feeling tomorrow is going to be EPIC since I am watching the nearly 5 hour long Cleopatra. Goodnight xxx

Amelie (2001)

So with the Alliance Francaise French Film Festival coming to a close this weekend, I thought it would be good to talk a much loved French film (and easily one of my favourites), Jean-Pierre Juenet's Amelie.

Amelie is set in Montmarte, Paris and is about a shy young girl named Amelie (Audrey Tatou) who sets out to improve the lives of the the people around her, while struggling to cope with a loneliness she's known since childhood. During this, she encounters Nino (Mathieu Kassovitz) and falls in love, but will her shyness prevent her from acting on it? (I love ending these with question marks, it feels like I'm creating fake suspense.)

You really feel for Amelie, she's got this beautifully over-active imagination and you just find yourself being swept up into her plans to better the lives of others. Audrey Tautou is marvellous as this sweet, naive girl. This is the role that launched Tautou's international career (unfortunately it was launched into Da Vinci Code territory). Throughout the story, you're also meeting these other wonderful characters, each with their own set of very entertaining issues that Amelie tries to fix.

The opening sequences of Amelie are a whimsical mix of images and sounds, narrated perfectly and highlighting the simple pleasures of life that we often forget. They make you smile and really draw you into the story.This film has a really

warm and fuzzy feel about it and it's quirky without being too confusing or weird. It has this visual sweetness that seems so inviting. I love the way it makes you laugh without being mean-spirited or crude, it's a bit childish but that only adds to the appeal.

And that is Amelie, in a nutshell. It's definitely worth watching, go rent/buy/borrow it from a friend/download(legally...please) it now

Till tomorrow, à bientôt

Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011)

So today we've lost one of Hollywood's greatest icons, the lovely Elizabeth Taylor.

I do love Liz, she's done everything and she did it better than anybody else ever did. The acting, the constant marrying, the wearing of BIG diamonds, the perfume making, she did it all so well. She was one of the last big names from the so-called 'golden-age' of Hollywood, it makes me sad to think that don't have those kind of stars anymore (today's celebrities have a lot to learn, Lindsay Lohan please take note).

On Saturday, I think we'll do a tribute, Cleopatra style, I would do it today but unfortunately I don't have over 4 hours to watch the complete movie and then have to spend another 4 hours trying to think of something to write (that is my blogging process, it's hardly efficient but it works).

Alliance Francaise French Film Festival

This is something I wish I had directed your attention to earlier, but there's still time to catch the closing days of the Alliance Francaise French Film Festival (AFFF). What it does, is showcase some of last year's bigger releases in French cinema that we wouldn't get here. It's one of the largest foreign film festivals we have, so it's definitely worth having a look at.

I'm going on Sunday, I hope to see you there.

Throne of Blood (1957)

It's my dad's 50th birthday today, so I thought it only fair he help me decide which movie I watch. We don't have much in common as far as favourite movies go, dad likes samurai movies, I usually like anything other than that (it's nature, you know, hate what your parent's love and vice versa). But anyway, he particularly likes the work of director Akira Kurosawa. Coincidentally, if Kurosawa had been alive today it would have been his 101st birthday, and since he's dad's favourite director and since they're both born the same day, I thought it only fair to do a Kurosawa film.

I gotta say I was dreading this, but Throne of Blood is strangely good. It's loosely based on Shakespeare's Macbeth except it's told as a samurai story set in feudal Japan. Two army generals, Washizu(Toshiro Mifune) and Miki(Minoru Chiaki), return from battle and are greeted by a spirit creature which predicts that one will become king and the other's son will also become Lord of the Spider Web Palace. When they return home they are both instantly promoted, causing Washizu to believe what the Spirit Creature has foretold. Aided by his wife, he murders the Lord, taking his place as the leader.

I should probably mention the impact Kurosawa has had on Hollywood. Not only did his movies get turned into westerns like The Magnificent Seven, they have influenced a countless amount of directors and filmmakers. Throne of Blood inspired the death scene in Carrie and apparently TS Eliot loved it too(well whaddya know).

I have a lot of love for Throne of Blood. Kurosawa creates this wonderfully eerie setting with smoke and the looming Spider Web Palace in the background. Visually, it's a beautiful film, I think if you pause it at any stage it will look quite dynamic, the characters have this force about them that you can't help but watch. The music is atmospheric and fits the setting and subject matter perfectly, it was probably my favourite aspect of this movie.

The acting isn't perfect, there are a few death scenes that may make you chuckle but I don't think that matters too much, this film is as more about ambience and setting the scene perfectly. I love that constipated expression on Washizu's face for the second half of the film, it's the personification of paranoia. In fact, I like his facial expressions in general, they're so close to being over the top. And his wife Asaji(Isuzu Yamada) is nicely played as this manipulative and evil woman. She scared me a little... honestly.

This was a good opportunity to watch something that I'd never choose myself and I really enjoyed it. It's important to push yourself out of your comfort zone sometimes, you know? Sometimes you'll be pleasantly rewarded and it's what makes something like this blog work.

2012 (2009)

So with all of the natural disasters, civil unrest and general sense of impending doom going on in the world right now you have to wonder, were those mayans really onto something when they predicted that the world was going to end in 2012. Apocalyptic movies are nothing new, in fact most action movies revolve around some sort of doomsday plot with a hero desperately trying to save the world.

Roland Emmerich's 2012 revolves around the mayan theory that the world will end in 2012 when the planet's align and the sun melts the core of the earth, causing the Earth's crust to destabilise. The government's of the world have built arks(like what Noah had... think big people boats) to save as many people as possible(around only 400,000). Most people remain unaware of all of this while a select few prepare to escape the apocalypse. Meanwhile writer Jackson Curtis(John Cusack, what were you thinking?) becomes aware of this plan and will do anything to keep his family safe.

2012 is predictable, you know how it'll end the moment it begins. It feels like it's constantly shifting to and from natural disaster scenes to cliched 'emotional farewell' scenes. I think the line 'we're not going to make it' is repeated at least 20 times. And the acting, oh why do they have such stereotypical characters, played terribly (especially Woody Harrelson's over the top conspiracy theorist). They're all just so annoying, don't even get me started on the terrible Russian accents...

Why do people like movies like this? It seemed to do ok at the box office. People like stupid conspiracy theories(just look at the Da Vinci Code or google 2012). People also like special effects where stuff gets broken and buildings fall down. I found that the larger scale effects were more convincing than the smaller ones, they have this fakeness(it's the actors, they either don't panic or they panic too much). It's a good marriage between the conspiracies and special effects that really sucked the viewers into this black hole of a bad movie. I found the constant references to religion kind of frustrating as well, is this the director's way of saying we should all repent (dramatic voice) THE END IS NIGH!

It did have a small effect on me though but I think that's because of the context I bring to the table. The real life footage you see of Japan is just so much more frightening and when watching 2012 now, you can't help but compare situations. They wouldn't be able to release a movie like this now under the circumstances. And what's slightly unnerving is all these predictions of giant earthquakes in California on the San Andreas fault line.

So you can probably tell I didn't like 2012. Can you blame me? There wasn't much to like about it. The last line of this is a shocker too 'no more pull-ups' (as in those things kids wear at night so they don't wet the bed)... yeah i think that just about summarises my viewing experience.

Oh and by the way, you can comment, it has been enabled. Don't be shy, (seductive voice) you know you want to.

So long and good night.

127 Hours (2010)

So did you guess which movie I watched today? The clue was '5 days 7 hours'.

And the answer is... 127 Hours. If you did get it, congratulations you don't win anything. If you didn't, better luck next time fool muahahahaha.

If there's one lesson this film can teach you, it's this:

ALWAYS GO CANYONEERING IN GROUPS

Anyway, 127 hours is based on the true story of Aron Ralston who had his arm trapped between a fallen rock and the wall of a canyon for(you guessed it) 127 hours until he decided to amputate it himself. It's directed by Danny Boyle and stars James Franco as Ralston. Franco does a great job of keeping our interest the entire film, something I think that could be very hard if it were another actor. You don't get sick of Franco, he holds your attention without being overly melodramatic about it.

The film starts off at this rapid pace, you struggle to keep up with Aron, he's some kind of adrenalin junkie. And then when he gets stuck, things slow down, it all goes quiet, it becomes dark. Aron is forced to stop, it's as if the world has stopped. You're stuck in a tiny nook, but rather than keeping us stuck there in this tiny enclosed space, we travel outside with Aron through flashbacks and hallucinations. This is where we get a sense of who he is. I think it's a good idea Boyle didn't have the whole film done in the cave, it needs the flashbacks and outer noises to break up the monotony. It's what stops this movie from feeling like it's been going for 127 hours.

Since I'm slightly squeamish, I did look away during the amputation scene(tried not to, failed miserably) but I did find myself wanting him to get rid of that arm, you're anticipating it the whole time because you know it's inevitable. It really teases the audience. You're almost egging him on to do it anytime he grabs that knife. After the amputation part you actually feel kind of happy for him(is it weird to feel happy for someone who just cut off their own arm?), it's like after that point he can just get on with his life.

The only part I had trouble with was the part at the very end(I'll try not to give it away). For me it was a bit too convenient, it's kind of there only to tie up loose ends and explain things that don't really need to be explained. Others might like the clarity but I thought it wasn't necessary.

I think that's all I have to say for today... I'm sleep deprived, so any minute my head may fall straight onto the keyboard.

And I'll be writing again tomorrow, same time, same place, different film.

Zoolander (2001)

We couldn't have a fashion theme without the ridiculously good looking Derek Zoolander, that would be a crime against fashion.

This movie is hilarious, it sends up those people who take fashion too seriously(maybe even those we saw in The September Issue). Will Ferrel is great as Mugatu, an overly eccentric fashion designer. Zoolander is about male model Derek Zoolander(Ben Stiller), who finds himself being replaced by fresh-faced model Hansel(Owen Wilson). After a very quick retirement Derek is pulled back into the fashion game by Mugatu and set to stage a comeback. Little does Derek know, after going to a day spa he has been hypnotised to assassinate the Prime Minster of Malaysia. Only rival Hansel can help him stop Mugatu's evil scheme.

What's cool about this too is all the celebrity cameos, you don't notice them all

at first (only the weird ones like Fred Durst or Lance Bass... now equally disturbing) but there are so many and quite a few are fashion notaries like Donatella Versace, Karl Lagerfeld and Hiedi Klum. This was one of the earlier Will Ferrel/Ben Stiller/Owen Wilson type comedies and it's one of the better ones, it's up there with Anchorman.

And apparently there are rumours of a sequel. I've heard it may be about how Hansel and Derek get back into the fashion pack after 10 years of being relatively unknown. It sounds like it could be funny, only if the writers manage to get back to wherever they were 10 years ago.

Since tonight is the last night of the L'oreal Melbourne Fashion Festival, it's also the last night of the fashion theme. Starting from tomorrow, anything goes. And here's a clue regarding tomorrow's movie: 5 days, 7 hours, see if you can figure that one out.

Peace