“You seem like such a nice beast. Well I certainly hope you are what you seem to be.”

I don’t know what it is about this movie. It’s undeniable how perfect an example of “bad” 80s moviemaking it is. It’s obviously comparable to “Alice in Wonderland” (you’ll notice a theme in the next few reviews, incidentally … it is a certain someone’s birthday this weekend, afterall …), not only in the “lost girl” theme but also in the rhymes and riddles she encounters along the way. It’s practically identical to “Wonderland” in fact – but for one detail, Sarah’s brother, the baby … the goal. The whole thing is set up like a video game. The wonder of wonderland, of course, was that Alice had no great reason to be there, it’s very much one thing after another (“Begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”)

I guess the goal element comes from “The Wizard of Oz” – Jareth’s (has there ever been a sillier name for a villain? lol) castle as the Emerald City, you see the book (with a lot of other fairytales – not sure if Alice is there though) in Sarah’s room at the start – but it strikes me more as over-dependence on the Joseph Campbell mythology thing that started to dominate screenwriting around the time thanks to Syd Field and hand in hand with high concept and VHS produced hoards of horrors that still have my kneejerk thought on the Eighties as “the worst decade for cinema” even while movies like this always remind me it really wasn’t so bad.

In the end there’s just something mystical about it that defies explanation – if you know and love the movie, you just know what I’m talking about – it’s there when the opening credits music strikes up, in those shots of Jennifer Connolly running through the rain to “Underground”, at the strange diversion of the masked ball where she dresses older and dances with Bowie, and at the end with the upside-down staircases; ironically, somehow it just wouldn’t be the same without the tacky Eighties synth music and hairdos, lol. It makes you feel like a horrible wish like the one Sarah makes at the start – the kind we all half-heartedly make from time to time – really could be granted and turn our world on its head. It’s bizarre and silly and fun, but in the end it’s somehow a lesson that never gets old, perhaps because it never quite gets learned.

“Sometimes we love people so much that we have to be numb to it. Because if we actually felt how much we love them, it would kill us. That doesn’t make you a bad person. It just means your heart’s too big.”

I have the Donofrio book queued up to read really soon, like in the next couple of weeks, but I really couldn’t resist watching the movie yet again once it entered my mind this afternoon.

In answer to the question, “Why do boys suck?” I once said, “Because people expect it of them,” and it was like a revelation to me, it just popped out of my mouth without any real thought behind it but I knew immediately that it was true; and this movie kind of touches on that. Like, right at the moment of birth, we see Beverley’s horror at being given a boy – she was meant to have a girl, who would be just like her! But as Steve Zahn says, it’s a boy, and it’ll be just like him!

This movie just explains so many things, I find – I think in short it could be described as, “the cycle of shit” in life; even the marriage proposal here, “so romantic”, contains the ’s’ word, lol. Yet in Beverley’s son Jason, we see how even despite how the world can grind so many of us down and lead people to all manner of quick-fixes that make matters worse, morality and intelligence tend to thrive. The last time we see the “young” Jason it’s following the last straw for Beverley when he turns her in to her cop father for drying weed in the house. She tells her son that he’s ruined their lives, but he fires it right back at her, “That’s not what you’re supposed to tell people when they tell you the truth.” The mother-son back and forth here is as pointed yet at times hilarious as Edina and Saffy in Absolutely Fabulous (a random comparison, maybe: I’ve just finishing watching that show from start to finish, it’s on my mind), him so often telling her how she should be acting, perhaps hitting its pinnacle when he falls into a hot tub, and in the middle of pulling him out, she chastises herself and drops him back, then declares herself a bad mother, to which his response is a simple, “yeh …”.

I think what perhaps made this repeat viewing resonate with me more than any other times I’ve watched it relates to that quote that jumped out at me the very first time I saw it, “I’m 22 years old …” (the rest is below) – suddenly, I’m actually almost 30 lol. The use of the song “All I Have to Do is Dream” by the Everley Brothers, sung by James Woods and Mika Boorem (“Dad, you can’t negotiate my boobs!”) as the young Beverley early in the movie and then at the end (which I’d forgotten entirely) with Drew, suddenly made sense to me: “Only trouble is, gee whiz, I’m dreamin’ my life away …” This is a movie I’d recommend to anybody to watch from the moment they’re ready to see it (and that could be anywhere between the ages of 8 and 28 so, who knows when that is?) but that reveals itself more to you as you grow. I’m still in awe of its little pockets of realism, I find more every time I watch. I’m pretty sure it’s Drew Barrymore’s best movie to date, though that’s by no means the only reason to watch it.

July 28th, 2005:

Nothing to add to the old review (below). I think this movie’s a masterpiece. It’s even more realistic than I remember it. And I remembered how badly Steve Zahn’s character degenerates at the end, but I’d forgotten how far gone he kind of already is at the start. It’s really one of the saddest characters I’ve ever seen. I’ll definitely read the Donofrio book one day.

20th February 2004:

“I’m 22 years old – that’s almost 30, and I still haven’t accepted that this is my life. And I just wish that I could be dumb. And then I wouldn’t know better and I could be happy and stop hoping. And I’m telling you this like you’re interested in my boring life.”

This movie was a surprise. I expected to like it purely for the presence of Drew Barrymore but she amazed me. She plays between ages of 15 and mid-thirties perfectly. The movie towards the end reminded me of Ted Demme’s Blow – the way Steve Zahn’s character has totally degenerated towards the end, but is still able to express love to the son he can’t even recognise. The way real life is portrayed in this movie is shockingly true. Just a simple thing such as Drew Barrymore’s character working in a fast food joint – the way she’s joking to some people off camera and she turns for the customer window and sees some old school enemies who always “knew” she’d end up in a place like this, the way her expression just totally upturns and you know, this is the worst moment of her life.

Great performances from James Woods, Brittany Murphy (who has one of the films funniest scenes – “My daughter’s a tramp! My daughter’s a tramp!” – alongside Barrymore trying to fall down the stairs to the song “The End of the World” which accompanied Murphy’s suicide in Girl, Interrupted), and Sara Gilbert who we don’t see enough of these days as the one character who seemingly “gets it right”. Just for its portrayal of life itself, if a little depressing if it catches you in the wrong mood, this movie deserves major kudos.

“One o’ these days this city’s gonna explode. You used to be able to play stickball on the street! Christ, what’s happening …”

I kept thinking this would take off somewhat more than it ultimately does … dare I say that the first thing that strikes me as worth mentioning about it is how … straight a thriller it is, really overall just another undercover cop movie with “the gay” laid on heavy with a quaint disclaimer at the start that it’s not representative of all of them lol. Which is nice …

Most of all it reminded me of last year’s Zodiac ... it was during that movie that I finally realised that Jake Gyllenhaal perhaps isn’t so odd-looking afterall, having the eerie doppelganger of young Al Pacino before him. The look and music of this thing combined with Pacino must surely have been on Fincher’s mind when putting together his Seventies throwback.

It does finally leave you with something to chew over with its ending which seems to me to be open to far too many interpretations for me to touch upon here. So I’d like to see it again … but I’ll likely not do that until the rumored 140 minute uncut version emerges.

It’s of course even harder to write a level-headed review of this movie following Heath Ledger’s death than it was in the fog of Oscar buzz on its original release, and these are the only two ways I’ve yet seen it, so time will still tell as to whether it’s as good as I’ve found it both times around. Sky Movies had it scheduled to screen the night following Heath’s death, I think purely out of coincidence – they did a triple bill of his movies on Saturday in a specific tribute – and I kinda felt like I wanted to do something, like anything, as the news just hit me in a way I’d never have expected and it seems it hit a lot of people the same way too.

The first time I saw the movie, I kind of missed the 1963 date at the start and it took me until the late 70s/early 80s styles came in to actual realise exactly when it was all set, and it seems to me this kind of highlights why it’s so much better than the surface story would suggest. So many movies do the whole society against the minority thing, and this could’ve easily gone exactly the same way. What makes this one special is the deep-seated conflict at the very heart of the relationship – Ennis’ absolute conviction that what they’re doing is just abhorrent, and where that notion comes from. This story could happen right now – though society has just about changed for the better when it comes to accepting sexuality, it doesn’t make it any easier for those with a certain upbringing to accept who they are let alone act on it. The sixties setting here really only heightens an already tough piece of drama.

I was upset at the time when Ledger didn’t get the Oscar – though I was glad to see checking the IMDb while watching that he was nominated … I’d forgotten if it was he or Jake Gyllenhaal who got recognised (they both did – Gyllenhaal in the supporting category) – of course, I’m even more upset now. It’s probably been said all over the place especially in the past week, I’ve read it myself a dozen times, but it’s one of those things that deserves to be said so often – it’s an amazing performance. The key scene in the tent, from his half-pushing Gyllenhaal away, half-pulling him back; his long-coming emotional outburst after Gyllenhaal’s “I wish I knew how to quit you!” line; to that last line, “Jack I swear”; the one word that comes to mind about every second of this character is “beauty”. And it’s a beautiful film he lives in.

24th January, 2006:

I was one of the first people to snigger at the gay cowboy thing, I confess … I’m a South Park fan, I watch Letterman, what can I say? Add to that, I really didn’t like the hype that this movie was getting. Much as I respect Ang Lee as a film maker – even in the recent shadow of Hulk, The Ice Storm at least was a masterpiece – and good as the movie looked, it still felt a little to me like all the last remaining homophobes on the planet were finally coming out to beg redemption by praising it. I mean, didn’t Far From Heaven kinda tread this territory before without such a hue and cry?

So I began the movie looking for reasons to hate it – it’s a little obvious here, a little clichéd there, etc, etc. But, I’m glad (relieved?) to report, my prejudices are not set in stone. This movie is even more beautiful and deep than I’d been led to expect. And when I say deep, I mean I’m seriously, as Cartman would say :p The photography is gorgeous, the pacing precise and never dull, the performances, eek, I’m gonna say it, braver than anything in recent memory. Heath Ledger is going to get the Oscar, I hope Michelle Williams too. As movies go, 2005 just looks better and better the more I see – why couldn’t all these movies be scattered throughout instead of all clumped in the end???

I feel the need to write this review as quick as possible because the more time that passes, that less I have to think about the movie. This is just a really generic tale that tells most of us nothing we haven’t heard before yet presents everything in this, “omg, did you hear?” kind of way. Even the poster is overly sensational – “What, you think we could make this up?!” Like, wow – the US kinda-sorta funded the current hash in the Middle East; a selfish senator saw a skinny orphan and had a change of heart; this is not news to me. I think the most succinct thing I can say of this movie is how about half an hour in I was saying to myself, “so, it’s not Catch-22 ...” ... I didn’t even like Catch-22 as a movie, lol, I much preferred it on stage. With Mike Nichols behind it, this movie should’ve been so much more scathing, even blatant, about what it’s saying; that there’s been even a whiff of Oscar buzz about it is laughable. The Eighties production design, the hair and makeup, are disastrous. It’s about the most epitomous of last year’s glossy but worthless movies I’ve yet seen.

Again, as with The Brave One – and in this case it’s even more bizarre ‘cos i love Cameron Crowe heaps more than Neil Jordan – I really didn’t come to this movie expecting the director’s signature to be such a notable presence. Crowe’s flair for the ethereal seems so honed in more recent projects like Vanilla Sky and Almost Famous that I really didn’t expect much if anything here but an enjoyably superior 80s teen comedy – at worst John Hughes, at best perhaps the same year’s Heathers.

But Crowe is really overwhelmingly present here in his first work as director, perhaps most particularly in the beautifully quirky ending. I don’t think I’ve ever been told “everything’s gonna be alright” in so unexpected a fashion, lol. Then there’s the singing in the car like Jerry Mcguire, the threat of a plane crash from Almost Famous again. Crowe really started as he meant to go on. This has its lulls but for a first movie, for a first viewing, there’s plenty to bring me back. It certainly made more of an impression on me than his last Elizabethtown.

“Ohhhhhhhhh … Teddy!”

I’d originally intended to watch the three Stuart Gordon movies I have on Halloween in the order in which they were made. Instead, impatient I started with this one tonight, mistakenly thinking it was the first of the bunch. I was going to pretend I hadn’t made that error initially and post the reviews in the “right” order … but now I’ve watched all three, I think maybe it’s a good place to start afterall. I really liked this movie, but was ready to freely admit that it’s got its issues. Now that I’ve seen Re-Animator and From Beyond though? Don’t get me wrong, both of those have their moments too, particularly past their half-way marks. But this almost seems like a masterpiece by comparison now considering it came from the same film makers.

“They’re trying to figure out if you’re really an adult … or just a kid in disguise.”
“I’ve been trying to figure that out for years!”

This is such a different take on the horror genre, and I loved it every turn it took. It’s more in the vein of The Company of Wolves, Paperhouse and (I think?) Dreamchild (lol I really must watch it again soon, I keep making comparisons to it which could be totally off) than the Dolly Dearest or Child’s Play type thing I half-expected. Looking at those first three titles I realise, they all had that same low budget British visual sensibility to them; despite the number of British accents in this movie, it’s not British, not of the same school at all, but it does have the same feel that those movies had, in addition to the same tone (there’s a “wicked stepmother” character in it who very much put me in mind of Hellraiser, too).

The message – a really quite stunningly scathing version of Toy Story 2’s lessons, and in my opinion the reason why a lot of “grown-ups” won’t give this movie the time of day – really took me by surprise. I mean I guess I have to say, my response to this movie ultimately was a pretty personal thing – recently I’ve found myself more and more condensing my every disappointment in the world to one line, “I hate grown-ups,” and this movie couldn’t have put that sentiment better. There, I’ve said it. Seriously, I’m confident these dolls wouldn’t touch me, lol.

It also has a lot more humour in it than expected (“Yeh, but, are they anticues?” lol) Carrie Lorraine isn’t the greatest of actresses but she is adorably cute and delivers Eloise-like lines like, “What do you want from me? I’m 7 years old!” hilariously. She looks like Elijah Wood in a night dress and reminds me of the girl who played the younger Phoebe Cates in Drop Dead Fred.

Though, like the other two Gordon films, it never really gets that scary, there is something a little Birds-ish in the way it develops from this really kooky humour at the start, at which I was laughing right till the end, even as Judy’s father is turned into a replacement for the Punch doll he destroys. But it was somewhere during that scene in particular where I really started to think, wow, this is really wrong. Same thing with the toy soldiers which, out of all the toys, freaked me out the most, looking as they did like Camberwick Green type characters or something.

At barely 75 minutes it runs very much like the vignette-y short stories you’ll find on a lot of transformation-related websites – the mysterious old couple taking the lost family in on a stormy night, messing with their minds and bodies, and sending those who remain off just as the next batch arrive. It’s very cool to find a movie so like those stories, and I for one think there’s definitely room for more. I really can’t wait to watch it again, and at that length, one really needs no excuses.

I spent half this movie trying to think of what it was reminding me of. Then it hit me – 28 Days Later ... it’s the gradual descent into inhumanity of the film-within-a-film documentary crew, the sudden realisation that people basically suck almost as bad as monsters. After my complaints about Jungle Holocaust, my strange, “hey, what’s so bad about cannibals,” thought, it seems here Ruggero Deodato was thinking the same thing too. This is an incredibly grim portrait of how basically animal people can become under the right (wrong?) circumstances. It’s far more visceral than Jungle; and though it seems odd to call it “slicker” ‘cos it’s still delightfully cheap, it is still more proficiently shot, and the music’s really nice. Gotta love the casting of a near totally-flat-chested woman in a role that calls for so much gratuitous nudity too, lol.

If weren’t for the fact that it’d probably be too much of an assault on the senses, I think this would make a great double bill with Last House on the Left. Both movies seem so much on the surface to be pure exploitation but the fact is they’re not. If you’re remotely titillated by what these movies have to offer (and frankly, I think a good majority of viewers would be lying if they said they weren’t) – they expose that part of you completely. “I wonder who the real cannibals are,” is the last line here, and it couldn’t be more succinct. It kind of embodies the movie as a whole – yes, as a line, like the movie it’s incredibly cheesy … but it addresses such an animal thing, and on this viewing at least, this movie just really worked for me much better than expected.