Posts Tagged ‘trash’

Taxidermia

Taxidermia

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

I didn’t really have the option to watch this one a second time before reviewing it – it’d been sitting on the Sky+ for quite a while and I watched it in the end simply to free up some space, so it was deleted right after – and though it might’ve helped, I don’t think I could’ve brought myself to watch it again so soon anyway. This is a bizarre, sprawling, ugly movie that you can’t deny is slightly fascinating, but I wouldn’t really wish upon anybody.

The movie comes in three distinct acts, three generations of one family, the taxidermy of the title really only coming into play in the final third (though I’m sure there’s some clever way in which the title applies to the whole movie – I really haven’t been able to think about it that much lol). The first segment has a soldier escaping from his drab existence into perverse fantasies which ultimately cross over to reality where he impregnates his superior’s wife, leading to his execution. In the second, we see the child of this strange beginning as a champion speed eater in what feels like an origins story for Augustus Gloop of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, lol, only again it’s repellently filmed. The third segment has this man’s child, a scrawny taxidermist reluctantly taking care of his enormous (seriously… enormous) father and feeding up equally enormous caged cats with butter until he accidentally leaves the cage open… as always, I’ll leave off the even more bizarre final turns of the story summary.

If the movie’s trying to say anything, it does so with unwavering pretension. The ending of the movie has a sort of cutting comment to make about art, the final image being (trying to avoid spoilers) a work considered as art, over-elevated as such, which through the course of the movie we have learned enough to know better. Or something. I’m not gonna pretend to have made up my mind about this one, lol. I think it’s the first Hungarian movie I’ve ever seen, it’s certainly unique, it certainly got a reaction out of me, and it’s certainly very well made technically (I don’t think I’ve ever seen such horrifyingly realistic cinematic vomit). If like me you appreciate anything different and can stomach almost anything, this is absolutely worth the time.



Charlotte for Ever

Charlotte for Ever

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

I actually didn’t even realise this was like a full length movie until I got ahold of it some time in the past year… I might’ve been more anxious/excited about finding it had I known this, but to be honest, even then I was more excited when I got hold of the “soundtrack” to the movie, Charlotte Gainsbourg’s debut CD “Lemon Incest”, which despite being strange, tacky and cheesy, I still think is oddly addictive and I’d even go so far as to say has more to recommend on it than Gainsbourg’s latest album IRM (though her album 5:55, I rush to add, is aeons above anything I’ll mention here…)

The plot, if you can call it that, is simple… Serge Gainsbourg plays an heavily alcoholic (we see him throwing up in the sink – apparently Gainsbourg genuinely doing this for the camera – and pissing blood – it’s not for the squeamish) screenwriter, sole guardian of his daughter, his wife/her mother having died in a car crash which may or may not have been caused by him. Big Gainsbourg is suicidal, Little Gainsbourg apathetic and a teenager. There are arguments, nudity, it’s all very French. That’s… about it lol.

I kinda feel compelled, even though I respect all involved in the movie, to say, it really is pretentious twaddle. But like “Lemon Incest”, there’s just something about it… and maybe it is simply that Charlotte is just such a joy to look at, clothed or not; or that Serge has that non-acting way of acting brilliantly, his face so worn down by a life truly lived. There’s pure aesthetics here that need no human hands to turn into art, and it’s something I’ll come back to likely again and again.



Hot Tub Time Machine

Hot Tub Time Machine

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Mark Kermode has said a few times of this on his weekly podcast that it’s “not as funny as the title”, and frankly, I still don’t find the title even remotely funny, so aside from the fact that I always love John Cusack in anything (yes, even High Fidelity), I really didn’t expect much from this movie. I certainly didn’t expect to find that, actually, the only bad thing about the movie is the title, lol.

This is essentially Back to the Future meets Superbad, in the best way possible. On the time travel front, I’m not exaggerating when I say this is among the best of the genre, doing pretty much everything right in my opinion in addition to doing just a few things a little different. On the gross-out guy comedy front, I was careful to select Superbad in the earlier equation, because that was one of the few comedies of its kind over the past few years (and from the Apatow stable to boot) that I actually enjoyed because it actually had marginally endearing characters. I think I saw the “Unrated” edition of the movie so I can’t tell you exactly which parts but to say, this definitely goes “too far” in places but – and again it’s hard to really explain so you just have to trust my judgment – it’s done in a way that’s actually funny.

For example – I’m sure this is in any cut of the movie as it’s a huge part of the plot – one of the heroes decides to call his (in the present) ex-wife when they are back in 1986. She’s 9. He yells at her like it’s “today”, potty words and all, and it cuts to her astonished little face in bed. Later, we get the following killer exchange when this guy is having sex with another girl (the gang having decided to just enjoy themselves in the past):

Guy: [crying] “Courtney!”
Girl: “Tara!”
Guy: [more intense] “Courtney!”
Girl: [slows] “Seriously, it’s Tara.”
Guy: “Naw, my wife.”
Girl: [stops] “You’re married?”
Guy: “No… I mean, not yet. She’s 9 right now…”

That’s probably a decent benchmark as to whether you’ll like the movie as much as I did lol… if that kind of thing is funny to you, you’ll be fine. But it’s really not all dumb/dangerous gags like this… like I said, and what surprised me most about the movie, is that it actually has just as much heart in the end as the very best of the time travel genre.

There is a wonderful character in the form of Lizzy Caplan (who I loved in 2004’s Mean Girls but I admit didn’t even recognise here). It’s what I’d call a kind of Zooey Deschanel character. She kinda “gets” that something odd is going on the minute she lays eyes on John Cusack (she’s native to 1986, the year to which they’re transported) and she runs with it almost like it’s an every day occurence. The quirky romance that blossoms between her and John Cusack is as cute to me as any love story Cusack has been involved with.

There’s a lot more to be said about this movie but I feel like I’ve lost my way in this review and I’m way behind. I will only add a little something about Chevy Chase’s part in the movie. He essentially plays the mystical old man you find in a lot of stories like this – the guy with the remote in Pleasantville, or the truck driver in Small Soldiers, come to mind – and he’s written very tongue in cheek. The thing is, he’s seriously funny, almost brilliant, and considering I thought Chase had pretty much gone away, this was a seriously pleasant surprise and just one more reason to recommend the movie. I feel confident in saying no matter what you’re expecting of this movie, you will probably be just as surprised as I was.



The Gingerdead Man

The Gingerdead Man

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

I better write something about this now because it’s unlikely I’ll ever watch it again lol. There’s something about the title here that meant I was always going to be curious about it until I finally took the time to kill the cat… what is there to say. The fact that they actually managed to get a sequel made, coupled with things I’d read about it being a black comedy, actually made me bring higher expectations to it than I might have otherwise. Big mistake lol. If this was actually intended to be a black comedy, it’s still pretty darn lazy. It is basically Child’s Play with a gingerbread man instead of Chucky. I thought I’d tweeted more about the movie as I watched it, but I actually only tweeted the following when I woke up the next day… “I finally watched The Gingerdead Man last night. I swear it had 15 minutes of credits and still was under 70 minutes.” True story lol. I really wouldn’t waste even that much time if I were you. But I probably will have to see the sequel (“Passion of the Crust”) if I ever find myself as I did here with literally nothing better to do LOL.



Flesh for Frankenstein [3D]

Flesh for Frankenstein [3D]

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

This was on this week in the UK as part of Channel 4’s 3D week which I’ve become increasingly excited about since I first heard about it (it’s not hard to get me onto a 3D kick really). This was to me the clear star item on their schedule, not just because it had never aired on TV like this before, not just because Mark Kermode (my favourite film critic, who despises the resurgence in 3D of late) called it the best of the old 3D back catalogue, but also because it’s just such a curiosity … I knew nothing of it really except of course some link to Frankenstein and that Andy Warhol was connected to it. I really expected something supertrashy … but as the word “End” appeared on screen at the end, I found myself speechless.

There is something Herschell Gordon Lewis / John Waters / Roger Corman -ish “trashy” about this movie … there’s plenty of gore and gratuitous sex (the camera literally just goes in on a woman’s bare breasts at one point “just because it can and it’s 3D!”) and lines like the insanely brilliant, “To know death… you have to f*ck life in the gall bladder,” and (from a man who just lost his hand), “It’s all your fault!” call to mind the deliberately shambolic humour of The Rocky Horror Picture Show … and yet, there are fleshes of real and genuine art, romance, tragedy in this story that frequently had me with a sort of lump in my throat. I just, I don’t know, felt like I really “got” this one.

I still frankly don’t know what to make of this first viewing except for the certain, that this film is surely unique. I would love to see it again in the better polarized, cinema variety of 3D; failing that, just to see it again without the 3D effect and see if it works on me the same way again that way. The use of 3D is better than most I’ve seen, incidentally; the feeling of depth extends even to scenes that don’t exploit it, though again there’s plenty of that throughout from a grisly beheading (really, if only Tim Burton had been onto 3D when he made Sleepy Hollow …) through to the bats that plague the children as they hide from their father, the aforementioned requisite 3D boobs right to the final extraordinary shot that is best kept to myself as I’m guessing most that read this won’t have seen the movie yet. I just found the experience truly mesmerising, and there’s not much more you can ask for from a movie like this.



Lemora: A Child’s Tale of the Supernatural

Lemora: A Child’s Tale of the Supernatural

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Following the super-natural Celia, this rather cheesy effort could really only pale by comparison. It’s a very straightforward vampire story with a few unique twists. Lila, a small town’s prize virgin church singer, son of an infamous gangster, receives a letter from mysterious Lemora asking her to come to her father’s deathbed and forgive him etc, and being the good Christian she is she obeys. What Lemora really wants is to recruit her into the family tradition. There’s some proper old-fashioned make-up horror and a lot of messed up lesbian, possibly incestuous activity. What struck me most is how much it reminded me of my first ever attempt at writing a screenplay years ago, lol. Strip away the vampire stuff and combine it with Fucking Åmål and you pretty much have my “Angel Leaves” which perfectly explains why my version sucked LOL. It’s not a great movie, but it’s certainly an interesting one I’m glad to have collected.



I Know Who Killed Me

I Know Who Killed Me

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

The bottom line on this one is, you have to come to it wanting to try to love it to even hope to come out of it half liking it, because it’s very easy to loathe, as the IMDb score reflects. I’m a Lindsay Lohan fan and I’ve been waiting to see this one for a while now, and I’m also a fan of a lot of the things it seems to be trying to be, so I gave it my best and I have to say that in the end it’s nowhere near as bad as I’d heard.

Plotwise it’s a mess, forcing you to concentrate in ways you should never need to concentrate in movies of this kind. One of the first things you find if you visit the movie’s IMDb message board are lists of plotholes. I’m never one to search for such things in a movie, if it makes sense then it makes sense, but this one really does feel like it was cut with boxing gloves. But when the movie works, it still works, at least for me: the nasty bits are genuinely quite grisly, perhaps more so as I didn’t see them coming. Be warned that this movie falls well under the questionable heading of “torture porn” with the likes of Saw, Hostel and Captivity, at least for a portion of its duration. What remains is a mix of David Lynch, Hitchcock and to my mind a little Vanilla Sky that I’m quick to point out never comes close to those influences but does warrant a little respect for trying.

What I did like – at least, I think I did, and it took me a while to decide – was the look of the movie. Colour features prominently and again the attempt mostly fails but if you notice it, it’s hard not to admire in some way. At least, for me it was (and no, I wasn’t just blinded by the “sexy” Lindsay stuff which I didn’t find very sexy lol). It’s an incredibly garish looking movie in the end but that somehow suits the b-movie guff it turns out to be in the end. It feels like one of those last few movies by Hitchcock, even more like the one he was working on when he died. A lot of the reviews I’ve glanced at call the movie sleazy like that’s a bad thing. What’s the film maker to do? It’s about sleazy people!

Maybe I’m just too kind to Lohan, but I don’t think that’s it. Though this movie may be a mess (seriously, I’m not even gonna try to deny that, lol – I think the editor was even more under the influence than Lindsay), I’d take that any day over the multitude of modern thrillers that simply go by the numbers and neither offer nor aspire to anything new or different. It’s simply not as bad as its reputation suggests.



Hobgoblins

Hobgoblins

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

There are bad movies and there are bad movies. I came to this much as I came to Evil Toons … the tagline for this contains the line “careful what you wish for” and the plot summary describes creatures which make your fantasies come true … before killing you. And I’m not gonna deny, this notion appeals to me, lol. Then I spent 30 minutes wondering just where are the eponymous goblins? Only to discover, when they finally appear, that oh dear … oh dear oh dear oh dear …

What baffles me most about movies this kind of bad is that they can’t even satisfy the prurient interest factor. They can’t even give the core audience a decent gory death, a titillating amount of flesh … they can’t even come up with interesting fantasies. It’s possible for a movie to be completely devoid of story, acting, originality, yet still anybody can put these cheap and shallow elements on the screen … just, not in this film. Yes, there’s an argument to be made that these things shouldn’t be on the screen in the first place (though I won’t get behind it :-P ) … the point I’m making is that if you’re gonna make a movie like this – and here somebody has – you better at least deliver them. Otherwise it’s just insulting that such a thing made it into my viewing experience.