Change Your Image
fruitbat319
Reviews
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)
insert your own "stink" joke here
A lot of the reviews that I've read on this movie seem to make hypotheses about the American reaction to the film, yet there seemed to be a lack of responses from Americans themselves. The consensus seemed to be that Americans would find the violence and everything too shocking for our tiny Yank brains. That being said, I figured I, though obviously I cannot speak for all Americans, would contribute a review from the colonies.
The European hypothesis was, in part, correct. I hated this movie. But not for the reasons given. I did not find the nudity, violence or psychosis portrayed to be horrifying or disturbing or too avant garde for my tiny Yank brain. In fact, I found it quite dull after a while. The central character kills so many people and we get so many shots of their naked corpses that after a while it almost becomes comical. It seemed that the director was going for shock effect and it was really obvious, and that always annoys me in a movie. "Perfume" came off to me as an exaggerated "Silence of the Lambs" with period costumes and a much less compelling and more contrived storyline.
I should make it clear that I have never read the book and therefore I can only comment on the film. I'm sure much of the story was pared down to fit the time slot, so I could be missing out on a lot of interesting material. The movie does not offer much, but spends its time with close-up shots of dead naked beautiful women. While it was too boring to be disturbing, I take issue with the idea that the subjugation of and violence towards women is somehow seen as heroic, brilliant and in the pursuit of art. This is the aspect of the movie I find contrived, archaic and frankly disgusting. Understandably, the main character (along with his nose)is depicted as a psychopathic serial killer, but the end of the movie(which made me burst out laughing at its sheer ridiculousness--it was such a ludicrous cop-out) justifies this behavior in making him out to be a genius bordering on the divine, and this bothers me on a social level. And frankly, even if his murderous tendencies were meant to be cast in an ambiguous light, this movie did a horrible job of it.
The characters were completely undeveloped, and not even in the acceptable way of a fairy tale or fable. The main character was a calculating killer, and not even an enjoyable one, his victims were objects, his mentor a caricature. Even the voice-over narrator is inconsistent, disappearing completely at times, only to reappear and explain away a complex scene in a few cursory sentences. Plus Dustin Hoffman does a terrible Italian accent--he sounds like he's from Brooklyn.
In all, this movie was a clumsy, insulting, blockbuster attempt at something that was supposed to be subtle and artful, but I don't think eve the most gifted of directors could have salvaged the indulgent and obnoxious storyline.
300 (2006)
xenophobia the movie!!!!
So, this is a first for me: I am actually writing this review as I am watching the movie. I've never done that before. Usually, I take time to mull a movie over, to weigh its pros and cons, etc., but 300 leaves little for me to ponder. My boyfriend interprets this movie as a joke in and of itself, and I suppose he's right. You'd almost think it has to be a spoof of itself.
Actually, I have to give this film a lot of credit. I have never, in my life, seen a movie simultaneously insult women, homosexuals, intellectuals, genderqueer folk, people who question authority, people with dark complexions, people who don't support war, foreigners (particularly those of Middle Eastern descent), and, most bizarrely, people with facial piercings. It's really quite amazing. Almost breathtaking. As the movie progresses, I find myself adding more groups of people to the list above.
Now, yes, I know I can't help but take this silly movie a bit to heart, but, given the current political climate, I can't help but notice some not-particularly-subtle nationalism. I think the word "insidious" is probably the best way to describe it, and "propaganda" would not be inappropriate. Oh, but some say, it's based on a comic that was written prior to the events of today. I can't speak for the graphic novel, having never read it, but to separate this film from current events is nearly impossible. The mere presence of the phrase "Freedom is not free" is enough to turn the movie into something of a recruitment video, along with the decision to release this movie in 2006, when support for other Middle Eastern campaigns is faltering. Possibly the most questionable is the obvious numerous phobias that abound--the villains are foreign, of different races than our leather-Speedo-clad heroes, they wear jewelry and makeup, their war animals are "exotic" (elephants and rhinos), and the disfigured are continuously portrayed as evil, soulless and better off dead. Apparently, only the robustly beautiful and Caucasian are fit to be called valiant.
Political and social reasons aside, the movie was fairly predictable, with lots of manly yelling and glistening pectorals, "surprise" ambushes anyone in the audience can see a mile off, solemn intonations, and one very weird and uncomfortable blue-lit epic sex scene. The film retains its two final stars for the choreography (mildly entertaining, though not as original as I think the filmmakers hoped it to be) and some of the imagery (mostly CGI, not as good as Sin City's), and the surprisingly strong character of the Spartan queen, Gorgo (which, oddly enough, is also the name of a very cheesy English monster picture from the sixties. It was better than 300.), though that isn't to say the Gorgo character is a particularly enlightened portrayal.
So, if you see it, try to laugh and don't take it as seriously as it takes itself, but I don't think that's possible.
The Doors (1991)
Heavy handed, to say the least
I have to admit that, not being a particularly huge Oliver Stone fan, I went into this movie with a certain amount of skepticism. I will also admit that this was one of those movies that I rented because I knew it ended morbidly. As far as biopics go, it's pretty typical--sex, drugs, rock and roll, all the usual things people like to experience vicariously, all executed with Stone's characteristically leaden hand. There were scenes I fast-forwarded. There are some (very) prolonged acid-trip scenes, and the only thing they made me realize is that Oliver Stone has never dropped acid. There is, for the most part, very little character development, with Jim Morrison portrayed as the drug-addled, misunderstood and frankly quite annoying visionary, his girlfriend as your standard nagging wife figure who holds back said visionary, and the other three Doors members as, well, totally interchangeable and expendable. I just couldn't admire the character of Jim at all, I think his portrayal could have been handled a lot better; he could have been made into a much more well-developed, sympathetic and admirable guy instead of the spoiled, egotistical moron that Stone favored. And that's not saying I'm not a Doors fan. I am. All I'm saying is that if the portrayal is true to life at all, Jim Morrison may have survived a little longer if there had been someone sensible to punch him in the mouth from time to time.
Eragon (2006)
crap--but hilarious crap
This was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot of bad movies. Like, Andy Warhol bad. I've never read the book(s), though I hear they are much better. The movie is mostly terrible acting on top of worse writing: lines such as "Let's finish this!" and "We can get through this--TOGETHER" are rather pervasive. The makers spent most of their energy on the CGI dragon. The Eragon character (who has a REALLY clever name, doesn't he? It's almost like...Dragon! Wow!) does little more than look simple and naive and then proceed to do incredibly stupid things in an attempt to be noble. And somehow it works out. I personally would have liked to see him get stepped on by the dragon. The love interest has little lines but apparently was directed to emote via orgasmic squeal from time to time. John Malkovich is actually really funny because you can tell exactly how little he cares about his role or the outcome of the movie. His is the first spoken line in the movie (not counting a really lame voice-over sequence): "I suffer without my stone." (you don't need to know what that means, trust me.) It sent me into hysterics. Then it ends with a very very obvious cliffhanger like they actually expected to make enough money off this movie to be able to make a sequel.
If you're going to watch this movie, get someone else to rent it, have a few beers and laugh your head off.
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
twisted and beautiful
So I've met a lot of people who have complained that this movie utilizes clichés, like it's raining whenever something bad is going to happen. And I really can't stand this because first and foremost, this movie is essentially a fairy tale, and fairy tales use devices like this. It's also definitely not a children's movie at all. The R rating should be a clue.
I loved this movie. The effects were amazing, and luckily, used in moderation. They were also some of the most imaginative I've seen in a long time. It was at once incredibly beautiful and incredibly terrifying. I saw this in theaters and spent a good deal hiding in my boyfriend's jacket. If any movie can capture the wonder as well as the darkness of childhood, it's this one. It does not shy away from the fact that children are not all silliness and smiles--Ofelia is from the start a deeply tragic child, telling her unborn brother the saddest of fairy tales. I guess that was sort of one of the other themes of the movie--that children are just as affected, if not more so, by their surroundings than adults are, even though many adults don't realize it. Ofelia's mother, for example, is always telling Ofelia to smile, to tell happy stories, even though it is quite clear that Ofelia doesn't have much to be happy about.
My only issue was the villainous nature of Captain Vidal, who seemed almost cartoonish in his brutality. But, then again, I suppose that goes with the fairy-tale quality of the film. (Interestingly, it's a wicked stepfather instead of a stepmother)In this tale, he is a fascist bloated with victory after the Spanish Civil War, and so the movie takes a slightly political turn as well.
I would not recommend this movie for the weak of heart, or for those looking for something life-affirming and cheery. But if you're looking to have your breath taken away, see it.
Fast Food Nation (2006)
slick, brightly-colored, glossy and avril lavigne! how disappointing.
While I always appreciate a good dig at consumer culture, I couldn't help but feel that this movie was a little fake, glossed and, frankly, consumer-oriented. I think it was all the cameo appearances by the likes of Avril Lavigne (seriously), Bruce Willis, et cetera. Something about the fact that the makers of this movie felt the need to insert these big names into their film just seems kind of, well, corporate to me.
The fact that the three central stories didn't interact didn't bother me, although I had been expecting them to. I almost liked this aspect, since it illustrates the huge, faceless quality of the fast food chain--none of the workers ever really meet or interact in a meaningful way. However, it seems the movie bit off more than it could chew, and the three stories remained mostly open-ended and inconclusive. The story of the high-end management guy, played by Greg Kinnear, was the most disappointing, not solely due to the fact that it is all but forgotten about until the ending credits. The blurb on the DVD box was totally misleading. Serves me right for paying attention to advertising.
The story of the illegal immigrants was probably the best of the three. It was the one that kept my interest in the movie, since the high-school employee girl's story was thin at best and poor Mr. Kinnear's had evaporated altogether.If this movie was making a statement about anything, it was more about the conditions of being illegal than about meat. And yes, they threw in the disgusting images of wholesale cow slaughter just to make meat-eaters feel guilty. Overall, this movie reminds me of nothing more than a corporate attempt to attract the fringes of society. I don't need Avril Lavigne to tell me not to eat meat, thank you.
Eraserhead (1977)
my reaction was..............huh.
I admit i was a little disappointed in this movie, being a fan of Mullholland Drive. (I know someone somewhere is going to attack me for that, but it's true.) I found it to be pendulous and too long, but to its credit, it offered some interesting things to ponder. I didn't suppose the freaky wormbaby to be a premature birth, but rather, an abortion, and that its presence was symbolic of the trauma and "sin" of that action, which was being ignored and suppressed by Henry and Mary. It could also be just the illegitimacy of the child, which would render it socially freakish in a repressed society. Make sense? Based on that, I also thought that the image of the fluffy-faced woman in the radiator trampling on sperm-like little things was an indication of Henry himself being trodden down by the life he was forced into. But I think the point of Eraserhead is that it's able to be interpreted in different ways.
but that doesn't mean i would watch it again voluntarily. nor does it mean that when it ended, i didn't start laughing and say, "why the hell did i spend money to rent that?"
Marie Antoinette (2006)
so many shoes!...but considerably less story
Director Sofia Coppola certainly didn't scrimp on the visuals in this movie. The costumes and the settings are sumptuous, and, being secretly a girl who loves fancy fluffy dresses and dainty shoes and all that crap, I was definitely taken with the decadence of this film. It's a great movie for getting tipsy and eating cake with the girlfriends, but I'm afraid as far as the actual story goes, there is something lacking.
While careful attention was indeed applied to the visual aspect of the film, most notably in a "fantasy" scene, where Marie Antoinette, in the black lipstick of an evil queen, utters the notorious "Let them eat cake" line, and in some of the scenery at her country home, not as much attention was paid to the structure of the story. The movie centers on Marie's adjustment to her new home in a foreign country, and her naivety, the latter causing her to spend lavishly while her new subjects starve. The main problem, however, is that Coppola assumes you already know the story of the French Revolution and the final fates of the royal family--none of which is shown in the film. The angry mob that confronts the royal family at Versailles comes seemingly out of nowhere. More attention to the country's affairs would have helped the plot seem more complete.
Marie's innocence to the poverty and civil unrest is also somewhat dubious. You'd think she'd have SOME idea of what was going on around her, even if she maybe wasn't completely on top of things. It's ultimately a movie about a girl who just wanted to have fun, a feature-length excuse for indulgence, and Marie is shown as the epitome of the poor little rich girl.
Sid and Nancy (1986)
a portrait of the two quite possibly most annoying people on the planet
I know everyone likes watching movies where young, hip, famous people die in gritty ways, and I'd be lying if I said that my own morbid curiosity didn't occasionally take me in the direction of movies like Sid & Nancy. Did people of the punk persuasion in the late 70s really all have speech impediments? because that's what this movie led me to believe. Gary Oldman played the part of Sid Vicious sounding drunk, toothless and mentally challenged--in other words, probably fairly accurate. Chloe Webb's constant hoarse shriek was capable of sucking all the sympathy out of her character that when she was stabbed, I couldn't help but think, "well, at least she won't yell anymore." The worst part of the movie was Sid's performance of "My Way." I suppose that's a subjective comment--I never could get into the Sex Pistols at all, let alone solo Sid. At least I was able to press fast forward.
While it was still your typical biopic, it was refreshing in the fact that neither Sid nor Nancy were glorified in any way. They were portrayed as spoiled, hedonistic, and none too bright. There was no inkling of the misunderstood genius character that plagues these sorts of movies. I felt sorry for them, I'll admit, even Nancy and her shriek, because of the way the characters were essentially responsible for their own destruction, and too dumb and strung out to see it coming.
The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things (2004)
seen it all before
if you've seen the horrible movie White Oleander (which was an adaptation of a not-much-better book), then essentially, you've seen this movie, too. It's your classic glitzy rendition of an abusive childhood, fraught with that sort of painful beauty that people seem to get into, as told by someone with no grasp on the reality of situations like the ones depicted in the film.
Little Jeremiah is plucked from a presumably stable foster home to live with his trashy bleach-blonde mother--she's sort of like a down-home version of Chloe Webb in Sid & Nancy, including the hoarse shriek. Anyway, the kid faces all sort of horrible abuse subsequently, and one albeit sort of cheesy effect i liked was his vision of violent red birds whenever something happened to him.
Frankly, it all seemed too overproduced, with bright colors and cool punky/hooker outfits for mom and lots of shiny things. I suppose that quality is supposed to evoke childhood or childishness or something, but to me, it seemed like yet another Hollywood glamorization of what would in reality be a dismal and dreary life. In short, it was unconvincing and the ending was a HUGE letdown; when the credits began to roll I was left sitting there saying, "That's all? But then what happened? Or do I really care at all?" And am I the only one who thinks that playing off a well-known literary hoax, including using it in the tag-line, seems a little desperate for attention?
Thirteen (2003)
teen girl degeneracy rears its ugly head
Well, it was a hell of a lot better than "Kids," anyway. I know a lot of people will disagree with me about that, but I maintain my opinion. Though I'm not saying "Thirteen" is any prize. I found it interesting that Nikki Reed, who co-wrote the story and based it on actual events from her life, played the part of Evie Zamora, her own poisonous best friend. Apparently, originally slated to play the part of Tracy, (who is based on Nikki herself), the part was "too close" to home for her, so she swapped roles with Evan Rachel Wood, who's flaxen hair and palely fragile good looks lend themselves nicely to the good-girl-gone-bad role. I think it would have been more interesting, though, if the typical blonde/innocent, dark hair/bad vehicle was inverted. But that's just me. And anyway, Wood is the better actress of the two girls, and so I suppose it was better she was the central character.
The thing that bothered me about this movie was that it really lacked background information about both Evie and Tracy, mainly, why they were so messed up in the first place. Tracy is horribly insecure, but nothing in her life before Evie suggests it, and so when she cuts herself after Evie insults her socks, it seems incongruous with her character. (And really, I know being a 13-year-old girl sucks, I've been one, but socks are never worth self-mutilation.) Hunter plays her loving, ex-alcoholic mother, and nothing in Tracy's home life makes viewers understand where this insecurity comes from. Evie, too, lacks reasoning behind her sociopathic ways. It is briefly mentioned that she had been abused by a relative, but her current life appears relatively stable. In short, there is no concrete reasoning for these girls to have the problems and go to the extreme measures that they do. The transformation of Tracy seems too abrupt, then, because of that.
I guess the issue I really had, which is the issue I take with most "teen" movies, is that this is quite an exaggerated view of 13-year-old life, and the fact that everyone loves watching the defloration and corruption of a virginal middle-schooler is a bit disturbing. But if you're in the mood for some underage sordidness, rent this movie.
Kids (1995)
wasn't supposed to make me laugh, but it did.
This is one of those movies that sets out to paint a "real" picture of what it's like for kids today. As a kid today, I found it grossly inaccurate. Kids of today do exactly what kids of yesterday did. I watched this with a group of friends, and it just made us laugh. The character of Telly, for example, talks with an affected (I hope) speech impediment that makes him sound like he's got a mouthful of saliva at all times and is in danger of drooling all over over the place (yet the virginal girls still find him attractive...). We spent most of the movie sarcastically yelping, "This is SO like our lives!" You want to know what real teenagers do? Observe them sometime. They're incredibly boring.
The rest of the characters are one-dimensional and completely unbelievable, talking about nothing but drugs and/or sex, and it was clear the writers wished only to showcase their stupidity. There is actually a scene in which a girl talks about sperm getting caught between her teeth. Really.
There was also, it seemed to me, a disturbing sort of pleasure taken by the makers of this film in seeing these pretty young things partake in various sordid activities, and a sense that this film was meant to expose the dark truth about today's youth and their degeneracy compared to generations past--but come on, the generations before us grew up in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Remember what was said about them?
The Price of Milk (2000)
woman provokes man, milk business threatened
This movie is definitely the strangest I've seen in a long time. But it made me laugh. A lot. In a slightly ironic matter (as in, oh my god, what an art school movie). I'm not sure if that was the original intent of the writer/director, but I enjoyed it. On the downside, it can get a bit long sometimes and I think could have been edited a little better, i.e., cutting short some scenes, and at times Lucinda's character seems unrealistic and even downright stupid. But the payoff is some hilariously absurd scenes and concepts--my favorite was the dog in the box. I'd recommend this movie, but don't go into it expecting something breathtaking. It's first and foremost absurdist.