data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8c10c/8c10cd6052fc6a7d9501fd30504fc14dec56a5fe" alt=""
Directed by: Stephen Walker / 2008
-djg
Considered a classic in the “Cinema Fantastic” genre, Georges Franju’s “Eyes Without A Face” is a mysterious film on the mad reality of obsession and science grafting with a killer’s touch. Doctor Génessier not only experiments on a wide collection of stray dogs and birds but also on beautiful young women, stealing their faces and dumping the bodies for clueless police to decipher. Fault to his own, his daughter Christiane’s face was severely burned and gnarled in a traffic accident, leaving only her eyes in mint condition (odd I think, but roll with it), peering forever from behind an eerie and expressionless mask. With help from assistant Louise, Dr. Génessier abducts and dissects a string of young women as he obsesses with grafting a face back on his disfigured daughter. You know, like any loving and caring father would do? The crime/thriller writing tag team of Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac scripted this bizarre meaty madhouse, adapted from Jean Redon’s novel and well put to film-fright by Franju. The writing genius of Boilau and Narcejac has collaborated before in film with original pants-wetting thrillers like Henri-Georges Clouzot’s “Les Diaboliques” and Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo”. A brief segment on their writing partnership accompanies the Criterion release of “Eyes Without A Face” and I recommend diving into a piece of writing and cinema history with it. More extras include director Georges Franju explaining his love for finding the horror through real life and there is a feature on what I feel is true “Cinema Fantastic” called “Blood of the Beasts”. This is a beautifully photographed and extremely graphic historical documentary on the grand slaughterhouses of Paris. Though, not one for the squeamish as it displays full-throttle the “Abattoir Blues” of horses, cattle and sheep while swingers of axes and knives whistle while they work, I actually found “Blood of the Beasts” more fascinating than the feature film. Though it isn’t perfect, “Eyes Without A Face” is still unique and mysterious, a mad classic must-see for the blue prints to modern horror. Though, perhaps it is best that parts of it aren’t perfect and left mysterious as the parts that involve the taking of actual parts are truly mesmerizing pieces of cinema that seem as though they helped shake the celluloid for those wishing to stake a claim in “Cinema Fantastic”. If only the bulk of modern day “Horror Porn” directors and fanatics would actually use such blue prints to improve on their own bloody red ones, they’d actually make fantastic cinema like their ancestors.
-djg
Two of my choice Christmas movies growing up (and kinda still are) were “Gremlins” and “Christmas Vacation”. If I remember right, my first glimpses of “It’s A Wonderful Life” were broadcasted via the T.V. stations in the Peltzer and Griswold homes in these lovably-wacky Christmas classics. Movie lines within movie lines such as, “Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings.”, I’ve memorized for years, thinking that someday when I was bigger I would let this “grown up” movie “get” to me while chopping up onions like it does to the adults in these lovably wacky Christmas classics. Sadly, it took me many more years to get “grown” and finally watch “It’s A Wonderful Life” scene-for-scene, but it didn't take onions to help me cry. I must say that it is now one of my favorite Christmas movies and easily in my top 50 of all-time favorite movies. Christmas on the first day of Fall, I say why not!? Most importantly, why has it taken me so long to see it? I have no answer other than I don’t get much time with Christmas cable television and if I do it comes in twenty-four hours of “A Christmas Story”! Actually with “It’s A Wonderful Life”, the Christmas cheer is meant to extend beyond December 25th. I found out this morning that it’s a national treasure of a heartwarming gem that oozes goodness beyond the screen perimeter. I can find a lot of relation and kin to Jimmy Stewart’s “George Bailey”, as all I too wanted to do was experience more than Small Town U.S.A. had to offer and at times felt like I was was the biggest failure. But, as I’ve grown older I’ve realized that your roots will always be planted in the same place and can grow far and wide no matter the initial foundation size. Getting “grown” can teach a man that it is important to never forget where he comes from and that sometimes you've got to scrape your knees to grow or even to see your growth. And that it’s okay to search for and believe in a little slice of goodness, soul and peace in a classic film of yesteryear, especially in a today that can get pretty bleak. Oh, and It’s certainly okay to watch Christmas films, wacky or serious, all the year round.
-djg
I didn’t plan it, but on the day before the first day of Fall I watched “The Fall”. Though, nothing really to do with my favorite time of year, indeed the film's visual department stacks pretty well in comparison to the landscaped beauty that Fall change has to offer. It is laboriously lavish, almost at times exhausting for the viewer, wide screened with real sets that seem to drip from many locations of the globe. Some critics and fans wetted their pants for it, but past the visuals “The Fall” simply falls (no pun intended) into the bin of films that I respect more than I can silver platter…films that are more about style than substance or an equal balance of both. In the end, actually even in the middle, I was pretty disappointed with it and struggled a lazy Sunday afternoon through it. I don’t aim to sound like a jerk, but my favorite parts were the beginning and end. The bookends served more emotional punches and much more exciting filmmaking meat for me than the insides, which were vivid but seemed to be dead weight and mildly bland like “White Boy” Mexican food (the bland brand of non-authentic “anything”). One could sort of compare it to a Terry Gilliam (Brazil) meets Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie) production spectacle in some ways, but it just felt like it was missing something to convince me I was watching the epic that was supposedly being told on screen. I feel too much time, skill and patience was put on the visuals to carry the story and the acting was shoved backward. That's not a bad thing if balanced well like most Gilliam and Jeunet films, but it fell short for “The Fall” (again, no pun intended). I also feel that newcomer Lee Pace (T.V.’s excellent “Pushing Daisies”) was poorly chosen to lead a film like this as he was distracting and some of his acting had me cringing even when his mouth was closed. In fact, the acting felt like an after-thought to me. The story, going back and forth from a 1920s L.A. hospital/infirmary to a timeless and somewhat cliche fantasy epic told from one bed-ridden patient to another was simple and somewhat lovely, but just didn’t quite do it for me. My so-so with “The Fall” boils down to writer/director Tarsem Singh. Whom, I respect for tackling the film as a four year long pet project, feeding his own millions to it and for not relying on computers as visual support (major bonus there). However, I felt the same way before, during and after his only other film, “The Cell”. I was excited to see that one too, thought it was visually pleasant but was pretty disappointed and so-so with it and never wish to invest my time or care again. Tarsem is known for directing successful music videos for random recording artists like En Vogue, Deep Forest and R.E.M., but he doesn’t seem to make the jump from a 3 or 4 minute visual piece to a two hour film with the masterful ease that David Fincher and Spike Jonze can (who, both coincidentally "present" “The Fall”…whatever “presenting” means these days?). Although I don’t think he should completely stay away from full feature films, I just think that if Tarsem should wish to stick to such visual highlighting, then he really should push and pave new ground for two hour musical events or something to that special effect. Or, he should just make something look cool and pregnant in thought, place a score over it and let critics and fans try to decipher the storytelling in cryptic fashion like a Matthew Barney art house mojo or something?
-djg
-djg
Burn After Reading * * * 1/2
Directed by: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen / 2008
Son of Rambow * * * * ½
Directed by: Garth Jennings / 2007
Whenever I’m in an overstock store or used book house I search the children’s book section for Eric Carle books. His playful hand painted cut paper animals and words just really tickle my inner child and illustrative upbringing. Over the weekend I paid a dollar (!) for a priceless Carle book involving children mimicking animal actions/behavior. The creative simplicity and style is universal speak for the marvelous observational union of all humans and animals. Certainly, some animals (and some humans for that matter) aren’t desired to become close with and there are some boundaries we shouldn’t cross. But, we can learn a lot about life, love, creativity and a higher power at work by sitting back in observation and even in mimic of the animal kingdom. Spectacularly shot and displayed, “Planet Earth” watches wildlife and nature through all cycles of the seasons and spectrums and puts them in the comfort of your own home. I’ve wanted to make a big boy purchase of a digital projector for half a decade now, and I can’t think of a better reason why. I saw the most dazzling, mind-boggling birds last night strutting their colorful stuff, an intense horror-like Great White Shark exploding out of water, and elephants that looked to be bicycling while they swam. I was literally blown out of the water and that is only a small sampling. The ooohs and ahhhs of the awesome wonders and mysteries of the Earth don’t get much better than “Planet Earth”. Though I’ve already been “From Pole to Pole”, I still have a lot more incredible footage that I can’t recommend highly enough. Whether you're flipping through an Eric Carle children's book or watching your television screen in order to get close to wildlife and the great outdoors, just simply get to know your planet Earth NOW.
-djg
Naively, a title like “Dear Wendy” might boil to surface great fancy in some parents out there searching for a “Peter Pan Part Deux”. Without researching I honestly wouldn’t put it past Disney to already have at least seven sequels and prequels straight to release in the annuals of home viewing pleasure or even locked in their vault. Parental guidance assured, “Dear Wendy” in fact does invoke some like-minded spirit of Peter Pan and his lost boys, but isn’t for the average eyes and minds of the little his ‘n’ hers. Acclaimed Denmark filmmaker Lars von Trier sits behind his thick observational typewriter with this screenplay, passing directorial duties to Thomas Vinterberg, a fellow co-founder of the Dogme 95 movement. With strict Dogme guidelines aside, “Dear Wendy”, invokes an extremely unique absorption in the snot rag duster of a modern day Western mixed with Boy Scout heroics and that secret club that we all had growing up. From my understanding, Lars von Trier has never set foot in ‘Merica, yet wallops another punch with his commentary about US, this time on gun control, power and violent nature. Though I’m not too surprised, it’s still disappointing to me that this gun love letter was poorly received because it’s equally well-made and has a whole chamber of lead to chew on. Backed by a soundtrack of ‘60s psychedelic-pop powerhouse tunes from The Zombies, “Dear Wendy” is enjoyably dangerous and powerful thinking that melts up the screen and receives high marks on my hit list. However, if you’re looking for a second round of “Peter Pan”, please go looking for a different Wendy.
-djg
There is a unique artificial flavor to the film look and language of Wes Anderson, writer-director of ambitious, interesting, creative and playfully moody coming-of-age films like "Bottle Rocket", "Rushomore", "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou". Though, I don't completely agree, his films could be tagged with "Style Over Substance", as exaggerated and eccentric characters in scripted speak and style involve themselves with interiors and exteriors that feel right out of a paint-by-number catalog. Even the films' music, props, illustrations, design and typography fit into a snug corner of the film world known as Wes Anderson. He is like a really great one-trick graphic design pony in some regard. With ease, Anderson's fine-tuned film output seems to speak softly and carry a big schtick. Five films deep into the palette, fans "get it" and know what they are getting. He may seem a bit stuck, and can be easily picked at, but I will gladly pay my admission to be glued to his enjoyable films repeatedly. I mostly find myself marveling at shot-for-shot art direction in perfect pitch, imagining how incredibly and playfully exhausting and complicated it would be to execute his vision(s), even if there are multiple slow-motion scenes to the tune The Kinks. Very few find themselves in-between as an Anderson fan, you either like him or you don't. I like him and just simply eat his films up like my favorite pizza buffets, even though I know I'm just getting another piece of ol' pepperoni. With his latest, "The Darjeeling Limited", Anderson fuses his world to that of India as three brothers take a spiritual and redemptive train journey in hopes to lighten the baggage of family frustrations, bitterness, hurt, and to just do a little bit of growing up. A country ripe in culture and color, I find India to be an excellent and interesting move for Wes Anderson to make transfer his look and language to another world. It's not a perfect movie, but remarkably it works and is oddly compelling and refreshing. By the end of the film's tracks I just want to start over again, or just watch his other films for the up-teenth time. Wes Anderson's next movie move is to take his world into the completely artificial landscape of stop-animation with "The Fantastic Mr. Fox." All I know is that it's another wise Wes move for his look and language, and will surely suck me in repeatedly with winning wit, charm, style and even some substance.
Elizabeth * * * *
Directed by: Shekhar Kapur / 1998
When I say I don't do "Period Pieces", one could think that means any film not made in the present. To me that means any film depicting the time of castles, knights and queens (I have a naïve grasp on history and old stuff.) except for "Monty Python and The Holy Grail", "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and "Braveheart". Actually, it means most all films depicting life/time before the mid-1800s, I guess? I’m stupid. My history skills stop working as math skills deplete in me past the last century mark. I suppose my "Period Pieces" have to come equipped with a lot of childhood and extra-strength F-U-N…and battles ‘n’ blood. I love castle architecture and artifacts of the period, but my idea of a "Period Piece" is nothing more than dimly lit rooms with stuffy conversations by backstabbing, sex-crazed murderous jerk wads in awfully uncomfortable looking clothing who say they are under God, yet do and think the opposite. Every other person is a Lord of Lolly Pop, Sir of Sorry, Priest of Poopy Butt, Norfolk of Nothing and Queen of Quack. Most all "Period Pieces" snore me after the first ten minutes and I always end thinking that the story wasn't anything special and felt just like all the others. I feel that the overrated "Marie Antoinette" would have been great as a silent movie and if the end credits would have been spray painted on a “beheading blade” as it came down to announce the end of an era and of my butt hurting. I've also stayed away from rounding out all of Martin Scorsese's films because I don't care to get involved with "The Age of Innocence", even though I do have an itch to see it. I don't get how people can dislike creative science-fiction or fantasy and I don't get how people can actually like "Period Pieces". To each his own, but it is a complete mystery to me. It's hard to not let personal tastes and belly aches get in the way of great filmmaking. I think that "Elizabeth" is indeed great filmmaking with its beautiful art direction, lavish sets and incredible cinematography always peering from unique vantage points and through screens and fabrics, centered around the always impressive Cate Blanchett. If it were not for these highlights, I would have just sat in a pile of drool. Though, “Elizabeth” is a movie I would see again because I could.
The Brood * * * *
Directed by: David Cronenberg / 1979
A summit at Camp David needs to take place immediately. I'm proposing for David Lynch and David Cronenberg to play in the sandbox together, co-writing/directing/concocting what will become the darkest and weirdest horror-thriller film ever. Just three days ago I watched the original "The Wicker Man" and thought it to be one of the weirdest things I'd ever seen. How naive of my still-young film watching eyes to think such things? "The Brood" now officially triumphs Robin Hardy's "The Wicker Man" in the weird department. Come to think of it, I still need to see pretty much all of Cronenberg's early work and I totally forgot how weird and obtuse David Lynch films are. To mix David Cronenberg with that of David Lynch right now, while they are possessed by the powers of their film making prime, one can only imagine the screen magic that would spark. I'm glad I picked up "The Brood" brand new for three bucks at a local close-out store (Yep, cheaper than the Wal-Mart bins!). It took a little bit of time to convince me, but my mouth kept gaping bigger and bigger until the ninety minutes were up. Not bad for a film as old as my mouth is. And I'll definitely never look at small children in "onesy" snow suits and sleepers the same way again.
-djg