Flipside Movie Emporium

[The Third M?n]

This weekend I saw:

Sleuth - *****

The Matrix Reloaded - ***

Finding Nemo - ****

I had had Sleuth on DVD for quite a while (five months or so) but had never got round to seeing it. Damn, was I impressed. A charade of great moments and games within games, half truths and rotten lies, Sleuth is an exceptional film. Who's seen it?

[the night watchman]

As a representation of illness, which can often be disgusting and embarassing, I think the shit weasles were more unnerving than traditionally scary. The idea of the loss of bodily control and of mental faculty discomforts me.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

[matt header]

I never really had the desire to see "Dreamcatcher" until I checked out this post and saw the phrase "shit weasels." I know what I'll be watching tonight..........

[Mark Dujsik]

[the night watchman]

[Mark Dujsik]

[the night watchman]

No, there's really nothing satirical about the book. If you've read King, well, it reads like a typical King novel. There is humor weaved in, but the narrative is straightfaced.

The book does have a lot of problems; it's essentially a 300 page novel crammed into 600 pages. Many complain about the unnecessary length of some of King's work, but until Dreamcatcher it never really bothered me. If you've never read King before I wouldn't recommend Dreamcatcher as a starting point.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg

[Al]

The thing that I find interesting about Dreamcatcher is the insane military commander character. It's interesting that the military are made out to be the villians, but at the same time the alien creatures are looking to wipe out the human race. It reminds me more of 'A Few Good Men' (sort of a study of the fact that people want to be protected by their government but don't want to face the consequences of encouraging the military culture nessecary to carry out that mission) than of Apocalypse Now (which King was clearly suggesting by naming the insane Colonel Kurtz...).

Apocalypse seemed to be more a condemnation of the insanity of the Vietnam conflict, suggesting that the war itself was unnessecary. In Dreamcatcher, some effort by someone to contain the aliens is definetly nessecary, as they are an actual threat. The commander on scene may be quite insane, but the whole force is portrayed as "evil" even though they are ostensably protecting the rest of the human population from a hostile alien menace (which is how the aliens are portrayed).

I suppose it's similar to the way that the military is portrayed in Outbreak (with a little role reversal of Morgan Freeman moving from the voice of reason into the "insane commander" spot). In that film, clearly nobody would want the virus to spread, but the leader who proposes wiping out the town to save the nation is absolutely the villian.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that we should wipe out small towns when viruses break out or, ummm, aliens land. Just saying that these popcorn-type movies can bring up some interesting political questions too...

Al

[Mark Dujsik]

[beltmann]

[Danny Baldwin]

This Week:

Under the Tuscan Sun

I really, truly wanted to like this one. Starring Diane Lane as a writer, who divorces her husband and ends up moving to Tuscany, only to live in a broken-down, three-hundred year-old home, it?s aggravating that the plot of Under the Tuscan Sun couldn?t have been a bit thicker. The entire movie is like a soap opera; airy and all over the place, always introducing one character after another. To my knowledge, it has been poorly adapted, as well; those who have read the book tell me that all of the good things featured in it are missing from the movie. Make no mistake?there is a lot to appreciate in this picture?on the contrary. Lane does what she can with a one-note role, and is always charming. The gorgeous photography is fabulous; we always feel enriched when in the presence of the stunning shots of Tuscany. Under the Tuscan Sun isn?t bad, but it certainly isn?t good, either, which is very disappointing. It may be very enjoyable, when rented, at a cheap rate. But for ten bucks, it?s definitely not worth attending.

Intolerable Cruelty

Ah, yes, this is the movie I?ve been waiting for all year. The Coen?s latest film, done Hollywood-style, has a pleasingly divine atmosphere and an entrancing style. The story and plot are inspired, the dialogue delicious; this is about the only motion picture to come along in the last couple of months that?s actually funny when it thinks it is. The screwball comedy is comically charming, and the smoothly-executed, but rather eventful and twisty plot is always a joy to watch unfold. This is one surprisingly appealing film. George Clooney is fabulously hysterical in his role (almost everyone will love his character?s obsession with the whiteness of his teeth). The lovely Catherine Zeta Jones delivers one of the best performances of the year, and also creates her fair-share of unscripted laughs. Intolerable Cruelty is certainly one of the most watchably well-done popcorn flicks to come along in a long time, and should not be missed.

Kill Bill: Volume One

Quentin Tarantino?s latest film is usually astounding. The fight choreography, dialogue (or lack thereof), and direction are all nearly perfect. I was consistently fascinated and entertained by Kill Bill; it?s one of the most interesting and unique productions to come along in the entire history of film. But right when I was having the time of my life, ninety-five minutes into the movie, it came to a screeching, inconclusive, idiotic, and disappointing halt. I had seen Volume One of a two-part journey. When each screening of this movie ends, the entire audience will be very, very angry. We feel as though we?ve witnessed an episode of our favorite sitcom finish, right before a very exciting scene is about to take place, and fade to a screen, which features those three dreaded words: ?To Be Continued.? But we don?t just have to wait a week to see the rest of the episode, however. Kill Bill: Volume Two will be released in February of 2004; that?s nearly four months away!

Did Tarantino really split Kill Bill into two parts because he thought that it would be more easily and thoughtfully viewed in such a way? Positively not. It was obviously Miramax who made the decision, for they?ll make double the amount of money that they would?ve made, if they had released Kill Bill in one extraordinary long epic?the way it was originally intended to be seen. While they clearly have some great businessmen working for them, the quality of the motion pictures that they release is definitely a second priority.

Thankfully, even though the split will leave a bad aftertaste in viewer?s mouths, after viewing Volume One, most everyone who witnesses it will eagerly await, and come back and see, Volume Two in February. Tarantino has a masterful way of meshing the action scenes together; it?s really phenomenal. Stunt choreographers Yuen Wo-Ping and Sonny Chiba obviously spent a gigantic amount of time working on Kill Bill, and the beauty of his work is extremely noticeable in the fight scenes. The cinematography, by Robert Richardson, is also interesting. Every frame of every shot is stunning, intrepid, and one of a kind. While many will not like Kill Bill, simply because it?s so violent and disturbing, even they will be able to appreciate the filmmakers? work on it.

The cast is bold and witty in performing. From the dialogue to the body language, the headlining members of the project, Uma Thurman, Daryl Hannah, Lucy Lui, and Vivica A. Fox, are absolutely perfect. It?s much harder than one would expect to actually act in an action film, let alone a Tarantino action film, but these five are tremendous in doing so.

All in all, Kill Bill is certainly worth a sit, because of the amazing photography, stunt-work, and performances. Prepare for the disappointing ending, though?it?s disruptively uncalled for. There are certain (even artful) ways that Tarantino could?ve cut Kill Bill into two parts. Sadly, the way it has been, is not one of them.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico

Once Upon a Time in Mexico masters two arts?being cocky and being contrived. It?s a hysterical hoot, full of big explosions, nutty editing, and powerful weapons. It?s also insanely entertaining, and will definitely captivate most audience members. Sadly, watching the same old shtick for nearly one-hundred minutes is a relentless experience. When we finally reach the grand climax, what should be a fabulous finale to a worthy film, all that?s awaiting us is more guns, fighting, and cheesy poses made by Antonio Banderas. Whoopee!

Essentially, Once Upon a Time in Mexico is Robert Rodriguez?s latest Spy Kids movie; all that?s changed is the PG rating. It?s goofy, dumb, and all in good fun. But while the Spy Kids trilogy thrives on these very characteristics, Mexico is able to accomplish very little, because of them. Rodriguez is amazing?he directs, he edits, he writes, he produces, he composes?but his talent is best utilized, when he?s working with material that involves little kids with superpowers. His personal Apple computer is his film studio, and when watching this movie, it becomes very evident. Mexico is a rather mediocre motion picture.

There is one fabulous feature to be seen in Once Upon a Time in Mexico, however. Johnny Depp is great; his performance is hilariously funny, brilliantly witty, and ingeniously outrageous. The two projects that he?s worked on this year, this one and Pirates of the Caribbean, prove what a tremendous comedian he is. Every time Depp is onscreen, in Mexico, whopping amounts of laughter accompany him. Unfortunately, almost every other component of this entertaining, but jumbled film is either missing or out of place.

The material had potential, but the execution is flawed. It?ll be a fun rental when it comes out on video, however. Until then, I?d pass on it, for it certainly isn?t worth the ten bucks multiplexes? charge for admission.

Bend it like Beckham (2nd Viewing)

Just wanted to watch it again for enjoyment purposes....
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews

[Dr Giggles]

Last week.

Day of the dead - gory zombie goodness

Friday the 13th III - made for 3D cinema, need I say anymore?

Jason did get his infamous hockey mask.

Suspiria - absolutely loved it, I loved the stylized lighting and the

soundtrack was second to none. Good work by the goblins.

Nightbreed - revisiting childhood memories, its really a bad movie.

Dog Soldiers - Predator come horror movie, not a bad werewolf flick, for poms!
_________________
walking on air, up from the wheelchair,

I'll find the suicide, that I deserve.

[matt header]

I saw "Lost in Translation" for the second time last night. Damn, that really is a wonderfully great movie. It's even better - and sadder - the second time.

[The Third M?n]

I saw Psycho two nights ago for the fourth time. Lamentably, I cannot provide you with my review for it as my home computer messed up during a powercut - I'm at school now, you see. Needless to say, I found the film to be more fascinating than ever.

[the night watchman]

10/13-10/18

Intolerable Cruelty (Coens, 2003) Like I said in the thread dedicated to this movie, I liked it, but would have liked it more, probably, had I not kept expecting it to be a Coen movie. There are more than enough funny moments, and it?s altogether entertaining. But, really, it just seems as if this could have been made by any creative mainstream director.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Leone, 1966) My favorite Western, except for maybe Unforgiven. This was my fifth or sixth viewing, but the first time with the proper aspect ratio, which even my old LD failed to supply. Bliss?

(By the way, has anyone seen the extended version, which apparently includes 20 extra minutes?)

Free Enterprise (Burnett, 1998) Actually, I only watched the last half, and I?m not craving the experience of the first. It plays as if the writer decided including five movie references per line of dialogue would make the movie funny. It doesn?t. No one talks like this, not even the geekiest movie geek. Plus, the characters are annoying, the acting is stilted (but with the lines they gotta deliver, who can blame them?) and the plot is just stupid. Yet, apparently, they?re making a Free Enterprise 2. Whatever. And is there nothing Shatner won?t do for money? His self-parody routine is getting a wee bit stale, no?

Doctor X (Curtiz, 1932) The logic of this movie is so hyperactively bizarre I couldn?t help but fully enjoy it. I?m still disappointed with Lionel Atwill?s somewhat weak screen presence, but he displays more here that he did in Mystery of the Wax Museum. Lee Tracy as the comedy relief was irritating, but Fay Ray was babe-alicious as usual. A silly movie, to be sure, and not one I?ll revisit any time soon, but painless and worth a look-see for any interested in horror cinema.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Marcus Nispel, 2003) Blech.



Blowup (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966) There are movies I find fascinating because they are about things that interest me. There are others I find fascinating because they are about the interests of other people. But I have very little patience with fashion and with 60?s youth culture and aesthetics. This pseudo-thriller, ostensibly about a photographer who inadvertently discovers an apparent murder, might have appealed to me more had it been set some place else, and not concluded with mime tennis. There are some very good moments, don?t get me wrong, but on a whole, eh. Maybe after I?ve watch more of Antonioni?s films this one will appeal to me more.

Ghostbusters (Ivan Reitman, 1984) Still hilarious after all these years. I haven?t watched it in a while, and it was a pleasure to re-experience. Best line goes to Egon: ?I?m terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought.?
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg