Viddy's Views

Since I plan on writing quite a few reviews at the site, I'm going to start my own thread as I see others have done.

I first wanted to comment on The Wrestler, which I enjoyed very much.


-----

The Wrestler (2008, Darren Aronofsky)



Apparently The Wrestler is Mickey Rourke’s comeback. In a way I reckon that’s true. In the various recent interviews I’ve seen with Rourke, he doesn’t exactly object to critics regarding the film as his comeback. But I ask myself, what’s he coming back from? Certainly not an absence of making films. In past decade or two he’s had bit roles in bad films and good films alike. In The Pledge he has a brief scene, but I would argue it’s one of the more poignant moments I’ve seen of him on screen. Of course it was 2005 that was his real “comeback” in a role perfect for him – the damaged Marv who bulldozes his way through one of the stories in Sin City.
If a reviewer is going to call The Wrestler Rourke’s comeback film, they need to define comeback as headlining and carrying a film. Yes it has been years since we’ve had a film staring Mickey Rourke. I will say however it is a shrewd move on the part of Rourke to milk any parallels between his life and his character’s to the maximum. The fact is however that Randy “The Ram” Robinson is very reminiscent of Rourke’s own career and persona.
The Wrestler is an excellent film with an excellent performance by Rourke. Should he win the Academy Award for best actor? I don’t know. I have not seen all the other performances in competition. I do hope he wins it however.
With The Wrestler, Darren Aronofsky has crafted another winning picture about an addicted and obsessed-like character. This time is not for math, drugs, or love, but rather pain. This is not Rocky and this is not your after school special. In The Wrestler there is emotion, but no sentimentality. There is hope, but no silly preaching of far-away dreams. Without giving it away, I will say the ending comes to a surprising, but appropriate halt. We knew this character’s story had to end in this fashion. Any other ending would have compromised the entire film.
As great as Rourke is in the film, and believe me, he is great in it, Marisa Tomei also shines. So much that she too was nominated for an Academy Award. Her part is more or less an archetype, but it is presented in a way that rings true. I used to have a writing class in college and we worked in groups. In my group was a lady of 30 who was a stripper and mother. I thought of her when I was watching Tomei in the film.
One thing I do appreciate story-wise is that the film doesn’t linger too much on the past of these characters. A lesser film would have Tomei with an abusive boyfriend and “The Ram” coming to the rescue. A lesser film would have “The Ram” dealing with his persecuting ex-wife. While Rourke’s character does have a daughter, there is no mention of the mother. That’s the right choice for this film.
The film is by no means perfect. I would say the pacing is a bit too fast for this type of story. Aronofsky’s first three films have sped by like a bullet train. This one slows down, but not enough. A few of the smaller parts are cliché. For instance the grocery store manager is right out of a comic book. I didn’t really buy into the Evan Rachel Wood part as Rourke’s daughter. The part could have been written a bit better, but the performance doesn’t help it much.
I loved the steadycam shots following “The Ram” through various locations without glancing at his face. I loved the three in-ring wrestling bouts that are featured in the film. One reviewer on NPR commented that they were overly brutal and were unnecessary for the film. I stand firmly against that statement. I would advise this reviewer to watch any “Hell in a Cell” match, specifically that classic bout between Mankind and The Undertaker in 97’.
I loved the intricate detail the film. It showed the process of professional wrestling from behind the scenes; the tanning, weight lifting, discussing of spots during the match, hair coloring, drugs, and the aftermath of a body riddled with injury. Anyone who discredits wrestling because the results are scripted are missing the point. Wrestling is art, and The Wrestler is low art meeting high art.


Grade: A

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Well written review! I look forward to seeing this soon!

__________________

Great review... thanks for sharing... I've been a bit iffy about this movie but may try to catch it soon...

__________________

Very proffesional review. I watched some of this movie with a friend. I didn't catch it all (given that I was kinda wasted) so I can't really give my opinion on it yet. One thing I can say though, is that when I was stumbling home I remember having a new respect for wrestling and I definetly didn't think it was fake anymore.

Give it a shot. Even if you're not a fan of wrestling or Mickey Rourke, it might give you some insights into the "sport" which is seen as child's play and fake. Yeah pro wrestling is scripted, but the men do take a toll on their bodies. I think the film shows that well.

I used to watch WWF from 1999-2002 but it became to self-promotional and gimicky for my tastes. Still I respect the athletes who put their bodys (sometimes steroid injected) on the line for entertainment. Even if it is "low culture" entertainment.

Give it a watch.

Bukowski: Born into This (2003, John Dullaghan)



This documentary isn't necessarily special because of any filmmaking expertise, but it is special because it offers a great deal of footage of Bukowski himself over the years. It is very informative and anyone who is minorly interested in the Los Angeles poet or tragic artists in general, should give this film a watch. The ammount of collected footage shown and edited into this documentary is impressive. It is great to sit back and enjoy Bukowski reading his poetry, talking about losing his virginity to a 300 pound whore at age 25, and getting in bitter fights with his wife Linda.
Not everyone will like Bukowski as a person or poet. He seems crude, he seems vulgar. He has a face of a ghoul, very weather worn and craggedy. His nose is too big, his eyes are beady, huge eyebrows, receding hair line, long in the back, unkempt beard, pott belly, hulking mannerisms. Uncooth, disgusting. Maybe that's why his poetry rings true. We couldn't believe these words coming from someone beautiful or even average. It is heartbreaking to hear Bukowski talk about his prom and bleeding acne. It horrifys us and enthralls us. The documentary is a sharp needle into the vein of his emotion and where his words came from.
Born Into This features several of his poems, including "Dinosauria, we," from which the film takes its title. Much of his poetry is very good. Largely he talks about outcasts, drunks, women, and so forth. I've read quite a bit of his work over the years and it comes from the heart, but it's not hidden in literary ellogence. It is very straightforward and anti-climatic. Bono of U2 states that he "Has no time for metaphor," and that's certainly true. The documentary also features interviews with Sean Penn, one of Bukowski's admirers. It features interviews with his wife Linda and other people close to him, including John Martin of Black Sparrow Press who helped launch Bukowski into world wide fame giving him and outlet.
There's not a lot of razzle-dazzle in the technique of this documentary, but just like it's subject it does have much substance. Many poets are pretentious. We get the sense that Bukowski wrote as a means of survival and coping. It was something he could do well and not only wanted to do, but had to do in order to live.



Grade: A

That photo of Bukowski looks like a death's bed Darren McGavin to me.
Just add about 15-20 years to this pic.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

9-1/2 Weeks (1986, Adrian Lyne)



Comparisons between this film and Last Tango in Paris are bound to occur. I've never watched 9-1/2 Weeks before, but I couldn't help but think of the old favorite of mine staring Marlon Brando. What Last Tango in Paris does right, this movie does wrong.
Where to start? There is a meeting in both films. In Last Tango in Paris Brando is in pain and that's evident. In 9-1/2 Weeks Mickey Rourke is just bored and has a need for excitement. Maybe down deep he doesn't like himself. If audiences could write in naunces that the filmmakers forgot about, then sure - that might work.
In Last Tango in Paris a 19-year-old Maria Schneider gives herself to a stranger because she is uncertain about her impending marriage to a man before she even knows who she is sexually. We understand her motivations for wanting Brando or rather wanting to be the object of his catharsis. In 9-1/2 Weeks we get a bored and divorced 25-year-old Kim Basinger who wants attention and who narcistically wants to be treated as one of the works of art where she works.
In Last Tango in Paris we get brutal and horrifying scenes of masochism and sexual irresponsibility and adventure by two people who engage each other as a means of self mutilation. In 9-1/2 Weeks we get two New York City yuppies who are bored and are looking for excitement to contrast with their unfulfilling careers. Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger are both very attractive, but no one is attractive enough to take seriously while the top hits of the 80's play on the soundtrack.
There are elements I enjoyed in 9-1/2 Weeks. The two leads did have an odd type of chemistry. I did enjoy seeing Basinger nip out in a wet shirt while Rourke gave it to her in an alley way as the rain pours down.
Then I think to myself. Why should I enjoy this? I didn't enjoy seeing Brando give it to Schneider (who has nicer breasts I might add) because I could understand and in part identify with their pain. I should have enjoyed it. I should have been aroused by very sexy scenes. I wasn't. I was disgusted and I was saddened. In 9-1/2 Weeks I wasn't disgusted. That's the problem with the film. That's also the problem with any possibility of me giving a damn as Basinger walks down the street when the credits role.
Last Tango in Paris is a film that brings me to tears. 9-1/2 Weeks also brought me to tears because I know those two yuppies aren't going to enjoy having all their food rott after leaving that damn refridgerator door open for so long.

Grade: C-

Note: Thank God Mickey Rourke went on to make two masterpieces in the year that followed this silliness (although titalating silliness) that is 9-1/2 Weeks.

Too Late For Tears (1949, Byron Haskin)



Sometimes people get themselves in deep and just keep getting in deeper. Lizabeth Scott is married to Arthur Kennedy who are a seemingly happy couple on their way home from a friend's house at night. The plot rises when a bag of money in thrown into their car. She wants the money, he doesn't. That's the premise at the beginning of the movie, but like all film noir it switches directions many, many times.
I suppose a lesser noir would have centered more on the husband dealing with the over zealous and confident wife, but this is not a lesser noir. A modern noir I was reminded of was the promising, but ultimately disappointing A Simple Plan. In Too Late For Tears, it's the femme fattale Lizabeth Scott that's on center stage and is the one character who occupies the film's entire running time. The others are more or less just fodder for her poison, bullets, sex, kisses, and double crosses. Nothing is going to stand between this woman and her money.
Like all noir there is some very smart dialogue. One of my favorite moments in the film has Liz Scott talking about lonely housewives. What power women can have when they wield sex effortlessly and emotionlessly. Too Late For Tears is a noir worth checking out, even if it does stumble at times with a forced relationship between two side characters.

Grade: A-

Milk (2008, Gus Van Sant)



For the second time in several years we get a homosexuality themed film that features A-list males making out on screen. I reckon that's a good thing. Gus Van Sant tackles this project/biopic based on San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk who was assassinated in 1978. This is not the first time his story's been covered cinematically. In 1984 The Life of Harvey Milk was a documentary that came out and while superior to the non-doc version that Van Sant just release I still wouldn't say that's an insult to Sant.
Homosexuallity seems to be topic Van Sant is versed in, as he too is gay and has made my favorite gay-themed film in My Own Private Idaho. Milk is more mainstream and straight-forward than that film. It is good that we have become open minded enough that a film like this can do well critically and commercially.
Now about Sean Penn. Great actor and great performance. No real surprise there. Should he win the Academy Award for best actor? Maybe, though I'd rather see it go to Rourke, a less acceptable and recognized choice. I thought Penn got it right. The look of Harvey Milk and even the way he talks isn't far off. His behavior and mannerisms are good. It's easy to see Penn did his homework in no doubt watching clips of Milk himself.
The pacing of the movie was as good as a biopic can be. I always think it's difficult to cover a lot of ground in two hours and the last eight years of Harvey Milk's life is no exception. They say no bad movie is short enough and no good movie is to long, that's the case here as Milk is a good movie. I would have rather had a three hour long film that took more time to pace itself out, but Van Sant has never really made long pictures.
I think the political angle of the film works well. I understand how the striking down of Proposition 6 was the major contribution of his short public career, but it would have been nice to see Milk presented as a politician who happened to be gay rather than a gay politician. All too often homosexuality is seen as the prominent force in shaping the identity of gays. I'm mostly heterosexual, but it doesn't matter because gay or straight sexuality is the least interesting thing about a person. The more we define ourselves by sex, gay or straight, the more we are bound by silly limitations. I have been around the gay culture and it's a very insecure and youth oriented culture by its own design. Once we get beyond sexuality being a culture we can truely get down to defeating discrimination. Milk seem to treat its characters as though they were their sexuality instead of simply having a preference.
I do think the relationship between James Franco and Penn was excellent. I would have much rather seen him get the supporting actor nod than film-mate Brolin. I would argue that more of the film's success depends on him than Brolin, but who knows. The film is an actor's tour-de-force.
One thing that did bog the film down was Diego Luna's character because it seemed under-written or focused on. It simply was tacked on and bogged the film down. I did not connect with that relationship the way I did with the others. I almost forgot to give props to Emile Hirsch who was excellent as Cleve Jones and Van Sant's recreation of a 1970's San Francisco.

Grade: B

Half Nelson (2006, Ryan Fleck)



This is the best movie about a teacher or a classroom that I've ever seen. With so much worthless dreck out there like Dangerous Minds, this film rings home as honest and true. As an English teacher I could relate in part to the main character, Dan Dunne - played with marvelous somberness by Ryan Gosling. Dunne is a teacher who lives alone in his apartment with his cat and has a shady past and a shady habbit. He smokes crack and an unlikely friendship developes between him and a junior high student (Shareeka Epps) when she catches him. This film is not cliche. It's brutal and honest and never spells out the live's of the characters too much. Anthony Mackie is strong in a non stereotypical part which could have played to type as the drug dealer. We need more movies like this and less idealogical garbage like Dangerous Minds. Teachers can also have issues the same as students can and this film shows the other side of the classroom.

Grade: A-

I'm also a big fan of Half Nelson.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Very nice reviews, I'm enjoying reading 'em. Good work

Let the Right One In (2008, Tomas Alfredson)



I've not read the source novel of the film, although given the time, I might consider it. This is probably one of the best vampire films I've ever seen. It ranks up there with both versions of Nosferatu, Shadow of the Vampire, and Near Dark. It has the gloom and drearyness of Interview With the Vampire, but leaves behind all the elaborate "prettiness" and pretencious sex appeal that comes with the whole vampire lore. Some people saw Twilight this year, but the lucky ones saw Let the Right One In. I have no use for a film like Twilight that masquarades itself as a vampire film, when it's really talking about teen abstinence. In Let the Right One In we get a 12 year old vampire. While she's lived much longer than that, she still has the mind of a 12 year old. Our human protagonist is also 12. They do not worry about such trivial things as sex or "Whether I should convert him over." Instead they focus on school bullies, rubix cubes, and neighbors with far too many cats.
After my girlfriend and I left the movie theater together (we watched this on Valentines Day) she commented, "That was the cutest vampire movie ever." I agree. It's also a great date movie no matter how old you are. Don't get me wrong, this is one of the most grim and somber experiences you'll have in the cinema, but there's a warm heart beating under the surface. We want these two desperately to be together.
I think restraint is the key word here. This film plods along at a slow pace, but we enjoy it. Watching the movie is like watching the first snow of the year fall at night. We sit back and enjoy the beauty of it. And as a Swedish film there is plenty of snow and rarely has snow been filmed so gorgeously. Both the leads are excellent. Eli the young girl vampire is played by Lina Leandersson. She has the perfect look and comes off as very natural. Her performance even outshines that of Kirsten Dunst's in Interview With the Vampire. It is more subdued. It doesn't help that she also resembles Audrey Tautou with the dark hair and huge brown eyes. Oskar, her new friend, is played by Kåre Hedebrant. In contrast to her dark features he is bleach blonde and blue eyes. How odd that the year's best film couple is a pair of 12 year old kids. Of course the idea of sex and romance do not come into play. This is an emotional relationship and one based on mutual need.
The ending could be debated. On the surface level it puts a smile on the viewer's face and seems optimistic. When thinking about the implications and the long term consequences for this couple, it might not be so optimistic. I think back to the middle aged character who supplied her with fresh blood. Is this who Oskar will become?
As of now this is the best film I've seen from 2008. Certainly it has none of the silliness of Twilight nor is it to be undermined and compromised by mass marketing.

Grade: A+

Well, I agree it's a good date movie, but maybe we have different definitions. My gf and I went to see this several months ago and while we thought it was pretty and had some good scenes, wasn't interesting or particularly touching enough to keep us from spending most of the film making out.

While I think I know what you mean about the "pretentious sexiness" of certain vampire films, I would ask you to focus your bile on the "pretentious" (or perhaps portentous - which certainly applies as much to films like Nosferatu) and spare the sexiness from the stake. My favorite vampire films are Roman Polanski's and Guy Maddin's, two movies that I don't think anyone can deny are very sexy.

I had to look up portentous.

I've never once made out during a movie.

I thought Let the Right One In was unique and avoided many cliche's. But it only used the word vampire once, as my count went, so how silly.

I'm a bit curious because you never said specifically what you didn't like about it. What bored you about it that you decided to use the time in the dark for other purposes besides watching the film?

I wouldn't call The Fearless Vampire Killers sexy, although it does have its moments - just not on the whole.

I've only seen bits of Maddin's ballet Dracula if that's what you're referring to, but it is in my queue on Netflix.

Speaking of Dracula, I very much enjoyed Coppola's version, but not completely because I thought it was style over substance and featured some poor casting decisions.

I guess I just thought it was a pretty simplistic narrative so without any fun/unusual/complicated storytelling that normally propels me through a film I had to spend time ruminating on the content of the story and its characters and it came up short.

I didn't care about any of the characters enough to worry about what was going to happen to them. There just seemed to be this introverted malaise over everyone in the movie that to me didn't translate to the main characters being sensitive outsiders because, really, everybody seemed pretty out of it. they all looked depressed (except when that one kid got hit in the ear and those bumbling murders, those were the two things I found entertaining).

I think we were supposed to feel something for the two main characters, that they were special and their relationship meant something but (have a similar problem with The Professional, by the way) really I just recall getting this feeling of emotional interchangeability between the two leads, Oskar just conveniently filling vampire girl's open slot for "lifelong mate/blood procurer". That's all they want out of life? What a couple of boring ********. Why do people find this to be a compelling relationship?

It's also possible that I've been having higher expectations for relationships in movies since I got involved in one [a relationship not a movie] and which ones I find interesting and compelling in movies probably says more about me than it does about the movies so I'm not sure if I answered your question adequately.

edit - sorry i replied to this so late.

I'm sorry that you didn't find a Swedish story about a 12-year old vampire interesting.

Again too many big words... what's the point? I'm sorry if you just liked the violent scenes and that you didn't care about the depressed characters.

Ahh and I love The Professional and it gets an easy A+ from me. And yes you're right about Oskar being a basic blood supplier for life. But I'm sure they'll go see many interesting places during their travels. Most of us work, have a family then die. That's boring. Come to think of it, my relationship with my girlfriend who also works is boring. Excuse while I go kill myself now. Thanks a lot!

That's OK on both counts (the question and lateness) but yes you answered my question. You didn't like the characters much and I did - a lot, and that's not necessarily because they were likeable (if that makes sense). For a film to work it is important that the viewer like the characters - or at least enjoy watching them.

Taken (2009, Pierre Morel)



Without the casting of Liam Neeson and the directing by long time camera-man Pierre Morel, this would be a basic and silly Steven Seagal movie. With those two film alumni however, the film is much less enjoyable than a Steven Seagal movie. Maybe a little more funny however. The plot deals with bodyguard/agent/spy/secret service man-something played by Liam Neeson who has a daughter that's kidnapped in Paris and sold into prostitution. He constantly warns his little girl before leaving that something bad might happen to her. We're not surprised that it does. His little girl also aspires to be a garbage pop singer along the lines of a Brittany Spears or Miley Cirus.
Of course Neeson knows everything and can defeat anyone in a fisticuffs or gun battle. If MacGyver, Steven Seagal, and Ward Cleaver got together in a blender you might pull something out like Neeson's character. This movie is not just bad, it's really bad, especially since it aims for a completely different demographic of audience that would typically watch a Steven Seagal film. Plus that little girl needed slapped, not rescued. I half expected Neeson's character to be relieved that she was being sold into prostitution as such it would probably negate any need for him to pay child support.

Grade: D-

Welcome to my Chuck Norris double feature!


Breaker! Breaker! (1977, Don Hulette)



This is one of Chuck Norris' cinematic debuts in a staring role. I say cinematic, not knowing if this thing was ever in the movie theater. Did they have direct-to-video back in 1977? Norris pre-bread and pre-mustache is a truck driver, who must rescue his younger brother from a band of California yokels who have managed to set up their own community. What follows is Chuck Norris versus the entire town and plenty of cheesy action and stereotypes are abound. Now this film was release during that late/early 1970s and 80's truck driver/cb craze. You know films like Smokey and the Bandit and Convoy. Of course Breaker! Breaker! is not the masterpiece that those two films are. That's OK though. We get a Shakespeare quoting, doll infatuated judge played by George Murdock, the retard, and Chuck Norris fighting on for hours after being gut-shot.

Grade: D-


Silent Rage (1982, Michael Miller)




What we get with this gem is Walker Texas Ranger against a bio-altered super psycho killer! come back from the dead. Playing Walker is Norris who does sport a mustache but no beard and the psycho is played by Brian Libby (The Shawshank Redemption). Ron Silver shows up, as he does in so many of these films, and appears to be in the wrong movie as he attempts to give the credit material by playing it straight. Poor guy, a great actor who never found his flick. I blame Al Pacino (who Silver mildly resembles) and of course he conservativism. For a sci-fi/horror/martial arts film I guess this is one of the tops, of course the sub-genre doesn't exactly run deep. I did enjoy the hilarity of the doctor trying to justify reanimating dead flesh and Brian Libby hamming it up as the walking dead. Is this a good film? No, but it is a success! It succeeded for me because I wanted to know how Chuck Norris was going to dispose of Libby and I was entertained until the end. Even by that lame romantic subplot. I should also pay note to the inept deputy and a nice little bar fight.

Grade: D+