Sleeper (1973) Review

Director: Woody Allen
Stars: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton
Genre: Comedy, Science Fiction

An earlier film by one of the greats of comedy, Woody Allen. I, being a fan of both Woody Allen and science fiction, was very excited to watch this. Was I disappointed? No, not at all, but this is still only decent Allen material at best.

After this film is when Woody Allen's greatest stuff really started, like Love and Death, Annie Hall, Manhattan, etc. It seems like Sleeper came right before his peak.

This film was only the second Keaton-Allen film (the first being Play it Again, Sam) and you can really tell they hadn't got their chemistry quite right yet. At least not as good as they were together in say Annie Hall. Don't get me wrong, Woody Allen even here probably shows some of the best, most believable and realistic chemistry and relationships ever put to film. That's what he does best, create believable relationships.

So the plot of this film, which isn't very important, it essentially serves as a vehicle for Woody to get his jokes in, is about a man from 1973 (Allen) who is frozen and then awoken 200 years later. He eventually meets a girl (Keaton) and together they take down the dystopian government.

The futuristic society is a charm to spectate, with their orgasm-machines and their funny little cars. Allen of course delivers a great performance, putting on his expected caricature of a Jewish New Yorker we all know and love him for. The beautiful Diane Keaton also, as expected, does a fabulous job.

Diane Keaton: "Oh, I see. You don't believe in science, and you also don't believe that political systems work, and you don't believe in God, huh?"

Woody Allen: "Right."

Diane Keaton: "So then, what do you believe in?"

Woody Allen: "Sex and death. Two things that come once in a lifetime, but at least after death you're not nauseous."  

The jokes here are pretty varied. Some are very situational, some play out like regular jokes, and a few are very slapstick, like Woody Allen being chased by police or hanging off the side of a building. It actually seems like Woody Allen made a bit of a nod to early film comedy with the sped up chase scenes, as was used in many films in the early 1900s. After all, Woody Allen was greatly inspired by the likes of Chaplin, Keaton, and the Marx Brothers. Though I can't say he really performs as well as they did.

The film isn't overly funny. You'll get a few laughs here and there, sometimes you'll feel bored, sometimes you'll find a joke unfunny. It's definitely not Woody's funniest. But it is a much watch for any Woody fans.

It's also an effective satire, poking fun at society (mostly 70s society) and not holding back. Younger viewers may not understand some of the references or jokes, but I didn't have any trouble and I wasn't alive in the 70s so there shouldn't be much of a problem.

Fans of science fiction, this is a comedy first and foremost. It's merely set in a futuristic world. It is fun to see all the absurd technology, like the robot butlers, and any fan of the genre will be greatly amused. But again, this is a Woody Allen comedy first so if you're not a Woody fan, or are a yet to be fan, I'd either pass or watch one of his better films first, i.e., Annie Hall. 

A fun time but nothing too outstanding.

Pros:

+Great for Woody Allen fans

+A fun science fiction setting

+A few good laughs

+Great on-screen chemistry

Cons:

-Can be a bit stale at times

-Not the director's best work

-Slapstick is nowhere near as good as what it is influenced by

Purchase Sleeper on Amazon: DVD

House of Wax (1953) Review

Director: Andre De Toth
Stars: Vincent Price, Charles Bronson
Genre: Horror

House of Wax must have been a very great film to watch in the 50s. Because it is a film that was ahead of its time. Unfortunately, as happens with many films, after many years it loses a bit of its charm with modern audiences. That's not to say it's not a good film and worth watching. Indeed, it is.

In this loose remake to 1933's Mystery of the Wax Museum we have Vincent Price playing the antagonist here, and any film with Vincent Price is worth watching simply for that reason. As always, a great performance on his part. Also, a very young Charles Bronson played Igor in here. Not to mention that this is the first horror film where Price played the lead man. A role that he would repeat many times and a position he is best remembered for.

The film starts out well enough. A very talented wax sculpture (Price) who loves, and is nearly obsessed, with his creations. Unfortunately for him his business partner wants to burn down the wax museum so they can collect on the insurance. Of course the sculptor objects, so his partner burns it down with him in it. Everyone thinks he dies in the fire, but of course we know Vincent Price is never killed off that early on.

The thought-to-be dead sculptor returns and kills the partner who burned down his creations. He then reopens a wax museum, this time focusing on shock and horror rather than beauty. To do so all the wax figures are based on people who were recently involved in horrific accidents, i.e., suicides, murders, etc.

As the plot unfolds we learn there is much more behind the sculpting process than it appears.

At the time I could imagine it was a pretty unique film, today it's pretty predictable and typical. It gets a little boring in the middle, and if not for the last twenty minutes I'd say it was a pretty mediocre film. Thankfully the last twenty minutes are fabulous. That scene when the girl snuck into the museum at night was very creepy. And the wax figures really made you on edge, your eyes always working to detect any movement in the inanimate figures. Very creepy. 

And then the scene when the girl breaks off Vincent Price's mask was also a very memorable moment.

Too bad the whole film wasn't as good as the last twenty minutes though. Still, it is worth the watch and can still provide much enjoyment. It's also very obvious that this film was originally filmed for a 3D theatre, with objects being flung towards the camera, and that paddle ball scene. It's actually kind of cool.

Pros:

+Fantastic last twenty minutes

+Vincent Price

+Creepy

Cons:

-Slow and boring at times

-Had potential to be much creepier than it was

Purchase House of Wax on Amazon: DVD - Stream

The Fly (1986) Review

Director: David Cronenberg
Stars: Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis
Genre: Science fiction, Horror

Here it is, the remake to the classic 1958 The Fly. Both films I watched and loved as a child, so nostalgia resonates in both of them. But now, re-watching them both, as a much more film knowledgeable person, which one holds up better?

Well, I still think the original is far superior, and I seem to be quite alone in that opinion. I won't do much comparing in this review though, I want to try and judge this film on its own.

Since I will try not to do much comparing right now, which is kind of hard to do, this review may be a tad on the short side. Nonetheless, onward we go.

I'm not a terribly big fan of Jeff Goldblum, I recognize his charm, I just never really got to be super fond of him, this film however is definitely one of his better performances. He did a great job both as scientist and as monster. Geena Davis did a solid job as well, though I'm not much of a fan of her either.

One thing this film is often praised for is its special effects. I'd have to concur on that point, they are quite well-done and damn scary and even disgusting. I cringed every time Geena Davis so much as touched the monster. Ugh, and that white vomit stuff. AND THE FUCKING FINGERNAILS!

It's pretty gross. Don't kid yourself, I love some great gore and splatter films, and I never really have a problem with it. I got through this one pretty well, and I have seen much worse/better gore in film, but this is pretty impressive for a film as popular as it was.

I did have a bit of a problem with the romance in here. I don't mind romance if it's well done and believable but here it felt a bit unnatural. It felt forced and undeveloped, too fast perhaps. Which brings me to the general pacing of the film: I didn't like it. The pacing felt off. I guess it's because this is more of a thriller than the original so it went by much faster, but it just felt wrong. There was no build-up, and the character development never really took off enough to where you can sympathize much with them. Though towards the end there were some brief moments where I sympathized with the monster.

The appearance of the monster, or fly rather, or brundlefly rather, though it is an ever-changing appearance, is pretty good. Disturbing, sickening, and good. If you're not familiar with the film you'll probably be quite surprised by the appearance of the fly. And one of the great parts of the film is how we get to see the gradual change from man to monster.

There is an example of great use of shadows toward the end of the film which I can't say much about without spoiling. The only real nod I noticed towards the original film was that absurdly large metal sliding door.

The whole journalist character is something I really hate in films. It just seems so overdone and cliche. All journalists seem to be the same in films. Bleh.

Overall it is a worthy remake and a welcomed addition to the genre, though not nearly as amazing as the original.

Pros:

+Great effects

+Can be disturbing at times

Cons:

-Doesn't live up to the original

-Bad romance and character development

Remake of: The Fly (1958), Return of the Fly (1959), Curse of the Fly (1965)

Sequel: The Fly II

Purchase The Fly on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Stream

Trash Humpers (2009) Review

Director: Harmony Korine
Genre: Mockumentary, Black Comedy

Call this film a metaphor, an allegory, a spoof, a parody, a satire, call it what you'd like. It's very possible that is all of those things and more. Perhaps the only thing we can be absolutely sure it is is a film directed by Harmony Korine, the man best known for Gummo and Kids.

The director wanted this film to feel like a film that someone found in a ditch. I think that's a cool idea, no matter how silly it sounds. The film, often called an anti-film, has no structured plot. In fact, anything you know about films is thrown right out the window with this film, an accomplishment all on its own. Filmed with a far-from-HD camcorder, recording the lives of the oddest characters you'll ever see.

And yes, there is humping of trash in here. Did you expect there not to be?

I'm pretty sure the director's reason for having the film appear like a home video is to force the viewer to draw comparisons between the people in the film and the viewer's own family. The way I see it the film is one big allegory. The character's in the film, at first, seem completely abstract and absurd, humping trash, beating up dolls, so on and so forth. The reason behind this was probably so it has a greater effect when you realize just how similar they are.

Sure, most people aren't as blatantly racist or homophobic as the man with the neck and arm brace, but who is worse: the man who is openly prejudice or the man who is but pretends not to be? And sure, most people don't go into parking lots and smash televisions, but why not? Many people are well aware of the rot that television contributes to society.

Could the baby doll being beaten over the head be symbolic of parents or authority figures beating pseudo-facts and manipulated morals into people's minds from a young age? Could dragging baby dolls around on strings tied to the backs of bicycles in circles symbolize the stagnant state of human development? Or could dragging babies around tied to bicycles through the dirt show that many children have to suffer the same filth as their parents simply because their parents are filthy? After all, many racists are only racist because of their parents, same with homophobia, religion, and many other morals.

Does the soap on the pancakes reference the use of over-synthetic ingredients in many modern food products and how the vast majority willingly eat them? Does the part with one of the characters expressing their love to a fire hydrant imply how many people look at love in an artificial way and treat the opposite gender as inanimate objects?

Did the man dressed in a maid's outfit who spoke out against non-conformism represent freedom and did the killing of him represent war, and how nations and people tend to silence that which they disagree with?

I don't know, maybe. I think so. It depends how you want to interpret it. It depends if you want to interpret it at all, or just watch it and enjoy it. I think the characters in this film are just much more honest versions of ourselves. Showing the true colors of society. We're all just romanticized trash humpers in the end. Which raises the question: is honesty always the best?

"Heads, it would be nice to live without a head..."

This film is a gritty, scary, and even disgusting look into people and society, and those three adjectives can describe both perfectly. Perhaps the most truthful film, and perhaps the best example of a film being both abstract and foreign and familiar and recognizable all at the same time. 

OR it's just a really shitty film. Yeah, it's probably just a really shitty film. But then again it may also be the greatest film ever created...either way. I think this film is much deeper than the title may suggest. You could analyze or explain it however you please, but the film doesn't necessarily require an analysis or explanation to be enjoyed. 

Though there is no real soundtrack the characters often sing. I found the songs and spoken word parts to be the most enjoyable. After watching this you'll have "Three little devils jumped over the wall..." and "Make it, make it, don't fake it, fake it" stuck in your head for days.

I wouldn't say this is Harmony Korine's best film (and I've seen all of them) but it's a must watch for any fans of his, and you know what? I think this is a film that everyone should watch at least once. You'll either hate it or love it. But I guarantee it is unlike anything you've ever seen before. And that alone should warrant a viewing.

I've already seen it twice, once in theaters with a friend and once at home by myself. I will say it is a bit more enjoyable if you have a friend with you you can laugh with.

In conclusion, it seems like the director achieved his goal with this film. And at the very least he got a bunch of people to watch a film called Trash Humpers.

Purchase Trash Humpers on Amazon: DVD

Seconds (1966) Review

Director: John Frankenheimer
Stars: Rock Hudson, Salome Jens, John Randolph
Genre: Science fiction psychological thriller

What makes a film great? Great cinematography? Great plot? Great acting? Yes, yes, yes, among countless other things. Seconds has all these qualities and more, and in fact I can't really think of much Seconds does wrong.

The film follows a old man who realizes that his entire life was dull and pointless. He realized that he had done none of what he would have liked. He ends up at a company that offers to, at a price, fake his death and through vigorous plastic surgery make him a new identity. New face, new name, new life all together. So this man gets the operation and everyone he once knew (family, friends, co-workers) believes he died in a fire, when in reality he is living in a new home with a new face.

He encounters troubles and he eventually wants to change his face yet again, and give it another go. If there is one thing I'd wish this film did better, I wish they had focused more on the struggles of leaving one identity and becoming another. They didn't really focus all too much on this, and it seems it'd be an important part of a film like this. But, it's not much of a complaint being that what they did instead was still great.

"I couldn't help it, Charlie. I had to find out where I went wrong. The years I've spent trying to get all the things I was told were important - that I was supposed to want! Things! Not people... or meaning. Just things. And California was the same. They made the decisions for me all over again and they were the same things, really. It's going to be different from now on. A new face and a name. I'll do the rest. I know it's going to be different."

The cinematography is amazing, which is to be expected from the legendary James Wong Howe. I'd go as far as to say that the cinematography is the best part of the film. Each angle is chilling and twisted, each scene has a lingering sense of mystery and paranoia. Often it even feels surreal.

Visually, besides the great cinematography, it also has a very film noir look to it, visually and even in plot. All this creates a very intense atmosphere, almost trance-like and hypnotic, all which is complimented by a chilling soundtrack. 

Rock Hudson did a superb acting job, and though the character he plays could pretty much fit the mold of any film character of the time, it's still fun to watch.

There are some scenes that I'm sure will stick with me for quite some time, like the hippy wine party in the woods, or that abstract hallway. And how could you forget the bandaged face after surgery?

In conclusion Seconds is a superb film which makes good use of mystery and suspense, and can even be horrifying at times, not with shock but rather with great atmosphere. Combined with an intriguing plot and a satisfying ending, along with general greatness on nearly all fronts, you have yourself a very worthwhile film.

Pros:

+Strong plot

+Great cinematography

+Chilling atmosphere and score

Cons:

-A few, minor missed potentials

Purchase Seconds on Amazon: DVD - VHS - Stream