The Man Comes Around
"Fuck what you know. You need to forget about what you know, that's your problem. Forget about what you think you know about life, about friendship, and especially about you and me."
Hey, look! I finally wrote something about films that I LIKE. This was going to be a part one rather than a stand-alone post, but seeing as it took me a week to write this entry, I think I'll just leave it alone until the next time I feel like it. Needless to say, these are not the only three films I have ever liked, more the beginning of a much longer list.
La Haine (1995)
Starring: Vincent Kassel, Hubert Koundé, Saïd Taghmaoui, Abdel Ahmed Ghili. Director: Mathieu Kassovitz.
La What?
La Haine. It means 'Hate'. Like the rest of the film, it's French.
Oh no. Subtitles?
I'm afraid so. It's black and white, too.
Way to start the list with some intellectual 'art' movie, dumbass.
It's not an art movie. It's a simple yet hard-hitting tale about racism and poverty, and the hatred and violence they breed. It just happens to be low-budget and French.
Will I know anyone in it?
Vincent Kassel's been in lots of things. He was the voice of Monsieur Hood in Shrek. Mathieu Kassovitz is probably more famous as an actor than a writer/director. He was in The Fifth Element and Amelie.
Rate this Kassovitz fella, do you?
On the basis of this film, yes. La Haine is built around the very slim premise of three friends finding a gun. This event occurs in the wake of a sixteen-year-old boy being beaten almost to death by police. The estate the three come from is on the brink of a riot, and tensions are high. The film simply follows their journey through the shabbier parts of Paris and their confrontations with the police, skinheads, and the middle class. The lack of colour and the raw, natural performances of the leads give the impression that the viewer is only one step removed from watching a documentary. You will be drawn quickly and powerfully into their lives, and when the film's shocking denouement comes, you will feel it.
Feel it?
I cried the first time. I really cried. The closing monologue will haunt you.
Anything else we need to know?
Nope. Just track it down.
---
Fight Club (1999)
Starring: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter. Director: David Fincher.
But EVERYONE's seen this, and EVERYONE likes it.
So? It's good.
What makes it good?
Well, the screenplay is an extremely underrated adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's second best novel. I'm of the opinion that screenwriter Jim Uhls did an absolutely fantastic job making Palahniuk's black humour just that little bit more accessible and quotable. Fincher's direction just fills in the blanks. What you end up with is a mainstream film with its roots very much planted in somewhat darker territory. It's extremely subversive, but that aspect is somewhat counteracted by the spirit of the age, which leans towards irony and knowing humour.
Oh.
I forgive Fight Club for several instances of that because it's done in an intelligent and subtle fashion, unlike, say, the Charlie's Angels movies, which are 'knowing' in the same sense that if someone points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, you know you're going to get shot. McG knows how to make a really long advert, but he's clearly lost when it comes to things like structure and characterisation, never mind more complex concepts like irony and satire. And what kind of FUCKING PRICK has a three letter name that features no vowels and both begins and ends with a capital letter anyway? What the fuck is going on with this fucking guy?
Uh...Michael? No more ranting?
BUT HE'S REMAKING REVENGE OF THE NERDS!
You're joking.
I'm not.
Motherfucker.
Told you. But anyway, Fight Club...
You like the original novel, the adaptation, and the direction. How about the performances?
Edward Norton is awesome as always. Ed can pretty much do no wrong. And what's this? Fincher squeezes another decent performance out of the mannequin that is Brad Pitt. Two in one lifetime must have been too much for the poor guy. He's hasn't lifted his head from the ocean of suck he inhabits for a long while. The rest do okay. I like Helena Bonham Carter, but her part was a difficult one.
How so?
It's a male movie. There's just nothing feminine there. It's about a kind of anomie that's almost exclusively male. I know plenty of females that like this film, but then I quite liked The Bell Jar. Doesn't mean I identified with it. Bonham Carter is a good actress, but the character of Marla is even weaker than in the novel. She seems like an afterthought.
Anything else?
Yes. The soundtrack is fantastic.
If you could fight any celebrity, who would you fight?
Avril Lavigne.
---
Dawn Of The Dead (1978)
Starring: David Emgee, Ken Foree, Scott Reiniger, Gaylen Ross. Director: George A. Romero.
Ooh, I've seen this.
You've seen the remake.
Whatever. Best use of Johnny Cash in a movie ever.
Agreed, but that's the only thing it has over the original.
What's the difference?
How long do you have?
As long as you need, Michael. You made me up as a device to get around the fact that you were having problems writing straight reviews.
Oh...right. Well, firstly, you should know that I am a leading authority on zombies. In fact, my very next 'Secrets Of...' post may very well concern the undead. The remake of DOTD broke a lot of rules as far as reanimated corpse behaviour is concerned, and that didn't sit well with a traditionalist like me. For example, zombies do NOT run.
They don't?
Of course not. They shamble. And they moan. And they bump into stuff. How they get you is not by being faster, it's by sheer weight of numbers. Sure, the 2004 zombies might have been able to deliver those quick shocks that seem to drive horror movies along these days, but they were nothing like as unsettling as Romero's. And Romero's zombies had...well...personality.
Personality.
Right. You could watch the '78 Dawn Of The Dead and then we could have a conversation in which I could refer to individual zombies. You would know what I meant when I mentioned the Hare Krishna zombie or the gun-stealing zombie. In the 2004 version, they're just a horde of bodies. They're also mostly computer-generated. That's a metaphor for something, but I can't be bothered to shape it into the sledgehammer I've been attempting to beat people about the head with for the last six years.
The remake has Ving Rhames, though.
Hey, I'm all for Ving Rhames, but he doesn't even get close to Ken Foree. Rhames is almost certainly the better actor, but Foree, as Peter, had a great character and a great script to play with. The original DOTD centres around only four characters, all of whom you get to know intimately over the course of the film. You care about them and you want to know how things turn out. Romero takes his time getting there, too. It's not about snappy cuts and one-liners and shots where you can't tell what's CGI and what isn't. It's telling a story.
But it's pretty low budget, right? And it's nearly twenty seven years old.
Yes, and it looks both. It's a cult movie for a reason, and I think that's the odd mixture of what it does well (the story, the characters, the direction), and what it doesn't (handmade special effects, poor picture and sound, occasionally horrendous editing, incidences of very bad acting, particularly from David Emge as Stephen). There's also some criminal hair. But if the downside of low budget film making is going to turn you away, then you may as well go watch Mean Girls and get the fuck out of my face. There's nothing for you here.
Okay. How about the soundtrack?
Magnificently strange, mixing tracks by Italian prog rockers Goblin with creepy seventies mall muzak. It's not something you'd ever sit and listen to, but it's unique to say the least, and it fits the film perfectly. I'd buy it, but then I'm a total nerd for this flick, as I'm sure you've noticed.
God. Collectors editions and everything?
Damn straight. I have the collectors editions of all three 'dead' movies, as well as the two accompanying documentaries.
You sad, sad man. So it's a trilogy. If we're gonna watch this one, should we watch the rest, too? And why is this the best?
It is a trilogy, yes. Dawn... is essentially the filling in the sandwich, with the EXTREMELY low budget Night Of The Living Dead (1968) preceding and the rather graphic Day Of The Dead (1985) following. To get Romero's apocalyptic fantasy in its entirety, you should watch all three. I strongly recommend the whole trilogy to anybody who likes a good story and isn't put off by gore. Dawn Of The Dead is the best of the three because it's the most complete, I think. I love the characters, the setting, the story...everything. And there are days when I am quite sure that it's my favourite movie of all time. I can't wait for Land Of The Dead.
Hey, look! I finally wrote something about films that I LIKE. This was going to be a part one rather than a stand-alone post, but seeing as it took me a week to write this entry, I think I'll just leave it alone until the next time I feel like it. Needless to say, these are not the only three films I have ever liked, more the beginning of a much longer list.
La Haine (1995)
Starring: Vincent Kassel, Hubert Koundé, Saïd Taghmaoui, Abdel Ahmed Ghili. Director: Mathieu Kassovitz.
La What?
La Haine. It means 'Hate'. Like the rest of the film, it's French.
Oh no. Subtitles?
I'm afraid so. It's black and white, too.
Way to start the list with some intellectual 'art' movie, dumbass.
It's not an art movie. It's a simple yet hard-hitting tale about racism and poverty, and the hatred and violence they breed. It just happens to be low-budget and French.
Will I know anyone in it?
Vincent Kassel's been in lots of things. He was the voice of Monsieur Hood in Shrek. Mathieu Kassovitz is probably more famous as an actor than a writer/director. He was in The Fifth Element and Amelie.
Rate this Kassovitz fella, do you?
On the basis of this film, yes. La Haine is built around the very slim premise of three friends finding a gun. This event occurs in the wake of a sixteen-year-old boy being beaten almost to death by police. The estate the three come from is on the brink of a riot, and tensions are high. The film simply follows their journey through the shabbier parts of Paris and their confrontations with the police, skinheads, and the middle class. The lack of colour and the raw, natural performances of the leads give the impression that the viewer is only one step removed from watching a documentary. You will be drawn quickly and powerfully into their lives, and when the film's shocking denouement comes, you will feel it.
Feel it?
I cried the first time. I really cried. The closing monologue will haunt you.
Anything else we need to know?
Nope. Just track it down.
---
Fight Club (1999)
Starring: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter. Director: David Fincher.
But EVERYONE's seen this, and EVERYONE likes it.
So? It's good.
What makes it good?
Well, the screenplay is an extremely underrated adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's second best novel. I'm of the opinion that screenwriter Jim Uhls did an absolutely fantastic job making Palahniuk's black humour just that little bit more accessible and quotable. Fincher's direction just fills in the blanks. What you end up with is a mainstream film with its roots very much planted in somewhat darker territory. It's extremely subversive, but that aspect is somewhat counteracted by the spirit of the age, which leans towards irony and knowing humour.
Oh.
I forgive Fight Club for several instances of that because it's done in an intelligent and subtle fashion, unlike, say, the Charlie's Angels movies, which are 'knowing' in the same sense that if someone points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, you know you're going to get shot. McG knows how to make a really long advert, but he's clearly lost when it comes to things like structure and characterisation, never mind more complex concepts like irony and satire. And what kind of FUCKING PRICK has a three letter name that features no vowels and both begins and ends with a capital letter anyway? What the fuck is going on with this fucking guy?
Uh...Michael? No more ranting?
BUT HE'S REMAKING REVENGE OF THE NERDS!
You're joking.
I'm not.
Motherfucker.
Told you. But anyway, Fight Club...
You like the original novel, the adaptation, and the direction. How about the performances?
Edward Norton is awesome as always. Ed can pretty much do no wrong. And what's this? Fincher squeezes another decent performance out of the mannequin that is Brad Pitt. Two in one lifetime must have been too much for the poor guy. He's hasn't lifted his head from the ocean of suck he inhabits for a long while. The rest do okay. I like Helena Bonham Carter, but her part was a difficult one.
How so?
It's a male movie. There's just nothing feminine there. It's about a kind of anomie that's almost exclusively male. I know plenty of females that like this film, but then I quite liked The Bell Jar. Doesn't mean I identified with it. Bonham Carter is a good actress, but the character of Marla is even weaker than in the novel. She seems like an afterthought.
Anything else?
Yes. The soundtrack is fantastic.
If you could fight any celebrity, who would you fight?
Avril Lavigne.
---
Dawn Of The Dead (1978)
Starring: David Emgee, Ken Foree, Scott Reiniger, Gaylen Ross. Director: George A. Romero.
Ooh, I've seen this.
You've seen the remake.
Whatever. Best use of Johnny Cash in a movie ever.
Agreed, but that's the only thing it has over the original.
What's the difference?
How long do you have?
As long as you need, Michael. You made me up as a device to get around the fact that you were having problems writing straight reviews.
Oh...right. Well, firstly, you should know that I am a leading authority on zombies. In fact, my very next 'Secrets Of...' post may very well concern the undead. The remake of DOTD broke a lot of rules as far as reanimated corpse behaviour is concerned, and that didn't sit well with a traditionalist like me. For example, zombies do NOT run.
They don't?
Of course not. They shamble. And they moan. And they bump into stuff. How they get you is not by being faster, it's by sheer weight of numbers. Sure, the 2004 zombies might have been able to deliver those quick shocks that seem to drive horror movies along these days, but they were nothing like as unsettling as Romero's. And Romero's zombies had...well...personality.
Personality.
Right. You could watch the '78 Dawn Of The Dead and then we could have a conversation in which I could refer to individual zombies. You would know what I meant when I mentioned the Hare Krishna zombie or the gun-stealing zombie. In the 2004 version, they're just a horde of bodies. They're also mostly computer-generated. That's a metaphor for something, but I can't be bothered to shape it into the sledgehammer I've been attempting to beat people about the head with for the last six years.
The remake has Ving Rhames, though.
Hey, I'm all for Ving Rhames, but he doesn't even get close to Ken Foree. Rhames is almost certainly the better actor, but Foree, as Peter, had a great character and a great script to play with. The original DOTD centres around only four characters, all of whom you get to know intimately over the course of the film. You care about them and you want to know how things turn out. Romero takes his time getting there, too. It's not about snappy cuts and one-liners and shots where you can't tell what's CGI and what isn't. It's telling a story.
But it's pretty low budget, right? And it's nearly twenty seven years old.
Yes, and it looks both. It's a cult movie for a reason, and I think that's the odd mixture of what it does well (the story, the characters, the direction), and what it doesn't (handmade special effects, poor picture and sound, occasionally horrendous editing, incidences of very bad acting, particularly from David Emge as Stephen). There's also some criminal hair. But if the downside of low budget film making is going to turn you away, then you may as well go watch Mean Girls and get the fuck out of my face. There's nothing for you here.
Okay. How about the soundtrack?
Magnificently strange, mixing tracks by Italian prog rockers Goblin with creepy seventies mall muzak. It's not something you'd ever sit and listen to, but it's unique to say the least, and it fits the film perfectly. I'd buy it, but then I'm a total nerd for this flick, as I'm sure you've noticed.
God. Collectors editions and everything?
Damn straight. I have the collectors editions of all three 'dead' movies, as well as the two accompanying documentaries.
You sad, sad man. So it's a trilogy. If we're gonna watch this one, should we watch the rest, too? And why is this the best?
It is a trilogy, yes. Dawn... is essentially the filling in the sandwich, with the EXTREMELY low budget Night Of The Living Dead (1968) preceding and the rather graphic Day Of The Dead (1985) following. To get Romero's apocalyptic fantasy in its entirety, you should watch all three. I strongly recommend the whole trilogy to anybody who likes a good story and isn't put off by gore. Dawn Of The Dead is the best of the three because it's the most complete, I think. I love the characters, the setting, the story...everything. And there are days when I am quite sure that it's my favourite movie of all time. I can't wait for Land Of The Dead.
posted by Michael at 6:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home