Change Your Image
thepringlegame
Reviews
Being John Malkovich (1999)
nobody fell asleep as least
I didn't really enjoy this film but then I didn't really hate it either. I have an exam in Experimental Cinema this afternoon and I thought this film may be of help and I'm glad I've seen it (for all that its hyped up anyway)
The lay out and lighting and general feel to the beginning of this film was untidy. I didn't like the way it reminded me of 'Eraserhead' where nothing makes sense but nothing is qustioned either. in fact there is very little communication throughout the whole film. Personally I like developed characters.
But then again, I don't particulary like surrealist films, which at the end of the day is what it is - the comedy is just a sub-genre if you like.
The point of surrealism is that there is no point. You're not meant to dig to deep into it because there is no calculated meaning. Un Chien Andelou is a perfect example of this. I can't do that though, I like meaning in films. I like things that I can understand so go figure.
However, before this film I hated John Malkovich because I had only seen him playing the retard, Lenny in Of Mice and Men (and the prospect of watching a film ABOUT him wasn't very tempting) but now I find him quite attractive. so I give John Malkovich a 4/5 but BEING John Malkovich 2/5
Natural Born Killers (1994)
Different and yet the same
I have friends who love these films - NBK, Kill Bill, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Pulp Fiction and so on. They say they love the way it's different and origonal and so I point out that it's becoming rapidly common to see films shot on different mm reels. They tell me that the whole ensence of these films are amazing. I ask why and they gush about the flashbacks, the animation, the tackyness which makes it so sophisticated.
I'm confused, tacky is tacky to me. I liked Dusk Till Dawn - it was true to Tarranteno, for who he was at the time. now he is the favourite director of age groups 12-17 and extremely rich. His new innovation, Kill Bill, has not evolved except the special effects are extrodinary.
Me? i like the good old films that do not confuse me with a chop in time and where the characters are well developed. The beginning middle and end are very important too.
Troy (2004)
Hollywood F**** up everything
Spoilers
somehow it didn't bother David Beneioff that he changed the entire course of history. this is how it really went for those of you who actually want the truth:
Helen was given to Paris by Venus because in a contest between her, Athena and Juno he chose Venus as the most beautiful woman.
The siege lasted 10 years in actual fact NOT 16 DAYS as Hollywood would have you believe.
Paris dies (of course) and Helen marries ANOTHER Trojan during the 10 YEAR war(dirty B***) who she then betrays to her 1st husband, Menalaus.
Helen goes back to rule Mycenae with her husband Menalaus - though Hollywood decided to kill Menelaus 30 minutes into the film - the biggest let down I think.
Agamemnon goes back to his wife, Clytaementestra, after the war but she kills him because killed their daughter Iphengenia 10 year previously and Clytaementestra was a little p***ed at this - NOTE Agamemenon was not killed by some girl who did not exist in the legend.
Achillies never fell in love with this made up girl and his 'cousin' was actually his lover.
Priam dies at an alter with his wife Hecabe and watches his son get killed by Achillies son.
Aeneas (the boy at the end) later goes on to found Italy after Troy falls.
The wooden horse didn't feature in the Illiad.
HOWEVER: Brian Cox's portrayal of Agamemnon was brilliant. The scene between Achillies and Hector was near enough spot on. that was all i liked.
The Sinister Urge (1960)
urgh
its true, this film is one of the worst i have seen yet that Ed Wood did. i will never get that hour and 11min back. once again there was the on going repetition of police, baddies, women in distress, cross dressing and insightful wisdom from our elders. however, the stock fotage was minimal so big up. i am beginning to realise that once you've seen one Ed Wood film, you have as good as seen the rest. it makes me wonder why people who knock his films continue to hunt down new ones. it makes me wonder why i still watch them. i think Ed Wood was a man who lived, made films, lived his life happily and then died probably happy despite being an alcohlic and penniless. to be honest i don't think he cares anymore, why should we?
The Bride and the Beast (1958)
an attempt nonetheless
i was pleasently surprised at the first half an hour of this film. i was expected the usual hand held cameras, dodgy acting, minimum scene listing etc. i came to the conclusion that this film must have been made later into Ed Woods career until i looked at the box and saw it predates Plan 9. granted the stock safari footage later in the film and the impression we get that Ed Wood forgot his own plot during the indian tiger's sequence, this film i would rate higher than the rest of his other works. underneath all that is bad you can genuinely see that he had a vision.