Change Your Image
luckybucksproductions
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Barbie (2023)
Now I am become death, destroyer of the patriarchy
(Note: I highly recommend seeing both this film and Oppenheimer as a double feature. Both are heavy handed films that have characters going through an existential crisis and are consumed with thoughts of death. You would think these two films have nothing in common, but I'm dead serious - no pun intended.)
When your film has your narrator saying the word "feminism" in the first five minutes, you know it's going to be problematic.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with feminism and I consider myself a feminist. Some of my favorite films have feminist characters. I knew going in this film was going to be woke. I just didn't realize how woke till I saw it, which was kind of a disappointment anyway.
First off, don't let the cutesy pink marketing fool you. This is not a film for kids, but that happens quite a lot in Hollywood. For example, Drop Dead Fred was a film I saw when I was 10, but it was really for adults. But at least it wasn't woke. I felt kind of sorry for the little girls I saw wearing their pretty pink outfits and dresses knowing that probably much of the preaching against the patriarchy and lack of genitalia jokes were going to go over their heads.
Yep. I said what I said. It only gets worse from there.
Margot Robbie plays the titular Barbie who lives in Barbieland with all her fellow Barbies that can do it all and have it all. The Kens are kind of just...there. The main Ken played by Ryan Gosling, gets tired of being from friend zoned and taken for granted by Barbie. When Barbie starts to have thoughts of her own mortality, has flat feet, and cellulite, she is advised by Kate McKinnon (one of the few bright spots in the film as Weird Barbie) to go to the Real World to find the girl who's playing with her and make everything right. Ken decides to stow away in Barbie's pink Corvette. Both of them discover the Real World is not what it seems.
My biggest problem with this film was the constant preachiness, especially when Barbie and Ken go to the Real World, and it never really stops from there. I resented Greta Gerwig for "giving the game away". There's a way to talk about feminism without hammering it over the head and alienating half your audience, in this case men, but I doubt many men will see it. It's like that South Park episode when Randy makes a musical that explicitly talks about oral sex until he is advised to tone it down and hide the message in subtext. That's what Gerwig and her partner Noah Baumbach should have done with the story. This is a film that definitely skews toward a female audience. It needed to be more subtle with the messaging. I would have preferred a fun, silly, colorful Barbie film rather than having a woke agenda pushed on me. Unfortunately, that's the direction Hollywood seems to have embraced these days.
However, the visuals were bright, fun, and colorful along with the hairstyles and wardrobe. I liked that they filmed in the Venice Beach Boardwalk and other areas around LA. Despite the diversity of the cast, my mom was unhappy that she didn't see a Hispanic Barbie and Ken (even though we saw a white, black, and Asian Ken). If there were any in the cast, I didn't see them. America Ferreira and her daughter are indeed Latina, but that wasn't enough for her. She does have a point, though, but we could be wrong and missed them. Will Ferrell is wasted as the CEO of Mattel, but I don't care for him anyway, so it didn't really matter that I didn't see him much. Rhea Perlman did have a nice little part as the creator of Barbie, Ruth Handler.
This film was very strange and I felt kind of alienated by it. Plus, the last scene of the film was anticlimactic and totally bizarre. I get the good intentions by the filmmakers, but it was way too preachy for me. Legally Blonde was the closest to a Barbie film up until this point and it was a feminist film that never felt like it was preaching to its audience. Elle Woods was a blonde Barbie type character who was underestimated because of her looks, but manages to showcase her intelligence and strength as a successful lawyer without the message of the story becoming too heavy handed and retaining the lighthearted playfulness throughout, which is what Barbie is missing. I think I'll just stick to that film instead.
M3GAN (2022)
A clever satire about the fear and obsession with technology
The trope of mankind's fear of technology run amok goes all the way back to the silent days to what is most likely one of the first, if not the first sci-fi film to explore this, Fritz Lang's excellent Metropolis. Coincidentally, that also features an evil female robot. Sci-fi is not one of my top favorite genres, but whenever I do see one I like, it usually reflects whatever time period it's made in. And that's how I approached M3gan when I watched it, more sci-fi than horror, but make no mistake - there's just enough violence to keep things interesting. Yes, there are comparisons to Child's Play, Annabelle (also produced by James Wan, who produced this film), and Terminator, but M3gan has such a distinctive look and meme-worthy moments that she can stand on her own. (Props to the two actresses who played M3gan along with the vfx and puppetry!)
Cady (a stand out performance by newcomer Violet McGraw) loses her parents in a car accident and becomes an orphan. Her aunt Gemma (Allison Williams) takes her in and being a single woman focused on her career, she is unprepared to bring up a child. She works as a robotic engineer at a toy company in Seattle called Funki with her two co-workers, Tess and Cole, to develop a secret project called M3gan. Unfortunately, when Gemma shows the prototype to her demanding boss, David, he chews her out and she almost gives up on the project. When Gemma finally makes an emotional connection with her niece, she successfully completes M3gan. But as we have seen from the trailers, over the course of the film M3gan goes from sweet and loveable to a terrifying Terminator like monster.
I think the film succeeds by showing the disconnect between Cady and her parents and with Gemma. In the opening scene of the film Cady plays with an AI like furby toy on her tablet (which Funki has created). Her parents seem to use it as a babysitter in a similar manner that Gemma uses M3gan at first to take care of Cady. It shows how an overdependence on technology can alienate us from our family and friends. Just because we live in a digital world where all these electronic devices can manage our tasks and makes life easier doesn't mean we should neglect the ones we love.
The filmmakers also succeeded in dealing with the subjects of grief, loss of a parent or parents at a young age, and childhood trauma. Both Gemma and Cady escape through technology instead of dealing with their trauma head on. Gemma having lost her sister and Cady, her mother and father. This is definitely a female led film and I liked all the scenes between Williams and McGraw.
I don't know what time period the story was set in, but I want to guess the near future. AI and automation are here to stay and this film is not far off from the truth. It's kind of scary if you think about it. Technology is imperfect because humans are also imperfect. There is and always will be a real fear that technology will go too far. That's why there needs to be a balance of using our devices when needed and not being glued to them to distract ourselves from the world around us. I'm guilty of that too, many of us are.
If I had to critique anything it would be a lack of character development with the supporting roles and the minor ones seemed like stock characters. I would have liked to have seen more behind the scenes at Gemma's job, the pressures from the corporate goons behind Funki, more of why David is so abusive, why Kurt the nerd puts up with so much crappy treatment from his boss. I think the filmmakers were deliberately trying not to make us feel anything for the people who die, which is common in horror. There was a strange part of me that kind of rooted for M3gan during her killing sprees, not gonna lie! She is pretty fierce! Although some things in the story were predictable, there were other times when I gasped at what M3gan said or did. Even though I mentioned earlier that I felt the level of violence was sufficient enough, it would be great to see the unrated version of the film that the MPAA thought was too violent. I'm curious to know what exactly was cut out.
I think this film is worth checking out. I read there is going to be a sequel, M3gan 2.0, and I am so ready for it! I definitely know what my Halloween costume will be this year.
New Wave Hookers (1985)
A bizarre 80s time capsule of erotic performance art
I have known about this movie for years, but I wasn't really curious about seeing it until recently. I listened to a couple of podcasts. One was by Projection Booth and the other was an interview with director Gregory Dark, both featuring porn historian Ashley West of The Rialto Report. I would recommend listening to them either before or after you watch the film to give yourself some behind the scenes context.
The plot is simple. Two slacker friends, Jamal (Jack Baker) and Jimmy (Jamie Gillis) are hanging out drinking beer and watching porn one night. They believe their lives would be better if they could be pimps and open a crazy escort agency called New Wave Hookers, Inc. The theory is that the women working for their agency would get turned on by listening to New Wave music and they would get all the sex from them that they want. They fall asleep and the majority of the film is their fever dream about the various women who service their clients as well as themselves in their office. Steve Powers played Dog, who has telepathic powers to sense when the phone rings. He is literally like their pet. One wonders how much of the budget was spent on coke when you think about these types of characters.
Despite the absurd premise, I actually liked this film as a whole because the Dark Bros were doing something different that no one else was doing at the time in adult films. They would show up at their premieres dressed up as pimps and declared that "porn is dead". Even though they are unseen, the Dark Bros are just as much as part of the film as the performers due to their surrealistic vision. As a result, this film established the alt porn genre.
The camaraderie between Jimmy, Jamal, and Dog was funny at times in a sophomoric way. My favorite scenes were the opening scene where we are introduced to the hookers to the tune of "Electrify Me" by The Plugz, the threesome scene in the office with Desiree Lane wearing roller skates (which might have been Paul Thomas Anderson's inspiration for Rollergirl in Boogie Nights), another threesome scene with Peter North as a sheik with Brooke Fields and Kimberly Carson, and the big orgy at the end. The orgy was staged in a cool way because the three ladies (Kristara Barrington, Desiree Lane, and Gina Ferrera) are tied up to a big red wheel. They were left there for a while listening to the New Wave music and were more than ready to take part in the action with Jimmy, Dog, and Jamal. Two corrupt vice cops played by Greg Rome and Steve Drake soon decided to join in as well. Not sure why they were added, but I figured it was probably just an excuse to add more studs to the scene. There's elements of BDSM in this film and Kristara takes the most of it.
The female performers had that great 80s look with big hair, colorful makeup, and a funky wardrobe. The women had more natural bodies than the performers of today, which made them hotter, in my opinion. The sets were interesting and creative, reminiscent of the music videos that MTV were playing at the time. The direction, cinematography, and editing were done very well and it was shot on film instead of video. I also enjoyed the eclectic soundtrack and it's understandable why the women would be aroused to the music. But I love the 80s aesthetic and music anyway.
What I didn't like. My least favorite scene was with Kristara Barrington as Kammy, Dog, and Jimmy. It was another scene in the office again and I felt like it was redundant and ridiculous. It was decidedly unsexy when Jimmy gobbled up a bunch of sushi while Jamal was - er - servicing Kammy on the desk. This scene did nothing for me.
Much has been made of Ginger Lynn's DP scene with the two college nerds played by Tom Byron and Steve Powers in a double role. As much as I think Ginger is hot, I have seen so many scenes like this over the years that I thought it was just okay. I can see why it caused a sensation back in the day, though.
This film is also infamous because of the scandal involving Traci Lords. She was underage when she shot her scene as The Devil with Rick Cassidy as The Angel, who was in his 40s at the time. As a result her scene was cut out. In the Projection Booth podcast they mentioned that thematically the scene didn't fit with the rest of the film so cutting it out didn't impact the story.
I can see how this film will offend some people because of its racial sterotypes and the way the women are portrayed, as willing sex objects who are controlled by the guys playing New Wave music. On the contrary, the women seemed dominant and in control of their sexuality to me, but that's just my opinion. Strangely enough, I wasn't that offended by it. The two male lead characters are losers anyway and I expected them to talk and act the way they did. Plus, the majority of the film was their shared dream. I had to keep reminding myself of that because I noticed continuity errors like how did they get their clothes off so fast. I didn't take anything too seriously because I also thought about the time period it was made. This was the 80s and the pop culture of the time tended to be cheesy, campy, and over the top. Dark had a thing about addressing racial issues in his films and he mentioned that in the podcast as well.
The end is a hoot because we are left thinking, "Was it really a dream?" Just perverse fun from beginning to end.
If you love vintage porn, you should definitely check this one out.
Nope (2022)
The Beauty and Terror of the Spectacle
Once again director/writer/producer Jordan Peele has subverted audiences' expectations with his neo-western sci-fi film Nope (which is meant to be an acronym for Not Of Planet Earth). After the death of their Hollywood horse trainer father, Daniel Kaluuya's character OJ and his sister Emerald, played by Keke Palmer, struggle to hold onto their family business. They sell off their horses to a former child actor Ricky "Jupe" Park, who exploits his traumatic past for profit at a western themed UFO amusement park.
If this sounds crazy and bizarre, well, we know that Peele is the master of these types of stories. Nope is no Get Out (nothing could ever top that), but I did like this film better than Us. The alien in this story is not what you think it is, which is another thing I liked about it. It's slow at times, but Peele is all about taking his time and making the audience think about how all the pieces of the film come together like a puzzle, but still leaves you thinking about it long after the credits have rolled.
The cinematography and VFX create a dark, eerie atmosphere that heightens the tension along with an amazing score. Kaluuya gives an understated performance as OJ and Palmer is the annoying, yet spunky younger sister who acts as his foil. The supporting characters of Angel, the Fry's Electronics tech and Antlers Holst, the cinematographer with a dark side, are also fun to watch as they go on this dangerous mission with OJ and Emerald to capture the UFO on film.
I kept thinking about the symbolism of this film and I couldn't quite put my finger on it till I looked up reviews of it. The major themes of Nope are exploitation, erasure of people of color from Hollywood cinema, and spectacle, how it's human nature to be fascinated by drama. Plus there's tons of Easter eggs and references to other films.
My mom and I liked that the film took a different approach than what we're used to seeing on screen about aliens. I look forward to seeing more of Peele's work in the future.
The Menu (2022)
Us vs. Them - Social Class Issues, Revenge, Obsession, and More
This film had me thinking about it long after I watched it with my mom. There's a lot of symbolism and themes to unpack. It's one of the best films I've seen this year with its tight direction, sharp, witty screenplay, production design, and performances, particularly from Ralph Fiennes and Anya Taylor-Joy. The rest of the supporting cast also did a fine job bringing these privileged elitist characters to life. They represent everything wrong with the restaurant industry.
Taylor-Joy plays Margot, who accompanies her date Tyler to an exclusive high end restaurant called Hawthorne where Chef Julian Slowik (Fiennes) commands his staff with intimidating and military like precision. Tyler is an obsessed foodie stan and know-it-all who desperately wants the chef to like him and impress him with his gastronomical knowledge when he does anything but. The other diners include a narcisstic food critic who has so much power with her reviews to make or break a chef's career, her sycophantic editor, a washed up actor and his personal assistant/girlfriend that uses the excuse to go on the date to break things off, three annoying tech bro investors that have a stake in the restaurant as well as shady business dealings, and a wealthy businessman and his enabling, passive wife who are regular diners at Hawthorne, but are unappreciative of the cuisine.
From the moment the diners step onto the island, we know something is not quite right. The beach is full of sharp, giant pieces of driftwood that are at once beautiful and threatening, just like the atmosphere of the restaurant, Slowik's private cottage, and the food itself. The text that appears on the screen highlights every course that is served throughout the film with dark humor and foreboding as the evening progresses into an absurdist, full-fledged nightmare. A high end restaurant is a different kind of setting for a suspense thriller/horror film, but if you think about it, sometimes those expensive luxury restaurants can be intimidating. I have to give props to the cinematographer and production design team for making the food look spectacular, even the final dish at the end.
Slowik's right hand woman and maitre'd Elsa enforces the rules of this strange evening with a creepiness and undying devotion that makes you think she's just as cuckoo as her boss, who has completely drank the Kool-Aid and is besotted with him. On the surface, the rest of the staff appear to be the same, but if I have any kind of critique about this film, it would be to add more details about why these people who work for him are slavishly devoted to this psychopathic, yet brilliant chef. Have they been tricked or coerced into being there? Are they all being forced to work at this place against their will? As the audience we have to fill in the blanks as the film never specifically spells it out. It is left to us to speculate why they are there and why they don't choose to leave, as well as the diners that make up the ensemble in this twisted performance art.
At one point, Slowik presents a young sous chef named Jeremy before the guests, saying he's from Sparks, NV (I had to chuckle at that) and he wrote a letter asking if he could work at Hawthorne as it was his dream. I won't spoil it for you, but I get the sense that Slowik manipulated these young, impressionable chefs into doing his bidding for him in order to puff up his own ego. Fiennes also adds another layer to his character because he recognizes his own sins and wants to atone for them. He despises the guests for their privilege and wealth, but also himself for what he has also become. Each of them are being punished by Slowik for their sins as revealed with every course. Slowik was once happy cooking for people, but as he became more successful, that pleasure slowly faded away.
He is desperately looking for honesty from someone and strangely enough, it comes from Margot. She represents the audience, an outsider looking in, a fish out of water (if we're talking about food analogies) who is a stranger to this world, but also has a great deal in common with the chef, as they both work in the service industry. We find out what kind of service she provides and after her confession to the chef, a sense of trust builds between them that she uses to her advantage, as she is not easily intimidated by him like the other people around her. This gives her a sense of power over him that he hasn't gotten from anyone and that's why he bends over backwards to please her. I loved the conflict and tension Fiennes and Taylor-Joy created in their scenes and I was glad to see that they have both been nominated for Golden Globes for their performances. I hope more nominations come for both of them as they were excellent in their roles.
When I mentioned to someone I was going to see this film, she asked me if I knew what it was about. I said I had an idea because I worked in food service before and she shook her head and said it didn't have much to do with the food service industry. I disagree because after seeing this film, I have much more respect for people who work in food service than ever before. At the very least this should teach us not to take chefs and servers for granted as they work very hard at their craft and it can be a thankless job.
This film had me on the edge of my seat from beginning to end. I was quite emotional and cried through most of it. Unlike some horror movies, even though most of the characters were largely unsympathetic, I felt sorry for them to some degree. We really do get to know all of them and that is mark of a great film, no matter what the genre. If you make us feel something for these characters and see them as human, despite their flaws, then you have the recipe for something brilliant (pun intended).
You don't have to be a foodie to enjoy this film. Just go see it if you can stomach it.
Don't Worry Darling (2022)
Not much here to "worry" about
The onset drama between director Olivia Wilde and her cast got me curious enough to see this film. Plus, the trailers about the utopian 50s company town Victory gave me a Stepford Wives vibe. Yes, it has shades of that here and there, but it reminded me more of films like Get Out, The Matrix, Serenity, and The Truman Show, to name a few, about an existence that is too good to be true that has something dark and sinister lurking underneath the surface.
Florence Pugh plays Alice, a typical suburban housewife and Harry Styles plays her husband Jack. Olivia Wilde herself has a supporting role as Alice's best friend Bunny and Nick Kroll plays her husband Dean. The wives wave their husbands off to work every morning and their days are filled with household chores, shopping, and ballet lessons for some odd reason. Behind the Victory Project is Frank, gleefully played by Chris Pine, who should do more villain roles. As soon as he came into frame he immediately radiated the charisma and slick charm of a cult leader. Gemma Chan from Crazy Rich Asians plays his wife Shelley, who is a kind of enforcer of authority among the wives.
From the moment Alice sees something she shouldn't have in the middle of the desert outside Victory, she has strange visions (including a Busby Berkeley army of chorus girls that look beautiful and impressive, but don't really make sense in this story, among other things). Another housewife, Margaret, had the same visions, but is not believed at first. Margaret mysteriously disappears and once that happens, the story is about Alice trying to figure out what's really behind the Victory Project. It's too bad Margaret and her husband (as a couple of color) got their roles significantly cut from the film.
This is really Pugh's movie and she shines as Alice, giving us the right amount of fear, paranoia, and horror as she uncovers the truth. Harry Styles is still pretty green as an actor, but I didn't think he was as bad as some critics made him out to be. There were some people in the back of the theater that laughed and snickered during his dramatic moments, and I felt bad for him. Unless you knock it out of the park with your acting chops (Lady Gaga comes to mind), people can only accept you strictly as a singer or an actor, but not both. Styles does a mean tap dance in this film. I can see why his concerts are so popular. However, I couldn't help but think about how Shia Lebeouf (who was originally cast as Jack) could have pulled off a better performance. Say whatever you like about his personal life, but you cannot deny that he is a seasoned actor. The chemistry between Pugh and Styles was good, they did make a cute couple in the early scenes of the film before things go wrong.
This is only Wilde's second film and it's obvious she's still pretty green as a director too. There is some wonderful camera work here and I loved the beautiful, lush 50s aesthetic with the set design, hair, makeup, costumes, and cars. Also, the film was partly shot in Palm Springs, which has some of the best Mid-Century Modern homes in the country. The soundtrack had some great period music along with a creepy, haunting score.
Despite the technical aspects being spot on, the big drawback is the story. Even though Wilde had an additional screenwriter come in and do more work on the script, it still wasn't enough. The reveal comes too late and the payoff at the end is simply not there. The end is left too ambiguous and I found myself thinking, "That's it? I want more!" It needed much more exposition and the mystery needed to be revealed earlier than it did. Even though my mom seemed to enjoy the film a little more than I did (she's from the 50s so I'm sure it gave her some nostalgia), she said, "It's like when you're thirsty and you want a glass of water, but you only get a few drops." I think the story would have been better served if it was a streaming series instead of a feature film to flesh out more details and fill in plotholes about Victory and the real world.
I realize Wilde had a feminist agenda when she made this film. That's all fine and dandy, but if you're going to make a social commentary about male incels who are resentful and angry at women whom they feel have too much power and agency, you have to make that clearer to the audience. There were too many unanswered questions. I don't expect filmmakers to lead the audience by the hand and explain every little detail (overexplanation in films can also be annoying), but there was too much mystery here. I felt like that when I was watching it, like there was something missing. Also, she hyped up the sex scenes a little too much. I didn't think the sex scenes were such a big deal. I have seen more explicit sex in other films and Pugh and Styles didn't even take their clothes off. Nothing to write home about.
Some of the best scenes in the film were between Alice and Frank. It was obvious he was into her, the way he looked at her, like he was obsessed with her. It was so creepy and I wish there had been more conflict between them besides the dinner party scene where she confronts him about the truth she's discovered about the Victory Project.
I liked the film, but not as much as I thought I would. I would still recommend that you give it a watch, but you might feel the same way I did, all style and not enough substance. (No pun intended)
X (2022)
A (Porn) Star is Born
X is the first in a trilogy by a director I have only heard of recently, Ti West. I'm not usually a big horror fan, but lately I have been watching more of it. Maybe because it's almost Halloween, who knows?
The story follows a group of amateur porn filmmakers and actors in Texas in 1979 that want to cash in on the burgeoning adult film industry. They go outside Houston where they live and work to a rural, depressed area and encounter Howard and Pearl, an elderly couple that rent the guest house to them, unaware of what their guests are up to. The couple immediately give off a creepy, hostile vibe and once the jig is up, that's when the horror begins.
X pays homage to past horror/thriller films like Psycho, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hardcore, The Shining, and Alligator, just to name a few. However, it doesn't imitate them too much. X feels like a stylish, yet disturbing horror film in its own right. The murders are all done in an interesting way and there's little bits of foreshadowing of how each character dies that you only realize once you go back and re-watch it.
The standout performances are of course Mia Goth as Maxine, the burlesque dancer determined to become a bona-fide porn queen, Brittany Snow as Bobby-Lynn, Maxine's fellow dancer as a blonde bombshell type, Jenna Ortega as the shy boom operator Lorraine that completely does a 180 as far as her character is concerned, Martin Henderson as the cocky producer Wayne, Kid Cudi as Jackson, the lead actor of the film and Vietnam vet, Owen Campbell as RJ, the camera man determined to elevate porn to an avant-garde level, and of course, Howard and Pearl. I have not seen Brittany Snow in ages and I was surprised to see her in such a sexy, grown up role. She did a great job and can actually sing very well.
I won't spoil it, but there were twists with the Maxine and Pearl characters I didn't see coming. The themes in the film have to do with the old missing their lost youth they took for granted. It's also about sexual repression vs. Hedonism, which was a generational difference since we are talking about the youth of the 70s here vs. Howard and Pearl, who grew up in a more conservative, religious environment. There is also the obsession with fame and wealth that every character working on the film is concerned with, especially Maxine. I only wish the director could have gone deeper with these themes, but it is a horror film first and foremost and there is only so much time to tell the story and get to the murders.
The other critique I have is about Jenna Ortega's character Lorraine. I actually liked her character more than Mia Goth, the leading lady. But her character took a dumb turn once the action happens. I understand West had to do it this way, but I was still disappointed. By the end, Goth won me over and I was rooting for Maxine all the way.
I will definitely be watching the prequel Pearl (even though I personally disliked her character) and the sequel MaXXXine when it comes out. Worth watching if you love horror!
Blonde (2022)
As close to a horror film about Marilyn as we'll ever see
It is well known about the tragedies of Marilyn Monroe's life, the failed relationships, her miscarriages, the substance and alcohol abuse, her troubled childhood, and mental health issues she inherited from her mother. What if those issues were deconstructed and broken down? What if the Marilyn myth was completely obliterated? This film is a bleak, dark interpretation of Marilyn's life by director Andrew Dominik based on Joyce Carol Oates' epic novel. It has a lot of heavy-handed symbolism. Don't watch this film if you are already in a sad or depressed mood because I can promise you it will make you even more so. There is even a suicide prevention disclaimer at the end for good measure.
I'll try not to spoil it for you if you haven't seen it already. I remember seeing some of the first version of Blonde that was a miniseries in the early 2000s, which was pretty disturbing even back then. This remake goes way beyond that and it more than earns it NC-17 rating due to its graphic nature. It is a brutal, relentless film from beginning to end. I was quite drained emotionally once I finished watching it. There were several moments that shocked me. The story is non-linear and jumps back and forth in time a lot. It is not a straightforward biopic like Elvis. If you're looking for that, go watch another film about Marilyn or a documentary. Otherwise you will be sorely disappointed in Blonde. I would go so far as to say it's not even historical fiction. I would say it's an experimental horror art piece about Marilyn, or Norma Jeane, as she is called by her real name most of the time I'm the film. Twins are a theme in this film as the director makes it clear early on that Norma Jeane is the real person and Marilyn Monroe is like this whole other person who she doesn't completely understand or recognize.
What I liked about it. The film is visually striking, artistic, with great cinematography. It goes back and forth between black and white and color. Thematically I'm not quite sure what Dominik was trying to say with that, but I thought it was a good choice and gave the film a dreamlike quality. I also liked the electronic score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. The filmmakers also did a great job bringing old Hollywood to life. The hair, makeup, and costumes were my favorite. In many shots Ana de Armas looked eerily like Marilyn, it was scary accurate. It was like the real person was there on-screen.
Let's talk about Ana's performance, which she deserves an Oscar for. No, she couldn't completely hide her Cuban accent. It slips out here and there, but it didn't bother me when I watched her. She completely understood the assignment and "got" what Norma Jeane/Marilyn were about. Just the sheer raw emotion she had to tap into, the dark places she had to go to, made me believe she was Norma Jeane/Marilyn, a woman who had never recovered from childhood trauma and abuse that was in turn abused by various men as an adult. I also want to give props to the other supporting characters, Bobby Cannavale as Joe DiMaggio, Adrien Brody as Arthur Miller, Julianne Nicholson as Norma Jeane's troubled mother Gladys, and Toby Huss as Whitey, Marilyn's makeup artist and good friend. They were all standouts to me. The two creepy male friends that Marilyn gets involved with sexually later on in the story is an interesting, yet twisted dynamic.
I wish we could have seen more of her career rather than a few scenes that were replicated. It is also well known that Marilyn fought against the studio for better roles and won. She warned other actresses like Joan Collins about "wolves" in the industry and wrote an expose about sexual harassment, which was unheard of by a major star in the 50s. She was the first woman in Hollywood to own her own production company. She also championed causes that were dear to her like civil rights. But, I digress, this film is not based on facts and if you know that going in, you'll be able to tolerate or accept these omissions.
I can see why this film has made some people angry. Dominik has chosen to make Marilyn a victim throughout this story without showing the bright spots. That's what I was afraid of going in, that the filmmakers would only show the bad stuff and not the good times that Marilyn had because (with the exception of the very end of her life) she must have had some happy moments. Life is not all doom and gloom unless you're in very dire circumstances. But focusing on her darkness was what Dominik wanted. I don't agree with this approach, but I respect his right to make the film how he wanted despite people hating on it.
I think it succeeds in showing how too much love, adulation, and obsession over a celebrity can cause their destruction. How many times have we seen this happen to various celebrities over the years? Here is a woman who is celebrated and vilified for her sexuality. She was misunderstood by so many people around her, who only saw her as one thing, the sexy dumb blonde when she was anything but that. We also see Marilyn as a victim of the Hollywood machine, the sexism and misogyny that was around and continues to exist. Even though some of the most amazing films came out of old Hollywood, they came at a price.
There is a scene where Marilyn meets a certain president, but I thought it went too far, was really gross, and kind of unnecessary. But I could relate to the voice over during it. I was afraid it was going to veer into dark comedy. If you've seen it already, you know what I mean. If not, you have been warned. However, it was not enough to put me off from the film or make me angry at it, although I was angry at certain people around her who used her. I think Dominik was out to destroy the Kennedy myth while he was at it.
This is not a film you will feel neutral about. You will either enjoy a different kind of storytelling approach to Marilyn's life or feel like it's sexist, disgusting, and exploitative, there is no in between. I liked it more than I thought I would as a big Marilyn fan. They should start engraving Ana's name on her Oscar, she is that good. See it for her fearless performance more than anything.
Brand New Cherry Flavor (2021)
An Homage to 90s Horror
Brand New Cherry Flavor is about a Brazilian indie filmmaker named Lisa Nova who goes to LA to meet with a Harvey Weinstein type producer named Lou Burke who is interested in making her horror short into a feature. Lou betrays Lisa after she rejects his sexual advances by stealing her film and physically attacking her. Enraged, she enlists the help of a mysterious witch, Boro, to put a curse on him. Of course, when you deal in the dark arts, things aren't going to go exactly as planned and it comes at a price.
The story is set in 1990 and the filmmakers really got the whole dark, moody aesthetic from that time period down. LA looks menacing and creepy, even during daytime scenes. The series is 8 episodes long. The first 4 are somewhat straightforward, but the last 4 go in this crazy wild direction I didn't expect. The series is carried by the amazing performance of the actress who plays Lisa, Rosa Salazar. She is talented and sexy and I hope to see more of her work in the future. Eric Lange as the sleazy Lou elicited my disgust as well as pity at the same time once the curse starts to work on him and his family. And Catherine Keener steals the show as Boro, who gleefully chews the scenery with dark humor as the eccentric witch.
This story is one big metaphor about how indie filmmakers can struggle with the creative process, how it could easily go off the rails and become a painful struggle, that success can come at a heavy price. I could definitely relate to Lisa in that respect. She's not the most likeable character and makes some mistakes, but I still rooted for her. It's also a harsh indictment of Hollywood, how people in the industry use others, that behind the shallow glamour there exists a dark side. I also liked the themes of the occult and witchcraft.
There's some really gross parts in it, so if you can't handle gore, I would say skip this one. The filmmakers were paying homage to Lynch, Cronenberg, and Raimi, so if you're familiar with their work, you'll know what to expect. I'm not a big horror person, but I really liked the weirdness of this story. The only letdown was the way it ended. I understand why it had to end that way, but it is not how I wished it would end. There is room for a sequel if the filmmakers chose to continue on with Lisa's story, but as far as we know it's a limited series based on a book. I have never read the book, but I'm assuming the series is faithful to the source material. The book is reportedly out of print and I have seen copies command hundreds of dollars!
But if you're willing to take a wild ride, I would recommend this one.
Where the Boys Are (1984)
Wish I had just seen the original...remake was a missed opportunity to tell a better story!
Where the Boys Are '84 is one of those examples of a film that didn't need a remake. The original Where the Boys Are was groundbreaking for its time as it was the first film to suggest, as a young person, you could have premarital sex and it was perfectly okay! That was a big deal in 1960! You could feel the first stirrings of the sexual revolution that was to come later on in the decade. Because the Production Code was in still enforced, everything is pretty restrained. It still had one foot in the 50s when Tuggle (Paula Prentiss) has that cringeworthy line about being a "walking, talking baby factory". The original film's screenplay is like Shakespeare in comparison to the '84 screenplay, which deserved its Razzie nomination for Worst Original Screenplay. The dialogue felt unnatural and not like how people speak in real life with a couple of exceptions.
I think there were so many themes to explore in the '84 remake that were never developed. In the original film we got to know both the guys and the girls characters pretty well. Merritt was the leader of the group, intelligent, down to earth, and on the surface she advocates a feminist point of view of premarital sex. Then she meets Ryder (George Hamilton) and realizes she's not ready for sex. Jennie (Lisa Hartman) comes the closest to this character and there's echoes of this theme when she and Scott (Russell Todd) are on the beach early in the morning. We never really touch upon this subject again, but it's interesting that even in a more "liberated" time, that hasn't changed. Was Jennie from a conservative or religious family? Was she saving it for marriage? Who cares, right? Boobies! Texas S&M! Male blow up doll! (Which I'll get to in a moment. LOL!). The love triangle between Jennie and Camden (Daniel McDonald) could have been stronger. Camden is the kind of "safe" rich guy that would be considered more "appropriate" for her vs. working class "bad boy" Scott. The closest the story comes is when Scott and Camden have a fight at the piano over Jennie. Again, another chance to explore class issues like the original did with Ryder and Merritt, but that was rejected in favor of a predictable vanilla ending.
Sandra (Wendy Schaal) is the spoiled rich girl who lets loose by doing a striptease in a bar. I was kind of surprised her supposedly liberated friend Laurie didn't let her finish taking it all off, but perhaps she was concerned that she would sexually assaulted. Sexual assault is a dramatic theme in the original that the filmmakers narrowly avoided here because I presume it would've been too serious for a lighthearted sex comedy such as this one. I thought it was ironic that she puts down police officers and ends up having a love affair with Ernie, the officer who arrested her and Laurie. I wish there was a love scene between them after they left the party. They could've explored class issues with their relationship. The scene outside Ernie's trailer was one of the strongest scenes in the film because it was honest for once. Too bad the whole movie wasn't like that due to the raunchiness (which I will also get to in a moment).
We never really know why Carol (Lorna Luft) wants a break from her boyfriend Chip (Howard McGillin) (Carol and Chip - haha I just realized how corny their names were LOL). Is she bored with him for some reason? This was right after they had sex (she look like she enjoyed it, but I could be wrong). They could've expanded upon that by showing *why* Chip has become boring. Again, we don't really see it. (Side note: I find it funny that Judy Garland's daughter Lorna was in a film like this, or why any of the actors chose to be in a film like this, for that matter).
Laurie (Lynn-Holly Johnson) is presented as hypersexual and wanting to fulfill her ultimate sexual fantasy with "Conan". In the other strong scene in the film she meets her "Conan" on the beach and makes an "appointment" to hook up with him. But she is thrown for a loop when Conan turns out to be a male escort! I love how she put him in his place about his penis size. She realizes that there's more to a man's attractiveness than his external appearance. At first I thought Laurie was dumb and vapid (she makes a casual racist comment about wanting to be as tanned as Diana Ross, which almost made me turn the film off), but she had more intelligence than I gave her credit for. This kind of female empowerment could've been a big theme in this film (including when Sandra decides to leave Ernie), but there was just not enough of that. They could've made a powerful statement by saying even though the 1980s are a more cynical and progressive decade, how have things changed between the sexes and how have they not? It probably never occurred to the male filmmakers to go in that direction. They wanted to make a raunchy sorority film featuring female lead characters through a male gaze.
Now to the raunchiness. There were times when I thought this film could've had hardcore porn scenes in between the crazy beach scene antics and would've fit right in. We see plenty of topless extras, but none of the female leads got naked. Perhaps they were uncomfortable doing so, although Lorna was in bed with Howard at the beginning of the film (nothing was shown). Oh, there's the infamous Dave, the male blow up sex doll the girls practice foreplay on. It was an attempt at raunchy humor that was kind of strange. What I would've given to be a fly on the wall in those coke fueled production meetings (yeah, you read that right LOL)! This whole movie was like being on one long coke binge. Some of the hair, makeup, fashions, and art direction was dreadful and atrocious! And I usually love 80s style, but not in this film. Perhaps they were on a tight budget and they could only afford certain things. It was just awful. It was like they wrote down every idea they could think of and crammed it all in this film (and not any good ideas). It was the equivalent of throwing food on the wall to see what sticks. They could've still put some racy scenes in it and tell a good story too (because it can't be a movie about college students during Spring Break without a certain degree of wildness). Even in the original film we hear police calls on TV's (Jim Hutton) radio describing the crazy offscreen hijinks of the students. The whole subplot with Sandra's rich aunt was just bizarre. It was nice to see Alana Stewart even though she's not given much to do.
The remake is a desecration of the original one for sure, but it's not totally irredeemable. The cover of "Where the Boys Are" that Lisa Hartman sings isn't bad (but she is no Connie Francis). At least they paid homage to the original song in the end credits. The Rockats were a fun band with some good rockabilly covers of oldies songs (can't believe they're still together! LOL!). I can't fault the actors for their performances. If they were good/decent actors, this was not the film to prove their worth. The four lead actresses were too old to be playing college students, but they were still good looking and attractive, as were the actors who played their love interests. However, the characters they played seemed like caricatures instead of real people for most of the film. They did the best with the poor material they were given. And I can't fault the time period because some of my favorite films are from the 80s. Bad films have been made in every decade and that's the reason why I believe it's a "so bad it's bad" film instead of a "so bad it's good" film that would be worthy of cult status. Even though I saw this film on Tubi for free, I want to rent the DVD to see the extras because I'm such a film geek. LOL
Overall, the potential for an updated good film about how the sexual revolution that came to be in the 60s affected Gen X in the 80s was missed. It serves as an example of how Hollywood has and continues to sacrifice good acting and storytelling in favor of pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Thanks for reading. :-)
Caligola (1979)
Cinematic Car Wreck
Early this morning I started watching one of the most notorious cult films ever made, Caligula (1979). The full uncut version is available on YouTube (without an 18 and over warning! Kids, do NOT watch this! Seriously!!!). I saw the first half hour of it, tried to go to sleep afterward, and I couldn't (it disturbed me that much). Then I finally went to sleep and resumed the rest of the film when I woke up. It is disturbingly pornographic and violent, and shows the basest of human nature. The back story behind the film is even more interesting than the film itself since it had a lot of big names and blurred the line between mainstream and adult.
The 70s were a time of experimentation, but this went way beyond that and it is truly decadent and over the top, showing the licentiousness and depravity of Imperial Rome. There are gruesome things in it that will turn your stomach and wall to wall sex that was thrown in without the actors' knowledge after principal photography was completed. So many of the people involved disavowed this film because it devolved into a different kind of animal than what the screenwriter (Gore Vidal, of all people) envisioned. It's like a car wreck, so horrible, but at the same time, you can't help but crane your neck to look at it. It was done with a lot of style, impressive sets and costumes, and even had a bit of dark humor.
It is a fascinating yet bizarre and shocking picture, one of the darkest I've ever seen, despite it being a big uneven mess. The only good people in the film get killed off and the rest are so corrupt and evil. However, you have to consider the time it was made and the time period that it depicts. In a way I have to admire the balls of the filmmakers. Very few filmmakers today take those kinds of risks, to shatter taboos, and dare to show the ugliness of humanity. It is mainly cult filmmakers that make midnight movies such as these that do.
I draw the line at this film. It's one of those that you see once and once is enough. The only other one I can think of that goes beyond this is Salo, and I am definitely not brave enough for that one!
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
No Shades of Humanity
So I finished watching the dreaded - and dreadful - Fifty Shades of Grey. It really was a struggle to get through this movie. I only read part of the first book and thought it was problematic due to the Domestic Abuse that happens throughout the story. Although it has been somewhat toned down for the movie, it still remains the same.
I'll go through the Pros first. The cinematography, wardrobe, lighting, set direction, and soundtrack (with the exception of Ellie Goulding) was top notch. However, the old adage, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" really is true in this case. Everything was very sleek, modern, and sophisticated, almost sterile, recalling Mickey Rourke's office and apartment in 9 1/2 Weeks, but on Steroids.
The Cons are everything else. Dakota Johnson's acting was probably the closest to being the most competent out of everyone and she seemed close to being human in the few moments where she asserted herself and stood up to Grey (which I wish there were more of). She did have little bits of humor I thought were cute. Otherwise, she constantly bit her lip (the Ana character also does this a lot in the book), which was annoying. Once or twice would have been okay, but it was distracting. She constantly had this sickly, unhealthy look in her eyes and face. She is supposed to be vulnerable, but there's a difference between vulnerable and just plain weak - she was definitely the latter, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Jamie Dornan fared less well. His Irish accent slipped out a few times and he seemed like he was reading through his lines instead of truly emoting or becoming Christian Grey. Not that Christian Grey is a human enough character anyway, or anyone else in this film, for that matter. My biggest problem with this film (other than the Domestic Abuse) is none of the characters seem real or true to life. The dialogue was weak, awkward, and stilted. It did not flow naturally like real dialogue is supposed to sound. Everyone, including the lead actress (although she was the most "human"), was very two-dimensional. When you watch a film, you want to feel like you're going through the character's emotions and struggles, you want the couple to get together, to overcome their problems and obstacles. That just wasn't here in this film. I struggled to make sense of why these two people even get together in the first place. In real life, I would've gotten a restraining order on this guy, no matter how "hot" or rich he is. There are several instances in which stalking takes place. She asks for space constantly and he never gives it to her. I could go on, but you get the (twisted) picture.
As far as the sex itself (which is what many people have raised a fuss about), it's nothing to write home about, although it was tastefully presented. This movie is surprisingly vanilla for a hot-button topic like BDSM. You will not see real BDSM in this film. I would suggest seeing a classic erotic film like The Story of O, 9 1/2 Weeks, Belle du Jour, or something more recent like Secretary. I have seen more explicit sex watching Cinemax at 1:30 in the morning. It was nothing groundbreaking. The sex scenes seemed more like music videos than anything. Ana doesn't even have an orgasm. For a movie that was made and produced by women, it seriously shows a lack of demonstrating to women how female pleasure should be presented on the screen.
Much has been made of the lack of chemistry between Johnson and Dornan. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but I have seen lots of cinematic on-screen couples with far more heat. There were moments when there is an obvious lack of chemistry such as the scene where a photographer takes their picture at Ana's graduation ceremony. When the same picture shows up in a copy of a newspaper later on in the film, it is obvious the two clearly dislike each other (on and off the screen).
Honestly, this movie was very depressing and although I made fun of it in the beginning, toward the end I felt uncomfortable and disturbed. Even though I didn't pay for it, I felt guilty that I even watched it, even out of curiosity. This is not empowering to women and it is not a relationship anyone should aspire to. Yes, I realize it was a fantasy that E.L. James created based on Twilight fan fiction. Of course you must have a suspension of disbelief whenever you watch any film, but in this case I could not. Money and power does not excuse the fact that abusive relationships can and do exist. Real life Anas haven't been so lucky. Many of them end up in shelters, on the run and in hiding, or dead.
Does this mean anything in this movie could cause people to abuse others? Not necessarily, no. But if anything else I hope something like this starts a discussion about how we should help Domestic Abuse and Domestic Violence victims get on the road to living a better life. I hope women realize a relationship with a controlling man, no matter how materially generous of physically attractive he may be, is destructive and unhealthy. I hope this inspires other filmmakers out there to make better films that show sexuality in the context of a healthy, happy relationship. That's what I hope people get out of this above all else.
Austenland (2013)
Boy, do we have a vacation for you!
Oh, sorry, wrong movie - or not.
While I was watching Austenland, I could not help but think of Westworld (1973), about a couple of friends who spend a week in an adult theme park that get to indulge every fantasy they could only dream of from the movies or TV. Austenland seems like a place tailor-made for Delos, only without robots. However, while Westworld was a clever, but grim satire about man's darker impulses in the science fiction genre with a message that was consistent from beginning to end, Austenland is an over-the-top, outrageous spoof in the genre of romantic comedy that threatened to collapse under the weight of its own silliness the whole way through.
Keri Russell plays Jane Hayes, a thirty-something single woman obsessed with all things Jane Austen, especially the 1995 BBC version of Pride and Prejudice and Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. Her best friend makes a bet with her to give up her Austen obsession after Jane's trip to Austenland. Jane flies to the UK and quickly meets a kindred, if crazy spirit who was renamed Miss Elizabeth Charming (Jennifer Coolidge). Because Miss Charming is rich, she gets the luxury of choosing her own name and being part of the landed gentry and nobility of Austenland. Jane, being more working class and buying the cheapest travel package, gets stuck in the servants quarters as "poor with no fortune to speak of". She doesn't get to choose her own name and is given the surname of "Erstwhile". You can see right away where this story is going.
I kept getting frustrated with Jane's character because of her complaints about 19th century life. For a girl so seemingly obsessed with Austen, she got a rude awakening that the fantasy didn't match the reality, which I suppose is an integral part of the storyline. There was one scene where she vowed to take charge of her own destiny followed by a slow-motion clichéd fashion show/music video montage that showed her acting like a cross between a wannabe supermodel/seductress that was going to do things her way, come hell or high water. She came off as fake, irritating, and inauthentic. I didn't feel much sympathy or feeling for her; she was not the most warm or fuzzy character, nor was she as "hot" as the male characters in the movie described her to be, or had any sort of intelligence to speak of.
Jane is torn choosing between two suitors - randy and rebellious stable boy Martin (Bret McKenzie) and the stand-in resident Mr. Darcy named Henry Nobley (JJ Feild). We find out they're both actors at the theme park and you're never quite sure if there's a real rivalry between the two men for Jane's affections or if it's all just an act for the guests' amusement. Austenland does succeed in keeping your suspense regarding this aspect of the story. If it wasn't for JJ Feild's understated and even-handed performance amongst all the sheer craziness, there's no way this film would've succeeded. I also enjoyed the fun comic relief of Jennifer Coolidge and Jane Seymour as stern and villainous Mrs. Wattlesbrook, the owner of Austenland. I would've liked to have seen more of her in the film.
I give the filmmakers props for creativity as the sets and costumes were very vibrant and colorful, if ostentatious at times. I appreciate a good spoof or satire as much as the next person, but I felt the noble message about not living life in a fantasy and enjoying the reality of your own existence was lost until the very end. By then it was too late to really root for Jane. I wanted to root for her the whole way through, but I felt it was 95% spoof and 5% deeper meaning, when it should've been the other way around. The pop songs played as part of the movie's soundtrack was distracting and annoying.
I'm really being kind to give it 5 stars. It should be less, but I feel the filmmakers had the most honest intentions for this film. It wasn't what I expected it to be and it could've been so much more. I'll just stick with the original Austen books and regular film adaptations till someone comes up with a more clever and subtle Austen-themed comedy.
The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989)
The "Not So Fabulous" Baker Boys
I really tried hard to like this film and the characters in it. The real life brothers Jeff and Beau Bridges play the titular Jack and Frank Baker, two pianists who are at the end of a once successful career, reduced to playing gigs at seedy dive bars and cheesy lounges.
They decide they need new blood in the act in the form of a female singer. After auditioning what seemed to be all the tone-deaf women in Seattle (Jennifer Tilly has a cute little role as a ditsy audition hopeful who sings "The Candy Man"), in walks Susie Diamond (Michelle Pfeiffer), who has a shady background as an escort, but a sultry voice that catches womanizing Jack's attention.
The problem with this film that was eloquently stated by another reviewer, is that we never really get to know the history of the two Baker brothers, where they came from, what the height of their career was like when they were "fabulous", and the reason for their current downfall. We already see them when they're down and out, and we have no deep connection to their struggle for the rest of the story. We never really know the reason for Jack's anger and resentment toward his brother. The director should have learned this valuable lesson from Film Making 101: "Show, don't tell." A few flashbacks could've explained this beautifully, but it's never there.
The little neighbor girl that Jack looks after because of a neglectful mother seemed like a plot device that was thrown in. She didn't add anything valuable to the story and was another stock character for Jack to get angry at. The character of Susie was someone I really wanted to root for and feel some kind of sympathy toward, but I didn't feel much for her whatsoever. I like Michelle Pfieffer as an actress, but I was so disappointed about her character. Although she was a sultry and sexy siren on stage, her voice wasn't quite as good as I hoped it would be. It was a little rough in some places. Over the years her singing has gotten much better, most notably in Hairspray. Perhaps if there was a little more background on Susie and why she was the way she was, maybe if there was a little bit of a struggle about her wanting to be taken seriously as a singer, all that would have helped immensely in understanding her better.
There were little moments that were just plain silly in the way the director tried to build sexual tension between Jack and Susie. At first Susie resists his advances, but I never understood why after the act goes on the road, Susie changes her mind all of a sudden about sleeping with Jack. The scene where they sneak into the bathroom separately to smell each others perfume and cologne was awkward. They stare and stare at each other in several scenes for what seems like ages. I love sexual tension between characters as long as it is done right and it doesn't take too long. I was anxious for them to finally get on with it.
When they finally do the deed in a deserted hotel ballroom in the middle of the night after a New Year's Eve celebration, there was an attempt at an erotic moment, but it still seemed so awkward. A more realized piano sex scene occurred a year later in Pretty Woman, no doubt inspired by this film, only better. I never sensed there was enough of a reason why Jack and Susie would fall in love or care for each other. To me the romance felt obligatory.
It was confusing at first to figure out what city this was set in. Seattle is a wonderful location to film in and I felt it was underused in this film, like everything else. We don't even see a shot of the Space Needle to establish that it is indeed Seattle. If it wasn't for certain posters and signs in the film that say "Seattle", I never would've known what city this was set in. Cities can be characters within films as well and Seattle is a glorious city to capture the ambiance of what the Bakers' lives were like because of its rich musical history. Not so much here, and that's a shame. The biggest irony was a movie about music had such poor sound quality! I'm not sure if it was the DVD or what, but the beautiful jazz standards that were showcased should have been given the full royal aural treatment.
The actors in this movie really gave their all to an underdeveloped and mediocre script. They might have thought it was a great movie, or it was just another paycheck. Who knows? Whatever their feelings about it, the director's vision from paper to the big screen just didn't translate well. I was hesitant for some reason about seeing this film for so many years. It first came into my consciousness because of the parody scene in Hot Shots!. Now I can see why this movie was worthy of ridicule.
The conflict between the two brothers was absolutely believable, but I wish there was more camaraderie there, which would make the scene in which they reconcile even more powerful than it was. This movie had potential to be great, but it fell flat. I read that several big names in Hollywood turned down a chance to be in this film. Based on this halfhearted effort, it's not difficult to see why.
Maxie (1985)
Read it and weep!
Maxie is a childhood favorite of mine that used to get a lot of airtime on cable in the mid-80s, now largely forgotten. The basic premise is Jan, the uptight and conservative secretary of a San Francisco bishop, becomes possessed by the spirit of 20s jazz baby and starlet, Maxie Malone (played by Glenn Close in a dual role). Mandy Patinkin plays her hapless, yet gentle husband, Nick, and the whole movie deals with the shenanigans of Maxie's return to the living world. Ruth Gordon has a brief, yet touching role as Maxie's best friend Trudy. A pity there wasn't more of her in this film.
Maxie died in a car crash on the way to a movie audition in 1927, which could've potentially made her a star. The conflict arises because of Nick's strong attraction to Maxie and his love for his wife. Close (as Maxie) and Patinkin have plenty of chemistry and there was a part of me that wished Maxie took over completely and kicked Jan to the curb.
At times both the characters of Jan and Maxie were slightly irritating. I cannot explain why I felt that way, but I did at certain moments. Close is not one of my favorite actresses, but she does a decent job here. One of the best scenes is the blazingly white hot "Bye Bye Blackbird" number. Throughout the movie my allegiance switched back and forth between Jan and Maxie, so it was a bit disconcerting.
The problem with this film that I noticed now that I've seen it as an adult is the payoff is never really there. There's certain characters like the Ruth Gordon one that could've been expanded on more, the bishop talking about performing an exorcism on Jan, but we never see it, and other characters that are just "there" for no real reason and don't advance the story along any.
The end with Jan and Nick escaping the hotel in silly disguises was unnecessary. Although I love movies about the 20s, this film wasn't as enjoyable as it was when I was a kid. It's not a terrible film, but it could've had a lot more comedic potential. It's not a bad movie to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Six Sex Scenes and a Murder (2008)
A modern film noir "B movie"
I decided to check out "Six Sex Scenes and a Murder" on the Popcorn Flix app on my new BlackBerry Z10 phone. Since the movie was free, I figured I had nothing to lose. After seeing it, I have some decidedly mixed feelings.
I won't go into too much of the story, but basically it follows a guy named Nick, his ex-girlfriend Regan, and some other shady characters at a San Francisco burlesque club called The Uptown, a place where gangsters also frequent. Along the line, Nick becomes embroiled in a robbery and the storyline is your basic film noir "whodunit" with some sexy femme fatales, steamy sex scenes, and a hard-boiled detective in a white Columbo-style fedora, interrogating the suspects along the way.
The story was kind of confusing as the characters were dressed in 40s-style attire, yet it was set in the 21st century with laptops and cell phones. I wish there was more burlesque dancing featured, but burlesque was just a backdrop, not the main focus of the story. As far as the six sex scenes (which is the real reason people are going to watch this, myself included - let's be honest, "Sex Scenes" *is* part of the title!), you may or may not be disappointed, depending on your comfort level. Since this was directed by a woman, the sex scenes are not as explicit as if a man was behind the camera. If you're expecting more nudity, skip this one. The sex scenes for the most part are kind of risqué, but not overly so, still quite tasteful for the erotic thriller genre. The two threesome scenes are the hottest of the six, especially the one with Regan and the two buddies who end up getting high and drunk at her place with one thing leading to another. I kind of wish Regan had ditched Nick for good and ended up with those two hotties instead!
Afterward they had to show one of the guys giving fellatio (implied, not shown) to the other one in a car. I know this is SF and all, so a gay sex scene is to be expected, but it kind of was a downer since they had just finished having hot sex with Regan. It added nothing to the story, except during the interrogation scene when the main detective showed a pic to the two guys, indicating they were on their tail (no pun intended). The other sex scenes were just okay, but really added nothing to the story except to show the back stories of the characters and an alibi for everyone on the night of the murder.
Anyway, I digress. The story became muddled and confused at times and I had a little difficulty following how this person was connected with Nick, and that person, and so on. If the director had stayed more on point with Nick being the central character and not gone into too much detail with the back stories of the minor characters, the story would've been more cohesive and suspenseful. It needed to be much darker and grittier to be a true film noir. It was more like a light comedy instead with shades of noir thrown in, almost like an homage to these types of films. This film bordered very much on being your typical Skinemax soft-core late night skin flick (and if it had more explicit sex, it most definitely would've been). The acting was a little wooden and campy by some of the minor characters. The best acting by far was done by Nick, Regan, and the detective. For the most part it was a decent effort and it's good to see more female directors at the helm making feature films, especially erotic ones.