Holy Motors

Holy Motors? More like Holy Shit, what the fuck did I just watch? Am I right? Am I right?

Jokes aside, I can honestly say that I did not expect anything that Director Leos Carax created with Holy Motors. My only criteria in selecting this film is that I wanted Drew to hate it. I was bitter with his veto and was seeking revenge. French movie? Subtitles? Perfect!!

 I purposely did no research on the movie prior to viewing, and I am glad I took this approach. It takes a bit of time to get into to the flow of the seemingly disjointed vignettes, which I think are 9 in total. I could be off by one or two. Once I figured out that the movie was pushed along using Mr. Oscar’s appointments, I found myself looking forward to each new character Denis Lavant would transform himself into. By the time “Monsieur Merde” started tearing ass through that Parisian cemetery eating flowers and taking Eva Mendes to show off his cuddle boner I was all in.

Focusing briefly on some of the technical aspects first, I loved the colors that Carax implements in to the film. Particularly the lighting during the makeup/transformation scenes in the limo are some of my favorite. The music that he uses is excellent for setting the tone for the different characters, or pushing character narratives like Kylie Minogue’s musical number. But neither of those compare to the awesome accordion interlude Lavant nailed. That is probably my favorite scene in the entire film. Incidentally, that scene also shows off some of the great panning shots that Carax used throughout the film. Just an awesome awesome scene all around.

The more I get into to trying to explain this film, the more I realize that my words are just not going to do it any justice. Instead, I will offer some advice on anyone who has yet to watch. Sit back and relax. Don’t allow yourself to be constrained by the typical limitations of narratives and scripts. Enjoy the ride you are about to go on and let mind explore the characters that Lavant brings to life before you. I promise you this, you will feel closer to dreaming while you are wide awake than you ever have before.

I’ll let you gents discuss the underlying theme of the degradation of film as an art form as it allows technology to transform it.  

EDIT: A-

Me and You and Everyone We Know

You ever watch something... and not know completely why you like or dislike it? I watched Me and You and Everyone We Know a few or so years ago... maybe even a couple times.  I liked it quite a bit then ,but couldn't tell you why beyond that it was different, eccentric, and interesting. Since we started this group, I thought it would be a good one to revisit since nobody else here has seen it and give a bit more thought as to why I gave it a high rating.

Miranda July's feature debut seems like one of those 'love or hate' it things.  It's a mix of small stories, varied characters and quite a bit of awkwardness. There aren't any high profile actors, with July herself playing one of the leads. John Hawke is the only recognizable, as you may have seen him in Lost, Deadwood, East Bound and Down, or Lincon. While some will find the conversation to be smart and interesting, others will see it as dull and too drawn out at times. You can find me in the former camp, but definitely felt lulled a couple of times. I like the overall pace of the movie as it actually felt like a pretty quick ~90 minutes.

I thought the acting was pretty solid overall. Hawkes and the young actors stood out the most, but I didn't feel that anybody was horrible. July may have been the weakest, but I think her character was a portrayal of herself in many ways, so it worked.

The score was especially strong for me. Apparently most of it was done on a single keyboard. It was never distracting, but was certainly noticeable a few times... but in a positive way.  It flowed well with how I felt throughout the movie, especially during any awkwardness.

Most of this film's delight, I think, relies on its subtext and constant reminders of the general theme here.  For me, the movie is simply about people and connecting with others. I hesitate to say relationships, as I don't feel like the point relies on any sort of familiarity or longevity between the people. Be it face to face, through art, jokes, innuendos, chat rooms, shared interests, or lighting your hand on fire... people are trying to connect, and pass the time. People are individuals and we all have our own intricacies, interests and issues.  From the right views... we're all pretty much the same at a distance. Peter points this out specifically in his punctuational printout as everyone is nothing more than a spot of ink, but in different positions and in approximations to each other.  We all need to come to grips with ourselves...and even when we finally have most of that figured out... we want to share it with others. The film shows that this is something we all go through and struggle with, regardless of age, gender, profession, etc. It instantly made me think of a quote that I've seen tossed around the internet a few times (although, Dr. Seuss did not say/write it):

"We’re all a little weird. And life is weird. And when we find someone whose weirdness is compatible with ours, we join up with them and fall into mutual weirdness and call it love." 

 - Robert Fulgham, True Love

I think it's a generally optimistic film... leaving us with a rising sun in contrast to the sunset in the very first shot.  We won't make all the right connections and often won't go about making them in the right way, and many times we'll even try to avoid them for some reason... but we continue to make them, feel a need for them and hope that some stick and provide a bit of happiness.

Many of us look for certain scenes to really stand out. I think the film definitely had a couple, but the most notable for me was Christine's and Richard's walk to their cars. This is one of the more important conversations, I think, as they compare their walk to a relationship. Each sees Tyrone St at a different distance, other people would likely see it differently than them. It encompassed the point of the movie in a well written, well shot, and well executed scene.

I've gone on quite a bit, so I won't dive into each separate story or other individual scenes yet. But there are definitely some interesting scenes, lines and characters. I expect there was a bit if discomfort from the chat room, signs in the window, and the park bench.  I think those scenes all provided an intentional sense of awkward tension, but were handled well.

 So, I'm sticking with my initial A- grade. Most components felt right and fit together well. I'm usually a fan of eccentric people and things, and this was no exception.

Taxi Driver

First of all, Travis Bickle might be one of the best names of a character in movie history.

The movie was my selection but I don't watch movies the same way many of you do so I'm sure I won't do the initial review justice as I don't watch with an analytical lens too often, replies are more my forte.  I shall do my best.

The movie begins and ends with De Niro, masterful doesn't do his performance justice.  He is especially strong in the first half of the movie when he is awkward and uncomfortable.  He is incredibly believable as the awkward quiet loner who as the viewer you always know is going to explode.  The degree of difficulty in playing the 6 out of 10 crazy person is so much more than when he goes full tilt.  He's great full tilt too but the whole first half he really pulls you in knowing he will inevitably snap.

Two great scenes in his breakdown- 1st the phone call after the date to the porno theater- I personally found it strange that the camera pans over into an empty hallway during the conversation but knew it had to mean something so I looked it up.  Apparently Scorcese has called this shot the most important of the film as he says it's as if we can't bear to watch Travis' pain of rejection.

Second scene that made me think instantly was when he asked advice of veteran cabbie the Wizard.  Travis knew he was on the verge and was beginning to worry about himself.  Wizard's advice was to basically get out of his own head and accept that everyone is fucked up.  Travis of course did the opposite and dove deeper into his own shit.  This is also the first time I noticed the other cabbies began to call him Killer.  Was this representative of the feelings toward Vietnam during the era or foreshadowing that the other guys knew he was kinda fucked up.  Probably both.

This was my second viewing the first being about 2 years ago and I completely forgot that Travis survived and was hailed as a hero.  His "cleansing" attack and survival certainly had an impact on his confidence and well being, though he still seemed like he was only marginally better than his awkwardness from the beginning but happier.  I'm guessing Travis probably discovered some purpose in his attack and began making vigilante style attacks to clease his filthy city.

My only complaint is it felt like it was slow to get going-alot of quiet driving and introspection, then again I make similar complaints for movies that don't take the time to build on characters.

I didn't even mention Albert Brooks or Cybil Shepherd who were both great in their parts- Cybil used to be pretty hot.  I'll give it an A-

Drinking Buddies

Review: Drinking Buddies
Participants: Drew, Sean, Bobby, Joe, Shane, Phil, Bryan, Jon
Initiator: Drew

My biggest reason for choosing this film is due to Olivia Wilde.  She is gorgeous and I have been a fan of hers since "House."  I figured it would be, at the very least, somewhat entertaining.  Somewhat it was.

Its theme is clear - the gray line between male and female friendships.  Having been in this for most of my life, I quickly spotted and related to the situation.  For those of you who never been in this situation, you may not have caught on as fast or at all.

Having been in the situation, the movie was predictable.  The dude (Luke) and girl (Kate) have feelings for each other but both in relationships.  They hangout and constantly flirt with each other to the point where it is obvious but no one wants to admit it.  Everything comes to a head when Luke helps Kate move out of her apartment.  They make formal plans but it all goes to hell when Luke cuts his hand and cannot really help Kate anymore.  She calls Dave, the douche who she slept with after Chris called things off with her, and he casually invites her to go out.  When she would rather do that instead of something formal with Luke, he loses it.  That is when their friendship is called into question but is settled in the end.

The acting was OK at best.  There were some funny parts but they were subtle.  Was anyone else wanting Sudeikis to do a Mitt Romney impersonation?  He was really good at that.  Jake Johnson (Luke) plays in "The New Girl," which isn't completely out of Drinking Buddies' theme, and essentially played the same character.  Olivia Wilde (Kate) was above average too.  She got naked so that was cool but played the everyday girl who has the bartender's charisma and seemed like the cool chick with whom people want to hangout.  Ron Livingston (Chris) is the prick cool chicks like.  Why?  No clue.  Anna Kendrick (Jill) is the girl who wants a commitment.  Luke was unsure of the commitment because of his feelings for Kate and Kate probably liked him romantically but was not ready for what Luke had to offer.

This leaves the question about male and female friendships hanging.  Is it possible?  Well no, actually.  Huffington Post and other media reported of a study published two years ago on this subject. The research suggested men think more of women than vice - versa when they attempt to be "just friends."  Perhaps Luke should have read this.

While I understood the theme, the story, however, was unappealing.  I was not drawn in by the film.  I found myself checking fantasy baseball stats, social media, texts, the fridge while the movie played.  Those are not exactly the best ingredients for a good film.

There were some aspects of Drinking Buddies I omitted.  When Chris and Jill took the hike and kissed and how Jill felt guilty about it.  Another one was the amount of beer in the movie.  Yeah, they work in a brewery and it's the name of the movie but damn, that was a lot of beer.  

All in all, not bad but not good.  Liked the theme and Olivia Wilde.  OK acting mixed with an uninviting story makes for a decent grade.  Grade: C+

Sean, on to you.

Glengarry Glen Ross

Much like Killer Joe, this one is all about the writing.  The directing, workmanlike and unobtrusive, but goddamn, this is a great script.  David Mamet might be a hardcore Fox News-style conservative these days, but here, he delivers a sterling anti-capitalist screed; the New Mexico real-estate market in the small frame and entire economies in the big picture.

Alec Baldwin, who I don’t think is named by the movie (?), kicks things off with his iconic speech.  What’s my name?  Fuck you, that’s my name.  He sets the stakes with a system that only values first place, condescends to anything only good enough, and heartily discards what lands below the line.  His value is only established by the cost of his car or his watch.  The men in the room don’t challenge him because they want what he has, and what he really has is clichéd corporate anagrams that don’t add up to anything.  He establishes a state of nature, where the man with the most resources is the only winner.  All the rest are scraps.

The way this contest, and the pursuit of the good leads, pits the four salesmen against each other plays right into Baldwin’s worldview.  During senior seminar, we read a paper that was about three different sexual morphologies of a species of lizard.  One kind overpowered competitors, another was sneaky, and the other tricked the strong by luring it out of its nest.  Ricky Roma (Pacino) crushes the competition with his superior sales numbers, while Moss (Ed Harris) plays mind games with the two weaker salesmen.  Aaronow (Alan Arkin) correctly decides not to play while Shelley (Levine) tries to be sneaky, but fails.  Moss places his faith in the wrong man and will likely be prosecuted.  Aaronow might win second by default, but the next time a hard sales target shows up, he’ll be gone.  Roma wins, because in this world, he with the most toys wins.

I appreciated the smaller Pacino performance, after he went huge with Scent of a Woman the year before, but Jack Lemmon is the winner here.  I’d call him the main character.  We’re meant to sympathize with him based on his conversations with his wife and his daughter in the hospital, but he reveals himself to be a greedy, mean sack of shit.  The dressing-down he gives Kevin Spacey’s character is brutal.  He’s a man who is given an inch, with his supposed big sale from the Nyborgs, but takes a mile.  Spacey takes it all away from him, and he’s so pathetic at this point, that he’s basically beyond sympathy.  He struck me as a guy who once was successful at his job, but he hasn’t adjusted his technique in years.  It’s the same hectoring, condescending voice with nothing behind it.  Mamet’s script makes sure to never give him an umbrella, so he’s always soaking wet with rain and/or flop sweat.  Lemmon sells all of this well.  The Machine needs this money for his family and his daughter, but he’s just not good at this anymore.

The other three salesmen are all pretty pathetic in their own ways.  Roma is the most charismatic, which is likely why he’s the most successful, but he’s utterly heartless with his mark in the restaurant.  He’s going to possibly cause the dissolution of that poor schmo’s marriage, but what he’s most upset about is Spacey blowing the sale.  It’s noticeable that he’s not in the room for Baldwin’s speech, as he could be the kind of guy giving that speech at a different time, and he likely wouldn’t have taken it.  Aaronow just sucks at everything, and is a charmless black hole.  Roma calls him a good man, but this is after we’ve been told by Baldwin how little that matters.  Moss is an incompetent Machiavelli, placing big bets on two old men with a high chance of failure. His whining gets old fast, and was possibly all an act to get Levine or Aaronow on his side. 

The main thing that I’ll take away from Glengarry Glen Ross is how brutally capitalist systems reduce their subjects to numbers.  What you’ve done in the past doesn’t matter, how you live your life doesn’t matter, the caliber of your character doesn’t matter.  All that matters is what have you done lately.  The only thing that carries currency is hard numbers.  Spacey is resistant to Levine’s pleas, begging out on the data being all-important, and if he doesn’t bend to them, someone else will.  I really enjoyed this film, landing on an A-.  Due to its density, I would likely have a completely different take on a rewatch.  It loses points on the directing, but very few of them.  Framing a conversation well is a no small skill, and the director is able to do that, but the rest is unremarkable.  Only a few points though.

The Game (1997)

I'm not sure why I chose "The Game" other than panic. I'm not a fan of watching movies twice unless they're phenomenal. I was intrigued to see how this held up compared to my teenage memory.

Michael Douglas' plays his character, Nicholas Van Orton, really well. It's easy to buy into the no remorse, businessman persona. One little touch that I appreciated about this movie - the main character actually ate food. It's a little thing, but I think it helps the audience connect with his character.

The interactive experience industry (can't remember the formal name) is growing today and I could only hope Consumer Recreation Services (CRS) exists in real life. I love the concept and that's probably why this movie appealed to me.

The way in which CRS was presented and pulled off their series of events was believable and entertaining to watch. I knew the ending of the movie going into it, but I began to second guess myself as they present the concept of Van Orton losing all his money to this company. I moved from generally disconnected from Van Orton to rooting for him to feeling sorry for him. The directors did a good job of presenting the story in a way where the audience probably has at least a hint of asking themselves, "Is this still the game?"

My main qualm with the movie is why Van Orton follows the waitress (Christine) around for so long. Is he that desperate for adventure, a companion, or something else? I wasn't a fan of the lady who plays Christine. I think that role could have been better cast. The ending was a little too scripted as well - the accuracy of the fall was too much for me. I think they could have come up with something a little more believable.

I'm on the fence between B and B+ because I'd probably watch it again.

Final note: Nicholas Van Orton's 1997 BMW has more tech than my wife's 2010 Honda Fit.

The Cabin in the Woods

Review: Seriously?  It's in the title.
Participants: Phil, Bryan, Jon, Drew, Sean, Bobby, Joe, Shane
Initiator: Phil

“… And I feel fine.”

The Cabin in the Woods is a pretty tough movie to talk about to anyone who hasn't seen it, as it’s definitely a movie you want to go into knowing as little as possible.  The initial setup of the movie is a spoiler if you ask me.  That said, Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon manage to create a schlocky horror movie that keeps us engaged with a clever premise and a surprising payoff while adding no needless fluff to the events which transpire.

Right from the outset, this movie could have gone two distinct directions.  Rather than hiding the big reveal for act 3, Goddard and Whedon actually start us in a sterile quasi-government facility, offering no explanation of what we are about to see or how this organization will affect the titular cabin.  Actually having the control organization a part of the movie from the word go was a fantastic choice in my opinion.  The actual story of the five campers was a boring retread by design.  Goddard and Whedon clearly wanted the campers’ story to feel like the bad horror movies we remember from the 80’s, right down to the cheesy, over-the-top acting.  

This decision puts the viewer in a decidedly different mindset.  Think about what this movie would have been like without knowing about the controllers until an hour in.  Would you have even bothered?  Odds are you would have gotten extremely bored by “another crappy horror movie.”  However, the ever present controllers force you to almost ignore the hacky store of the campers, instead forcing you to spend the bulk of the movie trying to figure out just what the hell was going on.  This really makes the movie dance the line of several genres.  I know it’s classified as a horror, but calling it a suspense thriller is almost as appropriate.

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait long to get to the big reveal that was skillfully teased throughout.  Would it have been crazy and entertaining to see everything about the controllers revealed in just the last act?  Probably.  But would you have stuck with Thor & Co for an hour?  Probably not.  There would have been too much to explain at the end, and the method Goddard and Whedon used of explaining what was happening as we went made for a far more enjoyable experience.  Cabin also did a great job of explaining just enough while maintaining a torrid pace to its conclusion.  Do we ever learn why this organization has an obscene amount of hellish creatures?  Sure don’t.  Do we ever learn what these “ancient” creatures are?  Barely.  Shit, I can’t even call the controllers by name because we never even learn the organization’s name.  While the level of explanation was great, it did take away from the large reveal at the end.  The very end was probably the weakest part of the movie as a result. 

What The Cabin in the Woods ends up giving us is a “plausible” explanation for why bad things happen to good people in all the horror movies we’ve seen in the past, right down to the “horror” which befalls them and the abysmal decision-making that comes with being pursued by any sort of horrors.    Initially, the conclusion annoyed me as we didn't learn enough about Dana & Marty to know what they would do in this extreme situation, but keeping it in the frame of mind that we were dealing with a stoner and a girl who had been huffing whatever drugs were getting pumped into that forest, it was at least believable in this movie’s universe. 

Final note: There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments in this movie.  Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford practically steal the movie.  The phone conversation with Mordecai and Whitford’s end were some of the funniest moments in any movie in recent memory.

Summary:

+ Great setup and premise

+ Wasted no time

+ Way funnier than it had any right to be

+ “Totally plausible” way to explain why every horror movie ever would happen

- Ending ends up suffering

Final Grade: A-