Saturday, August 27, 2005

Alien Vs. Predator

Paul Anderson has proved a reliable crappy director in the past, overcoming the fact that he’s an unimaginative hack to make workmanlike products that could be enjoyed with the benefits of lowered expectations. His best was probably Soldier, which effectively mixed Ender’s Game with Die Hard and Rambo, but the Hellraiser rip-off Event Horizon had its good bits too (mostly involving 0-g effects and lovingly recreated exposed fractures), and even the shamelessly derivative Resident Evil had some deceptively clever scripting. So, for a director who’s better known for the technical aspects of his films and for stealing bits from other movies wholesale, the long-in-production Alien Vs. Predator must have seemed a wet dream: license to plunder freely from not one, but two iconic licenses which over the years have produced three movies that I would not hesitate to call masterpieces within their genres.
Well, Anderson fucks it up beyond any expectation. Like too many Hollywood cash-ins before it, this is an unremarkable, completely forgettable mediocrity from start to finish: there is no valid reason for this product to exist except to milk whatever money may be left to be made from two licenses that the studio perceives to be fading from the public’s memory. There is no doubt a good movie could have been made with the premise, but basing it on present-day earth, a terrible scriptwriter/director and cynical studio considerations pretty much kill that possibility.

I hesitate to try and describe the utter mess that the plot is, but I can try: a heat pulse under Antarctica leads a group of intrepid adventurers hired by the Weyland corporation to a pyramid buried for thousands of years under the ice. Turns out it’s an ancient proving ground where once every hundred years newbie predators get to prove their mad predatoring skillz against a captive alien queen. Of course, humans are needed as catalysts and hosts for the aliens to multiply. The team gets killed by both types of critters, and, of course, only the heroine will make it to the end for the climactic (one would hope) confrontation.
If this sounds like steamy, frothy, liquid excrement, well, it’s worse than that. There are two languages spoken in this movie: Cliché, and a hybrid dialect of bullshit and gibberish. The first, even a retarded 5 year-old would be able to guess with the volume turned down; the other, well, it would insult his intelligence were he to pay attention to it. Flawed as the premise is, it’s got nothing on the huge plot holes, moronic goofs, and sheer shittiness of the concepts put forward on this worthless flick. This could be forgiven if the action was any good, but it maintains the same pedestrian level, and to add insult to injury, abstains from showing any blood (as it might hurt profits).
Even the main attractions are pathetic. The badass Predators are reduced to hapless idiots who get killed almost as easily as the humans, and need the help from the heroine to be able to do their job. The aliens are unconvincing, with emphasis placed on a trembling lip effect that while familiar, looks ridiculous. Both are fetishisized (is that a word?) to a degree that is unintentionally funny. And it doesn’t help that the first alien/predator fight looks like a mid budget Power Rangers outtake.

Before watching this, please consider the tagline. Whoever wins we lose, indeed.

Friday, August 26, 2005

The Devil's Rejects

I won’t be revising my opinion of House of 1000 corpses anytime soon- I barely remember it, but it’s firmly filed away as a piece of crap. A bloody piece of crap with a mean streak and some fun references, but shit by any other name…
My opinion of Rob Zombie, however, has proved to be completely wrong. His new film, while exploitative and self indulgent, was one hell of a pleasant surprise.

Picking up on the characters from the previous movie, it practically begins with the police surrounding the murderous Firefly family at their hideout/abattoir. A shootout ensues that neatly shows off some of the best things the movie has: mainly, it quickly establishes that this is not a horror movie. The intensity and confusion of the moment are shot with an economy that’s both admirable and incredibly effective. Oh, and it’s got one of the coolest things in the movie: a lead homemade bulletproof suit that needs to be seen to be believed. In the aftermath of the shootout, the patriarch of the psychopath clan gets offed, the mom gets captured, and the two ‘kids’ escape.
This sets the stage for all that follows: the kids try to regroup and figure out their next steps, with the help of their father, Captain Spaulding, who was outside of the hideout at the time. Meanwhile, the mastermind behind the raid, a sheriff hell-bent on getting revenge for his brother’s death at the family’s hands, relentlessly hunts them down. The movie remains viscerally entertaining the whole damn ride, escalating to a stunning climax set to Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Freebird.

Visually, musically, and thematically, there’s a very strong 70s vive to the proceeds, and quite a few specific references to movies from that period (I got only a few, but there were undoubtedly many, many more). The violence is relentless and unflinchingly captured, the dialog is crisp and hilarious, and there’s just a laser-like focus, an intensity to the movie that runs throughout the whole thing- even when going out on a tangent. There are no easy outs, no cheap shots; all notions of good and evil are left behind, leaving only the apocalyptic confrontation between two brutal, amoral forces without anyone to root for.
The characters are memorable, with the sheriff and Captain Spaulding towering above the rest- Spaulding, an aging, fat clown who’s introduced when he wakes up from an erotic dream lying next to a repellently obese, sex-crazed dim-wit, has got to be one of the best characters I’ve seen in a long time. And don’t tell me he was in House of 1000 corpses. This movie is on a completely different league.

Friday, August 12, 2005

Dogville

Dogville was shot in a soundstage in the middle of nowhere, in a sole set which is supposed to represent a one-street town in the ‘20s America. Instead of the seven or so houses, all you see is lines on the floor representing walls and a few minimalist props here and there (a pile of rocks represent a mountain, for example). The dynamics of the town’s score or so inhabitants are quickly established, focusing mainly on Tom Edison (Paul Bettany)- a would-be intellectual and an aspiring writer who likes to think of himself a moralist. The status quo is broken one night by Grace, a beautiful girl (Nicole Kidman, especially good on this film) who may or may not be a criminal; the town, goaded by Tom, takes her in as some sort of moral test… which the town then proceeds to fail in a rather spectacular way.

Now, Lars Von Trier is no stranger to gimmick (he was one of the main movers behind the Dogma movement, for fuck’s sake...) But the important thing is that the main gimmick behind Dogville- the way the scenery is set up and the sometimes spastic editing- works wonderfully: once you get used to it, it draws attention to the characters and the way they interact. And when something really nasty goes on behind closed doors (and trust me, this is a Von Trier film- you can trust things will get downright ugly)... Imagine a rape scene where you can see the rest of the oblivious town go on with their daily lives, and you can see the genius of the setup. It also means that all of the actors (well, and Jeremy Davies) are on-scene for most of the movie. Outstanding.
No, the gimmick is just fine. Other trademark Von Trier problems are present, and are a bit more serious- the movie is overlong, somewhat ponderous and a bit predictable at times; The storytelling is good enough that I didn’t have any problem with it, but I can see how it would be a problem with other people. The worst problem, in my opinion, is that Von Trier Doesn’t care as much for plausibility as he cares about his ideas. The material manages to be somewhat naturalistic, but the necessities of the script make some of the scenes seem a bit contrived. Check out, for example, the ‘what the fuck was he thinking?’ moment here with a discipline-needing kid. It’s not as ridiculous as the murder scene in Dancer in the Dark, but it looks pretty bad here since this movie is so much better overall.
Problems aside, the story is well told and powerful, if a bit predictable (a small twist in the ending, though, is excellent). The last twenty minutes or so have to count as the most satisfying finale I’ve seen in a long time. The actors do a great job, with especially strong performances from the likes of Stellan Skarsgård, Lauren Bacall and James Caan. It’s a challenging, slow movie; if that doesn’t deter you, you may find it’s also truly great.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Human Nature

Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman’s Human Nature is built from three narrative threads established at the beginning: A nature author (the Arquette sister that can act) testifies in court, a dead scientist (Tim Robbins, having a lot of fun with the role) recounts his life in a sanitized limbo for an unseen audience, and a re-civilized feral man (an extremely physical- and funny- Rhys Ifans) tells his story before Congress. The characters themselves are complicated; in a few, effective strokes, it’s established that the woman has been covered in fur since puberty due to a hormonal problem, the good doctor all but denies his unconscious (not to mention his unwavering faith in the civilizing powers of table manners), and the feral grew up in a forest thinking he was a monkey. This is just the setup.
From there the movie explores how each character interacted with each other, leading up to their current situation. The story is fairly complicated, pretty deep, and damn funny to boot. It’s also meticulously crafted; not one scene is wasted, and everything that happens ties in with the script’s agenda of exploring, well, human nature- both as a composite and two separate words.

Really, it’s a wonder that it should work at all, never mind being really, really good. But it is; funny as hell, incredibly brave (one has to wonder what the fuck the executive who greenlighted it, bless him, was thinking- my vote goes to Kaufman and Gondry being fantastic bullshitters), and, most of all, unapologetically thoughtful. Add to that the fact that it manages to be so without being pretentious and without giving out predigested answers and you have one hell of a movie, one I can recommend without reservations (even knowing you probably won't like it). When I grow up and become a superhero the second thing I’ll do- right after finding a cure for religion- is to canonize Kaufman.
I wouldn’t hesitate to rank this as his best movie; while it’s not as original as some of his other work, it’s the tightest, most focused one so far, and it lacks some of the weaknesses that plague their last acts. Even the sparse stylistic flourishes director Michel Gondry puts in are there for a reason. His previous work was mostly for MTV, which only makes it more remarkable.
This movie has been criminally underrated. Watch it.