nikteslamodernwonder Reviews

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

Can't really see what people like so much about this film

[6/10 · 1 January 2005]

Yeah, I really don't understand the current (7.4) rating for this movie. Who knows, maybe this rating will change as more people have seen the film.

I mean, don't get me wrong. It wasn't one of those movies where I felt afterward, "like wow, I'm about 88 minutes closer to my inevitable demise." It held my attention. I even thought some of it was funny. But still.

It's not like it was bad, because it wasn't. Everyone involved did their jobs properly, except for whoever wrote the script/endless-string-of-clichés.

Seriously. Could this possibly be more of a "Let's get the team back together for one last game against our hometown rivals" type of movie? And it would be one thing if it stopped there.

It doesn't. Throw in one relationship on the rocks, a paternity subplot, the ever popular "cute silly foriegner," and, you know what, I really don't have the patience to list all of the clichés. To give you an idea, about 1/3 of the way through, there is, very much, a non-ironic montage. Yes, that's right. A montage.

Fact is, Murray is best in the following two types of movies: A) Films (such as Caddyshack, Groundhog Day, and Ghostbusters) which are just sidesplittingly hilarious and B) Ones that are serious and/or sweet without pretension (Royal Tennenbaums, Lost in Translation)

Unfortunately, this movie was neither one.

6/10

Alphaville (1965)

I like this movie, but liking it is difficult.

[13 June 2004]

Its hard to say exactly how much I liked Alphaville. Seeing it was a valuable experience, and at times was quite enjoyable. However, there was definitely a part of me that couldn't wait for it to be over.

Probably the best part of the movie was the general "vibe." I wholeheartedly approve of its all-around aesthetic. Using (at the time) contemporary Paris was, in my opinion, a genius move. It makes the film a lot more plausible- it's like saying, "The future isn't some phoney-baloney Jetsons stuff. It will probably look a lot like today." Plus, in my opinion, special effects are the #1 contributing factor to making a movie seem "dated", something that Alphaville doesn't need to worry about. Either way, JLG succeeds in giving us a bleak, antiseptic vision of the future. Unlike nearly all of the recent dystopic sci-fi, there's nothing whimsical about the future in Alphaville. It is cold and realistic.

However, I found that, at a lot of points, Alphaville tended to be rather slow. Usually, these slower parts occurred when the movie more or less gave itself over to philosophical speculation (such as the Alpha 60's long monologues), and pretty much abandoned the idea of keeping our attention. Don't get me wrong, I realize that the philosophical underpinnings are absolutely necessary to Alphaville- however, I think that JLG should have chosen to "show, and not tell." (Actually, I find this to be the case with a lot of sci-fi)

And I really don't understand the various action sequences in the film. (WHY would they have let him keep his gun, and take it with him when he's interrogated?) I would say that this particular element lends credence to the theory that the whole movie was meant as sort of a spoof.

In the end, I would probably recommend this film to my more open-minded friends, with the one proviso that they watch it early in the day, when they are less likely to fall asleep.

Swimming Pool (2003)

Reflections on Swimming Pool (pardon the pun)

[31 May 2004]

SPOILERS AHEAD!

Ok, so, like everyone else here, I was confounded by the ending. I have read many of your conclusions, and, unfortunately, I cannot agree with any of them.

As I see it, there is one central contradiction in the ending.

On the one hand, we have the famous hand waving scene at the very end of the movie. In conjunction with the scene in which the "Real Julia" doesn't recognize Sarah, we are led to believe that nearly all of the events in the movie were imagined by Sarah. A typical, "It was all a dream ending." Groans are heard from all. This, indeed, seems to be the most popular theory.

However, we also have another small detail. When Sarah is speaking with John, right after she hands him the new book, she mentions, "There are things that you didn't tell me." Now, if nearly the whole movie had been imagined by Sarah, what could she possibly have been hinting at that he "didn't tell her?"

For me, it is nearly impossible to reconcile these two events. I've even considered the possiblility that the whole movie WASN'T imagined by Sarah, and that the "Fake Julie" was actually an imposter. However, if the "Fake Julie" had been an imposter, then Marcel would not have recognized her. This theory doesn't fly, either.

I've seen people compare this movie to Adaptation. I do not agree with this comparison. Adaptation had a pretty clear ending, despite the Philip K. Dick device of having Nick Cage writing himself into his own screenplay.

I would much rather compare this movie to American Psycho or Mulholland Drive. For it is possible that, as in American Psycho, there is no clear answer to the question of "What really happened?," and that the writer and director are doing things to deliberately confuse us. However, I also accept the possibility that, like Mulholland Drive, there is probably a real explanation behind the events of the movie- however, this explanation is so obscure and hidden that neither I, nor any of my friends would ever figure it out on our own.

The Dreamers (2003)

A movie that promises much, and delivers..... some.

[11 February 2004]

First off, I will say that I generally liked this movie. The characters, environment, editing, and music were all quite adequate. I particularly liked Matt Pitt's character, for I thought this was going be a sort of fish-out-of-water story with Matt as the naive, innocent American. However, he is very much the willing accomplice, and not as "innocent" as we are initially led to believe. Still, there were a couple missing pieces that prevented me from completely enjoying the movie.

(***SPOILERS AHEAD***)

Ok, so, first and foremost among the missing pieces - we never find out the "secret" behind the brother-sister relationship. I mean, the incest taboo is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest, cross-cultural taboo known to humanity. I always imagined that it would take some sort of serious trauma to make a brother and sister have a sexually intimate relationship (OK, they never ACTUALLY have sex, but still...) I mean, we're not talking about kissing cousins here, these people are SIBLINGS! Anyway, we are never really given a clue as to what made them hot for each other. We are sort of nudged in the direction of them being too "sheltered" and "innocent" for their own good, but I just don't buy it. There's something else going on here, and we are never told what it is. I feel cheated.

The second missing piece - the guy-on-guy action. I'm sorry, but even as a hetero guy who takes very little pleasure in guy-guy sex scenes, by the end of the movie, I was practically screaming to see these two guys get it on. We are teased, teased, teased some more, made to think that it's going to happen.... and then it never happens! How can filmmakers get away with this sort of thing? If for no other reason, it would at least have been interesting to see how the guy-guy coupling would have advanced the plot. Instead, we are treated to endless scenes of the two boys bickering over various subjects, which, for me, provides some of the lowest points of the film. Particularly pungent is the scenes where they argue over war/violence. Can we say "contrived"?

Anyway, I don't want it to sound like I didn't enjoy the movie, because I did. However, because it is missing a couple of crucial elements, I probably will not recommend it too highly to any of my friends, nor will I be watching it again any time soon.

3/5

Invisible Adversaries (1977)

A lot of fun, if you REALLY like art films

[27 January 2004]

I generally like art films, but this one kind of tried my patience.

I went in, like others, thinking that this was going to be some sort of alien invasion flick. That's at least what the movie's write-up in the film-series pamphlet had me believe. What I got instead was a bizarre movie about a woman going crazy.

First, the good.

I liked the art in this movie. I guess you gotta have art to have an art film, and that's where this movie really delivers. There are many great collages and juxtapositions, both in the central character's work (she is an artist), as well as in the filming techniques of the movie itself. Also present is some really neat and disturbing footage involving food, a la Svankmajer.

Now, the bad.

Ok, so, this is definitely not an alien invasion movie. In fact, there is very little plot. Basically, this artist woman has a boyfriend who is a total jerk. Instead of just breaking up, they stay together and fight a bunch. She's obsessed with the notion that aliens called the Hyksos are invading the earth and taking over people's brains. He's completely obsessed with "the system," and all this Chomsky-esque philosophizing about how we're all being screwed. If you've spent any amount time on a college campus, you've heard it all before. Anyway, this was the only logical sense I was able to make from the whole film - they both believe in the existence of "Invisible Adversaries." Oh yeah, and at some point, she's diagnosed schizophrenic. While this made sense, I didn't really want to accept it because it was too much of an easy explanation.

Also, the movie contains some random discourses on Austrian architecture and politics, which did nothing for me, since I know nothing of either.

So if you REALLY like art films, I would say watch this one just for the art. Otherwise, you may want to spend the two or so hours watching something more plot-driven.

Or maybe I've just been taken over by the Hyksos.

Full Frontal (2002)

Not nearly as amusing as Schizopolis

[6 December 2003]

**Spoilers Present**

I know, comparisons are odious. But this movie did remind me of Schizopolis, and that was before I knew that Full Frontal was also directed by Soderberg. So, yeah, it does have some the same twistedness, but whereas Schizopolis goes completely over the edge, and thus obtains its cool, this film kind of teeters on the edge, and thus disappoints. Should we take it seriously? Who knows? Unsatisfying ending, as well. Sorry folks, this one's kind of a dud.

The Stuff (1985)

Highly reccomended

[14 November 2003]

***Spoilers Present***

Ok, I should start off by saying that I first saw this movie when I was, like, 5 years old, and it scared me out of my mind. More so than any of the Amityvilles.

And really, there is a lot in there to scare a kid- mostly having to do with the kid in the movie, Jason's, creepy family. That poor kid. To see his family turn against him, and force him to eat something that will surely kill him.... What could be scarier?

But now, I am grown up, and I can appreciate the movie for what it is- a laugh-a-minute cheesefest! I love the not-so-subtle parody of capitalism. I especially love the commercials and jingles for The Stuff, because they're just like how commercials really were during the 80s!

I mean, sure, there are plot holes large enough to drive a truck through... (And indeed, one of them does involve a truck. What makes Mo decide that stealing one of the trucks is the only way to convince the public of the Stuff's evil?) But lets face it, we don't watch movies like this for the realism.

This movie will make you laugh out loud.

Also Recommended : Horror House on Highway Five