It's nice to see that Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" (2002) still remains one of my favorite horror movies. It's dark, gruesome, and darkly hilarious. It has some of my all-time favorite horror movie moments, including this one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMS9Rv3ksrU&feature=related
Bahaha! In the context of the movie (where some college kids go off to a cabin and get infected by a mysterious and horrible disease that picks them off one by one), it's just too perfect a set up, and the group cohesion falls apart as they're confronted with their own mortality. There are some very memorable images from it
Of course, it's not some sensitive Emo fable -- rather, it's a darkly funny exercise in mayhem, and nothing is sacred. It's got some stupid elements in it, it's got some funny-as-hell elements in it, and it's got some seriously horrific elements in it -- basically, a good time IF you enjoy horror movies.
I finally got it on DVD over the weekend, after not having seen it for years (and often touting "Harmonica Man" from it, which is, sadly, not properly shown on YouTube), and was pleased that I enjoyed it as much or more as I did the first times I saw it.
The asshole characters are extra assholish, and the plague falls on the just and unjust in roughly equal measure, coupled with rogue rednecks on the rampage (itself a bit of a wink-and-nod at the preconceptions of the characters).
It's fun, it's funny, and it's horrifying, and in a culture that runs from death and disease as much as ours does (I mean, who wouldn't want to run away from death and disease, right?) -- it hits a nice nerve, and bravo to Roth for tapping it (and the mean-spirited nature of the protagonists in it amuses me, too -- the selfishness of youth?)
Some horror fans I know hate this movie, but I think they're wrong -- it's all kinds of good, and you can't help but laugh while you're busy grimacing and squirming from it.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Book: The Ruins
I may link to some of my older Amazon reviews, just for fun, before sorting out future reviews with Amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/review/R12WIRUEI41UZD/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.amazon.com/review/R12WIRUEI41UZD/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Friday, May 14, 2010
Music: Swervedriver remasters
I love Swervedriver, and when I saw that they were reissuing their albums as remasters, I jumped on that, more out of a show of support for the band (and really, really wanting them to turn out new material -- hint, hint?) -- not because I needed the albums (which I already have), or even the additional tracks (there are four on each of the albums I bought -- "Raise" and "Mezcal Head" -- which have some of their best tracks). But I was secretly hoping that the remasters would really make the albums even better than they had been in the past (as was the case with the remastered "The Who Sell Out," the Small Faces's "Ogden's Nut Gone Flake" mono remaster, and the New York Dolls's remastered debut album [which is the best remaster I've yet encountered -- it's fantastic if you run across it -- like a whole new album]).
Anyway, I was disappointed that the Swervie remasters don't sound different from the original albums -- they may indeed be remasters, but if so, the producers did so with a very, very light hand, as I can't honestly discern anything new. I tend to listen to my music with headphones, so any changes are immediately apparent (again, in the case of the three excellent remasters above, it's very, very clear that they were improved), and I just didn't pick those up on these.
But I would still recommend them if you've never heard Swervedriver before (I would also recommend "Ejector Seat Reservation," which is one of the best albums of the 90s, not that anybody would know it). If you have the older Swervie albums, there's not much reason to get these remasters, unless you just want to support the band in some way, shape, or form (or, for some reason, don't have the bonus tracks).
Anyway, I was disappointed that the Swervie remasters don't sound different from the original albums -- they may indeed be remasters, but if so, the producers did so with a very, very light hand, as I can't honestly discern anything new. I tend to listen to my music with headphones, so any changes are immediately apparent (again, in the case of the three excellent remasters above, it's very, very clear that they were improved), and I just didn't pick those up on these.
But I would still recommend them if you've never heard Swervedriver before (I would also recommend "Ejector Seat Reservation," which is one of the best albums of the 90s, not that anybody would know it). If you have the older Swervie albums, there's not much reason to get these remasters, unless you just want to support the band in some way, shape, or form (or, for some reason, don't have the bonus tracks).
Defendor
So, I watched "Defendor" last night, under the pretense that it was some kind of darkly comic take on superheroes (kind of, I don't know, "Mystery Men" meets "Taxi Driver" or something). The trailer certainly makes it seem like that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7ur4ji7r8
But no. It's not like that at all. The trailer is misleading. I'm not even going to put a spoiler warning in this, because there's nothing to spoil. Woody does a good job with his character, but he goes almost "full retard" on it (to coin the term thrown out in "Tropic Thunder") -- Arthur Poppington in it is a serious mental defective and/or mentally-ill guy who's a nitwit wannabe do-gooder. There's more than a little "Don Quixote" in this quest for justice, with the prostitute/junkie played by Kat Denning as his Sancho Panza -- alternately, Arthur is Jesus and Kat Denning's character is Mary Magdalene. There are plenty of "This Is Jesus" movies out there, where a simple-but-good character offers some redemption for a dirty, ugly world (typically by dying). It's been done and done.
This movie is at war with what it's trying to say -- the comedic possibilities of it are completely undermined by the obvious handicaps of Arthur. The guy needs institutionalization or at least a halfway house. The weight of his moral crusade is offset by his near-inability to really clearly see reality around him -- that's the Don Quixote in the mix. Captain Industry is his image of evil, and he fixates on this Serbian crimelord (who could be windmill or Satan, you choose) as Captain Industry, and tries to go after him bravely, and stupidly, and becomes martryed -- inspiring people in the world around him to do and be better people.
The bad guys are just footnotes in the movie -- they're bad because they're bad, and we don't see much of them, not nearly enough. Kat (I'm not even digging again for her character's name, it's too much work) is the snarky hooker with a heart of gold who gloms onto Defendor for some reason. Blah blah blah.
I read that this was director (and writer) Peter Stebbing's first effort, and it shows in my view -- the narrative is just off, the characterizations are off, the pacing is bad, the movie doesn't know what it's trying to be (except, as I see it, a vaguely Catholic Christ-influenced superhero narrative in the mold of, say, "Constantine," "Hellboy," "The Crow," "Dogma," "Forrest Gump," "The Matrix," and probably "Legion" -- although I didn't see that last one). Movies with that emphasis you can kind of spot because the people in it area invariably wretches kind of at odds with life and with themselves, and are, in some way, shape, and form, healed by the redemptive power of the nitwit Messiah and his sacrifice.
I would have preferred it to have been more like "Taxi Driver" if it wanted to be serious; or more like "Mystery Men" if it wanted to be funny. But while it's framed as an action/comedy-drama, there is precious little comedy in it, and while it strives for some kind of poignancy, it just amounts to a stupid man going up against evil men, and in his stupidity (while condemning himself to death), manages to bring them to justice.
To fix the movie, I'd have increased the pacing of it, the dramatic structure, made it either funny or serious (or at least seriously funny), would have aced Kat Denning's pointless character and upped the role of the friend who cares for his half-retarded buddy, Arthur, and would have beefed up the roles of the villains in it considerably.
Anyway, don't see it expecting it to be funny or exciting (e.g., action) because it's not. Apparently the studios wouldn't touch this movie because they found it difficult to characterize, and that was a wise move on their parts -- some things things are difficult to characterize because they're visionary; other things are difficult to characterize because they suck. This is the latter. It doesn't suck completely -- it could have been good, but it needed serious work on the script to actually flow properly.
Watch "The Crow" -- it's a far better movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7ur4ji7r8
But no. It's not like that at all. The trailer is misleading. I'm not even going to put a spoiler warning in this, because there's nothing to spoil. Woody does a good job with his character, but he goes almost "full retard" on it (to coin the term thrown out in "Tropic Thunder") -- Arthur Poppington in it is a serious mental defective and/or mentally-ill guy who's a nitwit wannabe do-gooder. There's more than a little "Don Quixote" in this quest for justice, with the prostitute/junkie played by Kat Denning as his Sancho Panza -- alternately, Arthur is Jesus and Kat Denning's character is Mary Magdalene. There are plenty of "This Is Jesus" movies out there, where a simple-but-good character offers some redemption for a dirty, ugly world (typically by dying). It's been done and done.
This movie is at war with what it's trying to say -- the comedic possibilities of it are completely undermined by the obvious handicaps of Arthur. The guy needs institutionalization or at least a halfway house. The weight of his moral crusade is offset by his near-inability to really clearly see reality around him -- that's the Don Quixote in the mix. Captain Industry is his image of evil, and he fixates on this Serbian crimelord (who could be windmill or Satan, you choose) as Captain Industry, and tries to go after him bravely, and stupidly, and becomes martryed -- inspiring people in the world around him to do and be better people.
The bad guys are just footnotes in the movie -- they're bad because they're bad, and we don't see much of them, not nearly enough. Kat (I'm not even digging again for her character's name, it's too much work) is the snarky hooker with a heart of gold who gloms onto Defendor for some reason. Blah blah blah.
I read that this was director (and writer) Peter Stebbing's first effort, and it shows in my view -- the narrative is just off, the characterizations are off, the pacing is bad, the movie doesn't know what it's trying to be (except, as I see it, a vaguely Catholic Christ-influenced superhero narrative in the mold of, say, "Constantine," "Hellboy," "The Crow," "Dogma," "Forrest Gump," "The Matrix," and probably "Legion" -- although I didn't see that last one). Movies with that emphasis you can kind of spot because the people in it area invariably wretches kind of at odds with life and with themselves, and are, in some way, shape, and form, healed by the redemptive power of the nitwit Messiah and his sacrifice.
I would have preferred it to have been more like "Taxi Driver" if it wanted to be serious; or more like "Mystery Men" if it wanted to be funny. But while it's framed as an action/comedy-drama, there is precious little comedy in it, and while it strives for some kind of poignancy, it just amounts to a stupid man going up against evil men, and in his stupidity (while condemning himself to death), manages to bring them to justice.
To fix the movie, I'd have increased the pacing of it, the dramatic structure, made it either funny or serious (or at least seriously funny), would have aced Kat Denning's pointless character and upped the role of the friend who cares for his half-retarded buddy, Arthur, and would have beefed up the roles of the villains in it considerably.
Anyway, don't see it expecting it to be funny or exciting (e.g., action) because it's not. Apparently the studios wouldn't touch this movie because they found it difficult to characterize, and that was a wise move on their parts -- some things things are difficult to characterize because they're visionary; other things are difficult to characterize because they suck. This is the latter. It doesn't suck completely -- it could have been good, but it needed serious work on the script to actually flow properly.
Watch "The Crow" -- it's a far better movie.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Sunshine
(This was also from November 11 of 2008, although I rewatched "Sunshine" yet again the other night, so it's on my mind -- new comments are in brackets).
I watched most of "Sunshine" again last night. It's an almost-great SF movie that unfortunately falls far short near the end. It's unfortunate, because they set up this great stuff, and then blow it. Now, as is sometimes the case with movies like that, I make "sense" of it by spoofing it a little. What follows contains spoilers, so if you're intent on seeing the movie, don't read it!
[I read in the wiki entry that director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland took a year to write the script, and went through 35 drafts!!! Given how the story lurches badly in the third reel, I wonder what they were thinking in the overall process -- I think they could have salvaged the movie, but were clearly locked in around a particular arc that derailed what could've been a masterpiece]
I think what really happens aboard Icarus II is that Cassie goes insane, and kills off the rest of the crew, projecting this in the personage of Pinbacker. She seems to be the nicest person aboard the ship, certainly the softest, which is why nobody would suspect her. Thinking of it this way, the movie makes more narrative sense, rather than having Pinbacker as this hack-and-slash villain who miraculously survived all that time aboard Icarus I, only to pounce on the astronauts on Icarus II. And it being an "inside job" would account for all of the various breaches of security and protocol that afflict the crew -- that, and perhaps a collective psychosis resulting from their long voyage toward the Sun. The flakiness of psych officer Searle, for example, evident at the outset, busy nearly blinding himself, kind of tripping out, and Captain Kaneda, who's not much better [he is incredibly passive for a spaceship captain]. The crew can basically be split between sane and insane crew -- with Mace, Corazon, and Capa being the sane members, and Kaneda, Searle, Cassie, and Trey being the insane ones. Harvey is mostly a coward, so I guess he caucuses with the insane ones, under the circumstances. Cassie for awhile talks Capa into things, before he eventually gets his wits about him and completes the mission. The key is why is Cassie so intent on stopping the mission? She's easily the most wishy-washy member of the crew, but perhaps that's because she's so keen on maintaining this mask of sanity.
Anyway, that outcome makes it a more satisfying movie than the whole bogeyman-in-space outcome of a straight read of the story gives you. Of course, the film's production people don't really give one the above; there's not enough slack in the story to really run with that interpretation -- everything is what it appears to be. It's just that if they had done the above, the movie would've been more compelling than it ended up being. Plus, it's amusing to think of it like that, since Cassie is so clearly supposed to be the most sensitive of the astronauts, given her constant careworn looks on her face throughout it [a Rose Byrne trademark].
I did the same thing with "Forrest Gump," among other movies -- like you can believe Gump led this uniquely ultra Baby Boomer life, or you can believe he's just deeply delusional and builds this fantasy world out of what he sees on television. I like the latter interpretation, as it mocks the generational fellatio the filmmakers perform on the Baby Boomers, versus it being this case of this dullard leading a superhero's kind of life.
[Other options include having the Icarus II crew actually interacting with Pinbacker -- making him another character, instead of simply a monster out to kill the crew of the sister ship. One could also eliminate Pinbacker entirely and run with the ghost ship in space and the Icarus II crew quietly going insane. The character of Harvey is completely wasted, too -- it's clear that nobody on the crew likes him, and he's not keen to be there (having family at home, it's understandable where his heart and head is) -- but that gets wasted, along with everything (and everyone) else. There are serious flaws in the movie -- bad decisions made at key points that lead to an inevitably bad outcome, and the writers basically just throw the characters into a blender and hit "puree" and that's that. "Alien" was clearly some of the source material for this movie, but "Sunshine" lacks the good writing of that, so one ends up with a movie that has a good enough concept, great set design, a good cast, and half of a good story that is completely squandered by the end, as the writers force the conclusion they want to reach.]
I watched most of "Sunshine" again last night. It's an almost-great SF movie that unfortunately falls far short near the end. It's unfortunate, because they set up this great stuff, and then blow it. Now, as is sometimes the case with movies like that, I make "sense" of it by spoofing it a little. What follows contains spoilers, so if you're intent on seeing the movie, don't read it!
[I read in the wiki entry that director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland took a year to write the script, and went through 35 drafts!!! Given how the story lurches badly in the third reel, I wonder what they were thinking in the overall process -- I think they could have salvaged the movie, but were clearly locked in around a particular arc that derailed what could've been a masterpiece]
I think what really happens aboard Icarus II is that Cassie goes insane, and kills off the rest of the crew, projecting this in the personage of Pinbacker. She seems to be the nicest person aboard the ship, certainly the softest, which is why nobody would suspect her. Thinking of it this way, the movie makes more narrative sense, rather than having Pinbacker as this hack-and-slash villain who miraculously survived all that time aboard Icarus I, only to pounce on the astronauts on Icarus II. And it being an "inside job" would account for all of the various breaches of security and protocol that afflict the crew -- that, and perhaps a collective psychosis resulting from their long voyage toward the Sun. The flakiness of psych officer Searle, for example, evident at the outset, busy nearly blinding himself, kind of tripping out, and Captain Kaneda, who's not much better [he is incredibly passive for a spaceship captain]. The crew can basically be split between sane and insane crew -- with Mace, Corazon, and Capa being the sane members, and Kaneda, Searle, Cassie, and Trey being the insane ones. Harvey is mostly a coward, so I guess he caucuses with the insane ones, under the circumstances. Cassie for awhile talks Capa into things, before he eventually gets his wits about him and completes the mission. The key is why is Cassie so intent on stopping the mission? She's easily the most wishy-washy member of the crew, but perhaps that's because she's so keen on maintaining this mask of sanity.
Anyway, that outcome makes it a more satisfying movie than the whole bogeyman-in-space outcome of a straight read of the story gives you. Of course, the film's production people don't really give one the above; there's not enough slack in the story to really run with that interpretation -- everything is what it appears to be. It's just that if they had done the above, the movie would've been more compelling than it ended up being. Plus, it's amusing to think of it like that, since Cassie is so clearly supposed to be the most sensitive of the astronauts, given her constant careworn looks on her face throughout it [a Rose Byrne trademark].
I did the same thing with "Forrest Gump," among other movies -- like you can believe Gump led this uniquely ultra Baby Boomer life, or you can believe he's just deeply delusional and builds this fantasy world out of what he sees on television. I like the latter interpretation, as it mocks the generational fellatio the filmmakers perform on the Baby Boomers, versus it being this case of this dullard leading a superhero's kind of life.
[Other options include having the Icarus II crew actually interacting with Pinbacker -- making him another character, instead of simply a monster out to kill the crew of the sister ship. One could also eliminate Pinbacker entirely and run with the ghost ship in space and the Icarus II crew quietly going insane. The character of Harvey is completely wasted, too -- it's clear that nobody on the crew likes him, and he's not keen to be there (having family at home, it's understandable where his heart and head is) -- but that gets wasted, along with everything (and everyone) else. There are serious flaws in the movie -- bad decisions made at key points that lead to an inevitably bad outcome, and the writers basically just throw the characters into a blender and hit "puree" and that's that. "Alien" was clearly some of the source material for this movie, but "Sunshine" lacks the good writing of that, so one ends up with a movie that has a good enough concept, great set design, a good cast, and half of a good story that is completely squandered by the end, as the writers force the conclusion they want to reach.]
The Last Winter and The Strangers
(this was from November of last year, from another blog)
I watched "The Last Winter" and "The Strangers" over the weekend, part of my usual Halloween frightfesting. Although the former was well-reviewed, I felt there were some big-time problems with the actual writing of the story; it could've benefited from a few more revisions of the screenplay, I think. My sense was that the writers were happy to indulge Ron Perlman in it, and as such, his character got away with a lot more than he should have, to the detriment of the overall narrative. Also, the "hero" in the story would've been better off as an early victim, as he doesn't quite do his part in the story. Further, the story arcs a certain way that doesn't do half the cast justice in it. There were some good eerie moments in it, but overall, I think the work didn't fully use all of its resources.
I was much more impressed with (and scared by) "The Strangers" -- which was a far simpler story than "The Last Winter," but while it might've been only four cylinders, it was running smoothly on all four of them, and made excellent use of terror and dread in the story to build into a real nightmare of a story. The primary weaknesses were the "true story" lead-in to it -- that wasn't necessary, was distracting (esp. since the "true story" basically alludes to the Manson family murders, as well as a creepy personal experience of the director).
It filled me with dread, made me so grateful I no longer owned a home in the country, for sure. I'm used to dealing with city weirdness, but it's a different brand of weirdness to country creepiness.
I watched "The Last Winter" and "The Strangers" over the weekend, part of my usual Halloween frightfesting. Although the former was well-reviewed, I felt there were some big-time problems with the actual writing of the story; it could've benefited from a few more revisions of the screenplay, I think. My sense was that the writers were happy to indulge Ron Perlman in it, and as such, his character got away with a lot more than he should have, to the detriment of the overall narrative. Also, the "hero" in the story would've been better off as an early victim, as he doesn't quite do his part in the story. Further, the story arcs a certain way that doesn't do half the cast justice in it. There were some good eerie moments in it, but overall, I think the work didn't fully use all of its resources.
I was much more impressed with (and scared by) "The Strangers" -- which was a far simpler story than "The Last Winter," but while it might've been only four cylinders, it was running smoothly on all four of them, and made excellent use of terror and dread in the story to build into a real nightmare of a story. The primary weaknesses were the "true story" lead-in to it -- that wasn't necessary, was distracting (esp. since the "true story" basically alludes to the Manson family murders, as well as a creepy personal experience of the director).
It filled me with dread, made me so grateful I no longer owned a home in the country, for sure. I'm used to dealing with city weirdness, but it's a different brand of weirdness to country creepiness.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Food: The Gemini Bistro
I ate at the Gemini Bistro, and really enjoyed it. It's on Lincoln Avenue, and has a lot of dark wood and old-school kind of elegance and ambiance. Everybody's impeccably-attired and the service was tip-top. It classifies itself as an "American bistro" -- which to me means a bistro with fast service, for which I'm grateful, not being one who likes to wait.I had the Prix Fixe menu (served from 5 to 6:30 p.m.), which is three courses for $31 ($49 if you want wine with each course). I opted for the lobster bisque, short-rib ravioli, and German chocolate cake.
The bisque was really tasty, with very tender lobster chunks in it, great color and seasoning. I could have probably had that bisque the whole evening, just with some bread (the bread is served in shiny metal cones with attached butter caddies). Great flavor. I savored it.
The short-rib ravioli was tasty, qualified as a "medium" plate serving (Gemini does small, medium, and large plate servings, depending on the menu item), and while it was maybe a half-dozen round raviolis nicely seasoned and accompanied with shards of aged parmesan, it was enough, I found, to fill me up. The taste was good -- rich and hearty, but also very delicate.
The dessert was beautifully plated -- a three-layer German chocolate cake, a square of reasonable size (in Chicago terms -- everything here is served in bistro portions), and a pretty little dollop of hazelnut ice cream atop a hazelnut fruit spread (I asked the waiter about that, and he told me what it was, but I forgot the fruit that was representing, there), and a sprig of mint. The cake was tasty, if not mind-blowing, but the ice cream was a nice treat, served very cold and it kind of upstaged the cake a bit.
The bar is a nice, long, broad thing, and they do full meal service there, too. I had the best Old-Fashioned I'd ever had in Chicago there -- their "Velvety Old-Fashioned" which was a blend of Maker's Mark, Cointreau, and Bitters, with the requisite mulled cherry and orange wedge garnish. It was fantastic. I often use the Old-Fashioned as my benchmark beverage for a bar, to test their mettle -- not because it's a complicated cocktail, but because it's such a simple one. And I am pleased to say that they nailed it -- strong and flavorful, I had two of them, and had a little trouble putting my jacket on when it was time to leave, and my head was spinning for about an hour after leaving. That is one good cocktail!
I had no complaints about the food or the service -- both were very good. I don't have any complaints at all, really. The Gemini is a nice place -- very Chicago, in its mix of elegance coupled with a lack of pretension. The only discordant notes (and they're minor, truly) were the music -- when I came in, Cream was playing, which just doesn't fit with the decor and overall ambiance of the place. Not that one wants the trademark Smooth Jazz(tm) or whatever, but it just didn't fit with the beauty of the place -- the music changed later, but it still wasn't quite right. Also, the television in the top corner above the bar seemed out of place. Sure, I get it -- a bar with a television -- who doesn't have that? But at the same time, the place seems too sharp for such a common contrivance. Maybe its absence would be felt, but something about the Gemini Bistro, to me, makes it seem a classier place than that.
But those are very minor complaints. I enjoyed the food, loved the cocktail, savored the ambiance, and appreciated the setting. All in all, I'd say it's well worth your time, if you're in the area. A great place for brunch, lunch, and most definitely a place to take a date.
Four out of five stars: * * * *
http://www.geminibistrochicago.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
