Heathers

Winona Ryder, Christian Slater. Michael Lehmann, director. 1989.

Flashback!

Had seen this movie, of course, in the 80's when it came out, but I wanted to show it to my wife because for some reason I remembered it as being a fairly decent black comedy. My only criticism at the time was that Christian Slater obviously wanted to be Jack Nicholson - I mean, badly!! While that holds true, the movie shouldn't be judged on just that.

What was really interesting was how much of the movie seemed to hold up: Oh sure, you can slag the clothes and the bangs-for-Jesus hair that all these girls have, (Thank God THAT was left behind in the 80's . . . fer sure!) but other than that, you can pretty much bring the movie forward in time, change the clothing, and you may indeed have a movie that would hold up today.

Except that now we've been through the 90's . . . and blowing away kids in school is not only something that inner city kids do (with no national attention), but also that spoiled white middle classers also do (with great national attention). So unless you know that the movie pre-dated the real violence you won't understand the prophetic imagery.

As far as a movie is plotted, my only complaint is that Winona Ryder's character isn't truly developed - so much that you can't really SEE her as one of the former geeks, becuase we are not treated to her transformation, only to several offhand comments that are supposed to render the entire thing meaningful.

Other than that, this reminded me of several good lines that had stayed in my mind all these years, namely the exclamation, "I love my dead gay son!" and "OK, so I WAS coming up here to KILL you, but . . .!" Amazing how certain pieces of dialogue can stay with you.

The most poignant moment for me, watching this movie now as an adult instead of then as a child, was the one scene in which Ryder faces her parents, and says something moronic about being treated like a kid, and the mom, who heretofore had been completely complacent and dull, suddenly says something about how kids always complain about not being treated like adults, and states, "Do you ever wonder that the reason why we're so tough on you is because we ARE treating you like adults?" Meaning: We're holding you up to adult standards . . . and yew don't loike it!!!!

If you want a trip down memory lane, check it out . . . it's not as funny as you'll remember, but if you're nostalgic for your bangs, well . . .

and if you have no recollection of the 80's, aw what the heck, check it out anyway. You'll have a good chuckle at the clothes your folks were wearing when you were conceived.

VG

Just Married

Ashton Kushner and Brittany Murphy. Shawn Levy, dir. 2003, 20th Century Fox.

My wife and I caught this movie in sporadic moments while vacuuming the floor on a Saturday afternoon.

Actually I didn't expect much from it, but we were pleasantly surprised. Not much to say, except that it's a cute film, light on plot, but for the romantics in all of us it's worth a Saturday afternoon on TV.

Some of the best moments are Kushner's dialogue with the Italian desk clerk - some good lines there, augmented with the trivia that the Italian actor learned his line phonetically. Not half bad. Kushner also has a good bit of dialogue with his wife's ex-boyfriend while defending her with a fireplace poker.

Other than that, fairly tame stuff. I thought the ex-boyfriend character getting in the way was a bit of a detraction, and something really didn't seem to sit right with that entire part of the plot. Movie could have been re-written to focus solely on how a young couple LEARNS about each other through their first trial. Perhaps it can be redone as such.

Perhaps. But still cute.

Saturday afternoon light fare, lemme tellya!

VG

The Alamo

How many stars does it take to be "star-studded"?

Because this one definitely was.

More than you can shake a stick at . . . just maybe two fewer than Tombstone (which I will describe later)

However, I have to give the movie credit for showing William Travis as the cad he was for leaving his pregnant wife and denying his son. And I thought the tension between him and Bowie made for an intriguing portion of the movie, but I have to admit that the middle half of the movie (during which period Bowie was sick and delirious) made for some very slow moving. I know the director was trying to build up tension, but dang! How many shots does it take to show the "rag-tag" band of ne'er-do-wells who are marching into Texas history against the snazzy, sharply-dressed and well-fed (even if cowardly and impress children into service) Mexican army.

Takes about an hour of movie time, apparently.

Personally, while musically-speaking I really enjoyed Crockett's violin in contrapuntal melody with the Mexican drums, artistically speaking I feel that was an overused device, i.e. to show the "moment of togetherness" that two enemies have right before they slaughter each other.

Be that as it may: I have to admit that the cinematography seemed quite vivid: the splash of colours, the orange pre-dawn sky (which we saw how many times?) and the movement of the extras was all quite exciting, once the action began. And not that I appreciate slaughter in any way, and being a Disney movie they did seem to "play down" any actual gore - seemed like one of those old cowboy movies: shoot, fall down, grab chest, no blood - dead.

In all honesty, I only became truly interested in this movie AFTER the fall of the Alamo, when Sam Houston was leading Santa Ana's army through the Texas wilds, making him split his troops, luring him into a false move. THAT was the best part of the movie: Houston's strategy, especially since all his men wanted a quick and bloody revenge. Then they got it, in two minutes of movie-time with a tag line that stated, "Santa Ana's army was defeated in eighteen minutes."

Heck, I would have like to have seen the eighteen minutes in real-time.

Overall, I'd say this film was a little overdone (don't even get me started on the CARICATURE of Santa Ana - ay carumba!!!) but it had some decent action toward the end and a few good quips and in all honesty, I say if this film interests anybody in further research on American history then it will be well worth it.

Check it out. Or better yet, just go to the library and check out books on the Alamo.


VG

The Gods Must Be Crazy

For those of you who know of this movie will say to yourselves, "Now, how long ago did I watch that?" The answer - too long! This is a movie for the whole family (and there are very few movies that can actually say that with a straight face).

I saw this movie in the mid-80's and just watched it again last week when a friend of mine leant me his DVD copy (missing insert, thank you!) because "You gotta show it to the grandkids!"

OK - the grandkids thought the first 20 minutes of documentary was boring - they got a little spiked up when the bottle hit the ground, and they loved the rhino stomping out the fires and the Bushman driving the jeep backwards.

Which, of course, were the scenes that I remembered - vividly. It was as though this movie had eeked itself into the tapestry of my personal history, and remained there, a part of me - like the skin of my scalp underneath my hair - it never comes out, never makes a statement, but it always there as a part of me - that's what this movie is.

Jeez, I'm so technical. Actually, I found a couple of good reviews about this movie (because I heard there was a 2nd one, 'tho I've never seen it) on Amazon.com. You might want to check them out for specific details (frame-speed and whatnot).

Basically, for yer Verble here, I'm here to tell you that it's a beautiful movie, and if you haven't seen it before, then you must you must you must go rent it immediately if not sooner. If you have seen it, you know what I'm talking about - and if it's been several years - go watch it again. In fact, buy it - add it to your personal DVD collection. This movie is THAT important. Along the level of Dr. Strangelove and Ice Age.

No collection should be without it.

and before I go, let me add that yes, there is the "simple people are nicer than those of us who live in so-called 'civilization'" which may be a trifle grating, but that's only because it's true. In fact, watching it again led me to believe that the Bushmen, who have never heard of the Bible, are, in fact, more Christian than any of the supposedly "saved." They live their lives loving each other equally, accepting all things as the will of God, and being eternally grateful for simple things such as tubers and the rain.

If only all of us would remember to be so wholly grateful in that way.

Right now, I'm grateful to God for a movie like this/for someone to make a movie like that/for giving the human race the ability to form such lofty ideals/and for the capacity to laugh and cry at a movie such as this.

VG

Purgatory Flats

Before I continue I must confess that one of the things in life that gives me great joy and happiness is "just coming across" something. Nothing that you're seeking - you just happen to pick it up and say, "I'd like to see this" - it's along the lines of what I call the "Oh what the heck!" response, which is what I said when I came across this little DVD - while digging through boxes of stuff in Old Man Liebenheimer's shack, where he keeps pretty much everything he ever picks up at pawn shops or garage sales. I swear, that metal shed in his back yard is like a like a three-square-mile flea market in a 12x12 space.

But more on the shed later . . . this movie was one of those "whattheheck" moments, and it's that kind of movie - not the kind you'd really want to watch again, but at least you don't feel you completely wasted two hours of your life either. Purgatory Flats. Harris Done, director. 2003. DEJ Productions. (tag line: "In the desert, everyone gets burned") - you know, I think I'd love that job: Verble Gherulous, Tag Line Writer! I would have loved to have been the person who made up, "In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream," I'd walk around, telling everybody proudly, "I wrote that!"

But back to the movie: basically, a rich Dr. who killed his wife in drunken car accident gets out after 5 years in jail moves to small desert town and gets involved with white trash. That's basically it. But it's more interesting than it sounds, probably because even though the characters aren't as well drawn or interesting as, say, on the level of "Northern Exposure," they are interesting enough to keep your attention. They're stereotypical but not caricatures.

The doc gets involved with the girl whose husband is shot during a drug deal gone bad. The husband (a Vanilla Ice wannabe) spends most of the movie on the table in the uncle's house while the wife (a sweet talking junkie ho'), the uncle (a deadbeat auto mechanic) and the brother (an AWOL marine who has GOT to be some sort of white supremacist) and the doc argue back and forth over the unconscious and dying man. The doc can't seem to get away from this backdesert clan because, in short, he's so incredibly forney for the girl. I couldn't grok that reason, and spent 45 minutes yelling at the guy. "These people got you breaking into clinics, man, shooting security guards! Get out! Just get in the car and drive!!!"

My wife, magnanimous and kind and rational, told me gently to give the poor guy a break: he HAD been in jail for 5 years, you know. "But she can't be the only woman in town," I replied. But in this movie, she WAS. No wonder everybody wanted her . . . oops! Don't want to give away too much!

In short: decent dialogue (albeit peppered with a little TOO much cursing), some tense moments (shotgun in the closet, anybody?), decent plot twists (needle/spoon in dresser drawer), and a doc who's sympathetic enough that you REALLY hope he makes it out of this OK. And of course, Purgatory Flats gets bonus points for giving us an actress in sensuous poses and erotic scences withOUT having to show her nude. In that aspect, very tastefully done.

Last interesting point: when I tried to google this movie I found only two reviews - one by a guy obviously much more intelligent than I am about the movie/DVD media (he hated the audio-video programming of the DVD, something wrong with the color-ratio and the soundtrack, I dunno), and another review which was written in German. Not being able to read German, I don't know if that reviewer liked it or not.

If this review helps, let me know. And if you want to borrow the movie, just call Old Man Liebenheimer - it's out in his back shed. (You know, I think the old guy's from Bavaria - maybe I'll have him translate that review. Heck, for all I know, he WROTE it!)

More later,

VG

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

For the longest time I didn't want to see this movie based on the review of my son, who has read all 11 books as I have, and enjoyed them immensely - which here means "quite a great deal."

However, I finally watched the movie over the weekend, and I have to say that my son has fallen into what can only be described as the "Trap of the Nearsighted Purist" or the "Purist Trap of Nearsightedness" or the "Myopic Purist Pitfall." Something like that - if you can think of a better name, please let me know. Suffice it to say that the condition I'm describing is known to everybody: You read the book; you expect the movie to be just like the book.

But it never is. It can't be. For two reasons: 1) the FORMATS are incompatible. There is no way to turn a 150-800 page novel into a movie (although I must admit that the Harry Potter series does a fairly good job of it!) and 2) in NO WAY will a director's vision be the same as yours.

Break it down: When you read a book you have a mental image of the whole thing - characters, events, background, action, etc. When you see a movie all the visuals are laid out before you. Movie watching is much more passive than book reading, but the very nature of the medium.

Ergo, it seems obvious to me that, while there are many many ways in which to judge each medium, one of them is How well does the creator establish the mood? In a book it's the words chosen; in a movie it's the visual&sound.

Don't worry, I'm getting back to Series of Unfortunate Events, just be patient! The movie established a dark, dreary tone equal to that of the book - with the sets that at times looked like stage sets - there was a (dare I say it?) Tim Burton-esque feel to the entire movie, and while purists like my son panned it for its differences from the book, I would like to extol the virtues that it shares with the book, namely the tone (setting) and the narrative voice (as spoken by Jude Law) and the characters - and yes, you can't mention this movie without mentioning Jim Carrey.

In fact, let me tell you the main points why my Purist son hates this movie. He told me 1) this movie was nothing but a Jim Carrey vessel, i.e. there was more Carrey than the kids, 2) Klaus didn't wear glasses, which is integral to the character (he's right on that point - the entire 5th book depends ENTIRELY on Klaus's glasses), 3) Sonny is too old - she's supposed to be an infant with only one wisp of hair, and 4) the plot was completely collapsed and inverted as they tried to shove three books into one two-hour movie.

S'okay, still trying to shake off my Book-Purist Motifs myself, I had my reservations, but I have to admit that this film isn't as MUCH of a Carrey vessel as I had supposed. Sure, he plays multiple characters, but the other characters have only about 10 lines at the most. Sonny has to be a toddler; there's no way possible you can film an eighteen-month-old baby doing the things that Sunny is supposed to do. Klaus's glasses, well, we'll just have to see how they deal with that issue in the next movie . . .

and yes, it was obvious that they pushed three books into two-hours, and even if you hadn't read the books you would still feel that there's something missing here, such as there was not enough character development with the orphans' other relatives (which was good for me for the last 1/3 of the film - because I have a chronic revulsion to Meryl Streep, but that's an entire essay in and of itself!). Also, the plot was a little too fragile, too harried.

Basically, I think it wouldn't hurt to watch the film then read the books. Certainly it might color your book-reading, augment your visuals - you won't see Count Olaf or Violet with your inner eye, you'll see those actors in those roles, certainly, and in that aspect you will have cheated yourself of one of the many pleasures of true book enjoyment. However, you will probably enjoy the story much more, with the colorful sets and sounds wafting through your mind, especially having given a good sonorous voice to the omnipresent narrator.

Like I said: Books vs. Movies - each have their advantages and disadvantages. They can be enjoyed together or independently, but you can't have a preconceived notion that one is going to reflect the image you made of the other. If you do, then that would be very unfortunate indeed.

Movies vs. Books

It was only a few years ago that I truly started to see that movies were indeed an art form in and of themselves, along the same lines as my beloved books (which I have always considered and most likely always will consider to be the highest form of artistic human expression). However, for most of my life I had always thought of movies as a sort of throwaway entertainment, much along the lines of a Big Mac compared to a perfectly done porterhouse steak with a baked potato on the side.

However, it wasn't until I started getting nostalgic that I began to realize that movies weren't just badly digested fast food. Nostalgia, yes, brought this new idea to me. I began to remember snippets of dialogue from movies, much in the same way that I remembered a line or two from some hazy novel tastily devoured so long ago. Then I began to notice how much dialogue from motion pictures has made its way into the communal patterns of speech - our American culture.

For example, I can say "Thar' she blows - the GREAT WHITE!" with the same fervency and frequency that I say, "I looked into the trap, Ray!!"

You get the point. I found a turning point.

So, OK, I admit it. Now, I decided, what am I going to do about it?

I started doing what I always do in instances like this: at that point a few years ago I began to start a journal of every movie I watched and every book I read. As you can probably guess: I watched MANY more movies than I read books. The reason for that is obvious: a movie takes reveals to the watcher a story that unrevels itself in a two-hour space of time, whereas a book is a courtship that can last days (or at least one long airline flight).

Another drawback is that once you get into hard-core movie-watching (and I mean the watching part, not "hard-core movies" - don't be so dirty-minded!!), the temptation is to push it as far as it'll go. (And a cookie goes out to whomever thought of the book first, not the Johnny Depp movie that was based on it!).

Suffice it to say, eventually I had to stop writing in the journal because there were so many movies (and a few books) and I just enjoyed watching them more than writing about them. But now that I've been "dragged kicking and screaming" into the 21st Century (ref. 1st post in other blog: LocuaCity) I now intend to establish THIS blog as a forum for talking about movies as an art form. So, again, as with all my blogs, I welcome requests/comments/suggestions/feedback. I want to be introduced to movies I haven't seen, and I want different angles on movies that I say I don't like.

Basically, let's talk.