Monday, July 11, 2011

Jason slips into a Vortex and goes WILD IN THE STREETS

Seems like it has been too long since I hung out at my favorite underground cinema club. Anyway, the patriotic vibe didn't end after July 4th, every Thursday this month they're keeping it alive with The United States of Vortex. And last Thursday I was there to catch WILD IN THE STREETS (1968).

Christopher Jones stars as Max Flatow, aka Max Frost in Barry Shear's awesome little satire about youth taking over. Max Flatow is an uncontrollable child who is nothing but trouble to his parents (mother is Shelley Winters). He runs away from home and reappears 7 years later as Max Frost, the biggest rock and roll sensation ever, singing anthems of youth power. Senator Fergus (Hal Holbrook) sees him as the key to the youth vote, but giving Frost a taste of power is a bad idea, as he gets the idea that he should be President (ignore the whole minimum age of 35 years, he can be a 20-something Prez). He wins in a landslide, then starts shuffling all the old geezers (you know, never trust anyone over 30) into camps. It's an awesome little distorted funhouse mirror held up to the dreams of a youth revolution. My only complaint is that Richard Pryor isn't given much to work with as a member of his inner circle. Of course, Richard Pryor was pretty much an unknown back then.

Running Time: 94 minutes
My Total Minutes: 242,190

Jason watches THE BIG LEBOWSKI in San Jose's Starlight Cinema

All summer long Wednesdays in San Jose is the time/place to catch free cult/classic movies outside. I've missed most of the series, but I was there last Wednesday for THE BIG LEBOWSKI, along with my friend Ira, a champion Walter Sobchak impersonator (he was robbed at the costume contest this time). No need to say anything about the movie. If you know it, you know it; if you don't, learn it.

I will say that as much fun as it was to see it on one of those warm San Jose evenings, the projection was not great--wavy artifacts and the wrong aspect ratio. They could use a little technical help, perhaps. But at least I got up and acted out Donny's death scene with Ira. I played a blue-haired, trench-coated Dude and it wasn't windy enough to really make Donny's ashes fly, but at least I got an applause.

Next Wednesday, SPACEBALLS!

Running Time: 117 minutes
My Total Minutes: 242,096

Jason watches KUNG FU PANDA 2

Not as good as the first one (mostly because of his nonsensical power at the end), but still far more enjoyable than it had any right to be. And I really liked the flashback scenes with more traditional hand drawn animation. And I don't feel like writing more.

Running Time: 91 minutes
My Total Minutes: 241,979

Friday, July 8, 2011

Jason watches VIVA RIVA!

I wish I had seen this earlier, so I could've told all my Bay Area peeps during its too-short run. This is a super-cool African gangster flick. It takes place in the Congo, during a big fuel shortage. Riva, a small-time gangster is living large because he has a whole truck of fuel. He's also got people looking for him--the Nairobians (I think...I hope I remembered that right) he stole the gas from, the local female army commander they've enlisted (blackmailed) into their cause, and the local gangster whose girl he keeps hitting on. Seems Riva has a weakness for the ladies, but the way he plays it could be called a strength. There's some bloody violence and torture, and there's some pretty steamy sex scenes. The movie comes close to succumbing to a fatal flaw of having no sympathetic characters, after all Riva is a thief and a womanizer. But he also has enough charisma and embraces the joy of life (no matter the danger) that I couldn't help but root for him, no matter how fatally flawed I knew he was.

But the coolest part of it is using the genre trappings of a gangster flick to bring the audience to a unique spot in the world. A world that you usually see in depressing, desperate documentaries, if you see it at all. Here's to a little pure, sleazy entertainment instead of dirty, filthy guilt!

Running Time: 98 minutes
My Total Minutes: 241,888

Jason watches BRIDESMAIDS

And yeah, it's pretty funny.

I really had no desire to see it, didn't seem like my cup of tea. But I had heard from a couple of independent sources that it's better than it looks from the trailer. Maybe that's faint praise, but when I found myself with some time to kill I checked it out.

I think I'd rather have not heard any endorsement of it. I think it's a fine movie to go into with low expectations and be pleasantly surprised. It's got plenty of funny scenes, surprisingly likable characters, and a realistically annoying 'villain' (nothing overly cartoonish, Rose Byrne's villain is just prettier, richer, more popular, and better at planning weddings than Kristen Wiig's heroine--you know, annoying as hell). And despite Kristen Wiig always finding a new rock bottom (always through her own bad decisions), it's still easy to root for her.

I just wish my expectations hadn't been raised so high. Instead of being surprisingly good, it was about as good as I expected. No complaints, though--without the raised expectations I probably would've skipped it entirely.

Running Time: 125 minutes
My Total Minutes: 241,790

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Jason goes to Bad Movie Night and watches DUNGEONS & DRAGONS

Interesting bit of trivia, "Dungeons & Dragons" isn't just the title, it's also the answer to, "What should the makers of this movie be locked in and raped by?"

I'd really like to be able to say that this only looks dated because it's before the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy drastically raised the bar on fantasy adventure films. But I'm pretty sure this movie would've sucked at any time in the history of cinema. In fact, if you built a time machine and went back to the Middle Ages and showed this movie, the peasants wouldn't react with, "Oh my God, that wizard can conjure images of human beings who move!" they'd say, "Forsooth, this movie totally blows!"

Seriously, worst thing I've ever seen at bad movie night!

Running Time: 107 minutes
My Total Minutes: 241,665

Jason watches THE TREE OF LIFE

And I feel like I've been pummeled into submission by beauty. The cinematography really is unrelentingly, oppressively beautiful for every frame of the film. And so I'll begin by possibly committing blasphemy or at the very least subjecting you to the ravings of a lunatic...I'm going to compare and contrast Terrence Malick and Zack Snyder.

See, Zack Snyder also tries to make his films oppressively beautiful (or at least impressively awe-inspiring) for every frame of the film. And it's just exhausting. When every seen is supposed to be the most awesomest thing ever, ultimately nothing is awesome...or even impressive. I've said it before, and I thought it was a truism, that beauty needs a little contrast. You must spend some time looking at non-beautiful things in order to better appreciate beauty when you see it.

It turns out, this is not a truism...it's not even necessarily true. I don't know how he did it--call it a minor artistic miracle--but Terrence Malick created over 2 hours of pure beauty, and it was still beautiful in the closing scenes. Now I'm an atheist, but if I were a believer I might say this is because Malick gets his sense of beauty from his God, while Snyder gets his sense of beauty from his balls.

And it's important to recognize this as a deeply Godly movie. And I choose the word "Godly" carefully. I wouldn't call it a "religious" movie. It's not about religion--the establishment of a church/system of worshiping God on Earth. Nor is it a "spiritual" movie--the nebulous cop-out of people who don't subscribe to a religion but believe in 'some higher power.' It's a Godly movie, in that it is a movie about God, and presumably deeply informed by Malick's personal relationship to God (which, as an atheist, I have to point out is his own hallucination).

And now I will attempt to explicate 'what the movie is about.' Out of courtesy, I will announce spoiler alert, but it's the sort of movie where even if I have this right you'll still have to see it to experience it (and decide I'm completely wrong).

The entire movie takes place inside the head of Sean Penn's character, Jack O'brien, as he's attempting to understand/come to terms with/change his place in the universe. See, when he was young his little brother died. We never see exactly how it happens, but there's ample evidence that it was his fault.

But first let me go back a bit. The movie actually opens with the dichotomous choice every human has to make--to live a life of nature, or a life of spirituality. In this worldview, nature is not spiritual (take that, hippies!). Nature is striving for superiority, survival of the fittest, etc. Spirituality is seeing beauty everywhere and feeling only love. If you choose nature, no matter how successful you are, you will still see pain and ugliness and failure and you will never let yourself be happy. Jack has chosen nature, and has become a towering giant of industry--even getting the CITIZEN KANE high angle make-me-look-like-a-giant shots. But he's miserable, still haunted by his brother's death, and so he tries to make sense of his place in the universe.

And to do that, he starts at the start of the universe. Cosmic light, the Earth forming, and dinosaurs. I know all the reviews have to question the dinosaurs. Maybe they're not necessary, but I will defend them as a) beautiful, and b) sort of make sense. At least, there's a scene in Jack's childhood when he's playing in a field, finds a bone, and declares it a dinosaur bone. So if it's all taking place in his head, and he remembers that scene, it makes sense that he thinks of dinosaurs (also, I think he might have been an oil tycoon, so possible dinosaurs are directly on his mind as his source of revenue). Oh, and they're beautiful enough that I would pay good money to see a 2 hour Terrence Malick dinosaur movie, screw everything else (DVD extra, please?)

So we jump from the dinosaurs directly to Jack's birth. And his parents, Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain--the living embodiments of Nature and Spirituality. Things are fine, until they have a second and third son, and Jack is no longer the center of attention and starts acting out. As he gets older, his father also starts pushing him more, trying to turn him into a classic 'survival of the fittest' success. And I have to praise Brad Pitt's performance, which avoids the cliche 'strict father' stereotype by putting in some very genuine moments that show he loves his sons, and that he dreamed of being a musician (a church organist, in fact), before he became a businessman (and ultimately, a failed businessman).

Well, Jack's playtime with his brothers gets more and more dangerous, but unless I dozed off for a moment we never actually see how his brother died. I assume (and assume I'm supposed to assume) that Jack was responsible. And then we go back to modern times, fully grown industry giant Sean Penn thinks back on all of this, and in his mind rejects the path of nature and embraces the path of spirituality. And then we somehow jump to the desert, where we see the crevice from 127 HOURS, and then to the beach where all the people from Jack's past (including his parents and his dead brother) are there to greet and embrace him. And they all lived happily and spiritually for ever and ever, the end.

So yeah, it's beautiful. And yeah, it's pretentious. But you know what, it was pretentious in a way that makes pretension seem like the most natural, obvious thing in the world. I mean, he made a movie, over 2 hours of moving pictures with synchronized sound. And somehow he thought not only should we see it, but we should pay good money to see it. And he's right. The very act of making a movie--of making any art, really--is pretentious. So if you're going to be pretentious, you might as well be pretentious about big ideas grandly illuminated.

Running Time: 139 minutes
My Total Minutes: 241,558