CAST Sigourney Weaver (Alien, 1979) Sam Neill (Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (voice), 2010) Gil Bellows (The Weather Man, 2005) David Conrad (Wedding Crashers, 2005) Monica Keena (Orange County, 2002) Anthony Brophy Chris Bauer (Fools Rush In, 1997) Andrew Tiernan (300, 2006)
I've talked about this movie before, I'm sure of it. I'm a big fan but hardly anyone has even heard of this movie because the studio pushed it straight to video. This year there are two Snow White adaptations being released and I feel it's time for this movie to be revisited and review it's full due. It's set in Dark Ages Germany, and the Crusades along with the bubonic plague, are referenced to give it all a little bit of temporal context. As I think will prove to be the case with the upcoming films, the evil witch, played by Sigourney Weaver, is the real star of this movie. It's definitely dark, which perhaps added to it's dis-appeal back in '97 but makes it a sure-fire hit these days. It has elements of a horror film without ever quite pushing it that far. Even though I've seen this movie at least three times I still have a bit of a hard time understanding this witch character. She's definitely twisted, tormented, and the way the film portray's her magic is even a little sick without being so gory.
My criticisms are that the lead was not given to a strong enough actress, Monica Keena. Her acting is, at best, reactionary, but she effectively gets us from scene to scene. Sam Neill's role was not strong enough for his talents. There are two stars in this movie, Weaver and the Dark Forest.
Here's another spooky movie I watched before Halloween. It's about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, from the perspective of the good doctor's maid, the title character. The twist is that it's also sort of a love story. Jekyll/Hyde loves Mary because of her innocence, and Mary loves Dr. Jekyll as well as his evil incarnation. The big question is why, and how is Mary able to love Dr. Hyde even when she knows that he is a vicious heartless killer. Part of it must have something to do with her abusive father. A connection is established when Mary describes him as having a peculiar way of walking, not quite a limp, and later the housekeeper uses almost the same words to describe the gait of Mr. Hyde. At the end of the movie, however, Mary is unable to forgive her father for his sins, but she has no hesitancy in forgiving Dr. Jekyll. I haven't quite figured that out yet.
I read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and I remember that no symbolism was more salient than the description of the architecture. Luckily, the filmmakers behind Mary Reilly acknowledged this importance and even amped it up a little. Dr. Jekyll's main house is separated from the laboratory by a small courtyard. The laboratory represents the cruelly analytical and mysterious person of Mr. Hyde. However, in the movie the courtyard space itself takes on a symbolic form. Mary Reilly asks if she can plant some flowers in that area, to brighten it up a little. When the flowers finally show up, they are terribly depressing little colorful things barely penetrating the heavy gloom that seems to hang perpetually over Victorian Era England. Thus Mary herself assumes the role of the bridge that connects Jekyll and Hyde int one man.
What I never figured out, or forgot, about the story is whether Dr. Jekyll was attempting to isolate his dark side in order to attain pure morality in his actual person, or whether he was seeking a release from the enforced sociality of his culture. Either way, I do remember that he is seduced by the apparent freedom of Mr. Hyde and his lack of conscience, but as Mary points to the good doctor, there are no actions without consequences and the burden of Mr. Hyde's crimes, combined with Dr. Jekyll's even weakening resolve to remain his true self, ultimately destroys the man.
This was a good pick to watch last night with my Mom (Kiefer was hanging out too, but I think he spent most of the time playing some Clone Wars game on his PSP). I never read Jane Eyre, generally because eschew novels of that period where most drama consisted of Lord So-and-so being impeded by good etiquette in his courtship of Lady Such-and-such who is rightly engaged to Lord Whatshisname and awaiting the transfer of her rich dowry and I can't really bear it. Maybe I should try harder because I liked the gothic heinousness of Lord Rochester keeping his mad wife locked in a secret room. I liked the scene in the beginning where the evil aunt locks Jane in a haunted room that has no apparent bearing on the rest of the story other than maybe to make you think that there's a ghost in the Rochester estate rather than a crazy lady.
I've just moved into a new apartment with my 17 year old cat, Patton, and he's not coping well with the change of venue. I barricaded him into a little area in the back and walks around in there - it reminds me of crazy old Mrs. Rochester locked up in the attic. So I guess that makes me Mr. Rochester, which begs the question, who would like to be my Jane?
Black Swan (2010) dir. Darren Aronofsky (Pi, 1988) starring Natalie Portman (Where the Heart Is, 2000) Mila Kunis (American Psycho II: All American Girl, 2002) --OMIGOSH THIS EXISTS Winona Ryder(Girl, Interrupted, 1999) Vincent Cassel (Shrek (Voice), 2001)
I can't believe I forgot to write about this! I guess probably because my mom took me right before New Years in a desperate attempt to cheer up my glum self. She also took me to a super fancy bistro afterwards where I ordered something super-fancy called Meatloaf Strudel and yes, that was as wonderful as it sounds. The trick though is that when we arrived in the restaurant it was utterly empty, and the waiter/host (a jack-of-all-trades, evidently) asked us about the movie and then practically squealed about how he hadn't been able to talk it over with anyone yet. So we had a chat.
At it was that guy who pointed out to me that Baclk Swan was intended to be a companion piece for The Wrestler (2008), both emphasizing the athlete's struggle with the limitations of his or her body. The gradual degradation of the dancer's body was the key theme in this movie. Then the waiter went off about other Aronofsky films, but I only saw i (1988) and parts of The Fountain (2006), which I did not care for.
Our big debate though, and I hate to spoil this for those who haven't seen the movie, but whatever...spoiler alert! Did Nina imagine sleeping with Lily or not? I leaned toward the conservative interpretation and said no, Nina was just batshit crazy and imagine Lily to be a subversive, but my waiter-pal thought otherwise, that Lily drove Nina to crazy heights by toying with her sense of reality. Ah! I'm still not sure, I think I have to see it again and watch for subtler clues, including the use or mirrors as symbols, which I'm thinking was more important than I first thought.
IMDB tells me that Aronofsky is directing another X men movie, called The Wolverine, which is about Wolvie's pre-x-men days in old-time Japan. In which, if I'm remembering my cartoons correctly, is when he falls in love with the girl who later become Lady Deathstrike, who I think was that Asian chick with the claws who died in X2: X-Men United. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but let's all hope that it's better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Anyway, at this point there are so many holes in the canon that I guess it doesn't even matter anymore.
Sorry, I'm talking about comic books when I was supposed to be talking about the movie that will probably sweep the academy awards. blah blah blah, it was wonderful! whatever everyone else said blah.
The Wolfman (2010) dir. Joe Johnston (Jumanji, 1995)
CAST Benicio Del Toro (Traffic, 2000) Emily Blunt (Sunshine Cleaning, 2008) Anthony Hopkins (The Silence of the Lambs, 1991) Hugo Weaving (Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, 1994) David Schofield (The Last of the Mohicans, 1992)
I did some serious multitasking while watching this one! I also took notes! And I discovered I have problems distinguishing Benicio Del Toro and Javier Bardem!
Ok - I guess they don't look THAT much alike, but they do have that swarthy, hispanic, heavy-jawed thing going on and it wasn't until the movie was over that I was 100% sure it was not Javier Bardem that I was watching. I also thought Benicio del Toro directed Pan's Labyrinth until just right now (Oops! That's not even close).
I don't know where to start! At first The Wolfman was really good! I thought the only reason it didn't do well in the theaters was that gothic horrors weren't really in the mode now (What was the last one? The Others?) But then it sort of devolved into a Van Helsing/League of Extraordinary Gentlemen sort of mess. Was this supposed to be about coming to terms with the undeniable-yet-ultimately-unacceptable beast that exists in the heart of Man or is this about beasties tearing it up? Because you're not allowed to have it both ways.
There was some cool visual stuff, Anthony Hopkins was supposed to be some sort of Great White Hunter type guy, and he had this tiger-fur lined coat that was badass. Also the African-Animal topiary garden where child Lawrence discovers his dead mother makes me want to live in an old-time British estate.
On the other hand, the second half of the movie was really tedious and predictable. Really shameless forshadowing is rampant throughout. The one exception is a silver cane/sword received by a mysterious stranger near the front end, which entirely violates the rule of Chekov's Gun, and I'm not sure whether I should be relieved about that or not.
A few points remaining:
1) Cameo by GOLLUM at the 35-minute mark
2) Death toll in the 20s, but the DEER survives.
3) Old-time insane asylums are the scariest places in all of space and time
4) Requisite circling dolly shot of the anti-hero perched on the edge of a rooftop and howling
5) The romance was SO contrived: OMIGOSH - he taught her how to skip stones! They are soul-mates now! I have asked countless male-types to teach me how to skip stones, and not only have I never fallen in love with any of them - I still can't skip a damn stone. This scene irritates me.
6) Where can I get some arcane old textbooks with monster illustrations?
7) The sequence of full moons is insensible. From Buffy, I know that the full moon lasts for 3 nights a months. However, in Wolfman, it only lasts for one. Fine. Whatever. Here's the timeline.
Moon1) Lawrence visits the gypsies, gets bit by wolf.
Moon2) After recovering from his injury for a month, Lawrence transforms into a werefolf and kills many townsfolk, he is apprehended in the morning.
Moon3) Lawrence has been confined in a mental asylum for what we can assume is one month. He transforms and kills many sinister old-time doctors. In the morning he tells his GF that he has to return home to kill the first Werewolf (for vengeance reasons)
Moon3-4???) Lawrence returns to his home (after dark!!!) pursued by his GF and Scotland Yard after a journey which could not have sensibly taken a whole month, and seems to have only taken the day (making it the night after the full moon). Nevertheless, Lawrence and the original werewolf transform well after night has fallen! Grrr, sloppy storyline.
Last point: They stole this scene from The Lion King, and it's weird how obvious it is.
