Zabriskie Point

As a Pink Floyd fan for coming on 30 years now, I guess I should’ve gotten to this sooner.  But I’ve never heard very good things about it, and even among Antonioni fans it doesn’t seem very popular.  For the first 40 minutes, it’s pretty lame.  A lot of revolutionary, free-spirit, fuck the man, America-is-dead hogwash.  After you get through all that nonsense (basically, after the two main characters get out of California) however, it gets really good.  It’s still about free-spirit revolutionary stuff, but it’s done much more elegantly.  And beautifully.  Some of the cinematography in this film is amazing, some of Antonioni’s most impressive imagery.  And believe it or not, there’s actually a 10-minute “free love” orgy in the middle of the desert that’s neither exploitative nor embarassing.  It’s really quite a nice expression of sensuality.  And the ending is incredible, an explosive marriage of music and visuals.  Although the film is dated and the message is naive (and the acting isn’t that hot), overall it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be.  Rating: 7

IMDb

Julie & Julia

I’ve been having fun going through all 5 seasons of ”The Wire” and playing “Batman: Arkham Asylum” (I wish they’d make an Adam West Batman game, though… it’s the only incarnation with some self-awareness of how ridiculous the whole Batman universe is) but now it’s time to get a few movies watched.  I’m late to the party on this one, and so I’ve heard over and over that the “Julia” parts are great and the “Julie” parts stink.  This is very true.  The “Julia” moments are absolutely charming and delightful, she’s a great character and Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci have a wonderfully casual chemistry.  Julie, on the other hand, comes off like a self-absorbed, whiny twit.  They even address how self-absorbed she is in the movie, but that doesn’t make watching her any more enjoyable.  Frankly, I thought the perfect ending would be when Julie says “Julia hates me”.  Fade to black.  Julia Child is still a legend.  No one will know or care who Julie Powell is in about 2 years.  Blogging is not something to be famous for.  Anyone can do it.  Hell, I’m doing it right now.  Watch the Julia moments, go get a snack when Julie’s on (this movie makes you hungry).  Rating: 7

IMDb

Hour of the Wolf (rewatch)

Bergman flirted with horror quite a bit during this period.  In this tale of an artist whose personal demons may or may not be real, he tries his hand at both gothic and psychological horror.  He shows quite an aptitude for it, with some of the most startling images of his career and a creepy surrealism, no doubt influenced by fellow Scandanavian Dreyer’s Vampyr.  But Bergman takes a tongue-in-cheek approach that doesn’t work for me.  The film begins with sounds of the director talking and the crew at work, and the horror aspects are occasionally done over-the-top, as if to wink to the audience about how ridiculous it all is.  It’s like Bergman is a bit afraid of committing to the genre.  I would have preferred more sincerity.  But it is generally compelling and Nykvist’s work is amazing as always.  Rating: 8

IMDb

Star Trek

I enjoy “Star Trek” but I’m far from a “Trekkie”.  So when I notice the heaps of fan service in this movie, I’m sure there’s heaps more that I’m not aware of.  Abrams seems to want to have his cake and eat it too, throwing all kinds of bones to the fans while simultaneously “rebooting” the franchise with an alternate reality plotline.  That’s fine for fans, I suppose.  I don’t really know what they thought.  To me, it was a very run-of-the-mill action film, lots of “GO! GO! GO!” scenes and other clichés like a big clapping scene at the end.  I was engaged just enough to keep watching, but not enough to really give a shit.  Sleek and flashy with a few good character moments, popcorn entertainment that doesn’t have much heart or soul (or thought) in it.  And what the fuck… Winona Ryder?  Why?  Rating: 6

IMDb

Grey Gardens

A uniquely captivating documentary.  “Big Edie” and “Little Edie” (who happen to be the aunt and cousin of Jackie O) while away their years in a dilapidated house in upstate New York.  The crumbling residence is an apt metaphor for their lives, full of stories but with all its glamour fading.  The interactions between the two are very Cassavetes, lots of rambling stories, backhanded compliments, tangential observations and brief spurts of bickering.  Little Edie in particular is a character in every sense of the word, with the most surprising and amusing speech mannerisms.  She longs to escape Grey Gardens, but these two are so fiercely co-dependent that you can’t imagine one existing without the other.  The film does get rather one-note, and the note can be quite shrill, but it’s hard to look away from this unusual trainwreck.  Rating: 8

IMDb

Trainspotting

One of the things I like about my favorite drug movie, Drugstore Cowboy, is that it doesn’t wallow in the ugly side of addiction.  Not that that makes it any more or less honest, it’s just a refreshing change of pace.  Too much ugliness and things start to get absurdly preachy, like Requiem for a Dream.  Trainspotting admirably finds a middle ground.  It does its share of wallowing (that’s quite enough feces, thank you, Mr. Boyle) but offsets it with a good sense of humor, something that Darren Aronofsky seems to lack.  The film is stylish and offbeat, and New Order on the soundtrack always gets my attention, and for the most part manages not to get too heavy-handed.  I did feel rather disconnected from it, though.  Enjoyable and stimulating, but not engaging enough for me to come back to it.  Rating: 7

IMDb

Boogie Nights (rewatch)

I generally like Paul Thomas Anderson, but pretty much everything he’s done has been overrated and overhyped.  This is the only one I want to have in my collection.  It’s not perfect… PTA’s a little too enamored with the tracking shots (although I like the I Am Cuba homage) and as good as the soundtrack is, it tends to overwhelm the film too often.  But it’s a gloriously fun movie, with memorable performances of memorable characters, and a lot of flashy style.  There are so many scenes and snatches of dialogue that stick with you.  Rating: 9

IMDb

Stimulantia

This week’s Bergman is a rare treat for me these days: one I haven’t seen before.  Unfortunately, it seems I wasn’t missing much.  An omnibus film featuring 8 stories based on “stimuli”.  Bergman is stimulated by his young son, so his segment “Daniel” is basically just home movies of the infant lad.  Kind of a precursor to Karin’s Face, and not unlike certain works by Brakhage.  The most interesting part is when Bergman reads part of an unused script over it, but otherwise it just feels like a throwaway effort.  As do most of the other sequences.  Unsurpisingly, three of them are sex farces, none very amusing.  There’s a haphazardly compiled bit about Le Mans, a terribly dull performance by an opera singer, and a decent documentary about looking for Charlie Chaplin’s childhood home.  Gustar Molander’s film “The Necklace” is the standout.  Based on a story by Guy de Maupassant, it’s about the price of vanity.  The ironic ending is incredibly predictable, and it’s hard to see what the story has to do with the overarching theme, but the performances by Ingrid Bergman and Gunnar Bjornstrand are solid, and it looks like Molander at least put a little work into it.  Rating: 5

IMDb

It’s a Wonderful Life (rewatch)

I don’t make a habit of watching this every Xmas or anything – it just happens that the new Blu-Ray just came out.  It got rave reviews from almost everyone, but Robert Harris slammed it, stating that it had been overly manipulated and “shorn of grain”.  I agree that the picture does look curiously grain-free, but it doesn’t have that odd waxy look you often get with too much DNR.  It could look better, but I think it’s pretty good.  As for the movie, nothing I can tell you that you don’t already know.  Yes, it’s hokey and sentimental, but what a beautiful sentiment.  One of the most joyful endings ever.  The last 5 minutes reduces me to a blubbering wreck, every single time.  Rating: 9

IMDb

Heaven’s Gate

Look at me, I’m EPIC!  See the dramatic crane shots?  The big-name stars?  The nearly 4-hour running time?  The meticulous attention to period detail?  How about all these extras?  Jeez, just look at all the fucking HATS!  We spent a million dollars on hats alone!  Set in 1890 Wyoming, when everything was sepia-toned.  I can just see Cimino pitching this movie: “gentlemen, I’d like to make a film about the color brown“.  Oh, I’m just having some fun at Cimino’s expense.  There’s nothing wrong with epics or sepia tones.  But there is something overblown and self-indulgent about this movie, as if you can hear Cimino saying “Look at MY VISION!”  It’s desperately in need of an anyone-but-the-director’s cut.  You know how the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter goes on far too long?  That’s how just about every scene in this movie is.  Some padding, the point, more padding.  It’s all beautifully shot (assuming, of course, you don’t object to the abundance of brown) and certain scenes, especially the dances, are fine inclusions even if they don’t do much to support the story.  But a lot of it is just filler.  And the John Hurt and Christopher Walken characters are supposed to be “complex” but really they’re just confusing.  Why do they get involved with the association (the bad guys) and why do they stick around as long as they do?  We don’t know.  Still, it’s not an awful movie by any means, and the story itself is a reasonably compelling anti-Western, exploring ugly episodes from our nation’s history.  It mostly just needs a lot of careful editing.  Rating: 6

IMDb