Movies about pedophiles are very few and far between, so I always try to make a habit of seeing films based around this subject. "Birth" offered some very original context to the material, and now David Slade's film seems to go in another direction, turning villain to victim to equally controversial results.
"Saturday Night Fever" holds a special place in cinematic history not because it is a great film, or even a good film, but because it was a defining culture piece. It represented a snapshot of a type of counter-culture that was beyond popular for its era, and no other film managed to be nearly as significant an influence during that time. "Groove" is a snapshot of a different kind of counter-culture. 'Rave,' while nowhere near as popular as disco, is still just as important (if not drastically more so) to the people who belong to its group. What “SNF” is to disco, I have to believe "Groove" is to rave.
Whenever I watch "Goodbye, Dragon Inn", I react in two very different ways, depending on my mood at the time.
There was a time, before excessive CGI, that movies looked like "Freaked". I strongly believe that CGI is destroying much more creativity than it is creating, and therefore, I find myself longing for simpler days when puppetry and stop-motion ruled the special-effects movie world. These tools may not have been as versatile as computer effects, but they were tangible, dammit. Solid, and fun, and at times, unabashedly gross. Filmmakers accepted the fact that their effects didn't look realistic, and it gave them the freedom to make creatures that were over-the-top and silly. CGI effects want to be “real,” so (in most cases) they stifle the creativity of film crews, and create stale, stagnant movies. There are many things that I hate about modern cinema, but above all is the (almost) total lack of creativity.
I haven't written anything for Critical Film in over a year.
I come back out of the blue after the absence, and what do I feel the need to write about? A film that is over a month into its theatre run, that has already had its buzz, gathered its fans, and is in that in-between stage where it is mostly forgotten by the public. It is temporarily culturally obsolete, and most of those who had desire to see it have done so already.
I am well aware of this situation. Trust me. So why "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" to break the silence, you ask?
Brian Yuzna has yet to direct a good picture. I know it seems as though I'm being a little harsh, but it is true. Following in the footsteps of the great Stuart Gordon must be a difficult thing to do, and it's not as though Yuzna hasn't tried his hardest. He just isn't s skilled enough director to pull off his lofty ambitions.
I feel the need to preface this review with an apology to Mr. Herzog. I called him out a bit in my "Rescue Dawn" review and as it turns out, it was completely unwarranted. I still stand by my convictions on “Rescue Dawn” as an entity as I do not understand its purpose, but to question Herzog's aging mental state was unwarranted. With "Encounters at the End of the World" he has once again created something surprising and ultimately fulfilling. I was wrong to believe that Herzog was on the decline.
I'm finding it difficult lately to be able to express myself as easy as before. I am currently on a movie-watching tirade, and it seems like things are blending into each other faster than I get the chance to review them. "El Bola" is the second in a series of independent foreign cinema that I plan on watching, and it seems like precisely the kind of thing to get me out of my funk. American cinema just doesn't have the ability to feel like this, even though it occasionally tackles the subject matter.
At the time "Eating Raoul" came out, I'm sure it was very important. It has subject matter that was rarely talked about in those times, and also a sense of biting satire that wasn't exactly the fashion in that time period's cinema. I can't think of anything modern that would compare on "Eating Raoul"'s scale for controversy or historic relevance. I give it props for attempting this kind of success while also focusing on making a comedy. There hasn't been a lot of films in the comedy genre that are remembered for being edgy, violent, and worthy societal comment, and I will refuse not to give Paul Bartel his props for creating one.
“Dolls” was Stuart Gordon's third film after the instantly classic “Re-Animator” and the perhaps even more notorious “From Beyond”. It is considered by some to be his biggest disappointment, and for many people this may be true. While “Dolls” may not have had the crazy violence and gore of Gordon's previous work (there is definitely some, but what movies are as crazy as those two pictures?), and therefore disappointed people who were expecting more of the same, it is similar to his other work in its underline ambition. Gordon never hesitates to go over the top with his cinema, and with this feature, he throws everything he possibly can at his target audience to achieve what he wishes to. Simply put, “Dolls” is a film made for people who are afraid of dolls.