I saw the first Reeker way back in 2005 at a film festival in Boston. I quite enjoyed it, but haven’t given it much thought since. But when I saw that there was a sequel, I got excited; I liked the killer and wanted to see more of him. Sadly, while No Man’s Land: The Rise Of Reeker is far from a bad movie, it’s mostly just a remake, and the small bit of the film that IS new doesn’t quite make up for the fact that the rest is covering the exact same ground, right down to the same twist ending.
Still, if you’ve never seen the original (which is likely), you can watch this one without any trouble, as it works just fine (possibly better) as a standalone film. Also, since you won’t see it coming, you can enjoy the twist far more than the more prepared fellow audience members. Spoilers follow!
But for those of you who, like me, enjoyed the first (and thus gave it the audience that led to a sequel in the first place), you might be a bit perturbed to see this followup essentially copy the original, right down to the exact same twist ending. Not since Escape From LA have I seen a sequel so content in doing the same damn thing. A bit of origin for the killer/ghost thing is given, and that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t change the fact that once you realize that writer/director Dave Payne is building toward the same “they were actually all dead the whole time” climax, it becomes a bit dull to watch.
Making matters worse is that this is a much slower and less gorier film than the original. By the hour mark I think we’ve had two kills, and one of them is so abrupt and random (and inconsequential, as it occurs to a character we haven’t met yet) that it shouldn’t even count. Since Payne is telling the same story, the least he could do is provide some cool new kills, but no dice. Even Home Alone 2 offered up new traps.
However, it’s at least competently made; and on film, which is a nice bonus (the original was as well, but these type of movies are increasingly being shot on HD). Plus, since it’s been a while since I have seen the original, I found myself somewhat engaged, particularly when the characters begin to get the idea that something’s “not right” (I love the bit of the car hitting the invisible barrier that keeps them from “escaping”). And the heroine, one Mircea Monroe, is hot as hell, which almost makes up for the lack of other “eye candy” (i.e. gore and kills).
But the biggest highlight for me was that there was a character who suffered from Anosmia (fuck you, Firefox, it's spelled right! It's a word!!!), aka the inability to smell. I myself suffer from this affliction, and I believe that this is the first film to address the non-issue of folks like myself who are unable to detect farts and are forever subjected to inane questions regarding how severe it is. “What about skunks? You can smell skunks at least, right?”. No. Do you ask a blind guy if he can see really BIG things? Of course, this gets the poor woman killed, because our smelly killer doesn’t sense him behind her. When I saw the original, I thought about a sequel in which a guy with Anosmia is able to trick the monster somehow (I didn’t really flesh it out), so I was bummed to see Payne go the other way. I should file a discrimination suit.
The DVD, released as part of Ghost House’s After Dark ripoff, is pretty packed with worthwhile extras. Payne apparently cares a lot about the “little guy” on a film set, so not only is his commentary populated with appearances by non-exciting crew members like the color timer and such, but there is also a 5 minute piece in which just about every crew member (key grip, caterer AND craft services folks, 2nd assistant camera...) is introduced by name, which is pretty awesome. It’s these men and women who really bust their ass to make a movie look good, so it’s nice to see them get some recognition. Back to the commentary, definitely keep listening to the very end; Payne reads an incoherent rant from a guy who apparently hated the first movie, and it's amazing to hear this guy's terrible grammar and pointless rage spoken aloud. He also encourages you to buy the movie instead of just renting, but it's too late for that on my end (not for you though! scroll down!!) There is also a more traditional making of, which is kind of bland until the point where they discuss visual effects. We see how they design an AMAZING means of getting a realistic “missing brain” look – if I ever make a movie I am totally stealing their idea. The video presentation is also top-notch.
So if you’ve never seen the original, I guess it doesn’t matter where you start. This one’s not as fun, but there is some backstory that the original lacked. Your call.
It’s strange how The Truman Show served as a sort of bridge between high school and college. I saw it on its opening day, which also happened to be the day of my HS graduation (quick, check box office reports and figure out how old I am!), and then I saw it again a few weeks later on the first night of college orientation. Maybe that’s why I get all nostalgic when I watch it.
Or maybe it’s because I think I, like Jim Carrey’s character, am on a TV show at all times. I base this on absolutely nothing but the fact that one day at college (near the end of my sophomore year) I noticed a girl from one of my classes walking out of her dorm, and then about 20 steps behind her was a guy who was obviously not a student. Being a horror movie nut, I assumed he was stalking her, so I mentally wished them both the best of luck and continued on my way, which was to the mail room. I got my mail, and as I walked back to my dorm, I saw the same girl walking out of her building again, followed by the same guy! What the hell?
This of course, mirrors a scene in Truman when he notices that a guy on a bike and a dented car keep driving by over and over. And the funny thing about that scene is that it’s the biggest plot hole in the movie. We learn throughout the film that the TV people are always listening, that all the “residents” have hidden microphones in order to keep in contact, etc. So why did the TV overlords allow Truman to see this “loop” and do nothing about it? He says what he’s up to, and there’s even apparently a bit of a delay on the dented car, so there was plenty of time for some tech to contact the driver and tell him to turn around so Truman wouldn’t get suspicious.
Otherwise, I love how they manage to explain away all possible plot contrivances in a reasonably solid manner. Truman is afraid of water because his father drowned, and he’s afraid of flying because “plane parts” fall out of the sky and nearly kill him. There are still some minor issues with the setup (why would they even HAVE a travel agency?), but it’s good enough for me. Part of me wishes that more of the idea of it being a show was explored (he starts to get suspicious almost right from the start), but that would make for a very long movie.
One thing I definitely love about the setup is how we never see any of the TV folk for the first half of the movie (other than the “opening credits”, which are the credits for the show, not the movie). We see some people watching it, but the technicians, and Ed Harris’ character, all that stuff is saved for a key moment, at which point the movie becomes more of a back and forth between the two worlds. It’s a genius idea; we get to buy into the “reality” of the world before the curtain is lifted and we see just how much they are manipulating: the sun, the tide, everything is manufactured.
The score is amazing too. I used to cue up the final scene just to listen to the music before I finally got the soundtrack. It’s from a variety of composers, including Philip Glass, something that usually annoys me, but it works perfectly here. On that note, it’s odd how many of my all time favorite scores came in 1998: this, Meet Joe Black, Armageddon, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, What Dreams May Come...
(I didn’t say that last one was one of my favorite MOVIES, but it’s a damn good score)
Truman was actually the very first DVD I ever bought, on a barebones release that wasn’t even presented at the right aspect ratio (or maybe it WAS the intended ratio, 1.66:1?). I have since upgraded to the special edition that came out in 2005, which is worth the upgrade. A few deleted scenes, a pretty comprehensive making of (split in two parts for some reason), and a look at the FX make up for the lack of a commentary by Peter Weir (and where the hell has he been since Master and Commander? Come on man!). It has since been issued on Blu-Ray as well, but other than the idea of looking at Laura Linney (super hot in this movie) in High Def, I don’t see the need to upgrade yet again.
This remains the only “serious” Jim Carrey movie to make the same type of money his goofy comedies do, and rightfully so. It’s easily his best film (I should note I’m not a huge fan of any of his comedies; even as a kid I didn’t care much for The Mask or Dumb and Dumber, though I liked Liar, Liar a lot), and he managed to find the perfect balance between comedic and dramatic acting here. It’s probably a safe bet that if not for this movie’s success, stuff like Eternal Sunshine may not have happened, at least not with him. Show some respect, Charlie Kaufman loving hipsters!
I consider Fletch to be one of my top 3 favorite films, along with Armageddon and Halloween. Each has a different reason for being there; Halloween inspired me to be a filmmaker, and Armageddon is just pure entertainment from start to finish (given the choice on a random day, I’d probably watch Armageddon over Halloween, simply because its kitchen-sink and frenetic style lends itself to repeat viewings more than Carpenter’s otherwise superior film). So why is Fletch in there? Simple: it inadvertently formed the very nature of my being.
See, I watched the movie constantly as a kid, and then stopped around 1992 (around when I started really getting into horror and also losing interest in Chevy due to his increasingly bad films). But when I finally gave it another watch in 2000, I was amazed to discover how many of “my” mannerisms and odd sayings were actually from Fletch. I’m STILL picking up on some; there’s a bit in the film where he somehow manages a sarcastic nod as Stanwyk is explaining why he wants Fletch to kill him, and when that scene came up today I realized I do the same thing when someone is boring me.
And that’s just one example; others include: “Excuse you?”, knocking on a door and saying “Come in!” myself, “No, never, never...”, turning and watching someone leave a room for no reason (the “Frida’s boss” scene), and many others that would take too much effort to explain away. In short, if you’ve ever thought I was a bit odd in person – just watch Fletch, and I’ll make about 34% more sense. But I swear, it was all unintentional; other than actual quotes (“I’ll have a Bloody Mary, and a steak sandwich, and... a steak sandwich please.”) I have never intentionally referenced the movie, and wasn’t even aware these things were “from” anything, let alone all one guy in one film.
The real draw, though, is just how damn effortlessy funny Chevy is in the movie. If anything he could stand to drop the act a bit, as it borders on annoying at times. Like when he goes to Stanwyk’s for the first time, and says four rather unfunny lines in a row. Just shut up, man! Or at least say something that aids the plot. Still, for every line that doesn’t work, there’s about 5 that do, and I still laugh my ass off at some lines, after countless viewings. One part that always kills me is when he first meets Stanwyk. “Look, are you on a scavenger hunt or did I just forget to pay my dinner check?” And even more amazing is how funny the movie is when Chevy is the only one who gets any laughs. Everyone plays the straight man (though Arnold T. Pants, Esquire and Frank get a good line or two each), and while some movies like this fail miserably, Fletch succeeds.
Part of that success is due to the plot, which is hardly labyrinthine but certainly more developed than your average 80’s comedy. I dig how the two plot threads ultimately combine, Johny Gossamer style, and it’s a pretty decent mystery as well. One thing the sequel got wrong is a completely obvious villain in a single story, which served only to provide Chevy a means of wearing disguises. There are two villains here, and while it’s hardly a shock when Karlin is revealed to be one of them, the way he figures into the other plot is a decent enough surprise.
The “Jane Doe” special edition is pretty disappointing. The primary issue (besides the fact that director Michael Ritchie, and now novelist Gregory MacDonald are both dead) is that Chevy had no involvement with it. He’s not against contributing to new DVDs (the first two Vacations, for example) and since Fletch is his signature role, his absence is quite puzzling. Still, there’s an OK enough retrospective (it would be even better without the “host” who tries to be funny, and fails miserably), and a brief look at the makeup appliances. That’s about it. The original DVD was out of print forever, so when this edition came out fans were excited, but beyond having a new transfer for the movie there’s nothing here worth buying if you had the original. I like that it was one of the last movies to be released on HD DVD though; it’s the least necessary movie for a high def transfer ever. See Fletch’s... uh, Laker jersey in glorious 1080p, I guess!
When I see Oliver Reed or Klaus Kinski in the cast list for a movie, I know that if nothing else, it will have some glorious scenery chewing. I see them BOTH in the list, I expect greatness. And with a killer snake in the mix, there was no reason to believe that Venom would be anything but amazing. Sadly, that is far from the case; I think the 2005 Venom (the voodoo zombie killer in the swamp movie) was more exciting.
Part of the problem is that it’s not even really a killer snake movie. It’s a siege movie, a la Desperate Hours, with the snake being more of a plot complication than a plotline. Other than the occasional “POV” shot of the thing roaming the heating ducts, it’s pretty much MIA for like 45 minutes straight. Come on now.
Still, it wouldn’t be so much of a problem if Kinski and Reed were allowed to cut loose, but the two of them are more or less subdued throughout the movie. Reed fares a bit better, since he gets to shout at a little kid for no reason (his repeating “He’s a cheeky little bastard!” over and over is the movie’s highlight), blow away a cop, and of course, drink. Actually I’m not sure if he actually gets the drink; after offering every hard alcohol in the book to a hostage, he opens the liquor cabinet and the snake makes a rare cameo. No one dies as a result, but the cabinet is knocked over, so I guess no booze for him!
Kinski, on the other hand, is pretty bland. His showdown with the snake is pretty awesome, but otherwise his role mainly consists of standing around and telling Reed to stay calm or whatever. Why get such a legendary nutjob to play a generic villain? Hilariously/sadly enough, he turned down a role in Raiders of the Lost Ark (presumably, not Indy) for this forgotten and dull movie.
And what’s with director Piers Haggard's obsession with stills in this movie? Several establishing shots are just still images, and other shots are lengthened as the camera will pan to something and then inexplicably freeze. Worse is when the snake attacks Reed; they cut to his perfectly still feet as the snake crawls on the shoe. One can assume he is “frozen in fear” or whatever, but even then there would be SOME motion in the damn things. Couldn’t a PA or a grip have shaken the leg a bit from off camera? The snake is also rather unanimated; it looks so fake at times it’s a wonder they bothered ever using a real one.
Strange for a British film, it’s not very amusing either. There’s one funny part in the film’s final act, when a cop is preparing to enter the home. He argues about goggles and explains why he can’t bring a shotgun; it’s very dry and amusing. But otherwise it’s pretty humorless. Since the movie doesn’t deliver on the horror front, the Brits picked a bad time to play it straight.
One good thing is Michael Kamen’s score. He rarely did horror films, and while it often doesn’t match what’s occurring on screen (its all ominous before anything bad is even hinted at), there’s still a lot to enjoy about it. He is best known (to me) for his Die Hard and Lethal Weapon scores, but he also did The Dead Zone, another great and underrated horror score. Apparently his Venom score wasn’t released on CD, which is a damn shame. A further shame, he died a few years ago, depriving us of having him score Die Hard Faux, which would have been the highlight of that film as well (Marco Beltrami was hardly a suitable replacement).
The DVD has a commentary by Haggard. It’s pretty fascinating at times, as he mainly just talks about how everyone on the movie hated each other; in particular Kinski and Reed (not a big surprise, given their legendary egos). He also talks about how he came in after Tobe Hooper was fired. All that, plus the frequent silence, results in a commentary in which you learn more about behind the scenes drama than onscreen action. It’s the only extra of note, but since the three primary stars are dead, I can’t say I’m surprised.
In closing, I would like to ask: can someone PLEASE make a good killer snake movie? Right now my top pick is Anaconda fucking 2.
One night in college, during one of many editing sessions on our thesis film, the director and I decided to take a break by heading to the nearby theater (best thing about my school? Multiplex in walking distance) to see 3000 Miles To Graceland, which was mis-marketed as Die Hard In A Casino. So imagine our surprise and delight to discover that it was really the biggest budgeted grindhouse movie of all time.
The casino/Elvis stuff is only the first half hour of the movie. From then on it’s pretty much a mano y mano fight between Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner (two of my three favorite A list character actors; if Willis was in it too it would probably be my favorite movie of all time), with a super hot Courtney Cox along for the ride. And even though it’s not the film that was marketed, it’s still sort of traditional in terms of plot, but there are so many odd little moments and random asides that elevate the movie out of generic action drama and into pure “Awesome” land.
For example, can you name another film in which our bad guy takes a personality quiz in which he admits to masturbating and having been raped by another man? Or with a kid that likes to watch his mom fuck strangers? Or one in which a guy mows down like twenty cops and civilians, but when he is shot the soundtrack plays heroic sad death music? Midget Elvis being shot to death? CGI scorpion deathmatch? Badass offering another badass a jelly sandwich? This movie has all of the above!
The key moment, for me anyway, comes about halfway through. For no real reason, a cop pulls Costner’s character over, but stops about 50 yards back. The two men get out of their cars, and it is immediately and mutually understood that they are going to have a pistol duel. Why? Who knows? But it’s fucking awesome and hilarious, and that’s all that matters.
Russell, of course, is a criminal, but also our hero, so he can’t have as much fun as his co-stars. We know this almost right from the start; during the casino he merely wires the elevator to aid their escape while the rest of them kill cops and casino patrons. Then, when he joins the fight, he shoots some glass to prevent the cops from proceeding, rather than kill them. Aww, what a softy. But he gets a few badass moments in, such as when he teaches a little kid not to smoke by giving him a filterless cigarette. Fathering skills through badassery!
Sadly, the film has no real legacy. The DVD is as barebones as it gets (only the misleading trailer is included), and writer/director Demian Lichtenstein hasn’t been heard from since. Costner and Russell probably have no real love for the film either, not only did it tank, but they apparently were at odds during the post production, with the studio actually allowed each of them to submit their own cut of the film (the mental image of Snake Plissken sitting down at an Avid is fucking awesome). I think they went with Costner’s cut, so as a fan, I’d love to see how Russell’s differs. But the most damning/surprising thing about the movie is that its IMDb board has not a single thread on it, which is unheard of. Even the most obscure little horror movie that I watch has at least a couple threads (if only by their own director/producers), but 3KMTG, a 50 million dollar studio film with a ton of stars, had zip. Sad. Hopefully, in twenty years, my successor will be discussing how he went to the New Beverly for Grindhouse night and they showed it on a double feature with Costner’s Mr. Brooks; that would be pretty awesome.
If one were to see a modern Argento film and decide to start seeing his older films, I would recommend they see The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (Italian: L'Uccello Dalle Piume Di Cristallo) sooner rather than later. Not that it’s a bad film by any means, but it was the first of what would be several Argento films in which a traveling American witnesses a murder and becomes entwined with the police investigation as more murders pile up. Having already seen Deep Red and Tenebrae, a lot of the impact of the more simplistic and crude Plumage was lessened; it would have been nice to see him refine the formula in the later films by seeing them “in order”. Oh well.
Like those other films, our hero is briefly a suspect, though thankfully not for the entire time. In fact, one of the things I like most about the film was the minor friendship that develops between Sam (the American) and the head police investigator. I suspect that the two of them probably still exchange Christmas cards.
And of course, the murder scenes, while not as plentiful here as in the others, are pretty great. There’s a home invasion one about halfway through, and the attack of Sam’s girlfriend is one of Argento’s finest setpieces of its type. Also, while the reveal of the killer is a bit on the silly side, it’s a pretty straightforward movie; there’s none of the trademark nonsense so prevalent in his later films. There’s a guy who eats cats, but that’s about it. And that’s actually played for humor – an element that is actually pretty rare (intentional humor anyway) in his films, particularly the giallos.
Speaking of animals, the bird of the title is actually pretty inconsequential to the plot. It’s a hint about a red herring. Why he decided to name the movie after something that could almost be cut from the movie is beyond me; it would be like Hitchcock naming his movie after the bank that Janet Leigh works at instead of Psycho.
Maybe he should have named the movie “The Differences Between a Trans Person and a Perv”, because that is the subject of my favorite part of the film. The cops assemble a lineup of perverts to see if the hero recognizes any, and a tranny named “Ursula Andress” is brought in. Suddenly, the chief guy yells “No! How many times do I have to tell you, she belongs with the transvestites!” This is pretty awesome, because a. it suggests that they have a stock group of criminals that are roaming the streets and always available for a lineup, and b. we can assume that this entirely English-speaking section of Italy has a need for a group of transvestite murder suspects.
I can only hope that the DVD released by Blue Underground is an improvement on this. The non-anamorphic transfer wasn’t too surprising, but this fucking thing didn’t even have a menu. Hitting “menu” just restarted the movie, and when the movie was over, the disc just stopped entirely. It also has a barcode on the actual disc, so maybe the damn thing didn’t even have a real case. It was released by Westlake Entertainment, whoever the fuck they are. Then again, I am so busy lately, I wouldn’t have time for a commentary or anything, so I guess in the end it’s OK to have such a barebones release. If the BG release has any “must see” extras, please let me know.
I remember going to see Twelve Monkeys in theaters and wondering when Bruce was gonna shoot some guys. At the time, the only time I had seen him in non-action films were in supporting roles (Mortal Thoughts, North, Pulp Fiction...). It was the first time I became aware of his existence as a guy who could carry a movie without a single explosion. But once I realized that this was not John McClane in post-apocalyptic Philadelphia, I found I quite enjoyed the movie, and as a result, I now see each and every Bruce Willis movie (In theaters! In fact, other than The Jackal, this began my still-unbroken streak of seeing his films theatrically).
Apparently, Terry Gilliam had the same opinion I did; he said that he wouldn’t cast Bruce if he did that “steely blue eyed look”, which is pretty hilarious. That’s one of the many great tidbits to be learned in the disc’s only extra feature (besides the commentary): a feature length documentary about the film’s production. Compared to Brothers Grimm, Don Quixote, etc (is it just me or is there a book or a documentary about the troubled production of just about every single Gilliam film?), the production was a snooze, but there is just enough sort of tension and trouble to elevate the film far above the usual EPK bullshit contained on a studio sanctioned DVD.
The film is the real draw though. It’s a well crafted time travel tale, with no apparent holes in the narrative (I am a fierce nitpicker when it comes to time travel movies). I like the idea of a time travel movie in which only a few years are covered (except for the brief WWI bit, it’s all back and forth between six years), and it’s rare for the idea to be used in a completely humorless setting. The cast really sells it too; Bruce is terrific as the shell-shocked would-be savior. And Brad Pitt (this is the movie in which he earned my respect as well) is simply incredible as a guy so crazy that he makes Willis’ character look completely normal in contrast. Rounding out the trio is Madeline Stowe, aka the hottest “old enough to be my mom” woman in the world (well, tied with Rene Russo). She’s a bit annoying towards the end when she starts to believe, but otherwise it’s one of her most memorable roles. There are a few familiar faces in the supporting cast as well; I had forgotten that David Morse was in the movie (him and Bruce would square off again in the underrated 16 Blocks), and Chris Meloni pops up as a detective.
I can’t recall if it was intentional, or if the DVD just plain sucks, but the transfer is very soft. Gilliam’s images should be presented as clearly as possible, but if this was his intent, so be it. Either way, it’s always an interesting looking movie (I still love the random shots of bears and elephants just walking around Philadelphia), with the traditional gonzo set designs and off kilter framing that he excels at. This was his most financially successful film (in that it was the only one that, well, was), and in many ways his most accessible as well (tied with Fisher King anyway), and I hope it turned some folks on to his other films. His movies are not always perfect, but they are seemingly always interfered with in some way as well. I hope he is someday given a blank check and total control, just to see what he comes up with. It may just be that he needs a director friendly studio (which Universal is) to step aside and let him work and only intrude when it becomes a major concern over how their money is being spent. It’s worth noting that this and its followup, Fear and Loathing (also Universal), are pretty much his only films in which production problems are NOT part of its lore.
Since I have watched about 400 horror movies since Saw IV, I watched it again yesterday afternoon to prepare for Saw V; refreshing my memory with the loose plot threads: who was alive, who was dying, and who was simply MIA (that one is still, and may forever be, Cary Elwes' character of Dr. Gordon). And I found that I actually liked it more a 2nd time. While I've always had trouble picking a favorite, IV would have been the one I would immediately took out of consideration, but not anymore. It was a lot of fun a 2nd time around, and credit to both Darren Bousman and writers Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, I once again found the ending a real nailbiter, even though I knew what was going to happen. I was actually hoping that Riggs would figure out the riddle and keep Matthews' head from getting squished this time.
(He didn't.)
Anyway, after viewing V, I can DEFINITELY say that this is NOT my favorite, nor will it ever be. And if you're familiar with the Sawfilms (and my reviews for them), you'll know that spoilers are almost impossible to avoid, so read forward with caution!
Unlike the last couple films, we are actually treated to a sort of "previously, on Saw" sequence as the film begins. Agent Strahm's seeming capture (and death of Jeff) are repeated in full, which brings us up to speed right off the bat, a nice touch. And the next half hour or so lives up to the Saw standard. We get a twist (another "you've been watching a flashback!" type one), and the traditional two plot setup is laid out. The "A" story is, of course, Hoffman trying to make sure Strahm doesn't find out that he is working with Jigsaw. In what may be the film's best scene (and the most badass resolution to a "trap scene" in the series' history), Strahm proves that he is not going to be so easy to dispatch, and a seemingly intense game of cat and mouse begins. The "B" story is similar to that of Saw II, in that a group of strangers wake up in yet another dungeon, and have to figure out why they were chosen, what they have in common, etc.
So far, so good, right? But I dunno, something just goes off the rails. I was having a lot of fun at first, but then, suddenly, I realized I didn't care anymore about what was going on. Part of the problem is that the "B" story never really gels into the "A" story, or even the story of any of the other films. For the first time in a sequel, there seems to be a new plot thread emerging that is, shock, unrelated to anything or anyone we've already encountered. The big reveal over how these new people are connected to each other is pretty anticlimactic, because it's a reveal that means nothing to us. We can ASSUME that it's merely the setup for part VI, but that's really not in line with Saw tradition, and I began wondering why the characters didn't just figure it out sooner, rather than turn it into a reveal that had no significance to us. I admire that Marcus and Patrick* (who have blink or you'll miss it cameos) are trying to move away from the sort of revisionist/rewriting history stuff that the sequels have increasingly dove into headfirst, and you can't really blame them for trying to move on and open up the story a bit, but it feels jarring to have half the film devoted to a plot that doesn't seem connected. At least, not yet.
See, they've always left plot threads open, and the climax of each film has always set up the next one, but for the first time it really feels like they are only giving us half a movie, rather than a sort of contained story that fits into the big picture. Even III, with its "Your daughter has an hour to live" or whatever ending, felt more satisfying a climax than the one presented here.
And that's not the only problem with the finale. The tagline for this one is "You won't believe how it ends", and that is true, because I can't believe the end of this film is almost an exact replica of the one in IV. Once again, we have 3 law enforcement guys (hell, 2 of them are the same ones from IV's ending) walking around hallways and dark rooms, and the audience is scrambling to try to figure out where they are in relation to one another. And then the one we are rooting for does something that you think is the right move, but turns out to spell his doom while the bad guy gets away. The second I heard the traditional "Dundun DUNNN!" theme start up, which signals the end of the film, I was dumbfounded; "It's ending HERE?"
Again, with nearly everyone dead at this point, there really is no choice but to start up major storylines and introduce several new characters, so I can't fault the writers for doing just that. But again, it still feels way too unresolved (I won't even get into the non subplot of Jigsaw's wife and her box, a dangling plot thread that left several people particularly angry as they were walking out of the theater). If this was a TV show it would be one thing, but we have to wait a full year to not only know what happens in certain plot lines, but also know why the hell we should care about them in the first place? That's not cool. The 5 strangers are never really developed beyond their first names and what they do for a living, and while they are killed off in an order I found surprising (my pick for last man standing got offed almost instantly), their detachment from the Saw mythos (so it seems) and the rather uncreative traps in their scenes resulted in me wondering why they were in the film at all.
Speaking of the traps, I would think that since director David Hackl was the production designer on the films that he would have some really good ones here, but no dice. The only really memorable one is the initial trap for the 5 strangers, and even that is sort of similar to the "tug of war" mausoleum one in IV (except split 5 ways). The others are forgettable, and shockingly un-gory as well; this is by far the least bloody in the series. Not that I'm complaining - the torture scenes are the least interesting thing about these movies. Once I understand how the Rube Goldberg-esque trap works, I tune out; I could care less about seeing a guy spend 60 seconds injuring himself trying to get free.
Plus, Hackl has no real visual style, or if he does, he neglects to really show it here. Bousman and James Wan gave the series a consistent look while adding their own unique flair to each film (such as color schemes, note how Bousman goes from brown-yellow in II to the green/blues of III and finally the reddish look of IV). But this film is pretty bland looking; there are some occasional shots that impress (such as Strahm in his trap), and he keeps the film moving for the most part, but it's the first film in the series where I never once caught myself admiring (or even disliking) a directorial choice, because it was pretty much by-the-numbers from start to finish (I also missed the crazy transitions from IV). I originally found it odd that someone else was already chosen to direct VI before this one was even finished, but now I can kind of see why. I also couldn't help but wonder if some of the story lapses were a result of the removal of dull footage, since Patrick and Marcus have been 3-3 IMO (Saw IV and the two Feast films). I am curious if this one has a lot of excised footage that will magically resurface in time to help promote the release of the next film. Someone send me the script!!!
It's not a total loss, however. Like I said, the first 30 minutes or so are great, as we learn more about Hoffman's relationship with Jigsaw, get some nice shoutouts and traditional "let's see that scene from part __ in a new light" stuff, etc. Plus, I think this is the first sequel to mention Danny Glover's character, which was much appreciated. Also, I dug how the "B" plot was essentially a Saw version of The Weakest Link; each trap required one person to die, so it was fun to see everyone planning ahead. Do you get rid of your biggest competitor early on, or lose the dead weight? I almost wish there were 8 folks like in II, instead of just 5, so that there could be even more of this strategic survival stuff. And after the nearly incomprehensible last film, I appreciated the more traditional storytelling this time around; there isn't much that will confuse you as long as you are paying attention (hell, the end of the film barely qualifies as a twist, IMO).
I suppose that we should be lucky that it took this long for such a rushed series to lose steam. But that's precisely what made the series so great; they managed to churn out a film a year that lived up to its predecessor(s) three times now. It's sort of expected that even with the compressed time, the team would deliver. And who knows, maybe the plots that this film set up will make for a great part VI (which will in turn give this one a new lease on life). Still, nothing can change the fact that this one lacks the visual style and enjoyable feeling that the filmmakers are always two steps ahead of you. Here's hoping that VI finishes the series off in style, or at least gets it back on track if they decide to make a VII.
What say you?
*An odd factoid I want to point out; the movie trailers before the film were for MARCUS Nispel's Friday the 13th, PATRICK Lussier's My Bloody Valentine remake, and PATRICK Tatopoulos' Underworld 3. I dunno, I thought that was strange. And MBV actually looks pretty good, which is even stranger.
GENRE: GIALLO, ITALIAN SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)
Ordinarily I like to have zombies in my zombie movies, but I am glad that The Etruscan Kills Again (if the Blues Traveler song “The Mountains Win Again” was a hit, I’d totally record a parody, btw) was inexplicably included in the Silent Movie Theatre’s zombie movie fest (which yours truly is a co-host of! I hope some of you have been coming!). See, I had never heard of the movie, and even though I kept hoping zombies would show up, I was continually delighted by the nonsense displayed on the screen.
At one point I thought maybe the reels were out of order or something, because few movies have ever leapt so violently from one scene to another. Characters will suddenly teleport into a different location even though they appear to be having the same conversation, undetermined lengths of time pass by in between scenes, things happen for no real reason... it’s like a classier version of Pieces.
It’s also a movie that has a protagonist who looks like Michael Bay with a moustache, so I was on board right from the start. But he turns out to be a guy, like Jim Carrey in Number 23, who simply forgets he was in an institution for attempted murder. That’s awesome. He’s also an archaeologist, and he’s prone to holding long rods in a particular manner that had the audience rolling (except for one dude who apparently forgot that it’s OK to laugh when you go to an old Italian horror movie with ludicrous plot development – I got “ssh”ed for laughing when a guy on a bike drove through the shot for no reason and said “Hi!” to our hero, never to be seen again).
One thing about this movie that may make it interminable if you were watching it alone is that almost nothing happens in it after the first 20 min. There’s a pair of great, gory murders, but then the only other deaths are offscreen, until the ending. And it’s a long movie (around 1:45), which means there’s a lot of talk and people puttering about. With a crowd laughing at things and such, it doesn’t bother me as much, but I am guessing had this been a Monday morning Netflix thing, I’d be giving it a different review entirely.
Sadly, the DVD is out of print. Though I'm not really surprised, it seems to be relatively obscure (I couldn't find a trailer to embed, and the Wikipedia page, under the alternate title of The Dead Are Alive, seems to have been written by a babel fish) and director Armando Crispino has seemingly retired. Still, if you happen to come across it, and are in the mood for a really goofy giallo, it’s definitely worth a watch.
I have the unique privilege of saying that my two favorite actors have worked with my two favorite directors. Bruce Willis starred in Michael Bay’s Armageddon, and Chevy Chase toplined John Carpenter’s Memoirs Of An Invisible Man. Sadly, Bruce apparently hates Bay and John all but took his name off the film (it’s one of the only films that doesn’t have his name above the title. It doesn’t even say “A John Carpenter film”), but I’ll take what I can get.
But while Armageddon displays all that makes me love the folks in the first place (Bruce being Awesome, Bay blowing up everything in sight... can'you guys wait for my long-awaited review next week or what?!?!), Memoirs doesn’t really satisfy me as a Chevy OR Carpenter fan, due to both men using the film to try to do something different. Chevy fares a bit better than Carpenter; it’s one of the few films in which he actually acts, and while the role is far from humorless, he manages some genuine sympathy and remains interesting even when he’s not telling jokes, something you can’t often say about his performances. I think Funny Farm and Foul Play may be the only other films in which he was funny but still playing a genuine character. Also, and I couldn’t have known it at the time, it was the last time he starred in a decent movie, so it has some nostalgic value to me.
But Carpenter... there’s almost no sign of his style or personality here. Some of the film’s opening scenes, when Chevy is making his video, feels like vintage Carpenter, but the rest is rather "average". The effects are still astonishing at times (the film was one of the first to really demonstrate what CGI could do), but that’s probably more the work of the ILM guys than Carpenter. Certainly he knows how to stage a setpiece or keep an audience in suspense, but there is little of that talent on display here. He was the third (at least) director to come on board, and I wonder if he even bothered restaging the scenes or simply used the storyboards and such that the other guys had prepared. Apparently Chevy (who also produced) was a bit of a tyrant on the set, which I’m sure didn’t help. The only real sign that he was even involved in the film is the fact that the building where Chevy turns invisible is located in “Santa Mira”, also the home of Silver Shamrock.
Still, it’s an enjoyable comic thriller. The San Francisco backdrop is, as always, gorgeous, and some of the more inspired bits (like when Chevy knocks out a drunk and uses him to hail a cab) are a lot of fun. And Sam Neill is a great villain; pitting him against both Chevy and Stephen Tobolowsky (as a bureaucratic section chief) is a stroke of genius. It’s interesting that such a classy theater type guy appeared in back to back big budget FX movies (he was also in that one with the dinosaurs, if you have forgotten), and also a shame that he never really took off as a leading man in Hollywood (I think the last big movie he was in was that Wimbledon thing).
The DVD was one of the last Carpenter films to hit the format, and while there is obviously no commentary, there are some nice extras, including some deleted scenes (listed as outtakes) and a brief look at the FX. I wish the HBO special that aired when the movie was released was on there, but alas. Also, there is an Easter Egg where you can watch Chevy and John (mostly Chevy) block out a shot. Watching it, I realized that it was the only time in history I’ve seen him actually being actorly (the HBO special was a lot of goofing off), since none of his movies have big special editions or anything like that (or when they do, such as Fletch, he doesn’t bother appearing).
Even though it underwhelmed, I wish the movie had been a hit (it was actually a pretty big bomb; even Cops and Robbersons opened bigger I think). I can’t help but think that the careers of both guys may have turned out different. Carpenter really only delivered one more time after that (Mouth of Madness) before phoning everything in, and Chevy followed it with his talk show (good Lord) and then a long string of family movies, a phase he’s not quite yet done with. Oh well.
You’re on a platform, there’s a little brown mole thing coming at you, and some bricks above your head look like they can be reached with the top of your noggin provided you utilize a running jump. That’s pretty much all the backstory you got with Super Mario Bros. But nowadays, that simply won’t do. Now you need tie-in products to flesh out the backstory! Hence, Dead Space: Downfall, which is a prequel to the game of the same name (and a sequel to the comic book series, which fleshed out the backstory to the backstory).
And now that I’ve played thru some of the game, all I can say is “Thank Christ” that EA has licensed out their game to other mediums, because the game is a bit short on story so far. Like a lot of modern games, I often have no clue as to why I am doing the things I’m doing (Halo being the worst offender of this), but at least I know why the ship that the game has me fighting monsters on came to be the way it is, thanks to Downfall.
Even as a standalone movie, it’s actually pretty good, all things considered. No one’s going to pretend that it exists for any reason other than to promote the game, but everyone clearly put some time and effort into it, and after a slow start, it’s actually a pretty exciting addition to the “spaceship is under siege by monsters” genre. Also, the animation, and the inclusion of a religious angle (shades of Scientology) makes it stick out even more. I particularly like the 2nd half of the film, which contains a bunch of badass spaceship types taking on some pretty original monsters. There’s a bit in which a girl takes a laser cutter and chops off the front of a monster’s head that ranks as one of the best alltime kills in this type of movie,
I only wish I knew a bit more about the “crew” that the girl was a part of, since most of them are literally introduced in the middle of an action scene, and not given much further characterization either. The first half of the movie is rather dull at times, and focuses a lot on characters who aren’t important in the long run, so I wish they had restructured it a bit more like Aliens (an obvious influence) and given us a chance to get to know these guys before they spring into action. I guess since anyone who knows their alien movies also knows that they’re not long for this world, and thus it isn’t “necessary”, but still.
There is a moment that made me laugh out loud too. If you’re a fan of Eric Fensler’s GI Joe cartoon parodies, you will definitely appreciate a scene late in the film when a bunch of monsters appear and seemingly surround our heroes. One of them yells “Fuck! We’re all dead!”; an oft-quoted line from one of the episodes (my personal favorite one in fact). Whether it was intentional or not, I don’t know, but it’s awesome.
Speaking of cartoons, as this IS an animated film, part of the enjoyment stems from how much you enjoy the artwork. I am not a big fan of the anime-influenced design, but it didn’t bother me much. What DOES annoy me is when they blend the rather crude 2D stuff with incredibly gorgeous 3D models and backgrounds. Especially on Blu-ray, the various spaceships and landscapes look phenomenal, and you can really see how much detail and care was put into their design. So when it gets obscured by a flat, not very exciting drawing of a guy in a spacesuit, it’s kind of disheartening, especially when cut corners are apparent (such as when someone is talking and nothing on their body is moving except their lips).
More importantly, the movie does a good job of laying down some of the “rules” of the game. The game has no traditional HUD (heads up display, i.e. your health bar, ammo meter, minimap, etc.); instead everything is worked into your character’s suit. Most prominent is a turquoise bar that runs vertically on your guy’s back, which is your health meter. When the bar gets low, you’re almost dead. This is explained in the movie (though rather oddly, a guy is killed and then his bar vanishes all at once; it should appear half “full” on an injured character for the idea to really come across). You also learn a bit about the dismemberment idea that the game introduces (enemies need to be dismembered in specific ways to be killed, as opposed to the usual sort of “shoot it in the head to kill it instantly or shoot it anywhere 5 times” concept), and there are other little minor things that both pay off stuff from the comic book and set up things in the game (the game begins literally the second that the movie ends). And it’s worth noting that these things feel organic to the film, not shoehorned in for the purpose of aiding would-be game players.
The DVD is rather slim with extras. A “deleted scene” is actually just some animated storyboards, and there’s also a photo gallery. No making of or commentary type stuff is included, which is a shame as it would be an interesting thing to discuss, having to make what is essentially the middle part of a trilogy and yet make sure it works for those who don’t care about the comic or game. There are also a couple of cheat codes included for those gamers who aren’t aware of the existence of Gamefaqs.
In the end, it fares far better than other animated tie in properties (such as the abysmal Riddick cartoon, which I think is by the same animation studio), likely due to having a script by seasoned comic vets Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray (though oddly, they did not work on the comic). A slow start is redeemed by a pretty great 2nd half, and while the extras are pretty worthless, the 3D images look amazing on Blu-Ray (I assume the 2D stuff doesn’t benefit from a high def presentation), making it definitely worth a rental, or a purchase if you love the game and want to really explore the world of Dead Space. I wish there was some sort of deluxe package with everything (movie, game, comic) included, but the Blu-Ray is pretty cheap on its own.
When I was little, Stealing Home made me think my high school life would be pretty awesome. Our hero nails two hot girls (one like 5 years older than him), spends all summer at the beach with one of the girls (with his mom’s permission!), kicks ass at baseball, and gets to chill with Jonathan Silverman. “All this is in store for me?” said 9 or 10 year old BC, “Awesome!” Sadly, besides frequenting the beach, there’s only been one other “Billy Wyatt” esque event in my life, and it’s the last one I would have wanted to occur. Stupid Stealing Home, giving me false hope.
That said, it’s still a cherished and enjoyable movie. For starters, I love how it’s set up; the movie is about Mark Harmon’s character daydreaming about the time he was reminiscing about his childhood. LEVELS. Also, for a movie in which our hero loses his dad way too early in life AND his true love commits suicide, it’s actually a lot of fun. His best friend (Silverman, and in the present day, Harold Ramis) is one of the best characters in a movie ever, IMO. He also has a summer that’s a lot more exciting than any I ever had, nailing the hot old broad that lives next door, and also gets to drink with Billy’s mom. I never had a friend with a hot mom, but if I did, and she wanted to give me a martini, I’d probably have a good time. Apparently, this movie is based on the actual childhoods of writer/directors Steven Kampmann and William Porter, and if that’s true.... man, I hate those guys. If I ever turned my childhood memories into a movie, it would be pretty dull. “And then, for the 2nd act climax, I watch Stealing Home again.”
I also love, love, LOVE the music in this movie. There’s a lot of great 50s/60s songs like “Poison Ivy” and “All I Have To Do Is Dream”, but there’s also one of the finest scores ever recorded, composed by David Foster. Back in 2000 I found the soundtrack CD at a Virgin record store in NY, and I must have listened to the main theme a dozen times on the drive back to Boston. There is also a wonderfully cheeso/awesome ballad called “And When She Danced”, which plays over the scene where Billy finally gets to fuck (and FUCK, they appear to go at it for like 8 hrs straight) his dream girl, played by Jodie Foster back when she was still hot. And for no real reason, I’d like to point out that this song used to bug me as a kid (and still kind of does), because it’s obviously a modern song that’s being played over a scene set in the 60s. The big finale of Dirty Dancing used to bug me too, for the same reason. Not quite sure how I was able to process this information at a young age (how did I know it was a new song? Was I checking the copyright dates?), but I think it’s amusing.
This movie is also pretty harsh for a PG-13. There are a couple of f-bombs, some brief nudity, and a pretty scary encounter between Billy and a guy his mom brings home. This guy is a total ass by the way; Billy’s like “hey man, go home!” and the dude barely hesitates in punching him, a 16 year old kid, right in the face. Plus, again, the movie’s themes are a bit depressing; the scene where they watch some home movies and Billy’s mom sees footage of her husband, shot only a day or two before he died, is among one of the more heartbreaking things I’ve seen in a movie. And the entire movie revolves around a guy trying to figure out how to spread someone’s ashes. Fun for the whole family!
There’s also some goofy stuff in the movie that tickles me. Like when Billy goes to his friend’s house and sneaks into the master bedroom, which lets us see that the guy’s parents sleep in separate (side by side) beds. Also, at the very end of the film, Billy and his friends walk home after a ball game, but they head to the outfield? Where the hell are they going?
I also never really realized it before, but Billy is kind of an asshole. He fucks two girls in the movie and never bothers with either of them again. The only reason he looks for the girl he lost his virginity to is because the other one (Foster, who he “never saw again” after their incredibly hot night of sex, despite the fact that she didn’t kill herself for another 15 years or so) wanted him to get back the pendant he gave her, a task he also takes like 15 years to get around to doing. And when he does, he reveals that he hasn’t seen HER since the night they fucked. Dude, harsh.
Also, and this goes out to all the folks who have seen the movie: “You! Had! Sex! With my prom date!”
When I first moved to LA, I worked one time as an extra on Navy NCIs. We were told not to bother the talent, so I was crushed to not have the opportunity to tell Mark Harmon (who I got to share the screen with! I guess that makes up for never fucking my friend’s prom date) how much I loved the film. And then last year, Beth Broderick (the hot neighbor broad) was at Screamfest (she was in Timber Falls), and I didn’t even realize it was her until I went home. Rest assured, if I ever come across Jonathan Silverman or Blair Brown, I won’t let them out of my sight until I discuss this movie with them.
(I assume Jodie Foster is a bit weary of fans obsessed with her early work, so if I ever see her I’ll probably just nod a hello.)
This was on HDNet last year, which suggests that a new DVD may finally be in the works (as the one released is a full frame, rather bland transfer, as almost all early Warner Bros “library title” DVDs were). If they need an audio commentary by a noted expert on the film, they know where to find one.
Five dollars to the first person who can tell me who Bryan Loves You writer/director/star Seth Landau sounds like. He sounds EXACTLY LIKE someone famous but I can’t place it, and it drove me insane throughout the movie and the commentary. I’m circling around Eli Roth and Chris Parnell combined into one voice, or maybe Eric Bogosian. I don’t think those are correct though.
That five bucks will come from my trading in the DVD at Second Spin, because I cannot imagine a point in time when I would want to sit through this inept mess again. I’ve certainly seen worse movies, but I get more angry when a great concept (“found footage” about a guy investigating a creepy Arizona cult) is botched by such lazy and simply incorrect filmmaking.
First of all, it’s found footage, but most of it is actually surveillance footage from fixed angles in the corners of the room (or, when necessary, fixed angles that are conveniently fixed on objects of interest). It seems that every room in this movie has like 5 or 6 “hidden” cameras in it. This is annoying enough (why would someone take the time to edit together all of this footage? If they were filming everything 24/7 from multiple angles, there would be like 5 or 6 minutes of footage to use for every 1 minute of time), but the cult says near the beginning that filming is not allowed! So why do they film everything and cover so many angles in the process?!?!? If scenes went by from one fixed angle, I could almost buy it (it would make it a bit more unnerving at any rate), but the way its presented is completely counterproductive to the feel Landau was going for. People bitch about Diary of the Dead... at least the camera’s inclusion made contextual sense in that.
Worse than the camera trouble is the sound. There’s a gimmick that they don’t want to say the name of the town, anyone’s last name, their street, etc... and that’s fine. But instead of beeping the audio, like any normal person would, they just cut the audio out entirely. So during proper noun heavy dialogue exchanges, it sounds like your receiver is broken. Throughout the movie I thought there was something wrong with my DVD, because it’s such an intrusive and dumb way to present the “protect the identities” idea.
And once again, we have a horror movie with big names on the cover for people who aren’t in more than a scene each. Tiffany Shepis (yay!) is the only one who seems like her part was part of the actual film, and not some random nonsense filmed later to have the names attached. Top billed is George Wendt (2nd Wendt film this week!), and his scene is actually pretty cool, but again, feels completely disconnected from the rest of the film. If you were to remove it, there would be absolutely no change in the narrative at all. We also get Tony Todd bookending the film as a guy who warns you that the footage may make you sick or too scared, and Daniel Roebuck pops up as an expert on “Bryan”, a scene which is rather useless in the long run since Landau never bothers to really explore/explain the cult. A great extra feature would have been an essay or short video about the real cult, but all they offer is a commentary.
Listen to the man.
The commentary is slightly more entertaining than the film, since there’s like 50 people in the room and thus there’s always something to listen to. Landau acts a bit like Howard Stern, and is pretty lively (a stark contrast from his performance in the film, which is dull and lacks even the slightest bit of charisma), so that’s good. Plus he reveals himself to be a big fan of Fletch, so he endured himself to me. Towards the end, he tries (unsuccessfully) to further the idea that the cult is real and they are after him, and it’s a failed experiment, but I love the fact that they went there at all. On that note though – his “no, this is real!” approach to trying to promote this movie makes the lack of any other extras even more puzzling. Believers was a failed movie about a cult too, but at least the extras delivered the "this is real" chills.
On top of it all, I'm really just bummed that a movie with my namesake, albeit spelled wrong, lacks the chills. The cover art is cool (based on the creepy masks that pop up on occasion in the film), and I was actually in the mood for a found footage film, so I really thought I would dig this one, even if it didn't share the plot I had in mind when I read the title (which was a giant ripoff of Valentine, only it was a dude named Brian, or, dammit, Bryan). Attention all screenwriters - if you make a slasher movie and name the killer Brian, I can almost guarantee a positive review.
Speaking of: on the IMDb, all of the "external reviews" are positive (some are even repeated), but all the major horror sites like Fango, DreadCentral, and now (in a tangential way) Bloody Disgusting panned it. Also, I got a snarky comment about my "full review soon!" post within a couple hours of its posting, which suggests that maybe there IS a cult after all, only it's a cult that is trying to get this movie some positive attention. I don't doubt that the movie has its fans, and I'm glad some people dig it, but that kind of behavior (which I also dealt with on Poughkeepsie Tapes, but at least I liked that one) annoys me. To "coca-cola" and whoever else enjoyed this movie, feel free to post your thoughts in the comment section - that's the intent of the site after all.
Like a lot of folks, I wasn’t the biggest fan of Metallica’s "St. Anger" album. I liked it better than Load/Re-Load, but after 2-3 listens it was placed on the shelf and more or less forgotten until June of 2004, when the film Metallica: Some Kind Of Monster was shown at the Boston Film Festival. I was interested in seeing the film, not because I am a die hard fan of the band (to this day I haven’t heard any of their albums pre “And Justice For All”), but because it was directed by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, my personal favorite documentarians thanks to their Paradise Lost films, as well as Brother’s Keeper. Hell, I’m even among the few who will defend Berlinger’s Blair Witch sequel (a club Berlinger himself does not even belong). Not having a ticket, I had to wait in the standby line for about 2 hours just to HOPE to get in, and if memory serves I was one of if not THE last person they managed to find a seat for, and turned a bunch of folks away.
And even though I was in the front row of a very uncomfortable theater (a relic in the middle of Somerville, the next 2.5 hours was bliss. I was engaged by every second of the film, in a manner I’ve rarely experienced since. There’s a part in the film where James Hetfield returns from rehab, and I was like “aw, now they’ll record the album without a hitch and the movie will be over”, but a quick check of my watch revealed that it wasn’t even the halfway point. At nearly 150 minutes, the movie never once drags or even feels long, and when the REAL ending was obviously approaching, I felt bummed. I could literally watch the film all day long.
There’s just something completely enrapturing about watching these guys struggle to record an album. Kirk Hammett and Bob Rock become spectators after awhile as we see Hetfield and Lars Ulrich constantly get on each other’s nerves; displaying some of the finest passive aggressive behavior I have ever seen (real or scripted). If anything, James’ stint in rehab makes the situation worse; they really only fight once before the fact (that we see anyway), but afterwards it’s as if they can’t even record a riff without going at it.
But I think what makes it so compelling is that it’s not a bunch of yelling and throwing and punching. They fight, for lack of a better word, intelligently for the most part. A lot of that, I’m sure, is due to the fact that they have a therapist with them almost every day. He’s this guy named Phil (who oddly looks a lot like Chevy Chase does now, with his balding, liver spotted head and giant glasses), and he becomes so entwined with the band that at one point he even offers lyric suggestions. Some (particularly hardcore metalheads) might balk at these “gods” being such pussies by discussing their feelings, but I find it fascinating.
Maybe it’s BECAUSE I don’t worship these guys that I don’t have any problem with seeing their vulnerable side. Meat Loaf attempted his own version recently, with a film called In Search Of Paradise, and it was just kind of annoying to me, because I knew more than the film was actually offering. On the flipside, I also watched I Am Trying To Break Your Heart, about Wilco’s struggle to record an album of their own, and since I’m almost completely unfamiliar with their work, I wasn’t engaged by much of what was on screen. With Metallica, I think I had just enough appreciation to enjoy the occasional joke (Kirk’s response to James feeling like he has no say in how songs are recorded is priceless), but not so much that I was becoming in any way disillusioned to discover that millionaire rock stars are people too.
But besides all that, it’s just a fascinating documentary. The guys were hired to film material for a 20 minute promotional video (the guys had a working relationship with the band due to Paradise Lost; the only film in history that Metallica allowed their songs to be used on the soundtrack), but the inner turmoil and turn of events resulted in them being on the project for about two years. At one point, they even discuss the future of the documentary, IN the documentary (this scene once included a bit where the band watches what has been cut together so far, but that was excised for being a bit too meta – it’s on the DVD though).
Also, unlike their other films, it actually has a Hollywood-esque structure, complete with triumphant ending. If one considers James the main character, he falls, then struggles to rebuild, and finally regains his position as the leader of the “biggest heavy band of all time” (ex-member Jason Newsted’s words, which are mocked by Lars on the commentary) by playing a show in front of a sold out crowd (apart from the occasional archive footage, the band is never seen playing for a paying audience until the film’s conclusion). And it’s all in those little moments with Lars that sell his transformation. There’s a scene where James wants to let the therapist go, and when the guy begins to protest, Lars, who has spent the entire film ignoring or rebelling against James’ wishes, almost instantly joins his side in telling the therapist to sod off. It’s a fantastic moment. And even before then, hell, even before rehab, you see these little throwaway moments (the two of them air drumming a beat they are working on, Lars’ kid interacting with James) that show that at the end of the day, these guys are brothers. Even if you don’t even know which one is the singer and which is the drummer, you will want to see them repair their relationship by the end, just like any good movie.
One thing the movie doesn’t quite do so well is handle the Napster stuff. Fans know all about it, but non-fans probably don’t have a clue why it would be important to mention at all. In short, in the summer of 2000, the band (mostly Lars) filed a lawsuit against Napster after discovering, well, IT. They didn’t know anything about the program, and then one day they found out all of their music was available through it. Like I said earlier in this review, they are protective of their work to the extent of not even allowing it to be used in a movie. For the longest time (and maybe even still today, not sure) they wouldn’t license their albums to Columbia House or BMG either. And yet, people like to accuse them of simply being moneygrubbing assholes. Uh, no. You get paid (quite nicely) for these services, and that’s for music that they’ve already recorded, so it would be money for nothing. And a fact that often gets ignored (perhaps purposely), what initially set them off wasn’t that someone could downloaded "Load" for free, but that people were sharing (and judging) a song that they hadn’t even finished yet! The fact is, Napster was a way for people to obtain their music (in substandard quality to boot) through means that they didn’t agree to. It’s no different than a filmmaker not wanting a truncated version of his film to be shown on an airline or whatever. Anyway – the movie just still sort of makes them seem like assholes on the subject, and Lars never really gets to defend his actions. In the commentary they basically say “well we didn’t want to ignore it”, but at the same time, an amazing opportunity to set the record straight is basically wasted.
The only other aspect that I would have really liked to have seen explored is Bob Rock’s take on things. He was the album’s producer, but he was also filling in on bass until a replacement was found. He had to have been feeling like he was part of the band at some point (the album took over a year of recording sessions!), but at the same time he had a producing career to think about (it was during this time that he produced Tonic’s amazing album "Head On Straight"). But other than the occasional comment, he’s kind of a non-factor in the movie once James returns. However, other “band history” things, such as Cliff’s death, Jason’s departure, and Dave Mustaine are handled perfectly. The Mustaine scene in particular is amazing, as Dave reveals that despite all of Megadeth’s success, he still feels like a loser for being kicked out of Metallica, 20 years before.
I also want to point out two minor things that tickle me. First, when Lars has blond hair, he looks exactly like Tom Sizemore. And second, in their break room there is a Deliverance poster, except the E is missing ("Delivrance"). It’s really odd – no one noticed that on the Warner marketing team? I bet Burt Reynolds kicked someone’s ass over that.
The DVD was so packed that I took the day out of work to watch it all when it came out back in 2005. Two commentaries (one by the band, other by Berlinger/Sinofsky) that are both worth listening to, a whole bunch of little bits about the film playing at festivals, additional “post film” interviews, a video, and the trailer would have been enough. But also, there are FORTY deleted scenes, which run close to two hours combined (many with commentary by Joe and Bruce), and I’d say about 75% of them are just as interesting as anything in the finished film. And if you love the movie as much as I do, you’ll want to buy Berlinger’s book about its production, which fleshes out a lot of stuff, contains his thoughts on the Blair Witch debacle, and more. I devoured the book in two sittings; I really wish that the DVD company had partnered with the publishing company to make a sort of deluxe set with the film, book, and of course, the "St. Anger" CD.
And back to the CD – the best thing about this film (and book, to a smaller extent) is that it can actually give you a new impression of the CD. I now have listened to it more than any other Metallica album, and while I still don’t love every song (like all of their albums, it’s about 20 min or 3 songs too long), it’s just incredible to listen to these finished songs after hearing (and seeing) how they were developed (oh yeah – the movie is not all fighting and therapy, there’s actually quite a bit of lyric writing and recording session footage). For example, the song “Sweet Amber” was born out of an incident in the film when the band was being forced to record some radio promos. They are told that if they don’t do it, the radio stations from that company (Clear Channel, I assume) wouldn’t play their singles when the album was released, to which James responds (in anger, to their manager) “So... what; wash their back so they don’t stab mine?”. So now when I hear the song, I think about that scene, which is a pretty great one in the context of the film anyway, and it just becomes a richer experience. At least for me.
Sorry that this review is like 395 pages long. I really like the movie is all.
HMAD-ing is actually somewhat expensive! If you can, help BC pay for his various movie-getting services (Netflix, Amazon, buying used DVDs, etc.)! Thank you!!!
