I can only reply
That I have seen
Mere darkness

Yet not the film
Of the same name
Nor the heavy metal group

But rather
The darkness
Of the inside of my eyelids

------

Watched "Super Size Me" on DVD. Greatly interesting movie with some interesting extras included on the DVD. It is far more interesting than I expected it to be. This is the 2nd documentary I've rented this year, the other one worth seeing is "Touching the Void."

I caught the 1979 reconstruction of QUE VIVA MEXICO! by Sergei Eisenstein. Beautiful, I mean really beautifully composed images of 30s Mexico, although because the film was unfinished and not edited by Eisenstein, we only get a part of what the whole might have been. Not that it would've been any masterpiece in any case but it has that great Mageuy section which, even if the story is cliche, is powerfully rendered.

The incredibly racist CLOE LOVE IS CALLING YOU from 1934. A film directed by Marshall Neillan who directed many of Mary Pickford's films. Olive Borden plays a mulatto who "is saved" because she really is the long-lost daughter of a white man who was only raised and held by the vengeful black voodoo mammma. Borden is cute to look at and there is a terrific voodoo ceremony in the swamps near the end, but the black is depicted as so evil that it makes BIRTH OF A NATION look tame.

JUNGLE BRIDE from 1932. The pace is slow but it has two things going for it. One is the presence of beautiful Anita Page. Two is an understanding of human nature: from the moment the guy fights the lion to save her life, she has to sleep with him. Likewise, the man promoting civilization the most is the one who can revert to savagery the quickest.

Lastly, the 1925 silent version of SHE. It lacks the long lead in that the 1965 version had with a trek to the land She rules. It has neat sets but they can't rival the ones in the 1935 version. She isn't as ruthless in this as in some versions but she does kill off people in the quest for what she wants. What does come across is how totally hypnotic her attractiveness is. The actress is so-so looking but the acting gets across the idea that no man whatsoever can resist her looks. The finale comes off best with the two crossings of the mountain gap set being the highlights of the whole film and the eternal flame effects neat for the time period.

---

Naturally, it's a mixed bag. Some episodes barely register, others are almost annoyingly experimental (Mexico), the Japanese one is extremely indirectly related to the events at all, etc etc. Ken Loach provides possibly the most overtly soap-boxy political (and anti-American) one. I liked the Lelouch-directed one from France - a deaf girl on the verge of ending a relationship is unaware that anything has even happened outside (this is probably the most openly sentimental segment).

Directed by Gregory La Cava
Screenplay by Bernard Schubert and J Walter Ruben, from the novel by Fannie Hurst
Photography by Leo Tover
Music by Max Steiner

Main Cast: Ricardo Cortez, Irene Dunne, Gregory Ratoff

Jewish doctor from the New York ghetto finds fame and fortune, but forgets his humble roots.

Some of the accents and use of language in this reminded me of a cartoon I saw in Viz, titled simply "Bronx Joke". An Englishman says to a very bandy-legged Noo-Yorker "I say sir, have you soiled your pants?" to which the other replies "SOILED 'em? I only just BOIGHT 'em."

But I'm not really trying to ridicule this fine old film from the start of Hollywood's Golden Age. It's pretty good, conserving some silent mannerisms (the look of Cortez, who had apparently been groomed as the new Valentino) whilst displaying some remarkably fluid camera-work which smooths over any creakiness. The operating theatre scenes are particularly well shot.

So let's concentrate on the good things, of which there are many. Yes, I'll always like Shamalamadingdong because, even when he fails, it's still with commendably risky ideas. And his generally slow pace and careful shooting is a real asset today.

Another plus here is the James Newton Howard score. The bent-pitch 'bones of the action scenes may be too close to Bart the bear (THE EDGE) for comfort, but the violin solos in the rest of the score lend a real touch of class.

THE VILLAGE (USA 2004)

Directed by M Night Shamalamadingdong
Screenplay by M Night Shamalamadingdong
Photography by Roger Deakins
Music by James Newton Howard

Can't say I paid much attention to the score, but there are moments amongst the sound design - a phrase here, a musical effect there - which struck me as extremely effective.

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (USA 2004)

Directed by Michel Gondry
Screenplay by Charlie Kaufman
Photography by Ellen Kuras
Music by Jon Brion

I really haven't seen much lately. I did rent THE ALAMO and was
very disappointed. It is just plain dull. I really never connected to
any of the characters, and I found Burwell's score rather boring.

I loved the book FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS. It is a non fiction book
detailing how far one small Texas town will go to win at football.
In many ways, it is a tragedy when you read about the pressures
put on young guys. The movie is very well-done. It lacks the depth
of the book which is typical. For instance, the book talked about holding
boys back in the grades just to have them bigger by the time they
were in high school. The movie deals with a single year for
some seniors. It has almost a documentary look which
at first bothered me, but I adjusted. The acting by the 3 male
leads who played students was amazing.

"The problem with this school is that they're doing too much learning and
not enough football."

IT'S NOT JUST YOU, MURRAY! is Scorcese's homage to Fellini, though here again there's plenty that points to Scorcese's later films. Murray is one of those likeable scoundrels and in the fifteen minutes you spend with him you feel like a close friend (which might be dangerous, as you learn later). Like the previous short, this one is pretty much all comedy. The ending is straight out of 8 1/2.

Then there's WHO'S THAT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR?, a wonderful film in which Scorcese, through his alter ego J.R. (played perfectly by Harvey Keitel) tries to reconcile Catholic guilt with the violence he saw in his neighborhood growing up. These are themes he would dealing with his whole career, and this is the first time he seriously tried to tackle them. It stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Scorcese's best work and is not to be missed.

BOXCAR BERTHA could stand to be missed. It's a very conventional Roger Corman production (Scorcese was required to show either violence or nudity every twelve minutes) artfully directed by Scorcese. Good performances and wonderful photography, not a bad story, but there's nothing in it that makes it particularly special.

Ah, but then MEAN STREETS. This one I loved. There are so many moments that stick out in my mind after seeing the film - De Niro's mailbox-bombing entrance, the Joey Clams debate, the trash can fight. And it's great as a character study. Keitel and De Niro especially carve out very compelling, fully-realized characters, Keitel as the Scorcese surrogate who seems to exist in a world larger than this film (and indeed, for all intents and purposes he's still playing J.R.) and De Niro as a scene-stealing wild child who you can't help liking no matter how many stupid things he does. This is also the first of Scorcese's films to really display the energy and panache that would later characterize his most popular work and it has a beautifully dirty look to it that really sets it apart from (and makes it more convincing than) the more refined crime films.

Kirk, those early Scorsese shorts sound interesting. I did see his later full-lengthers you mention - BOXCAR BERTHA and MEAN STREETS. I haven't seen MEAN STREETS for a long time, but I seem to recall that I felt it was kind of "pointless" back then. That today seems a kind of "pointless" criticism in itself. Now that I'm mature and super-intelligent I'd probably see it in a different light, maybe as the incisive character study you class it as, though maybe not - maybe it would be more insufferable than ever.

Directed by Richard Brooks
Screenplay by Richard Brooks
Photography by Russell Harlan
Music by Daniele Amfitheatrof

Main Cast: Stewart Granger, Robert Taylor, Lloyd Nolan, Debra Paget, Russ Tamblyn

Two buffalo hunters don't see eye to eye.

I like my westerns hard-edged, and THE LAST HUNT is sufficiently brittle. Granger may be a shade too smug in his role (or maybe not - that's his character), and Taylor a shade too wooden (though he gets better, despite unconvincing mood swings), but they do work up a good head of steam in the way they play off each other. It's a solid, handsome film with touches of mysticism and a literally "chilling" ending which reminded me of Jack Nicholson feeling the cold in THE SHINING. I'm no authority, but I imagine that THE LAST HUNT is quite highly regarded among western fans (plenty of room for subtext readings).

Directed by Lawrence Kasdan
Screenplay by Frank Galati and Lawrence Kasdan, from the novel by Anne Tyler
Photography by John Bailey
Music by John Williams

Main Cast: William Hurt, Geena Davis, Kathleen Turner, Amy Wright, Bill Pullman, Robert Gorman, David Ogden Stiers, Ed Begley Jr

I liked this, though I didn't think it was as great as some people say. I felt it wasn't really firing on all cylinders, and there's a fatal flaw at the centre, for me at least (not really - I mean I didn't die or anything) - the absolutely zero chemistry between Hurt and Davis, whose relationship I never believed for an instant. I mean, why would the exuberantly goofy Geena set herself on pursuing wet blanket Bill even after he constantly rejects her? The film seems to be saying that you can't "make" relationships work by using guidebooks; the thing just works or it doesn't - the trouble is I was never convinced by the attraction in the first place. There's a scene when Hurt begins to open uo to Davis. He goes to her house (to leave her a letter telling her why he can't go on seeing her!) and starts telling her about how he lost his son, to which she responds by taking him upstairs to bed. Sheesh! Or maybe that does happen in real life.

But it's still good, with plenty of valiant details along the way, and, despite everything, it does achieve something which most movies don't, which is it makes one question one's very own behavior.

I caught a free screening of TWO BROTHERS as a kid's matinee. I was probably the only adult who showed up alone. The room was full of kids and I expected the worst but everyone was surprisingly quiet.

The subjects which interest Jean-Jacques Annaud seem to interest me as well and I usually like his films. I could tell that this film was aimed at just the audience I was watching it with but that didn't make it any less engaging.

In a way I should balk, after all, both this film and THE BEAR make animals conform to the script and give them behaviors and qualities that they wouldn't exhibit in real life. But if you remind yourself it's fiction and not a documentary, then it's ok (unless you belong to PETA and don't think animals should be used to entertain people).

I thought it was well-scripted and some scenes like the one between the hunter and the boy where they discuss killing the tigers is exceptionally well-written and acted. One line of dialogue intoduces Phillipine Leroy-Beaulieu's character so well that you know everything she's about all at once.

It's an odd role for Guy Pierce who has been involved in much more serious films but he takes it on as if it were as important as anything else he's been in.

Finally, the film isn't just about two tigers but a comparison between human civilization and nature. Men have become corrupt: just as they buy and sell the animals and lock them up, they buy and sell each other and also lock them up. The end result is that the art treasures, the tigers, and people themselves are marked for extinction unless people can make the shift from ego and exploitation to preservation.

----------

CONQUEST OF SPACE is available lbx on DVD now. The film itself has a great look, for 1955 they depict space accurately, and the film has a solid score by Nathan Van Cleave. There are neat moments throughout (which I'm not going to give away) some of which look forward to things done in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but the film is ultimately defeated by its basic concept.

The idea (similar to 2001) was to show that although people have progressed technologically, they still have personal flaws which they bring into space with them. It's an honest concept to do space without all the heroic right stuff but unfortunately the actual result comes off as 'Jerks in Space'. With minor exception everyone is an unlikeable SOB (the Jewish and Irish guys especially are so annoying that their depiction comes off as racist) and so with no one to root for you can't wait for the whole film to be over.

----------

VOYAGER with Sam Shepard and Julie Delpy was an interesting take on the Oedipus myth. An engineer is too rational to realize that there is something bigger than the material world. Fate, which he considers only a mere train of coincidence, provides him with both a momentary joy and a tragic truth. Having seen the truth the engineer finishes the film wearing dark sunglasses (the modern equivalent of blinding himself). Still, the real joy of the film is in the watching, especially watching Julie Delpy who is often shown standing next to works of art which can't compete with her living beauty.

--------------------

Directed by that bloke who did THE MUMMY I really had to put my brain into gear for this one, loads of conveluted nonsense ensues in a film I really can't be bothered to explain too much. Loved the bit where Wolverine takes on the Hulk in Notre Dam, the steam powered Frankenstein, Q's headquarters in the depths of the Vatican, the 3 Dracula chicks and the 9ft Werewolf.

Dafty film that makes 2 hours go in 5 minutes.

I don't know how I'm going to get over my new found fear of an Ice Age (my other fears include woodpeckers with rubber beaks, Horse Whisperers and Simon McCorkindale as Manimal), knowing Dennis Quaid would be an advantage if you need saving.

Bad things about TOPAZ: everything else. (Total time: 125 mins approx).

Yes, I was hugely surprised at how often this movie just seems to grind to a halt amidst dreadfully boring dialogue. This must be Hitchcock's dullest film by far. Even the total lack of a human dimension wouldn't have been so bad if there had been at least some degree of tension, but that's missing too, and, as if things weren't bad enough, the glum cast is from the Gerry Anderson school of puppetry. The story? You won't care what's happening, or why. Stultifying.

And the icing on the cake, so to speak, is a typically maddening Maurice Jarre score.

TOPAZ (USA 1969)

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Screenplay by Samuel Taylor, from the novel by Leon Uris
Photography by Jack Hildyard
Music by Maurice Jarre

So a couple weeks ago I watched ELLA ENCHANTED against my better judgment, and that film committed what I thought was an unsurpassable sin: it gave Cary Elwes nothing to do.

But I'm sorry to say, my friends, that ELLA has been surpassed. Tonight, I've just seen SAW, and it did something much, much worse: despite having plenty to do, it presented me with a bad Cary Elwes performance. Not just bad, in fact, but wretched.

Not that Elwes should carry the burden of the blame. There are thousands of problems with SAW, each more frustrating than the next. It starts with a great premise for a horror film and then sets out to ruin it in every way possible. First there's the "MTV" style of editing, and although it generally never works in any situation, I find it does the most damage in horror. A horribly bloody dead body on the floor is shocking enough in and of itself without using a bunch of circular fast-motion shots broken up with 50 thousand flash cuts punctuated with synthesized anvil crashes and wailing distortion guitars.

Then there's the whole concurrent plot about detective Danny Glover trying to catch the jigsaw killer. Any originality contained in this film's initial premise is totally subverted by this tacky, boring, derivative garbage in which every single thing you expect to happen does. This is why I wish Hitchcock were still around. He could make a film about two guys trapped inside a room with a ticking clock and make it just about those two guys, and it would be brilliant. I'm sure there's someone around today who could do the same thing.

But then there's the dialogue. Good God, the dialogue. Nearly every line of dialogue is completely expository. Characters open their mouths only to tell the audience what the audience can plainly see. And what's worse, they do a terrible job in the telling.

Leigh Wannell, who was also the co-writer, is clearly an amateur and delivers just the kind of bad acting you expect from a marginal horror film. But I just don't know what to make of Cary Elwes. He starts out overplaying his character's cockiness like he's in a soap opera, then eventually calms down and starts to carve out a more believable character. Then it gets interesting: towards the middle of the film, his calm, methodical demeanor starts to snap, and Elwes starts to outline a compelling portrait of a collected, straight-laced guy whose wall is slowly breaking down. Then, in the last act, he takes that crumbling wall and jumps ship, turning in the most awful performance I've seen on screen this year, complete with bug eyes, ridiculous tremors and vibrations and some of the most side-splittingly funny (while simultaneously cringe-inducing) cinematic crying since Claire Danes in ROMEO & JULIET.

But I guess I feel sorry for him more than anything. I don't know how anyone could say the lines he's asked to say with anything resembling realistic conviction, especially if they were calling for all the screams and sobs to go along with it. "My family needs me!!" In fact, I feel much better just assuming that Elwes delivered exactly what the director asked him to deliver.

Audience reaction was difficult to read. The theater was packed and more than half of the audience was laughing hysterically during what were supposed to be the most intense moments of the film. I was happy about that, but it didn't stop them from giving the movie a really enthusiastic round of applause when it ended. Am I just that out of touch with modern audiences?

Kirk

----------

I've had a lot of other things to do this month so I've had to put media watching on a back burner.

CASTLE OF BLOOD (aka DANZE MACABRE) by Antonio Margheriti with Barbara Steele was surprisingly good stuff. It's mostly just a guy wandering around a castle holding a candle watching zombies re-enact the situations that caused their deaths (which reminded me of Rivette's CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING) but it grips you and holds you right down to its ironic last minutes. There were a few unintentional laughs but the atmosphere and action had me taking the whole thing seriously and I really got into it. The score by Riz Ortolani was solid as well and in some cues it even used an organ in the manner of silent movie horror with sustained notes and the like which was actually very effective.

There are some very neat things about it to be sure. A guy picks up a bust to look at it and when he puts it down someone has appeared in the background of the shot where the bust was being held. There are neat little effects like that. Speeding up the camera just a bit when Vincent Price shows up on the balcony to make his appearance more frightening, etc.

The best thing about it is that even if it explands on the Poe story, it's the one Poe-Corman film that seems to follow the Poe themes, his preoccupation with death for instance. Price is the ultimate goth type right down to wearing black and those sunglasses. Lady Rowena doesn't so much love him as she is attracted to him because he's aligned with death. She takes the flower of death from the grave site and puts it in her clothing. They are two of a pair.

But Corman only plays with the idea that they should both either live together or die together and gives the film the same ending that COORIDOR OF MIRRORS has with the twisted but much more interesting guy losing the girl to the more boring normal guy. Blah. Better she should die a glorious gothic death than wind up in that guy's arms. Yuck.

But even if it doesn't follow its gothness through to the gloomy end, it looks fantastic and moves forward without drag. It's no masterpiece (to me--maybe you can explain why it is) but no slouch either.