Change Your Image
vin_moran
Reviews
Doug Stanhope: Deadbeat Hero (2004)
Challenging comedy - the best kind
If you are prudish or easily offended just stay away from Doug. If you have blind faith in cultural/spiritual/social/moral norms - stay away from Doug.
If, however, you are open minded and enjoy having your assumptions challenged in an uncompromising manner - then this is for you.
I hate to compare one brilliant comic to another, but Doug reminded me of why the late Bill Hick was such a genius. They both have incredible sense of logic and right and - unlike almost any other stand-up - they do not try in any way to get the audience on their side. You either come with them on the journey and try to understand, or you get out. What balls.
I didn't agree with everything Doug/Bill say but thank god someone was saying it. It is incredible how shocking someone telling the truth can be.
Dark, sick, disgusting, challenging, disturbing, difficult and utterly redeeming. Doug is one of a very few comics who truly test his audience and stretches the limits of what comedy is.
In society, since the dawn of civilisation, comedians (jesters and fools) were the only ones who were able to tell the truth to power. They were the only ones licenced to challenge social assumptions and get away with it - because people think it is just a joke. That's why people walk out of comedy shows like Dougs - because they think it's just entertainment. They think it is like switching on a sit-com, they want to switch their brains off and just watch and laugh at the bits with the canned laughter. This kind of comedy wont stoop to that level. It is not just empty entertainment.
The likes of Doug show comedy in its true form. It is an art. It is socially important. It is challenging and liberating. It is hilarious.
The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)
super and funny
OK a lot of what Larry Flint stand for is bad taste - but this is an undeniably good film. I've read a lot of the bad reviews of this film on this site and a lot of them have a political slant - they simply didn't like the idea of porn or Mr Flint himself. Fair enough, but that should not influence a review.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this film, as did my girlfriend, because it is not only interesting but is also a dialectic on exactly what freedom of expression really means. It also hangs a question mark over what America (and most of the world) considers obscene - Images of love (sex) v. images of war (death). It also argues strongly that in order to have freedom of expression, that means we all have to put up with things that we consider bad taste.
Courtney Love puts in an excellent performance (as a drug-addled slapper - actually one could argue she has been method acting for this role for 20 years) as does the consistently brilliant Ed Norton. Highly recommended.
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
The reason cinema was invented
Pan's Labrynth is an absolute masterpiece and one of the best films in years. Foreign films, perhaps because they does not have to conform to market research and demographics like Hollywood does, have consistently produced superbly deep and quietly funny films, and Pan's is no different.
This film also achieves an incredibly difficult feat - it runs two stories parallel at once (one of the labyrinth, the other of the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War). Neither story detracts from the other and both are equally engaging. Within ten minutes of this film the audience is captivated. I watched Pan's with 3 friends of mine - one of whom is not a film fan and has a tendency to switch off - but all 3 were glued to the screen from the word go.
The superb direction allows the film to move at a good pace, and allows the character to develop well. The sense of drama and tension is infused in every scene and every character is believable.
The ambiguity of the film, solidified by its ending, ensures each audience member will take something personal out of the film and its visual semantics are up for debate.
I cannot recommend a film more strongly.
The Color Purple (1985)
Heart warming/breaking
I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.
It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.
Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.
Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy.
Saw (2004)
Ignore the hype
OK, I admit I saw this film a couple of years after it was release and so it might have lost some of its power derived from its originality (a bit like watching Fight Club or The Matrix now, having being exposed to countless rip-offs).
None-the-less I found the film very contrived and like a poor man's Cube. It over-compensates for a lack of a real plot and suspense with added gore.
The premise of the film is interesting but I think there was a lack of effort made in creating a tense atmosphere. When the two main characters in the film are forced to jump through 'Saws' hoops you never fully feel the mis-trust and anxiety the film attempts to shown them go through.
It's not a terrible film, but it is not executed well. Check out Cube instead.
The Squid and the Whale (2005)
Freud would have a field day
Slow-paced dry comedy/drama that is very much a study and think film rather than flat-out entertainment. Personally I was pretty bored for the first half hour, but then the characters' development really started to kick in and grab my attention.
It is, for me, best described as a Freudian look at divorce and development - despite the film's other themes.
The divorce impacts on both children in different ways, the youngest in a typical oedipal way and one in a post-oedipal way.
The youngest, in the absence of a father figure in the house seeks to possess his mother and take his father's place. The eldest seeks behaviour that will get his father's condonement. The parents themselves are locked in a passive/aggressive argument hurting both themselves and their kids.
It is a rather enjoyable film, not a 'must see', but if you like films that reflect complex human emotions like photograph of someone else's life, then this film is for you.
Ideal (2005)
I rock the mike like a vandal
Very witty sitcom that may take a couple of episodes to get hooked - but well worth the effort.
Johnny Vegas finally gets a role suited to his quick wits (and he is finally sober enough to deliver them well). He plays the hapless stoner, Moz, who is generally a decent guy but with some quite dodgy mates/customers. Constantly stoned, Moz just wants a simple work-free life but his mellow is constantly interrupted by his customers and high-strung girlfriend.
There are a few 'red herring' story-lines that lead the viewer astray, but there is also a central backbone story that drifts along at its own pace - but enough for the audience to want to see what happens.
Full of subtle humour and wit, ideal is perfect for anyone with patients and a love of clever comedy.
Rescue Me (2004)
Worthy of purchase
Very (darkly) funny series that can be both realistic and slightly surreal. Denis Leary seems to have used Rescue Me to help expand on some theories and ideas he had on life and family which he eluded to in his earlier comedy work (No Cure For Cancer).
The show gives a lot of time to the American-Irish experience, which helps give the characters depth as they are anchored in their culture - despite it constantly slipping away from them. Like the Soprano's, this lost culture seems to haunt everything from family life to their self-understanding and definition.
Leary's character is one of third generation Irish who is struggling with his own ghosts, alcoholism, his family, his sanity and his anger. Despite all his flaws and his bad behaviour, Leary's character Tommy is still quite likable, probably because of his dark humour and frustration at modern life.
The story lines sometimes fall a little flat in gathering empathy, but are none the less gripping and the characters really develop with the obstacles they have to face in their lives.
I highly recommend the show for those who like to watch engaging drama with a real-life sense of humour.
300 (2006)
I could not contain my disappointment
First off, if you go to see this film, go knowing it is a comic book adaptation and as such don't expect historical accuracy and expect mutants and everything else thrown in for good measure. It's pretty unfair to criticize the film on these points.
But you can be forgiven for thinking that with this sort of creative freedom surely the film can't fail? Well actually, it can.
There are so many bad points to this film it is hard to concentrate on exactly what to criticize. The most prominent failure of the film, however, is that it makes no effort to get the audience to care in any way for any character in the film at any time. It is a drawn-out, slow motion snooze-fest.
Admitedly the effects and cinematography are superb, but it is perhaps the films only saving grace.
Poor acting, simply awful dialogue (at which the audience sporadically giggled - not the intention of the film makers by the way) and a non-existent storyline hamstring what could have been a superb film.
The film is full of rousing speeches and gut-wrenching battles - but no ground is laid before it. What exactly are the Spartans trying to defend? They talk of being 'free men' who will not surrender to the dark forces of Persia. But what do they mean by free? From the evidence of the film, their definition of being free seems to mean being free to commit infanticide, to be free to practice homophobia (quite strange for such buff, under-dressed men who hang around all the time wearing nothing but thongs and flexing their muscles) and freedom to be blood thirsty thugs. In fact, the only admirable quality in their society may be that their women are not second-class citizens.
The 'bad guys' are de-famed as homosexuals (thus making it more righteous to kill) who are all black or Asian - specifically not white.
But aside from semantics and politics, the film just doesn't work. There are obvious holes in the plot that are glossed over (like the fact that there are 300 soldiers - but half way through the narrator says hundreds leave the battle field but visually the numbers remain the same). The characters are bland and have no individual personality. Their backgrounds are not given - therefore giving the audience no idea what they stand to lose and robbing them of all empathy. I could go on and on but this films simply isn't worth the time. Rent Sin City let this one go under your radar.
Empire of the Sun (1987)
Utterly superb and epic
It's a fantastic film, very emotional with significant visual metaphors that never seem over-played or contrite.
The story-telling is fantastic and you truly feel for the main protagonist despite his affluent background in an impoverished China.
Not just brilliant in a movie-study way, but also enthralling.
This film will suck you in and you will watch every second with interest.
Also, Bale gives a great performance - possibly his best despite his age - and the excellent Malkovich is characteristically good.
See if you can spot a young Ben Stiller.
Manhunter (1986)
Really bad
Having read the book and then watched the film I have to say Manhunter is a masterclass on how to cock up a good script.
The acting is plastic and unbelievable, the 80s soundtrack ruins any potential emotional effect, the over-lighting refuses the imagination any opportunity to be scared, the experiences and motivations of Mr D are not portrayed (why he is who he is), the end of the film differs badly from the book (and the re-make Red Dragon, which is far closer to the book's roots) and essentially the film lacks any point.
While i could write a thesis on why i think this film is bad, ill just go over two really annoying points.
1) The main character, Will Graham, is poorly acted. There is no empathy. You never fear for him. You never care for him and he does not appear vulnerable - something essential to understanding the internal fear he feels around Lektor and Mr D. And the scene where he bodyslams Lounds onto a car is pure cheese-ball film making. Laughable.
2) And this is the nail in this films coffin: No time is spent examining Mr D, the serial killer. In the book he had a hair-lip (not represented much better in Red Dragon the film), in the film he has a mild shaving blemish. The hair-lip was central to his character and life experiences and essentially made him what he was.
He feels disfigured. This is central to the emotions the audience needs to feel when he meets Reba and finally feels 'normal' after experiencing love making.
His subsequent fear of speaking publicly and isolation and descent into what is broadly termed as 'schizophrenia' is essential in evoking pathos for his character. He is 'becoming' a monster but he was not born a monster. Red Dragon the film at least tries to address this (without huge success). The lack of examination into his psychology makes his crimes almost motiveless, and his death meaningless as we see him only as a destructive animal with no internal conflicts.
Basically, i would only recommend watching this film as a study. Read the book, watch this film and then watch Red Dragon. If you're like me you'll love the book, be disheartened by a poorly representative Manhunter and pleasantly surprised by Red Dragon.