Grindhouse

Dirs. Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, 2007



While this is billed in some countries as two separate movies, and is rumored to start being released as separate movies, I think that the two component films of Grindhouse need each other in order to best be understood. The two films, Planet Terror by Robert Rodriguez and Death Proof by Quentin Tarantino, are interesting on their own, and showcase the talents of the directors well, but without the context of the other film (and the fake trailers before and between them), they are just a campy zombie movie and a car chase movie.

Although I have seen a few movies by Robert Rodriguez, El Mariachi (a really long time ago), "The Misbehavers" sequence in Four Rooms, Sin City and now Planet Terror, I feel like I haven't seen THE Robert Rodriguez movie, Desperado, so I don't know what is typical for him or not. Now that I actually lay it all out, I suppose I have seen a decent amount of his stuff, but anyway. In this film, you can see that he really, really wanted to make this movie, and that were he directing in the 1970's, he would have fit in perfectly among the standard grindhouse fare.

His is a movie about a society upon which a biological substance is unleashed on the population of a town or village or something, and the locals start turning into oozing pustule-covered zombies. Only a group of magically uninfected people, most notably Cherry played by Rose McGowan and (El) Wray played by Freddie Rodriguez, can fight them off and make the world safe for humans again. Among this group is also a sort of naughty nurse, played by Marley Shelton who has been trying to escape her evil doctor husband for a presumably long time. This large group comes together and fights off the advancing zombies in increasingly silly and far-fetched ways, much to everyone's entertainment.

I am not a huge aficionado of this genre, but I can easily recognize it, and I can see the effort that went into making Planet Terror. It is difficult to make a really good movie, and presumably not as difficult to make a mediocre or unintentionally bad movie. But to deliberately write a cheesy, campy, off-the-wall gory and absurdly objectifying movie must be hard work. It can't sound too good, and it can't sound too convincing. There must always be the right amount of eye-rollingly corny one-liners and tender, meaningful moments that are really just filler while the zombies wreak a little more havoc. Freddy Rodriguez, whom I had admired before in Six Feet Under has perfect delivery of these lines and seems to have been born to do C-rate movie camp. Rose McGowan is a captivating kind of actress, whose acting talents have nothing to do with anything, but whose face, figure, and perfectly made-up lips are well suited to be the sensitive but hard machine-gun leg wielding heroine.

Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof is a little more complicated. While Planet Terror could be zapped back 30 years into the past and fit in as one of the zombie goresploitation genre, Death Proof is a modern take on the 70's action film, and is more of an homage than a stand-in for the real thing. Which is to say that while Rodriguez may have been making a film outside of his regular modus operandi, Tarantino makes, well, a Tarantino film. I've read several reviews and opinions on Grindhouse and some people hated Death Proof and found it drawn-out and boring, and others thought it was great, the better of the two films. I am in the second camp, but just barely. Again, I feel that they could stand alone as separate films, but do not.

Tarantino's style is quite evidently employed here, with long conversations about seemingly irrelevant topics; lingering shots over the female characters' feet and other body parts; quick, sharp, witty dialogue that is predictably profanity-laden; and quick fleeting moments of solitary vulnerability. While watching this, I had no idea what was going on. I had seen Rosario Dawson in the credits, but she didn't make an appearance until halfway through, so I was unsure what, exactly, I was watching. I realized that this is Tarantino making us grow attached to his sexy, strong women on their night out together before he sics Stuntman Mike, played by Kurt Russell, on them.

Kurt Russell was never creepy to me before, perhaps because all I knew him from was Escape From New York and Big Trouble in Little China, plus some very small cameos in films that I wasn't paying that much attention to. But it is perhaps his uncreepiness and surface amiability and uncoolness that makes him kind of scary. He is so impossible to read, and if I didn't already know that there would be some kind of death and demolition in this movie, I'd think that he was just some guy. But he is a brilliant serial killer, using his death-proof stunt car as a weapon for causing epic accidents and walking away nearly unscathed.

Finally, the second half of the films rolls around and you see the "big" names. (Those being Rosario Dawson, Tracie Thoms whom I know from Rent, and Zoe Bell, the brilliant stuntwoman who doubled Uma Thurman in Kill Bill and Lucy Lawless in "Xena." There is a fourth woman, but I don't know her and she is less important.) Zoe is visiting the United States from New Zealand, and has decided that what she really wants to do while she's there is to test-drive a particular Dodge that was featured prominently in the 70's film, Vanishing Point. When taking it out for a dangerous, stunt-laden spin, she and her friends come across Stuntman Mike who is out again on one of his murderous rampages. However, this time he is met with resistance and hilarity/suspense/shock/awe ensues.

One can obviously not talk about these movies without the fake trailers. There are four of them, one before Planet Terror and three before Death Proof. Each one is directed by someone different, from Rodriguez himself, to Eli Roth, to Rob Zombie. Because they only have to be a few minutes long, the directors take it upon themselves to make these the funniest, goriest, and most cliche short films that they can. Rob Zombie's is called Werewolf Women of the SS and features such talents as his wife, Udo Kier, and Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu, who yells something completely unintelligible, but probably hilarious. Eli Roth's short, Thanksgiving is the same kind of sick that the rest of his movies are, and while it's really hilarious, you sort of wonder what happened to him while he was growing up that he can think of such appalling situations. The best trailer though, and the one that is apparently getting made into a full-length movie (straight to video it seems), is Machete, directed by Robert Rodriguez. It is one of those vigilante Mexican federale movies, and stars Danny Trejo. Barrel of laughs, that one.

I prefer Death Proof only because I think the dialogue is well written (as to be expected), and because I apparently have a soft spot for exciting car chases and Rosario Dawson. But I think that in terms of really capturing a style and putting the work into making a film that looks like something out of a time capsule, Robert Rodriguez was really able to stretch himself and put in all the gore, cheese, barbecue, hokeyness and cliche that the genre requires. Again, I can't be sure how much of a departure it was from his style, but it seems like it was, and for that, I do applaud him. Tarantino is very good at making his kind of movie, but is it a masterpiece if it is a tribute in your own style, or if it works to be outside of your style and striving for authenticity? I suppose they are two approaches to a similar end: something exciting, shocking, and deferential to a retro style.

Kicking and Screaming

Dir. Noah Baumbach, 2005



I see what this film is trying to do. I can identify in some ways with it, since I am soon a college graduate myself, constantly faced with such existential questions as "what do I do with my life?" and "am I okay doing nothing?" However, I think that the early- to mid-nineties generation, way of life, and set of values is somewhat dated. This is a period I lived through, even, though I was mostly in junior high school and didn't carry the burden of existential dilemmas.

The group of graduated students in this film are also not the exact same kind that I am; they're from an east coast school, extremely well read in philosophy and far more articulate than any college students I've met. This I obviously attribute to them being east coasters, since even though I am from California, I imagine Californians to not be as witty. But I do relate, even though I'm a different breed of misguided youth. And this is the kind of movie that probably relies on a target demographic to see themselves in the characters and laugh, cry, and fall in love again with themselves.

I can tell based on the packaging and the buzz that this movie prides itself on its witty dialogue. And it is quite witty in ways that Oscar Wilde's protege would be giggling to him as he wrote the next chamber play, but it is so intellectual that it is almost an anachronism. The first scene is a garden party for the new graduates in which they pontificate their future prospects and living situations, but it is rather contrived and overly-theatrical that it falls rather flat. Latter scenes are a bit better, but overall, not very realistic.

The most successful character in this movie is not one of the new graduates, but rather the perpetual graduate student, Chet, played by Eric Stoltz. He is JUST like what a graduate student is: way too smart, terrible social skills, and a willingness to discuss anything at any length in the most excessively literary or intellectual way. There is one scene in which he, as the bartender at the local college student-populated bar, serves a drink to the local drunk and says, "If Plato is a fine red wine, then Aristotle is a dry martini." This line pretty much sums him up. He's nearly thirty, has taken every single class at the university, and he will never graduate. He's found his niche in society; he is the grad student. And I've met a ton of people like that.

Overall, it seems like I am split on the verdict of whether or not this is really something that I identify with. In principle, it is, and my anxieties are similar to theirs, but on the other hand, the way that the characters talk and the things that they think about on a day to day basis are not necessarily my thoughts. And I am just not as smart as they are. It was pretty entertaining, most of the time, and most of the characters are endearing, but I don't think I'd see it again, or recommend it extremely highly. B- I think. If I were working on that kind of grading system.

The Lives of Others

Das Leben der Anderen, Dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006



Obviously this is an excellent movie, they don't just give Oscars out to anyone! ...Oh wait. Seriously, though, this movie is different. And not different in the way that the new guy you're dating is different no really he is, but completely fresh and breathtaking.

I have seen a lot of movies, and that is an understatement. I have seen more than probably 90% of my generation, and it is something I pride myself on. However, in all my (albeit 23) years of movie watching (that's right, I started young), I have only ever seen one other film that addressed the topic of Cold War East Berlin, and that was Hedwig and the Angry Inch, which isn't at all about it. I don't know why there aren't more films about this; it's a veritable untapped font of material. (Way too many fancy words in that, sorry.) In this day and age where there are constant remakes, rehashings of old stories, and sequels and/or prequels ad nauseum, it's so refreshing to see something new.

This is 1980's Cold War East Berlin where the police monitor every aspect of society, or at least try to. This secret police, the Stasi, wiretap apartments with true German precision and efficiency, and report anyone who engages in a breach of political loyalty to men in suits who effectively ruin their lives. It's a scary time, and while we are no longer living in the nuclear age of the Cold War, the drab greyness and fear is illustrated so well.

What made watching this film so enjoyable was that because the topic was something I have not been exposed to often, and because foreign, especially German, films can be so unpredictable, I really didn't know what to expect. I found myself for the first time really, really hoping for a happy ending and not at all thinking it could possibly end well. I love depressing movies, and I am fully aware that this was not a happy time, but I wished unlike ever before for the well being of all of the characters, even those that I found despicable.

The acting in this is lovely; subtle and understated. I knew only one actor from another film, but I was impressed by how sensitive each person was when they needed to be, and, in turn, how hard they could be. The face of the actor Ulrich Mühe (who plays a Stasi agent who monitors the apartment of a suspected subversive playwright), hardly changing expression at all, conveys so much anger, bitterness, loneliness, and sympathy. Similarly, the actress Martina Gedeck (who plays the actress girlfriend of aforementioned playwright) is more expressive, but her portrayal of pain and indecision puts performances like Julianne Moore's in Magnolia to shame. So many people hold so much of their emotion inside, and it is so rare to find an actor who can project so much inner turmoil through small movements and slight changes in tone of voice.

This film was so satisfying. I came out of it feeling so many things, and wanting to hug anyone I saw. It almost restored my faith in humanity. Much like the film, Joyeux Noel, I thought that maybe I could understand why in times of war and hardship, people can find something to feel happy about, and continue living another day. This is not something I require of movies, nor is it something I generally seek out. But it is something that I can appreciate when it is done well.

300

Dir. Zack Snyder, 2006



Three words: overblown, heavy-handed.

Well, let me start off by saying that I did not hate it. In order to hate it, I would have to really take it as a serious piece of movie-making, and I don't.

I started writing another review earlier, but I have since become unsatisfied with it because a few things have changed. But not many. Before, I had the above two sentences written, and I didn't delete them because I still think they apply.

When I started writing the review, I hadn't even seen the comic, and I had dismissed a lot of what was wrong and awkward about the movie as poor decision making and bad directing. I realize now that it was the unsuccessful attempt to perfectly recreate the comic book, down to particular details and shots and dialogue. Sometimes when a film tries to duplicate something as exactly as possible, the translation doesn't work, and you end up with something awkward and overly pedantic. And yet, when the film strayed from a direct adaptation and put in some original characters/dialogue/story line, in attempting to keep consistent with the feel of the book, executed it poorly.

What is good about the movie is what most people come to see, the action and the fighting. It is, at its core, an action movie, and if you put in enough gore and clashing, clanking swords and armor, it's enough to get anyone's adrenaline pumping. The Spartans are a warrior community, and this is a battle for honor and glory (as they never cease to remind us), and for keeping all Greeks free citizens. Preventing the spread of slavery and godless decadence as personified by a gilded Xerxes, resplendent in gold head necklaces (headlaces?), eye makeup, and gold codpiece. Xerxes himself is one of the most exciting parts of the film; we await his appearance, and wonder how exactly this guy is going to match up to all the hype, first of all from what everyone says about him, and also because he actually existed.

There is blood and there is gore and there are beheadings and other loss of limbs and impalements and death to various large animals just so you really know that these guys are a bunch of bad mofos. The battle scenes are pretty formulaic, though, in that the filmmakers employ overused tricks to make them seem really exciting. For instance, the armies are advancing with a grinding background of heavy metal music, battles are choreographed using extreme slow motion, then sped up, then slow again so you can see these fantastically muscled men thrust their spears through the big, bad Persians subtle movement by subtle movement. If you really want to see original and novel battle scenes, I don't recommend this, but rather something like Lord of the Rings, which this film quite obviously wishes it was.

What is worst about this film is the dialogue. And this might seem to be a moot point because the general movie-going public doesn't need dialogue, they need flash and awe and increasingly menacing foes. But unfortunately, it is not all battles; there is some plot and some pontificating on the part of a surprisingly terrible narrator, in addition to a whole story arc back home in Sparta in which King Leonidas's intrepid queen takes on the Senate and The Law and tries to save her husband's honor and glory and Sparta and freedom. There are some political debates between the queen and some old men about whether or not to send in reinforcements, and some of the rhetoric espoused by these characters is reminiscent of our current administration, arguing in favor of deploying troops in order to preserve these values that we hold dear: freedom and democracy.

As for the visuals, it's not all spectacle and slashing. The makeup and special effects are uncommonly bad. Had Weta Workshop taken on this project, surely the beasts and bruises wouldn't look as ridiculous as they do. I would imagine that in this day and age, the goal of computer-generated visual effects was to maximize realism and have us wonder if there really could be such things as monsters. But clearly all of the work went into making decapitations look as good as possible because the scars that many of the characters wear look like putty, and the CG animals look like they are years behind the times. Had the animators only decided to work on a few things to make them look perfect, they might have succeeded, but this film is packed with characters and creatures that are only on screen for a few seconds, and unfortunately look BAD.

The sexuality in the movie is obviously put in to attract and excite the hordes of male fans. It's pointless and excessive, and when trying to be seductive, it falls flat as being horrifically cheesy. The casting call for the female lead who plays the queen must have been, "somewhat over 30, great tits." Because that is all she really has to lend the film. Additionally, in a scene where Xerxes is trying to recruit an castoff Spartan to his side, he has a slew of naked dancing girls performing all sorts of anachronistically tasteless sexual acts upon each other and the Spartan. Instead of looking sexy, it looks strange and misplaced.

This film is excessive by all counts. It attempts to replicate a comic book directly, add some historical depth, and play up the mythology part without being able to fully commit to one of those three genres. Had there been some really famous actors in the cast, one could at least be happy seeing familiar faces and wondering at their ability to bulk up and become so muscular to possibly distract one from the overwhelming mediocrity of the rest of movie. But aside from David Wenham and arguably Rodrigo Santoro, the faces are anonymous and force you to pay attention to all the rest of the details without distraction. Again, I didn't hate the movie, but it is something I wouldn't be interested in viewing again. If someone really wanted to see it, I'd recommend paying more attention to Xerxes in all his gilded fabulousness and an early scene involving a writhing oracle. I genuinely liked those parts. Otherwise, I wish I'd rented it.