Now here’s a movie actually worth braving the horrors of the Art House Theater to go see. A Scanner Darkly is a very bizarre tale about drug-addiction which takes the audience about as close as they can get to a wacky acid-tripping experience without the threat of police brutality.
In this story, Keanu Reeves plays Bob Arctur, a normal guy who’s working undercover for the FBI in the future of 7 years from now. To mask their identities, he and his coworkers wear “scramble suits” which are constantly fluctuating between appearances of millions of different human beings, giving you no clear look at any one face. Bob lives in a house with 2 burn-outs, addicted to a drug called “Substance D”, which the FBI is desperate to destroy. It’s Bob’s job to monitor his roommates, interact with them (which even includes taking the drug, himself) and get the dirt on Substance D. However, to complicate matters, the FBI thinks that Bob Arctur is the head-honcho supplier of substance D but they don’t know that the guy they’ve hired to monitor Bob Arctur is in reality, Bob Arctur. But Bob Arctur isn’t the Bob Arctur they think he is but at the same time Bob Arctur, the real Bob Arctur, doesn’t really care about what kind of Bob Arctur the FBI thinks he is because all Bob Arctur cares about is getting wasted.
Those last few sentences probably parallel the coherency of this movie pretty accurately, as it does its best to extend the “drug-tripping” experience onto the viewer. The roto-scoping animation helps exponentially in that regard and gives the whole film a dizzying surreal effect. And I do mean dizzying. Everything is either constantly changing (the scramble suits are insane) or constantly moving, even stationary objects, which throws the viewer slightly off-balance for the whole movie. The film also throws in plenty of “WTF”-moments of the deeply creepy and insane variety, just to keep the audience scratching at their noggins. A Scanner Darkly fits perfectly in that “kinda scary drug-tripping movie” genre along with the likes of Videodrome, Naked Lunch and Jacob’s Ladder, though perhaps a bit more tame.
The movie has an excellently-assembled cast. Keanu Reeves is much easier to stomach in roto-scoped animated form, though honestly, who can play a sleepy burn-out junkie better than Keanu? Robert Downy Jr. plays one of the more entertaining characters, though you might get him confused with Jeff Goldblum for a minute, as he mimics the speech-pattern and mannerisms of the guy in question. Wynona Ryder plays her part well, though it could’ve been practically any actress in her place and it really wouldn’t have mattered. You’ve also got Woody Harrelson and Rory Cochrane as two other Substance D-addicted losers, who along with Robert Downy Jr., form the funniest aspect of the movie.
The humor in the film, much like everything else, is very bizarre and will get you laughing on a “What the Hell…”-level. The movie isn’t expressly a comedy, so don’t go in expecting a laugh-a-minute. But when the humor strikes it hits dead-on. A Scanner Darkly, as you can probably guess, is a tale of the dangers of drug-addiction and tries to invoke sympathy from the audience on behalf of junkies everywhere. The movie claims that it’s not always the junkie’s fault they’re hopelessly addicted, it depends largely on the circumstances, and that their addiction will be punishment-enough, in the end. I suppose that’s true, really, but I still don’t feel like giving that skin-head down the street five bucks every weekend so he can support his meth habit.
The movie is extremely “artsy”, so right there you know it won’t appeal to everybody. The plot is intentionally confusing and the animation might cause problems for those with motion-sickness. A Scanner Darkly is mainly going to appeal to people who liked movies such as Naked Lunch and Videodrome, which isn’t a bad thing in any way. I’d recommend it, though only to people interested in this sort of thing.
Grade: B-
V for Vendetta
A Co-Op Critics Review!
Player 1: One Pumped Ninja
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot;
I know of no reason, why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
The beginning of V for Vendetta starts with an introduction to the real-life notorious 17th century British conspirator Guy Fawkes and his failed attempt to blow up Parliament. Having been caught and apprehended, Fawkes is hanged. A monologue tells us that Fawkes, like all true patriots, represented an ideal that could not be destroyed. It is this theme that gives purpose to the main character of V (Hugo Weaving), who apparently desires to finish where Fawkes left off by blowing up Parliament in a fascist, future rendition of London.
V for Vendetta is a dangerous film, not because it’s going to incite people to try and blow up the White House or even convince people that terrorism is a good thing, but because it is the type of movie that attempts (almost successfully) to make an allegory out of misconceptions and misinformation. It is the equivalent of anyone making a big-budget movie about how Chicken Little heroically tries to tell the truth that the sky is falling when, in reality, the bigger issue is if the sky is actually falling or not. The propagation of any information without having established the veracity of said information is perhaps the most dangeous type of information at all.
In the film, V is the victim of genetic experimentation perpetrated by the government and is the only survivor: he apparently has super-human physical attributes and is extremely intelligent. The London of the future is a fascist one but we do not see enough of the people to really get the sense that it is a society where the people live in fear: when we do see people, they’re at home and watching TV just as any present-day family would. Heck, even old folks in the nursing home are still around in this film. Evey (Natalie Portman) is almost raped by government officials in a back alley when V comes to her rescue. In the course of the film, Evey becomes V’s protegĂ© as V reveals his year-long plan to not only wipe out the key members of the fascist government but also blow up Parliament on the 5th of November.
Alan Moore, who wrote the graphic novel in 1982, has taken his name off this movie and wants nothing to do with it. That should automatically raise some eyebrows. Moore had written the novel in part as a response to the conservative Thatcher government, but it was not a full-blown political agenda. His V for Vendetta was more inline with the themes seen in George Orwell’s 1984 and was clearly a message about two extremes: Anarchy versus Fascism. Though Moore professes to be an anarchist, he wrote the character of V to be openly interpreted and with enough problems of his own to show some of the view’s shortcomings. Like Watchmen, Moore’s V for Vendetta simply posits the rhetorical situation of two extremes at war with each other and does not seek to objectify a morality to either (which one is good and which one is evil).
The movie remains true to the book only by its plot progression, not by its inherent insinuations. The fascist government of the novel is based on Nazi Germany. The fascist government of this film is obviously based on the typifications of the Bush administration and neo-conservatism in general, thus flipping the original “Anarchy versus Fascism” motif into that of “Liberalism (Good) versus Conservatism (Evil).” The Koran is mentioned as being appreciated for its “beauty” and later on as being the possession which warranted a character’s death, thus insinuating that this is a fascist government based on a demonized view of Christian fundamentalism. Homosexuality is also depicted in this film as something beautiful and condemned by the government as being a sure ticket to the concentration camps. The problem with the shift from the fascism of the Nazi party to the slippery-slope fascism that some see in conservatism is that the Nazis detained and executed homosexuals not due to the morality of gays but because the nature of homosexuality interfered with the plan for racial purity and the propagation of the Aryan ideal. The shift from racial ideology to fundamentalist ideology gives the film a definite anti-Christian spin and implies that to not accept homosexuality, even on a moral basis, automatically puts you on the side of the concentration camp scientists.
The novel’s government, Norsefire (an allusion to the Nazi’s attachment to Norse mythology), is a full-blown fascist regime replaced here with the laughable typification of how liberals currently view the Bush administration. The black hoods over prisoners, the mentions of wire-tappings, the allegations that the government was responsible for terrorist attacks on its own people, and the consistent screaming and shouting of the head chancellor are all vicious and ham-fisted mockeries of the Bush administration. Every character has an articulate voice and a chance to develop except the fascists: they’re not even characters, they’re stereotypes. Not that fascists should be given the moral equivalence of our protagonists, but you still want to establish character perspective (even with villains).
The supposed “uncompromising vision of the future” that the tagline suggests is more like “the slippery-slope, liberal-conspiracy-loving-theory-of-the-future” that the uninformed college student would write about in his angst-soaked, teary essay to a board of college professors who would hail his essay (and the other 3 million essays by “oppressed” college students across the nation) as the equivalent of the proverbial finger against the wicked and mean conservative government. When you unveil this film for what it is, it’s nothing more than a person fighting shadows.
Acting: B-
Effects & Entertainment: C+
Storyline: D
Recommendability: C-
Player 2: DrSpengler
I guess I should start this off by saying I’ve never read the DC/Vertigo comic in which the movie is based. I’ve always wanted to, as I think Alan Moore is one of the finest comic book authors to ever grace the planet, but never got around to it. As it stands, it is probably best that I DIDN’T read the source-material for this movie, as apparently the two are vastly different and fans (and Moore) are outraged over the changes.
Be that as it may, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The trailers are disgustingly misleading, with hard-rock music blaring in the background as V (the title character and hero of questionable ethics) throws knives in bullet-time clichés while stuff blows up everywhere. The trailers make this film out to be more hackneyed comic book tripe no better than Fantastic Four, Daredevil or equally recycled garbage.
This film is, in fact, nothing like the trailers would have you believe and rises far above the expectations of “just another comic book movie”. V for Vendetta is a commentary on politics, how much blind trust people should have in their government, what makes a person a “terrorist”, how a point of view can make all the difference and, I am certain this will instantly turn off a vast majority of movie-goers, a critique of the Bush Administration and a parody of current events.
I admit, that last part is enough to drive a lot of people away and I can’t say I really blame them. There’s so much high-profile “Bush-bashing” out there it’s difficult to tell what’s meaningful and what’s just more lazy satire for the sake of being topical. But also factor in the bit about “how a point of view can make all the difference”, and while one can view the commentary in this film as “Bush-bashing”, others can find something a tad deeper in it all.
Just to get it out of the way, the plot is like so; the people of England have put far too much blind faith in their government, both out of fear and laziness, and as a result their democracy gradually transformed into a brutal dictatorship. People can live, work and love as freely as they want, so long as they abide by “the rules” and conform to the government’s very exacting standards. That means no homosexuals, no questioning the way things are run, no religion that isn’t Christian (possessing a Koran means immediate execution) and absolutely no resisting “The Fingermen”, the Government’s power-tripping law-enforcers.
V is a man whose identity was lost when the government chose to use political prisoners (mostly people who broke those first two “rules” I listed above) as guinea pigs for various experiments. V was badly scarred in a fire at the death camp, but managed to survive. Donning a mask of Guy Fawkes, the notorious British “traitor”, he embarks on a war not only for revenge, but to open the eyes of the people living in the English dictatorship and inspiring them with the strength to resist.
It all may sound a bit predictable, but V for Vendetta is far more intelligent than movies with similar settings, like Ultraviolet and Aeon Flux. The blame for the country’s predicament isn’t squarely set on the Dictator, or the government, or Bush, or Christians, but rather the bulk of the blame is laid upon the citizens of England, who looked the other way and gradually gave their government the power to make their decisions for them just because it was easier than doing it themselves.
And to increase the film’s believability, it isn’t set in some futuristic techno-world, nor is it set in some grim and gritty war-torn environment. Actually, England is rather contemporary, clean and just…normal-looking. The setting isn’t over-the-top, it’s credible.
V, himself, is possibly the best part of the film. He is extremely articulate, very well-educated and can deliver more touching emotion in that static Guy Fawkes-mask than most of Hollywood’s “A-list” flavors of the month that get so much credit. His dialogue is what makes him so charming, and he delivers some of the most philosophically-intriguing and memorable lines you’ll ever see in a film made in this era of explosions, explosions and more explosions.
As a matter of fact, even the explosions in this movie are driven by symbolic meaning and never happen without purpose.
The true crime is that this is a movie most people are going overlook, be it that it’s “just another comic book movie”, “stupid Bush-bashing” or maybe that they just hadn’t heard of it thanks to some terrible marketing. Regardless of how many people this movie managed to reach, by the time it reaches its conclusion, it is sure to make you consider thinking for yourself and question why you’d let anyone else do it for you.
So on “The Relative Grading Scale of Super Mario Villains”, a BAD movie would rank as a “Lakitu”, but this was a GOOD movie, so it gets rewarded with a “Buzzy Beatle”.
Mission: Impossible III
When I went to see this movie, the only expectation I brought into the theater with me was “It can’t possibly be worse than Mission: Impossible II”. And not only was it better then M:I2, it was A LOT better than M:I2!
This third installment in the franchise carries on the story of Ethan Hunt, member of the Impossible Mission Force. Ethan comes out of retirement to rescue a friend from enemy hands, and again to get revenge on international super villain, Davien. However, once Davien escapes the clutches of the I.M.F., he wreaks a terrible vengeance on Ethan’s newly-acquired family. Ethan has to obtain a nuclear device called “the Rabbit’s Foot” for Davien if he wants his wife back with all her pieces. But the mission might prove impossible (tee hee) once Ethan is branded a traitor by the I.M.F. and has to steal the Rabbit’s Foot while avoiding capture by his former teammates.
M:I3 is honestly everything the hackneyed, clichéd, derivative John Woo garbage of M:I2 wasn’t. This movie not only has action, but has an engaging story, numerous twists and turns, a collection of impressive actors (Laurence Fishburne and Simon Pegg in a movie together!?) and some of the most clever infiltration sequences that only a Mission: Impossible title can give you.
This installment throws a few curveballs at you, as well. After a few of the precisely-planned, immaculate plots Ethan and the I.M.F. pull-off, things go a little different. Once the clock starts counting down on the life of Ethan’s wife you see exactly what the I.M.F. can be like when they have to do a job quick and dirty. It’s impressively resourceful, as one would expect from Mission: Impossible, but not the typical perfectly-calibrated caper we’re used to.
This movie does have its faults, to be fair. While an extremely fun action movie, M:I3 is still…just another action movie. Not a bad one, not a completely forgettable one, but still nothing particularly special that will be talked about for years. In a couple months, I’m sure most audience members will forget they ever saw it.
And while the movie is action-packed, don’t expect anything too original from the script. Now, this is no “Ripped directly from a Saturday morning cartoon because I have zero brain cells” kind of predictable trash, like in John Woo’s installment, but you’re more-than-likely going to be able to guess most of the plot twists if you pay even a little attention.
Also, although I was arguing with myself over mentioning this or not, a lot of people are going to be turned-off of this movie due mostly to Tom Cruise’s less-than-respectable actions here in the real world.
If Tom Cruise’s character as a human being is enough to keep you from seeing this movie, then I suppose there isn’t much I can say to convince you to see it. However, if you’re capable of separating Tom Cruise the Person from Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, then I recommend this movie for a good, fun, possibly forgettable but completely entertaining evening.
Grade: B-
Halloween (1978)
Whenever you come across a list of “essential” horror movies, Halloween is typically right there at the top. And with good cause, too. Not only did it bring the slasher genre to life (Black Christmas had been overlooked by the mainstream) but it’s simply a damn good horror movie on all fronts.
The plot is simple-enough. Incarcerated lunatic, Michael Myers, escapes from Smith’s Grove psychiatric hospital and makes his way back to his hometown, Haddonfield. When Michael was only a boy, he brutally murdered his older sister at random. Now he’s come home. However, his doctor, Loomis (Donald Pleasance) is hot on his trail. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is babysitting that Halloween night in Michael’s old neighborhood and she and all her friends fall victim to the mask-wearing psychopath.
The synopsis may not sound very complex, but it’s the simplicity of the concept which makes the movie work so well. John Carpenter takes something so standard, and with his trademark use of sound and lighting, turns it into a horror masterpiece.
Carpenter’s use of light and shadow is possibly the best in his career. Michael materializes in and out of dark corners and shadows like a specter, leaving the audience never quite sure just where in the room he’s hiding; and it’s usually where you least suspect. This method of stalking from the darkness is enhanced by the movie’s theme of “the Boogeyman”; the childhood monster that lurks in closets and under beds. Michael Myers really does embody the concept of the Boogeyman from head to toe.
Then there’s one of my favorite elements from John Carpenter’s movies, the score. Back in the “classic” days of Carpenter’s career, the one thing you could always expect was a haunting electronic melody to provide a creepy atmosphere no other director could match. Carpenter’s Halloween theme is by far his most well-known work, and next to likes of Psycho, is possibly the most famous of horror movie themes.
Donald Pleasance and Jamie Lee Curtis, in two of their better roles, bring a welcome sense of professionalism to the movie, keeping Halloween above the typical scorn slasher movies receive from the general audience. Michael Myers (or as he’s credited, “the Shape”) is really the star of the show, however. One would never expect that a William Shatner mask could possibly be so scary. Apparently, Carpenter’s original intention was to use a clown mask; the repainted William Shatner mask was a last minute change. A change for the better, I’d say, as the blank, featureless face lends a completely different kind of unsettling appearance to the character.
Halloween is a horror movie that takes a number of elements and blends them together into virtual perfection. Definitely one of the “essentials” not just for horror fans, but for fans of any kind of cinema.
Grade: A
Robocop: Review
Robocop Makes an Arrest
Like Rambo, Robocop is one of those titles that have become household names but do not necessarily imply that one has seen the movie behind them. In my house, that would be a sin so I’m here to educate you lest you run around taking Robocop’s name in vain.
Robocop (1987) is the film that put Paul Verhoeven on the map and allowed him to continue existing in Hollywood long enough to direct other messy movies such as Total Recall (1990), Basic Instinct (1992), Showgirls (1995), Starship Troopers (1997), and Hollow Man (2000). On the surface, Robocop is a semi-science fiction tale of one man’s transcendance of the law he swore to uphold in order to achieve a higher form of gory justice and is immensely enjoyable from a good-ol’-boy, kill-the-bad-guys perspective. Just a few strata below, Robocop also succeeds as a satire of the genre it represents and the crazy times of the 80’s.
In the near future of Old Detroit, Omni Consummer Products (OCP) controls the police force and wishes to begin the demolition of Old Detroit to make way for their metropolis of the future, Delta City. To do so, they first need to rid the city of the crime which has made future habitation almost impossible. Vice President Dick Jones (Ronny Cox) wants to start putting Enforcement Droids on every street corner, but the idea is nixed after one unit named ED-209 goes AWOL during a board meeting and turns one of the employees into swiss cheese. A young hotshot, Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), suggests the Robocop project: turning a police officer into a cyborg, thus giving the necessary crime-fighting hardware to a human mind that is in full control. The program is given the greenlight. Officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), Catholic family man and good cop, is brutally gunned down and is the prime candidate for the Robocop project. He is turned into the robotic personification of the law as Robocop and fulfills the job with great efficiency… until memories of his past come back to haunt him and he seeks retributition both within and outside the law.
The film is intensely violent even by our modern standards and the recent DVD release just adds to it. Murphy is literally blown to pieces by handguns and shotguns: his hand is blasted off with a shotgun at close-range and is fully visible thanks to the use of a prosthetic special effect. No amount of blood is spared throughout the course of the film and it is quite gratuitous: people are shot, exploded, and even turned into walking zombies and smacked by trucks. As far as anti-heroes of the 1980’s goes, Robocop tops them all by sheer violence alone but treats the death of the bad guys with a gung-ho spirit that is obviously satirical. Fake infomercials and news broadcasts throughout the film are desensitized to violence and seem to suggest a world in a post-Reagan/ Cold War era whose media and information network is so vast that even the most horrific news is sensationalized for the sake of news alone and not for its intrinsic, disturbing nature. All of this is balanced out by the more provocative and sensitive subplot of Murphy’s humanity: as he starts to remember his previous life as a husband and father, he finds himself grappling in a realistic way as a “ghost in the machine” on his own via dolorosa. Though it is stretching it a bit, many see the Robocop / Alex Murphy character as a secular Christological figure, resurrected to dispense righteous justice as the rightful judge, jury, and executioner of the law.
Don’t forget to notice that the deliciously despicable, ultra-crass villain Clarence Boddicker is none other than Kurtwood Smith of “That 70’s Show” fame. Robocop is not a film for everyone, but it is a film that has unquestionably defined itself for the ages.
Acting: A
Effects & Entertainment: A
Storyline: A
Recommendability: A