Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)

Director: Russ Meyer

Cast: Dolly Read, Cynthia Myers, Marcia McBroom, John Lazar

So wow, a film written by the late, great film critic Roger Ebert?! That’s not the strangest part about Beyond the Valley of the Dolls; the strangest part is that it’s such a violent, sexual film! You’d never guess a film of this nature would come from the mind of the mild mannered Roger Ebert, a man of such quiet demeanor! Yet it did and it’s amazing in my book. I mean, sure it’s what many would call “schlock” or in other terms a “cheap and inferior” film, yet I wouldn’t exactly categorize it as such. I mean, sure it’s got cheesy as hell lines like “you shall taste the black sperm of my vengeance” but dammit, that’s exactly why it’s so watchable! Some probably categorize this one as b-movie schlock because it’s extremely violent and the nudity, I won’t lie, is gratuitous, but then again, the world the film explores was probably that crazy. People probably did dance around naked in parties while doing LSD. Sadly, those who lived through it probably don’t remember enough to confirm it. Still, the whole crazy shebang makes for one trippy movie experience! So, what exactly is so crazy about this movie? What’s it all about?

First off, there was a film called Valley of the Dolls (1967), which is the story about the “rise and fall of three young ladies in show business”. This film was based on a book by author Jacqueline Susann. I’ve never seen that film so I can’t compare the two, but based on the success of that film, the studio wanted to do a sequel. Jacqueline Susann wrote a script which was rejected by the studio, but the contract gave the studio the rights to do their own sequel, so they gave that task to Ebert and Myer who went on to make Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). Problem is that the resulting film repulsed Jacqueline Susanne so much that she asked 20^th Century Fox to market the film as not being a sequel to Valley of the Dolls. This is why Beyond the Valley of the Dolls opens up with a disclaimer saying that it’s not a sequel to Valley of the Dolls, but that it deals with the same “often times nightmarish world of show business”. Nightmarish is the right term alright. Nightmarish indeed!

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, much like its predecessor also focuses on the rise to fame of three talented young ladies. The three start out like a small band, playing this trippy rock and roll, which to me sounded a lot like The Mommas and the Poppas. The girls end up exploding in the music scene and becoming ultra famous. They suddenly plunge head first into the crazy, drug fueled, sex crazed showbiz world of the sixties. While attending these crazy parties filled with famous stoned out of their minds people, they end up meeting this guy called Ronnie ‘Z-Man’ Barzell, a guy who knows everybody and loves the hippy scene. In fact, during a particularly trippy scene Ronnie says “This is my happening and it freaks me out!” which Mike Myers went on to quote in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997). Suddenly I knew where a lot of Austin Powers came from. Aha! Mike Myers saw this movie for sure! So anyways, Ronnie Barzell ends up making these girls famous. Will they survive the wild and dirty world of showbiz, or will it suck their souls into oblivion?

I was actually blown away by this movie, which I went to see at a public screening; totally unaware of what was awaiting me. I’d never seen a Russ Myer film, so yeah; I popped my Russ Myer cherry with this one. Now I need to see the rest of his repertoire, including one of his most famous films Faster Pussy Cat! Kill! Kill! (1965). I read up a bit on Myers career, and he was seen as a “pornographer” by his detractors, though I think they were merely referring to the sexual and violent nature of his films which were risqué and sexy, but not true blue porn. More accurately, his films are what are commonly known as ‘sexploitation films’, more in line with the types of films that Jean Rollin used to do. This type of films were often times sexy, violent and often times kind of cartoonish. Myers did shoot some centerfolds for Playboy though and he was notoriously fascinated by big breasted women, which would explain all the nudity on Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.   

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is truly a film of its time. It captures that crazy, hippy, drug infused trip that most people were on during that decade. A film like this one cannot be made today, at least not in any sort of commercial way. Not that this movie got it easy when it was first released, actually it was lambasted by critics and slapped with an “X-rating” by the MPAA! It does get pretty violent and gory towards its finale; I was actually kind of shocked at just how violent it got. Also, it plays with the controversial themes of homosexuality, bisexuality and promiscuous sex (read: orgies).The films main character ends up being a frustrated homosexual, which is why the film brought to mind The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), a film that Beyond the Valley of the Dolls has some similarities with. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls went on to become a success for 20^th Century Fox; it made 9 million on a 900,000.00 dollar budget. So X-rating or no, this one actually managed to become a money maker, which is probably why Ebert and Myer reunited once again for Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens (1979), which I will be reviewing soon. I’m extremely curious where they went with that one. But as far as Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) goes, I thought it was extremely entertaining and shocking, it even surprised me with this brilliant thing it did by showing us the whole ending of the film during the films opening credits. The visuals mean nothing to us during the credits. They seem like a bunch of crazy images that aren’t connected to one another. It’s not until we’ve seen the whole film and reach the ending that it hits you like a ton of bricks and it all makes sense! Then it’s like “oh wow!” That bit was brilliant! Highly recommend it if you are in the need of a trippy, sexy, violent film.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

   

Elvira: Mistress of the Dark (1988)

Elvira Mistress of the Dark (1988)

Director: James Signorelli

Cast: Cassandra Peterson, Edie McClurg, William Morgan Sheppard

On Halloween night I usually watch a couple of horror movies (doesn’t everybody?) and for some reason, I always end up going with something from the 80’s on Halloween night. I guess cheese goes perfectly with Halloween and so I went with Elvira: Mistress of the Dark (1988). I’m a big fan of Elvira because she’s all about the spooky stuff, the horror movies and coolest part of all; she lives in an eternal Halloween. She’s made a career out of making fun of bad horror movies via her television show ‘Elvira’s Movie Macabre’, where she screened horror and science fiction films and in between the commercials and the movies, she made fun of cheesy films like The Giant Claw (1957). Her popularity grew to the point where she got her big break in Hollywood with the release of Elvira: Mistress of the Dark (1988). How was Elvira’s first cinematic venture?

The film starts out with Elvira getting fired from her television show because she wouldn’t screw the owner of the television station. To Elvira’s surprise, she’s just inherited a mansion, a cook book and a ring! She’s kind of happy about the whole thing because she now has a home, but she’s disappointed she didn’t inherit any big bucks, just some silly book and a ring. Problems arise when she realizes that the house she’s inherited is in a town filled with a bunch of self righteous, upright idiots who live with an eternal stick up their asses. Basically, the town is populated by a bunch of folks who don’t know the first thing about cutting lose or having fun. It’s kind of like that town in Footloose (1984), where the religious zealots didn’t want to let their kids cut loose and dance? Something like that. Not only that, they also don’t want Elvira to stay because they are afraid that she might corrupt their souls or whatever. So basically, the teens befriend Elvira and see her as their mentor in the ways of fun, while the adults think she’s the daughter of Satan, ready to corrupt the souls of their younglings. What’s Elvira to do? Pack and go, or stay and deal with the situation?

Since in real life Elvira is a horror connoisseur and she helped write the script, Mistress of the Dark is a mish-mash of a zillion movies that she’s fond of like Frankenstein (1931), Black Sunday (1960) and The Evil Dead (1981). Actually, this film is a lot like an episode of The Addams Family or The Munsters because it has that dynamic in which “regular” folk go nuts when they are confronted with an unorthodox lifestyle, and to the puritans who live in Elvira’s town, Elvira is as unorthodox as they get. How much is this film like The Munsters? Well, the house that Elvira inherits in the film is the actual house used for that show! So anyways, as you can see, this films influences are all over the place. In fact, the film is an amalgamation of a zillion visual gags and jokes that are thrown to us at a frenetic pace. We get shape shifting dogs, demonic priests, magical books, a Flashdance (1983) tribute, killer high heels, exploding gas stations,  a monster casserole and more shots of Cassandra Peterson’s breasts than you can shake your stick at! It’s all done with that delicious b-movie flavor; that irreverent tone in which nothing is to be taken seriously, which works like magic. There’s also lots of self deprecating humor, Elvira has no problem with making fun of herself. Then there’s the double entendre humor which is none stop.

Critics burned this movie at the stake calling it dumb and stupid, but honestly, what the hell where they expecting? Did they even have an idea of what Elvira was all about? Elvira is all about silly, stupid “low brow” entertainment, she’s queen of the b-movies and she carries her crown well. Elvira is one in a line of spooky Hollywood ladies that have defied what is expected of women, and broken the barriers of prudence. First there was Theda Bara, an actress from the silent era of filmmaking, she was famous for portraying a vampire lady christened “The Vamp”. Theda Bara appeared in many films, sadly most of them were lost in a Fox Studio fire. Then came Maila Nurmi, a.k.a. ‘Vampira’. Murni went to a Halloween party dressed as Morticia Addams from Charles Addam’s The Addams Family comic strip; she impressed a producer with her Morticia inspired Halloween costume so much that she was given the opportunity to become the first television horror show host in history and so, the ‘Vampira Show’ premiered. Elvira was Vampira’s follow up. Actually, Elvira was born when an L.A. television station decided to revive a horror show called ‘Fright Night’. They tapped Vampira for the gig but her deal didn’t happen, so they did a casting call and Cassandra Peterson showed up and won the part. She was given the opportunity to create her image, so she came up with the punk rock, sexy vixen deal she still portrays. And that’s how Elvira was born.  

Cassandra Peterson has appeared in a few films, for example she appeared in Federico Fellini’s Roma (1973), probably because of Fellini’s fixation on voluptuous women. She also did a cameo on Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1988), but Elvira: Mistress of the Dark (1988) was her only theatrical release as Elvira. The film wasn’t a box office success, but it has gone on to become a cult film, garnering fans through the years. There was a second Elvira film, but that film is awful, so awful that I wasn’t even able to muster the strengths to write anything about it. Jokes fall flat, sets look ultra cheap…it’s a total embarrassment. So just stick to Mistress of the Dark, because Elvira’s Haunted Hills (2001) is a real stinker, and this comes from an Elvira fan. Mistress of the Dark was directed by James Signorelli a director who was probably chosen to direct this because of his comedic experience in directing and producing many Saturday Night Live episodes, actually, he’s still directing SNL as I write this. Signorelli also directed Easy Money (1983) with Rodney Dangerfield, so this film has its comedic background, mix that comedic experience with Elvira’s charismatic personality and you got yourself an enjoyable cheesy flick, perfect for watching on Halloween night.

Rating: 3 out of 5    

    

My Demon Lover (1987)

My Demon Lover (1987)

Director:  Charlie Loventhal

Cast: Scott Valentine, Michelle Little, Robert Trebor

Back when I was around twelve years old, seeing a film like My Demon Lover was prohibitive for me because the household I grew up in was fanatically Christian and therefore any film with demons or sex was extremely off limits as far as my parents were concerned and My Demon Lover had both! But back then, I was just starting to fall in love with special effects, so I found a way to see it; I waited for just the right moment in which my parents were gone and then, alone and in the dark, I feasted my eyes on the demonic imagery. I have to admit watching My Demon Lover was all about the thrill of doing something I wasn’t supposed to be doing. What attracted me to the film wasn’t the sex or possible nudity because truth be told, there’s very little of both on this movie, no, what I wanted to see were those crafty makeup effects! You see, back in the 80’s, horror movies where pushing the boundaries of what could be done through make up effects. Back then, every horror movie was about gooey, slimy monsters. The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise spear headed this gruesome movement in cinema, but many smaller budget movies emulated this idea of turning a film into a special make up effects showcase, My Demon Lover was one of them.

I’d been meaning to re-watch this movie for the longest time, to re-live this forbidden fruit of my youth one more time, but for some strange reason, this movie disappeared from the planet. This is something that happens to a lot of low budget horror films. Suddenly, poof! They vanish from the face of the earth! But I never forgot about My Demon Lover, it was this little horror movie that thrilled me when I was a kid and had fond memories of enjoying it, I needed to give it the old re-watch! For nostalgia's sake! So anyways, one day I go into Amazon and there it is.  Warner Bros. had released it under their ‘Warner Bros. Archive Collection’ banner. Under this banner, Warner Bros. has re-released a lot of these “forgotten” sci-fi/horror/action movies like Freejack (1992), If Looks Could Kill (1991) and The Green Slime (1968). So anyways, I quickly snatched a copy and re-watched My Demon Lover, a film I had not seen since I was twelve! And of course, it’s silly as hell. As silly as any other 80’s movie you’ve seen and of course, that’s exactly what I loved about it. It took me back to simpler days in cinema, when a film could be about two silly kids falling in love in New York City; where a movie could be about a couple of crazy kids with no bigger priorities in their lives save for falling in love and having fun. The film runs on that idealistic idea that the world might be messed up, but we can survive it with a little love in our lives. Weird that the filmmakers decided to mix demons with love, but such is the nature of the cinema of the 80’s.

In retrospect, My Demon Lover is less a sex comedy and more a date movie. It’s about accepting each other with our flaws, finding ways to “make it work” and finding someone you want to care for. On this film everybody is trying to date somebody, it takes place within the bachelor world, where girls and boys are constantly worried about finding “the one”. In this way it reminded me of films like About Last Night (1986), where the two sexes are constantly analyzing each other. So you get the typical “men are like this, women are like that” conversations. ‘Denny’, the main character in the film is a working girl who falls for the worst guys; losers who dump her by stealing everything in her apartment. Then we have ‘Kaz’, a bum from the streets who plays the saxophone on the train and oogles and harasses the ladies he sees on the streets. Oh, he’s also cursed to turning into a demon whenever he tries to have sex! There’s an allegory there, about how guys can turn into wild animals whenever they want to get it on with the ladies, but you shouldn’t really read too much into that. This isn’t exactly what you’d call a ‘deep film’. Its themes are simple yet valid ones: if you truly care for someone then you have to do something truly noble for that person; you have to show some real love and go beyond just sexual attraction. 

  

The entertaining part of the film comes of course whenever ‘Kaz’ gets horny and turns into a demon. What’s cool about the concept is that he turns into a different looking demon every time he turns, so we get a variety of monsters throughout the film. Kaz goes from turning into a werewolf demon, to turning into a fat bald guy who can’t stop laughing, to growing demon wings among many other amusing transformations. The makeup effects are not anything I’d call amazing or award worthy, but they sure are entertaining… and gooey. There’s a lot of slimy, squishy stuff going on. My Demon Lover was produced by New Line Cinema’s head honcho Robert Shaye, the guy responsible for producing so many of the Nightmare on Elm Street films before New Line Cinema became a major film studio. This explains the films emphasis on makeup effects work; it was just the thing to do during the 80’s when latex monsters ruled the screens. If you wanted a movie to make money, you put a lot of special make up effects in it. New Line Cinema was after all known as “The House that Freddy Built”. This make up effects frenzy ran its course and ended in the mid 90’s when horror switched back to ‘slasher mode’ with the success of films like Scream (1996) and I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997). It’s interesting to note how it was horror maestro Wes Craven’s creations that decided the direction horror films would take throughout the 80’s and 90’s, he certainly had a pulse on the genre.  

    

So what we got here is a silly, simple yet entertaining little horror movie from the late 80’s. It reminded me of another film you might want to check out if you end up enjoying My Demon Lover, it’s a film called Date with an Angel (1987). It shares a similar premise (that of falling in love with a supernatural being) but instead of dating a demon, the main character falls for an angel. But if you ask me, all of these movies in which regular people fall in love with a monster, or a creature are influenced by Ron Howard's Splash (1984), that's the one where Tom Hanks falls for a mermaid played by Darryl Hannah. Seeing My Demon Lover made me think about how modern movies aren’t populated with regular people anymore. I miss that about movies, where the protagonists don’t have to be perfect, politically correct, unrealistic tight asses, in fact, a lot of films from the 80’s were about the working class, those of us surviving to make it in the world, this is something we don’t see that much anymore. In movies from the 80’s, characters weren’t afraid to be silly and ridiculous, they were imperfect, they were more like us, the regular everyday people. In this way, characters in films from the 80’s feel more real to me, even though they are extremely silly because let’s face it; all pretensions aside, most of us are still a bunch of grown up kids pretending to be adults. Deep down inside, we’re all little kids who want the thrill of watching horror movies in the dark, without our parents’ permission.

Rating: 3 out of 5 

Pixels (2015)

Pixels (2015)

Director: Chris Columbus

Cast: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Michelle Monaghan, Peter Dinklage, Josh Gad, Brian Cox, Sean Bean, Dan Aykroyd

Currently, it feels as if people are programmed to hate any Adam Sandler film released, even without having seen it. They’re prerogative is that Adam Sandler no longer makes “good movies”. Nowadays, you can’t read a review for an Adam Sandler film without it centering around how much Sandler sucks now and how he hasn’t made a good movie in eons and blah, blah, blah. I’m not into hating for hates sake, which is what is apparently happening with Sandler, it’s this hive like mentality of hatred towards Sandler. Where does the hatred stem from? Probably from the string of bad movies he’s been making. The last torturous one I saw was Jack and Jill (2011) and that one turned me off from seeing Sandler movies. How did I end up seeing that one in theaters you might ask? Well, I like to give movies the benefit of the doubt, sometimes I come out a winner and discover a film I would have not seen otherwise, but other times, like with Jack and Jill it’s just like“WHYYYYY?!” The way I see it and in Sandler’s defense I will say that we can’t really blame Sandler for making bland family movies, because that’s who he is, he’s the all encompassing actor who makes films that are supposed to appeal to everyone. He’s movies are made to be consumed in mass quantities and in order to do that, the film has to be a certain way. They can’t be too intense, or bloody, or offensive or violent, they gotta have that ‘feel good, nothing bad is going to happen’ vibe to them. Like, don’t take nothing to seriously, you’re here just to have some fun. Let’s just accept that he’s the guy who makes that type of film, that’s who he’s become. He’s gone the way of Eddie Murphy, but in a successful way? My advice is, if you don’t like the crappy pappy movies that Sandler makes, don’t go and see them! Just wait until he works with a good director, gets critical acclaim again and makes something like Punch Drunk Love (2002), his only truly good film if you ask me.

So just how squeaky clean is Pixels? Well, just by way of an example, in one scene when Sandler sees Pac-Man eat the hand of his creator, and Sandler he says “that was some weird….stuff” instead of “That was some weird…shit!” He even pauses before saying ‘stuff’ as if mentally correcting himself saying “nope, gotta keep it PG-13!” But whatever man, you can say “shit” in a PG-13 movie, it’s just that you’re so self censored that you can’t even bring yourself to say shit. The most basic of cusses. It feels as if Sandler is in a censored state of mind even as he films, in other words, no real space to cut loose and go crazy. Feels like there’s no improv and if you have a good comedian on your film, usually that’s where comedy gold is at, the improv. But no, dialog here is clean as a whistle, god forbid word of mouth spreads and a mother ends up saying something like “my kid is not going to see that nasty Adam Sandler movie, he’s always cussing”. So following Sandler’s squeaky clean movie rules, the film will have kids and families, often times dysfunctional families facing problems and overcoming them (like a divorce for example) and Sandler will be sympathetic and kind to the kid in the movie because that’s the target audience. So this is the kind of movie you can expect my friends. A film following a formula every step of the way. Nothing is to be taken too seriously; you can’t invest yourself emotionally because you know nobody will die. Not in a squeaky clean Adam Sandler family movie like this one, so just sit back and watch the fireworks, which is really the only thing that this movie is good for.

Some folks seem to think that this film was based on an episode of Futurama that has a similar premise, but in reality, this film is based on a French short film that lasts only about 2 ½ minutes, it is also called Pixels (which you can see here) and it sets the ground rules for the look and the mechanics of the’ video games come to life’ part of the film. The short makes no sense or meaning, it just shows us a guy putting an old television in the garbage and suddenly from said television all these old video games emerge. Suddenly Donkey Kong is on top of the Empire State building throwing barrels, Pac Man is eating street cars and Centipedes fly through the skies. In the short, the video game characters destroy the city by turning everything they touch into square little pixels, but that’s about as far as the thing goes. It has no story, no villains, no heroes, just a concept which Chris Columbus and Adam Sandler ran with and stretched into a film. And I say stretched because that’s what they did, the films premise is so simple, the story so non-existent, the characters so one note that they had to stretch things out. Pixels feels  repetitive and one note; we fight one video game, beat it, then fight the next one, and they go on and on like this till the end. There’s nothing unexpected here, this is as formulaic as it gets. Worst part? This is the kind of movie in which the trailer has shown you everything. If you’ve seen the trailer, then you know, step by step how this movie is going to go.

What this movie is though is a nostalgia bomb. If you were born in the 80’s and played video games in arcades the way I did, you will feel a shot of nostalgia in your system. I have to admit it was cool seeing a giant Pac-Man eating up taxi cabs and city streets, especially since I’m such a Pac-Man nut! It was awesome seeing a giant King Kong throwing barrels at Adam Sandler, and then there’s this scene where they simply throw as many old video game characters on the screen as they can, so you’ll see Frogger, Q-bert, Paperboy, Centipede, Galaga, Space Invaders…and that’s without counting all the other characters from 80’s pop culture that show up in the film like Max Headroom, Ronald Reagan, Madonna and Hall & Oates. The soundtrack is made up of hits from the 80’s all the way. So in this sense, the movie proves entertaining to an extent, you will be like “Oh there’s Q-Bert!” Still, I think they could have used even more classic video game characters on the film, apparently they could only afford to use a limited amount of characters. Where was the knight from Ghosts and Goblins? Sadly, the novelty of seeing old video game characters on screen is the only thing this film has to offer, the movie itself is just a bunch of empty calories starting by the fact that the villains in this movie are faceless, we never really know who they are because they talk through videogame characters. So suddenly, our favorite old school video games are evil. I mean, I never saw Pac-Man as a bad guy? But there he is eating people up! So yeah, this is yet another film with a weak villain whom we never even get to meet. Pixels is extremely simple and banal that’s all I can say.

Chris Columbus directs this film and it's sad to see him directing such a simplistic film, considering he's actually done decent family films like Home Alone and Home Alone 2, hell this is the guy who wrote Gremlins (1984) and freaking The Goonies (1985)! I would have liked something from Columbus with a little more story put into it, instead the whole film runs on a gag, not really even trying to get us invested. Pixel does have its moments, again, mostly its moments are associated with the appearance of the giant video game characters, but where’s the comedy? It’s not here; Pixels feels like they are not even really trying. I mean, you got all these good actors and comedians in your movie, why not have them throw in some of their own personality, let them improvise, let them put a little of their soul into the proceedings. This is the reason why Ghostbusters (1984) worked so well, it had a lot of Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in it, it’s their personalities that bring those characters to life. In contrast, on Pixels Sandler seems to have no personality, he’s got this spaced out, bored look on his face all the time? Like he doesn’t even want to speak? He’s so laid back that he comes of as lifeless. So yeah, I get why people hate on Sandler so much, he’s just not doing anything relevant lately, I hope he gets his mojo back at some point. Still, Pixels isn’t terrible, it’s completely watchable, just not very engaging or hilarious. It’s simply put a very average film. But hey, there’s Frogger jumping and smashing a car into pieces! Cool!

Rating: 2 out of 5 

Inherent Vice (2014)

Title: Inherent Vice (2014)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix , Josh Brolin, Benicio del Toro, Martin Short, Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon, Katherine Waterston, Eric Roberts, Maya Rudolph

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of those film directors who never miss; he’s on my “pitch perfect directors” list, right next to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Stanley Kubrick. These are directors who never disappoint me, even when they’re making one of their lesser films. Boogie Nights (1997)? There Will Be Blood (2007)? Punch Drunk Love (2002)? All amazing and engrossing Paul Thomas Anderson films; interesting part is that they are all vastly different films thematically and tone wise, yet one thing brings them together: they all have strong main characters, which I think is what Anderson specializes in, making films with strong, driven characters who will leave a lasting impression on you. He distills the most amazing performances from his actors, and he’s done it yet again in Inherent Vice. Anderson has created yet another memorable character in the form of ‘Doc Larry Sportello’. Inherent Vice gives us an amazing collaboration between actor, author and filmmaker, the result is a film with the makings of a bona fide cult classic.

Now I haven’t read Pynchon’s Inherent Vice (I’ll be correcting that soon) so I literally didn't know what to expect from this film. I’d read a few reviews that said that the film has an incomprehensible story,  others said it was their least favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film, others would praise it as the next Fear andLoathing in Las Vegas (1998), all these opposing views got me all fired up to see Inherent Vice. On which side would I fall on? Something told me I’d love it, it had all the indicators of awesomeness.  I was expecting a convoluted lovable mess, which is I think a good way to describe this film. So yeah, this is a polarizing film, it will divide audiences, some will love it to death (like me) some will leave the film feeling like they just smoked a doobie. While I watched it, a woman behind me said “I don’t get it”, the visceral reply in my mind was “you idiot!”, in the real world, I couldn’t help letting out an involuntary giggle. This personal anecdote best exemplifies what will surely happen in any given theater with this movie.   

I don’t blame anybody for not “getting it”, this movie can be confusing. Characters keep popping up and the story seems to twist and twist with every coming scene, which is the way it’s supposed to be. I think the best way I can describe the experience of watching this film is like reading a Chuck Palahniuk novel. Excuse me for my literary comparison, but it’s the first thing that popped into my mind while watching this movie. You see, in my experience, when I start reading a Chuck Palahniuk book (he’s the author of Fight Club and Choke) I always feel a little lost. Each chapter starts a little incomprehensible, but as you read on things get clearer and clearer, by the ending of the chapter, poof, everything makes perfect sense. This is how Inherent Vice unfolds. When the film ends you’ll feel that it really wasn't as confusing as you had thought, suddenly everything clicks! But ultimately, I guess what this film must really capture is the experience of reading Thomas Pynchon's book, which I haven't done yet. I guess Palahniuk and Pynchon come from the similar literary universe. But here’s a trick to enjoying this movie, don’t try to follow it so much, simply enjoy the crazy characters and situations, because I think that’s really what this movie is about, experiencing the crazy ass moments that unfold and the visuals, which are entertaining and beautiful to look at.

Paul Thomas Anderson drew inspiration from many places to make this film, aside from Thomas Pynchon's novel, Anderson has stated that Inherent Vice has a little bit of Gilbert Shelton’s ‘The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers’ an underground comic from the 70’s and the Cheech and Chong movies. Inherent Vice can be categorized as a Stoner Film, though I wouldn't recommend watching it stoned, it will only mess with your chances of “getting it”, the movie is already trippy enough as it is! With the character of Doc Sportello, we get yet another memorable cinematic stoner, ranking right up there with Cheech and Chong, ‘The Dude’ and Jeff Spicoli. Doc Sportello is smoking weed literally throughout the entire film, and you’ll feel that haziness, you’ll feel that care free who gives a shit vibe in Inherent Vice. In many ways, this is the ultimate stoner film. But like some of the Cheech and Chong movies, cocaine use also works its way into the story. In fact, if there are two movies that Inherent Vice shares its DNA with it’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) and The Big Lebowski (1998). Fear and Loathing because of its constant drug use and overall trippy vibe and The Big Lebowski because Doc Sportello feels like The Dudes long lost brother. 

A distinctive quality of Inherent Vice is how accurately Paul Thomas Anderson managed to capture that counter culture vibe from the 70’s where everyone was always high, had long hair, wore shades at all times, a time when everyone gathered around to philosophize, everyone believed in “good vibes” and in Ouija boards. I loved that whole relaxed breezy vibe the film elicits. There are scenes that take place in beach side communities filled with hippies and beautiful sunsets…loved that whole sit back and relax vibe that is a constant throughout the whole film. You will be transported to the 70’s, an era that Paul Thomas Anderson is apparently obsessed with; he also brought it to life to perfection in Boogie Nights (1997), one of Anderson’s best films. In fact, Anderson is so 70’s he even shot Inherent Vice on film! Personally, I immediately noticed the difference in look, there’s something about films shot on film. The images look so much better, the colors have richness; the definition is far superior than anything shot on digital. I am forever in love with films shot on actual film. Tarantino and Anderson are both on my good side for still doing it. 

  

Anderson is one of those “serious” directors, even when he’s films are funny, they are somehow disturbing. I mean, look at Punch Drunk Love (2002). There’s no doubt the film is hilarious, but it’s not slapstick, har har har slap on your knees funny, it’s dark, twisted funny. The main character is a complete anti-social nut job! The same can be said of Inherent Vice, it’s a dark sort of funny. You see this movie is about sex, drugs and hedonism. The movie will be hilarious, but only to those who enjoy black, acid comedies that are funny because of how fucked up the situations are. What type of comedy am I talking about here? Well, for example, there’s this moment in which Doc Sportello visits a spiritual retreat in which everyone's tripping out on some sort of high; a commune for spiritual trippers. At one point, someone orders a bunch of pizaas and as the camera pans back we start seeing how the scene resembles Davinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ with Sportello as Jesus, and pizzas instead of bread and wine and it's just hilarious! Again, this scene will probably be hilarious to a select few. Side note, I’m going to give this movie the award for “sexiest scene of the year” and the scene I’m referring to is a scene with the beautiful Katherine Waterston seducing Doc Sportello, holy moly, what an erotic scene. Made me shiver with antici…pation! So anyhow, final words are this movie is awesome for the many reasons stated above, the awesome cast, which peppers the film with awesome little moments acted out by great actors. Keep your eyes open for Martin Short. But again, this film is made for a select audience, it will not appeal to everyone. Which group will you fall under?

Rating: 5 out of 5 

The Interview (2014)

Title:  The Interview (2014)

Director: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg

Cast: Seth Rogen, James Franco, Randall Park, Diana Bang

Thanks to the whole Sony Pictures Hack fiasco, suddenly The Interview is the movie to see. What’s the Sony Pictures Hack Fiasco you ask? Well, if we’re to believe the story, the North Korean government hacked into Sony’s data base and read a bunch of confidential e-mails where producers spoke crap about actors. I mean, I’m talking primo garbage like calling Angelina Jolie a “talentless brat”, admitting that Adam Sandler movies have a certain “blahness” to them and calling Leonardo DiCaprio “absolutely despicable”, amongst other things. Whoa! Earth shattering stuff, I know! Sarcasm aside, the reality of this situation is that all producers talk crap about actors, it kind of goes with the territory, it’s just that on this particular occasion, their comments were revealed for all to see, and my, what a parade. Big whoop; so anyhow, apparently, the hackers (a group calling themselves Guardians of Peace) also sent an e-mail threatening to perform terrorist acts on theaters that showed The Interview. Sony execs, fearing terrorist attacks upon movie goers, cancelled the films premiere, which of course made everyone want to watch it even more. Then Obama is like “Sony made a mistake in pulling the movie from theaters” so suddenly, Sony decides to do a 180 and releases The Interview anyway, on the day that it was meant to be released: December 25. A Christmas present to all those who believe in ‘freedom of speech’ and the ‘American way’. To be honest, at the end of the day I am left wondering if the whole thing was just an elaborate hoax to enhance audience awareness and then bam! Suddenly you want to, no, scratch that, you NEED to see The Interview. So what we got here is the most hyped movie on the planet, the question remains: was it all worth it?

The premise behind the film is that Dave Skylark, a television personality who runs a gossip show called Skylark Tonight, is suddenly given the opportunity to interview Kim Jong-Un, the big dictator of the moment. Why? Well, apparently the dictator is a huge fan of the show, mirroring in this sense Kim Jong-Un’s real life obsession with American culture, including being a huge fan of basketball, Michael Jordan and Dennis Rodman. So anyhow, Skylark is going to travel to North Korea to interview the political leader. At the same time, the FBI wants Skylark to assassinate Kim Jong-Un . Will Dave perform the assassination?

What we got here is what some might consider “silly film” that actually addresses important issues. Seth Rogen, who wrote, directed and stars in the film, has always been about freedom of speech and using the media for truth instead of lies. For example, he was responsible for The Green Hornet (2011), a film about how the media should be used for telling the truth to the masses, not for manipulating, not for political agendas, not for lies. The Interview, among the many issues it touches upon, is also about using the media for truth, not the masquerade of bull crap we get on a constant basis, not for the stupification of the masses. I mean, even Dave Skylarks show is a criticism on the kind of dumb ass television shows that pass for television these days. The stupification of the masses in deed. In the film, Dave Skylark wants redemption from all that; he wants to make a show that will matter, something with some true depth. There’s this awesome moment in the film where truth is finally being told through television, and the good guys have to protect the broadcast with machine guns blazing! I thought the scene was so symbolic of the raging desire to protect the truth.  

The film also does its best to demystify the god like status that some politicians give themselves. I mean, what are we, Egyptians believing in God like Pharaohs? That time is long gone, there are no godlike men, we’re all equals and we all know it. So if you’re a wannabe politician looking to rise to power, don’t give me this crap that you’re a god cause I aint buying it. I mean, how do some of these politicians get away with making their followers believe these whoppers? For example: Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela says he constantly sees and talks with the spirit of Hugo Chavez, the politician who was in power before him, but died of cancer. This guy even said that Hugo Chavez’s ghost has come to him in the form of a bird! What the hell, worst part is that a huge chunk of the population actually buys into these lies. That’s nothing when compared to Kim Jon-Un’s claims that he doesn’t need to go to the bathroom, cause you know, that’s not a godlike thing to do! Sadly, many North Koreans take this to be true! The Interview bashes all that nonsense to the ground, which is probably why Kim Jong-Un would be angry at a film like this one, it not only makes fun of him, it destroys the god like persona he’s worked so hard at creating! Still, I’m of the mind that if Kim Jong-Un was in fact enraged by this film, then he’s overreacting. He wouldn’t be the first dictator to be made fun of, I mean, we can go as far back as Charlie Chaplin’s brilliant political satire The Great Dictator (1940), in which Chaplin made fun of and openly criticized the biggest dictator of all time: Adolf Hitler. Even  Kim Jong-Il, (Kin Jong-Un’s dad) didn’t mind being made fun of in Team America: World Police (2004), so why the overreaction? I guess The Interview does attack him in a more direct fashion.  

Kim Jong-Il as portrayed in Team America: World Police (2004)

It wouldn’t be the first time that a politically charged film creates controversy. The Great Dictator got Chaplin in trouble (he was considered a communist by the American government) and it was banned in a great deal of other countries (including Spain and Germany), this due to how truthful a film it was. The Great Dictator is a film that tells the people not to go to war, not to become puppets of powerful men, that greed and tyranny shall pass. And this is why I applaud films like these, because they dare to speak up. I’m not saying that The Interview is in anyway a masterpiece (far too many dick and fart jokes for that) but it does have the brass balls to knock a false god from his false godhood and it does attack the media and put a focus on the importance of using it correctly. Here’s a movie that reminds us that dictators are not gods, they are simply men, and mad at that. I highly recommend The Interview because it was enjoyable and didn't disappoint with the laughs and the “controversy”.  Would it have become a box office success without the ‘Sony Hack Fiasco’or without the threatening e-mails? Was it all a hoax for Sony to make more money with the film? I don’t know the answers to these questions, all I can say is the film was fun, recommend it for a good time.

Rating:  4 out of 5

American Hustle (2013)

Title: American Hustle (2013)

Director: David O. Russell

Cast: Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Robert DeNiro

It seems that greed is America’s new favorite theme; in the tail end of 2013 three films have been released dealing with this theme. I guess Hollywood has it in their minds that bad economy will make people desperate enough to plan scams and get rich quick schemes, so Hollywood has taken it upon themselves to play the role of our collective conscience, reminding those desperate individuals out there the results of letting greed control our lives. The three movies I’m talking about are The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), The Counselor (2013) and now American Hustle (2013). All three of these movies depict desperate people making sneaky deals, conning people, stealing, doing all sorts of illegal things in order to get the proverbial cash. What makes American Hustle different from the other two films is that it takes place in the flashy 70’s.

Like The Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle is also based on real life events; hence the movie starting out with a title card that reads “some of these things actually happened”; which at the same time lets us know that the story is not entirely true and that artistic liberties were taken with the story. But basically, this is the story of a con artist who ends up working with the feds in order to capture a bunch of corrupt politicians. That’s the jist of it, the plot isn’t all that complex; what moves the story are the complications that arise, and the crazy characters that inhabit the film, this is one of those films in which the over the top performances take center stage.  

First off we have Christian Bale playing Irving Rosenfeld, the master con artist. Now, you’ve probably heard the stories about how in previous films, Christian Bale has transformed his physique in order to play characters that (for whatever the reason) look extremely skinny or sick, malnourished if you will. For example, for The Machinist (2004) Bale became a walking skeleton in order to play a sleep deprived factory worker, how he looks in that film is truly shocking. For Werner Herzog’s Rescue Dawn (2006) he lost weight yet again for a scene which required him to look like a food deprived prisoner of war; and in David O Russell’s The Fighter (2010) again he lost a lot of weight in order to play a junkie. The thing with his character in American Hustle is that it’s a complete turnaround of what he’d done in those films, on American Hustle he actually gained 40 pounds in order to look like this dude who simply doesn’t care about appearances. You should see the beer belly on this guy! It’s kind of hard to believe he is the same guy who played Batman a couple of years ago. DeNiro himself didn’t recognize Bale when they met on set! They had to be re-introduced! So anyways, Bale plays a character that’s so sure of himself that he doesn’t care what you think of him, you simply have to accept him that way. So anyhow, Bale’s transformation for this film is astounding yet again. Gotta give it to Bale, he is committed to his roles. 

Then we have Jennifer Lawrence whose career is literally on fire. Here she comes hot off her Oscar win for Silver Lining Playbook (2012) and her commercial success with The Hunger Games movies and delivers the most entertaining of all the characters in American Hustle, on this film she is quite literally a show stealer! She plays Rosalyn Rosenfeld, wife to Christian Bale’s con artist; basically she’s this trashy New Jersey housewife who chain smokes and dances to The Beatles “Live and Let Die” as she does her house cleaning. Her New Jersey accent is thick, and she’s loud and in your face, loved her performance. She’s already won a Golden Globe for it, who knows; maybe she’ll get another Oscar? Then there’s Bradley Cooper playing this crazed cop hot on the tail of the dirty politicians, his sole purpose is to make a name for himself, he looks hilarious with those curls. Actually, everybody here looks hilarious; in fact, it feels as if every actor’s sole job was to make themselves look as imperfect and eccentric as possible. Bale looks like a slob, Cooper looks funny with the curls, Lawrence looks trashy and Amy Adams…well, she’s just over the top sexy on this movie, showing so much cleavage it’s not even funny, but of course that’s not all there is to her character. I have to admit, Amy Adams is growing on me as an actress, here she plays a focused, icy cold lady. So expect all actors to have these crazy over the top looks, they feel almost like parodies of 70’s style and fashion. But I guess that was the idea with this movie, to go as over the top as possible.

This film reunites director David O Russell with Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and Robert DeNiro, all of whom worked together on Russell’s Silver Linings Playbook (2012); it really is a joy to watch all these talented actors together on the screen, at least on the acting department you know you’re not gonna get short changed. Speaking of DeNiro playing a gangster, I couldn’t help and think of Martin Scorsese while watching this movie; it feels like a homage to Scorsese movies. It has Deniro, gangsters and desperate hustlers, I couldn’t help myself. Still, when compared with The Wolf of Wall Street and The Counselor, I’d say that The Wolf of Wall Street comes out on top, simply because it’s the fastest paced and bat shit insane of the three. American Hustle, in comparison seems tame; this is not to say it isn’t a good film or a funny one, it’s just slower than Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street which to me felt like a movie high on all the cocaine it portrays. Still, American Hustle has an amazing cast, entertaining characters and the whole 70’s vibe going for it, which still makes it a worthwhile ride. David O. Russell, the director of this film has said that the emphasis on his films is not plot, but characters and there’s no better example than American Hustle. I have to admit it wasn’t as memorable as I was expecting, but the cast and performances elevate the film and makes it entertaining enough to make it one of the best of the year.

Rating:  4 out of 5  

     

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Title: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Rob Reiner, Kyle Chandler, Jon Favreau  

                 

I went into The Wolf of Wall Street knowing very little about it; the only thing that pulled me in was knowing that DiCaprio and Scorsese were working together again, something they’ve been doing since they collaborated on Gangs of New York (2002). The Wolf of Wall Street marks their fifth collaboration! When these two get together they don’t disappoint. I mean, were talking about one of the greatest directors of our time, the guy who gave us Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980), Goodfellas (1990) and Casino (1995), to name just a few of the many memorable films that Scorsese is responsible for. There’s a reason why he is a living legend in the world of cinema, he is a director that lives and breathes films. He’s the kind of director that makes films because it’s his art; it’s what he was born to do, it’s what he loves, rarely do directors understand the cinematic language and it’s many uses the way Scorsese does and in The Wolf of Wall Street he puts all the knowledge he’s accumulated through the years to good use, the results are nothing short of one of Scorsese’s most entertaining films in years.

The film is based on Jordan Belfort’s book of the same name. It tells the story of how Belfort became a stock broker extraordinaire by starting his own company. Belfort was a guy who started at the very bottom of the corporate ladder by working as a stockbroker on Wall Street;  as Belfort learned the tricks of the trade, he slowly but surely made his dreams a reality: he finally got what he always wanted, his own firm! It isn’t long before Belfort and his team make so much moolah, that they don’t know what the hell to do with it! They soon discover many mind expanding ways to spend their millions: lots of parties, lot’s of drugs and lot’s of sex! Will money and power corrupt these guys? Or will they learn to do things the right way; avoiding ugly confrontations with the I.R.S. or the F.B.I? Can they get away with it?

The Wolf of Wall Street was released on Christmas Day as a beautiful Christmas present from Martin Scorsese to movie goers everywhere; actually I’m being sarcastic; the movie has nothing to do with Christmas, or anything nice, in fact, it shows one of the ugliest sides of human nature: GREED. The Wolf of Wall Street’s release coincided with two other films dealing with similar subject matter: David O Russell’s American Hustle (2013) and Ridley Scott’s The Counselor (2013); these are all films depicting greedy people going the lengths to make as much money as they can, as quickly as they can, so they can live the quintessential ‘American Dream’; which in all three movies quickly degenerates into an American Nightmare. You watch these three films and you won’t see good wholesome people playing by the rules. Nope, in all three you’ll see a lot of people making desperate moves to get rich quick; which is never a good idea. There’s been some bad press for The Wolf of Wall Street saying things like it glorifies this sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle, but in reality, The Wolf of Wall Street is a morality tale, in the end, the one to break the law gets caught. Greed and excess in these films are portrayed as sins. By way of an example, the tagline for The Counselor is “Sin is a Choice”, hell one of the many promotional posters for The Wolf of Wall Street shows Leonardo DiCaprio posing for a mug shot, so no, I don’t agree with those that say this movie glorifies greed, in fact, on this film, greed gets you a warm bed in jail.

But then again, you can’t really blame a film for being truthful either; I mean, the film isn’t about glorifying greed or excess, it simply shows things the way they happened, that’s it and that’s all. If it all appears to be one big party, than that’s probably because that’s the way it happened. In the interest of authenticity, Belfort himself was onset as a consultant in order to make things as truthful as possible, which adds a level of credibility to the film. There’s a difference between glorifying a thing and being truthful people! But you wanna know what’s really weird about the film? It’s how these guys are all doing these awful things, yet it all comes off as incredibly funny. The real deal with The Wolf of Wall Street is that it may not look like a comedy, but in reality, the film is hilarious! I saw it with a packed audience, and they were cracking up every five minutes. Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for a Golden Globe for this film in the “Best Actor in a Comedy” category, so that tells you a whole lot about the general aura of the film. Two elements dominate this film: comedy and schock value. I mean, these guys do some pretty horrible things on this movie, yet it’s all hilarious at the same time? DiCaprio plays Belfort with a snicker in his face the whole time, like he’s got it all covered and don’t you worry about a thing. Speaking of Dicaprio, the talented actor has been ignored by the Academy Awards for way too long, what gives? He keeps making excellent film after excellent film and they just keep on ignoring the guy. I was almost sure he’d win an Oscar for Django Unchained (2012), but no. Again he was denied! Hopefully the Academy will give him the recognition he deserves.

Oscar aspirations aside, I gotta remind you guys that this movie is crass, I mean, it doesn’t care one bit about being politically correct and I liked it! I mean, I’m getting pretty freaking tired with all these movies playing it safe and trying to be all polite and nice; leave it to Martin Scorsese, a cinematic child of the 70’s, to give us a movie with some big brass balls! This one is a hard R all the way! There’s a lot of shock value to this movie! When going to see this movie you have to ask yourself one question: are you ready to see Leonardo DiCaprio snorting cocaine out of some girls’ asshole? Well you better be, because that happens in the films first ten minutes, just to make sure you know what you’re getting yourself into! Final words on The Wolf of Wall Street is that it’s a jolt of electricity down your spine; the last time I remember getting that from a movie was with Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994), so take that for what it’s worth. This is one of those epic movies that takes you down the life of a character from start to finish; from when they we’re nobodies, to when they become stock broking rock stars; you’ll go down the road with these guys as they get rich, party like animals, get corrupted and finally pay for all their excesses. Sure they all end up in jail doing time, but boy, what a ride eh?! Here I was thinking that Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (2013) was going to end up being my favorite film of 2013; guess what, things change, so The Wolf of Wall Street is now my official choice for best film of 2013! Go see it!

Rating:  5 out of 5