Does It Hold Up?

During the course of the weekend the conversation steered itself in such a direction that my wife admitted with a reluctant smile that she had, in fact, never seen THE BIG LEBOWSKI.

“Never seen it? But it’s brilliant! Hysterical!” My eyes widened with each exclamation of greatness. “We must rectify the situation immediately!”

She settled into her preferred corner of the couch as I went about opening the various leather albums we’ve been transferring our DVDs into in an effort to save space. I flipped through the pages and considered something I hadn’t though of when I previously combusted with enthusiasm at the thought of introducing her to THE BIG LEBOWSKI:

Was it really as good as I remembered it?

I originally saw it in the theater, its viewing remarkable because it was the first time I recalled taking my younger brother along with my friends. He loved it, and it cemented now long-standing ritual of checking out at least one movie every time we get together. Past that, I maybe saw the film in its entirety once more when I bought original DVD, and some snippets here and there on cable.

I needn’t have worried; if anything THE BIG LEBOWSKI got even better 11 years later. Particularly John Goodman’s performance. I’m sure it was always there, but watching this time I was able to catch a lot of the cracks in his hardcore shell: the wincing pain when his ex-wife comes up, the flare-ups at poor Donny (a wonderfully understated Steve Buscemi) that mask deeper insecurities. If Jeff Bridges’ “Dude” is the unwavering constant, then Goodman’s Walter is the journeyman in the film: the close on him hugging the Dude after Donny’s ashes are haphazardly flung into the ocean (and the Dude’s face) is hilarious and poignant, we feel Walter may have turned a corner in his life, even as “the Dude abides,” as Sam Elliot points out in the final scene.

The point is, the damn thing not only held up, but improved in my eyes years later.

Over the next few days, I started thinking about other films I loved upon initial viewing but haven’t seen in years…would they hold up to scrutiny? And is the opposite true - would films I didn’t like age like a fine cheese with the appropriate distance? I’m guessing the latter is probably more true than not: there are a lot of films that take time, knowledge, and experience to appreciate. L’AVVENTURA is up front in the list of films I just didn’t enjoy or “get” the first time around. Admittedly it’s been well over a dozen years since I tried, those years filled with a lot more amateur experience in watching and writing about movies. So maybe next time it’ll work out, who know?

If there’s a question anywhere in this post, I suppose it’s this: what films out there did you love, only to find out it wasn’t the film you remember upon seeing it again? Conversely, what films got better with time, not only moving up in an already favorable estimation, but actually changing your mind about it?

Four Flies on Grey Velvet (1971)

Dario Argento is generally held high on the shoulders of horror fandom for the vibrant visual palette he brings to his horror films, particularly his series of giallo films. FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET was his third film, considered "lost" due to its long absence on DVD, and it's a crazy ride into many of the visual themes and cues he would use to later effect in more classic films like DEEP RED and SUSPIRIA.

It's interesting that DEEP RED came only a few years and one film after FOUR FLIES, which was originally supposed to be Argento's goodbye to the giallo genre. You can watch the two in sitting (as I did) and really see FOUR FLIES as a kind of workprint for what Argento would do cleaner and more impactful in DEEP RED. Because for all its wonderful moments, including an amazing rock and roll soundtrack by Ennio Morricone, beautiful use of colors and moving cameras, and some excellent ahead of its time POV shots, FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET is an absolute mess as far as story is concerned. Essentially, it's about a drummer in a rock band (Michael Brandon) named Roberto who is being stalked by a mysterious man in black, with a glorious, full and bushy mustache (I bring this up because it was a bad-ass mustache). Roberto confronts the gentleman in an abandoned playhouse, a struggle ensues, a knife comes out, and the stalker crashes to the stage, seemingly stabbed by mistake in the struggle. High above in the balcony, a figure wearing a mask shaped like a doll's head snaps pictures. Soon Roberto is terrorized by the new stranger, and as he attempts to figure out what's going on, one by one those who attempt to help him are murdered.

Don't bother trying to figure out what the dreams of decapitation mean, or the whirling scenes that take place in a padded cell. Forget the obvious and sometimes hysterical homosexual under (and over-) tones of the characters and just revel in how masterly Argento controls the action on the screen. It doesn't make a lot of sense, and when you find out who the killer is, you'll probably be as stumped as I am with trying to understand why they went through all of the trouble of doing what they did in the beginning if they only wanted to kill Roberto in the end. Even the scene that finally explains the title of the movie: wonderful to look at, really inconsequential in the grand scheme of the story. Argento basically directs the hell out of a movie that's light as a feather, but watched in conjunction with DEEP RED, FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET gets better when you think of it as a sort of proving ground for what he would accomplish in the later film.

All in all, nice to finally have it out on DVD, but I think this one is more of a curiosity for those who want to catch all of Argento rather than anything like a lost classic.

Back and Tweaking

You know what I realized?

I really have no desire to log and review every single film I see.

There. It's out there now. I feel better for having admitting it. And it's not because I didn't see any good films - sometimes the best reviews come from the ones you didn't like. It's a combination of things: films had taken a bit of a back-seat after WATCHMEN, making room for some family things and some hobbies long-neglected but recently taken back up. Films are still wonderful, but the rush to have a review up for every single thing I've watched plus articles and essays about film-related matter didn't give me the time to really focus on improving my film writing, which was one of the main goals in breaking out and creating this site.

So there's going to be some adjustments - the main one being the reviews. There will be fewer, but hopefully they'll begin to take a more definite shape. Additionally, the chances of the reviewed film being new or current releases is going to be slim - I'm just not getting out there as much as I want to, and I have a slew of DVDs that frankly are more interesting to me right now than whatever happens to be playing in the local mainstream theaters (except for OBSERVE AND REPORT, which has me very interested).

The look of the site will change as well - I'm not happy with the bleak, grey look - so we'll see what we can do about that as well.

In the meantime, check out some of the great writing going on from the list on the right side of this site. One and all they're all worthy of your time. I'll be back soon with a review of Dario Argento's "lost" giallo FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET.

Movie #23: Watchmen (2009)

After 20+ years of back and forth between studios, writers, and directors we finally, for better or for worse, have our WATCHMEN movie. Forget the "could have beens" of a Terry Gilliam or Darren Aronovsky version of the film, forget the 5+ hour HBO miniseries (which was never really a consideration). Zach Snyder and the team behind 300 have gone and made the "unfilmable" Holy Grail of graphic novels into a finished film.

And a surprisingly faithful one, at that.

Almost too faithful, and if I have a minor quibble with WATCHMEN, the issue of being "too faithful" is an odd one, in light of the various fanboy uproars over major departures like the lack of the "squid" ending to more minor liberties like using "Desolation Row" over the closing credits when it is, in fact, used as the opening quote to the book.

So before jumping into the review, it's probably best to explain the mindset I used going into the movie: it has to work as a film. We're talking two very different mediums here, and the logic, structures and storytelling techniques that work in comics, and specifically in Watchmen the graphic novel, don't necessarily translate when adapted to film. That's always been Alan Moore's main reason for the disdain he has of all his filmed works, and it's a valid one. But (of course there's a "but") there's a lot that film can do that comics can't, and provided the hand that does the adapting does it with reverence and keeps their eye on the message within the work (which was always "filmable"), you can do things like LORD OF THE RINGS. THE GODFATHER.

And now, WATCHMEN.

Zach Snyder should be proud of himself. WATCHMEN is an audacious, unapologetically R-rated film that revels in taking its costumed avengers and placing them in a very real (albeit weird) world, a world where the discovery of the first "super-powered" man is heralded as "an American" and consequently sets up a society where people don capes and masks to both commit crime and fight it. WATCHMEN is largely about the deconstruction of the superhero archetype, but by committing to the book's 80's time frame lock, stock, and barrel and running the action against the nation's growing paranoia over Soviet aggression and nuclear holocaust, Snyder draws parallels to our own current global scenario. It's a beautifully realized world; not the "real word" of something like THE DARK KNIGHT, but like that film, total in its commitment to a reality that governs the actions of its characters.

Most everything is here: after a brilliant opening to the strains of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changing" that brings us up to speed on the world since the "birth" of Doctor Manhattan and costumed heroes to the 1977 Keane Act that banned vigilantism, we're immediately in the present, and witness to the murder of the Comedian. Snyder stays very close to the panels drawn by Dave Gibbons in the book, but amps everything up by showing us the action that occurs in between the panels to open things up and make the fight that much more visceral. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is incredible in the short amount of time he gets to play the Comedian - it's a bastard of a role, because the Comedian's so repulsive, but Morgan really brings out a lot of the underlying pain and anguish that haunts him in his final days. He very nearly steals the show in every scene he's in.

Nearly. I could go one about the other actors, all of who pull out fine performances, but that would take up too space before I could get to how unbelievable Jackie Earle Haley is as Rorschach. He's the drive of the film, the narrator and the one person who never once compromised or gave in when everyone else took government jobs (Comedian, Manhattan), went to seed (Nite Owl, Silk Spectre), or cashed in (Ozymandias, who gets the short end of the stick in the theatrical version, but hopefully gets some more to do in the director's cut in a few months). Rorschach is the heart of the film and, like Billy Crudup's Doctor Manhattan, Haley has to do most of his acting in actions and voice, since for the most part he's covered by the now famous ink blot mask. Snyder wisely keeps most of Rorschach's scenes from the book intact, and when the mask finally does come off, Snyder's camera gets in close, studying every worn line and whisker on his face. The single best scene of WATCHMEN comes not from the result of make-up, special effect or fight choreography - it is a close-up of Haley's face at the end of the film, in the bitter cold, shaking from the freezing air and bitter sadness of what's about to happen. The entire screen is filled with his face, and it's impossible to turn away.

I mentioned before how much restraint Snyder shows in refraining from the speed changes that covered every second of 300; it's a credit that this feels almost like a different director. The fact that so much of what was on the page he manages to pull off in incredible. Another fantastic scene I never would have thought would work on film involves a dream Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl) has after a failed attempt to make love to Laurie (Silk Spectre): naked in a barren landscape, each person rips the other person's skin off, revealing each other in their crime fighting costumes as a gigantic mushroom cloud erupts on the horizon. It's a surreal image straight out of Dali, but Snyder films it and makes it work. Another terrific section from the book that works beautifully on the screen is Doctor Manhattan's exodus to Mars, and his meditation on his life and the multifaceted nature of time, and how it appears to him. Again, I would have thought this would never work on the screen: Snyder proves me wrong. His fight choreography, also very different from the novel, is top-notch; I couldn't help but think that this was how I wanted to see my superheros fight. Christoper Nolan: take note for the next Batman movie - you can have dressed up people move with a fluid grace.

And the love scene? I guarantee you've never seen anything this, uh, hardcore in a big-budget superhero film again. It's tacky, it's explicit, and it's a fantastic pressure release valve from all the heavy stuff that has gone on before. You'll laugh out loud, and you'll probably never listen to Leonard Cohen or "Hallelujah" the same way again.

So where did I have any problems? By sticking so close to the book, and being so faithful to the words spoken, some of the dialog comes off a little wooden, and takes you out of the film a bit. It's at those moments that you're reminded you're watching an adaptation instead of immersing yourself in a film. There's one weird instance, however, where Snyder opts to removes a crucial bit of dialog that also makes the film suffer a bit. Early in the film after the Comedian's murder Rorschach makes his rounds to the rest of the Watchmen (they were called the Crime Busters in the book - the term "Watchmen" really was a catch-all referring to all costumed heroes) informing them of his death and his suspicions that someone is out to kill heroes. This news of the Comedian's death has implications for Laurie, aka Silk Spectre, having to do with a violent episode between the Comedian and her mother, the original Silk Spectre back in the 40s and 50s. So in the book Laurie lashes out at Rorschach about the Comedian, and when Rorschach says something about it, her anger is what causes Doctor Manhattan to teleport him out of their compound. Here that doesn't happen - the conflict is glossed over and, although it's accentuated elsewhere, I couldn't help but feel that initial moment of Laurie's hatred would have the revelations that come later on the film more weighty. It's a small grievance, but it's there.

Some scenes also suffer a little from such careful dedication to the book. There are a few moments where WATCHMEN feels like you're viewing the book instead of living the film (something the motion comics DVD purposefully achieves). The moments feel a bit dry, especially when they're matched against sequences that jump off the screen. We all have the book, we can all read it again, so taking a few more liberties (I know, blasphemy) and making each minute of the visual version of WATCHMEN completely engage the viewer instead of pay homage to the book might have made the difference between "great" and "nigh perfect".

My final, tiny issue is admittedly a personal quibble and, surprisingly, comes after the movie ends. I'm perfectly fine with the "squidless" ending. In fact, I'm fine with practically (see above) every moment of WATCHMEN. Once the credits roll, we're treated to a cover of "Desolation Row" performed by My Chemical Romance. Song's not bad, I like My Chemical Romance, and I get the reference (again, a line from the song actually opens the novel), but the tone in the cover is much more upbeat that the original version, and doesn't jibe with the essentially bleak "it never ends" ending. MInor and more than a bit "fanboy-ish" perhaps, but when my ending is downbeat, I don't want major chord punk playing over the credits.

Those pieces aside, in the end WATCHMEN comes off as a kind of great film, one I think is destined to be influential and talked about for years to come. Drew McWeeny compared it to BLADE RUNNER, and I don't think he's too far off the mark. It might not do a lot of box office, it requires more than simple passive viewing (in fact, I'm 100% this is going to get better and better over multiple viewings), but in the end it's an impressive achievement, does nothing to shame the graphic novel, and proves that nothing is "unfilmable" when you commit yourself to it.

Although, come to think of it, wouldn't it have been cool to see that giant squid now?

Phantasm (1977)

He already had a couple of low-budget films under his belt, but Don Cascarelli's real splash came with his 1979 wacked-out trip of a horror film, PHANTASM. Embracing the spirit of DIY ethics, Coscarelli wrote, directed, photographed, edited and co-produced the film, giving audiences not only a new icon of the genre in the wonderfully menacing Tall Man (played by Angus Scrimm), but also a film that is a flag-bearer for originality and creativity on a minuscule budget.

Most people who haven't seen the film (or its numerous sequels, all helmed by Coscarelli) are most likely familiar with its major instrument of carnage: a flying metallic sphere with wicked little blades that burrow into your brain and funnel out the blood at the mental command of the Tall Man. But what is the film actually about? Mike (the young one) and Jody (the older, cooler one) are brothers trying to cope with the death of their parents. If it sounds like it's already treading into the confines of horror cliche, PHANTASM side-steps it by having the deaths already occur before the movie begins and using it instead to strengthen the sibling relationship between Mike and Jody, making it more genuine in the process. Mike begin to notice that things aren't as normal as they appear at the local mortuary: for one thing, the manager of the place is able to carry an full casket by himself (in a nice homage to NOSFERATU) with ease. Events go into Weird Overdrive when evil, hooded dwarfs show up and before you know it Mike, Jody, and their ice-cream truck driving friend Reggie are running for their lives as they become embroiled in a plan to extract the souls of the dead and ship them to an alien world as slavery.

Yes, you read that right. This mutha goes into Outer Space.

PHANTASM does so many things right, it's hard to know where to begin. In Jody and Mike we get protagonists we care about, and who from the outset appear to have fully functioning heads on their shoulders. Jody doesn't immediately believe Mike's assertions about the Tall Man, but when it's time to believe Jody buys in fully, and when he springs into action it's not as a supporting member but as someone fully vested in their survival.

And in Angus Scrimm we have a Tall Man that is both horrible and mysterious. We never really learn why he does what he does or even the extent of his considerable powers. Much of the horror simply comes from his presence, whether it's picking up the aforementioned casket by himself:

Or suddenly appearing behind Mike's bed in a nightmare:

It's this type of thing that makes PHANTASM so fun. The images and ideas are waaay out there, but executed with enthusiasm and care. The fact that it looks a little cheap add to the charm: what Coscarelli lacked in funds he makes up for in imagination and arresting visuals. The set direction is inspired - the interior of the mortuary is a surreal nightmare, all marbled black and white to make the inevitable spilling of blood that much more vibrant. The ending is somewhat twisty, but maybe because we're talking about a movie that's close to 30 years old it feels right considering what it is.

I've often criticized other movies for putting in incredible images that serve no purpose to the story. In PHANTASM the images are of the same caliber, but they serve a story that's just as fantastic. If you haven't seen it, you won't know what to expect going in and, in this day and age, that's a good thing. It's a horror movie perfectly suited for the kid who's too young to get into a horror movie: young heroes, lots of blood, a sprinkling of T&A - pretty much everything you can ask for when you're a 13 year-old who loves staying up late reading Stephen King and watching Twilight Zone re-runs. A perfect midnight movie to see with a bunch of friends.