Is there any such thing as mitigated crap? This discussion came up over spring break; all philosophical implications aside, my answer is yes. My latest cinematic review should demonstrate the difference, employing the same double feature tactic of the movie that inspired this review. Ladies and gents, may I present cinematic review the eighth:
Grindhouse
and
2001: A Space Odyssey
An odd pair, no? After all, Kubrick's 2001 is often cited by critics as one of the best motion pictures ever made; Rober Ebert places it at #2 on his all time list. Possibly the most influential sci-fi movie ever, groundbreaking for its use of realism in space, showing everything happening in real time, moment by moment. By contrast, Grindhouse is an homage to 70's b movies, a compilation of feature flicks by Tarantino and Rodriguez, two directors known for sensationalist depictions of violence and depravity, and fake movie trailers which are equally over the top. 2001 is an epic tale of exploration and discovery, of the dangers of technology, and of mind-bending questions that have left viewers scratching their heads for decades. Grindhouse has alien zombies, Nazi werewolves, Mexican assassins, car chases, and oh yeah - a girl with a gun leg.
So what we've got is one classic movie and one terrible movie, right?
Exactly. Just not in the way you'd think.
Grindhouse is certainly a crappy movie. Intentionally crappy, that is. The ideas are terrible, really. I'm talking absolute schlock. But the directors know this; in fact, that is the point. Entertainment is the bottom line here, and these directors know how to entertain. Take an idea beyond any hope of plausibility and just have fun with it. There's a sense of energy that pulses throughout the movies and trailers that draws you in, tells you to leave your inhibitions at the door, and just enjoy yourself. This, of course, leads to some terribly exciting moments, absolutely hilarious movements, and simply awful moments. Many people would be turned off by this, and rightly so -- it's not everyone's cup of tea. Not all of it was mine, either. But the spirit behind the movie was incredible, and it really was exactly what it said - an experience.
The best part of the show, for me, was Machete, the first movie parody featuring a bad-ass Mexican assassin who kills a whole lot of people with a machete. Cheech Marin made a guest appearance as a shotgun-toting priest, which was hilarious. And possibly the best tag line ever made: "They just fucked with the wrong Mexican." And the runner up: "If you hire Machete to kill the bad guy, you'd better make sure the bad guy isn't you." Best of all, this is apparently getting made into a real movie, direct to dvd. Hot damn.
Then Planet Terror, Robert Rodriguez's feature contribution. Overall, this was very strong. My main problem with it was that the dialogue in the first half hour was surprisingly weak. From what I remember, the entire theater was silent for those 30 minutes. Of course, that was just the setup for the craziness that was about to unfold, but still - rather than silly and foreboding, it was just kinda awkward. However, once the zombies began appearing and the plot threads started coming together, it got awesome in hurry. I won't give away too many details -- spoilers aren't a major concern for this movie because even if you know what happens, you have to see it to believe it. The gun leg certainly doesn't disappoint, though you will have to wait until the climax to see it, and from that point on - sheer awesomeness. (Suspended disbelief is a must, of course) The latter 2/3 of this movie are a combination of balls-out action and silly comedy, marked by a ridiculously hilarious moment when a particularly important scene got cut out, and suddenly shit gets crazy. And oh yeah, Fergie gets killed, horribly.
Then more fake previews. Of this bunch, Thanksgiving is probably the best, an 80's slasher that pushes every convention of the genre to its ridiculous extreme. Don't was pretty funny as well, lampooning the ominous voiceover for scary movies, though the joke got old pretty fast. I was really disappointed by the Werewolf Women of the S.S. trailer; from the premise, I figured this would be the craziest of the bunch, but it just didn't have many laughs. The only exception is an appearance from Nicholas Cage, which may have been the funniest moment of the entire double feature. Good to see his career is heading back up after Ghostrider.
Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof closed out the show. He brought his patented technique of excessive banter between the characters, all of which seems entirely extraneous, but actually provides an illuminating look into the psyche of each character. For instance, in Death Proof, we are presented with two extended scenes of dialogue - one with the first group of girls, one with the second. The first group reveals themselves to be insipid and kinda skanky; the second group appear to have much more strength of character. This dichotomy becomes important when Kurt Russell's character makes attempts to kill each group with varying success, and helps explain why the second group is ultimately able to expose him as merely a twisted coward, rather than this death proof badass he thought himself to be. Ultimately I thought this was a pretty good show. Not on par with Pulp Fiction or the Kill Bill series, but certainly entertaining.
My grade: Machete - A
Planet Terror - B+
Werewolf Women - C-
Don't - B-
Thanksgiving - A-
Death Proof - B
Recommendation: Not for the faint of heart, but those who just want to be entertained, this craptastic extravaganza is right up your alley.
2001 provides our example of unmitigated crap. Talk about a movie that takes itself seriously. I'll admit, there are some pretty cool ideas here, such as the "technology can turn on us" idea reused in countless stories since this was released. I really wanted to like the movie; I wanted to care. I wanted to appreciate it for its message, its aesthetics, its intelligence. Instead, I ended up hating it for its unfailing pretentiousness.
The first 25 minutes gave us monkeys; lots and lots of monkeys. The monkeys learned things, over time, including how to use tools (such as animal bones to bash in each others' skulls). That's all well and good, but I don't care. There's a reason we don't make movies about neanderthals and cromagnons - they were fucking stupid. And god-awful boring. It's the same reason we don't make movies about how we evolved from single celled organisms - it was BORING AS SHIT. I'm sure Kubrick was making a statement about how discovery is a constant, and how it is the same now for us as it was in millenia past. That's the deal with the Monolith that appears here, then later on a planet, then in the guy's room at the end. But for the life of me, I just don't care.
Then the space station. This section was at least watchable, and had some semblance of a point. The noteworthy thing here is how Kubrick didn't cut to the exciting or important moments -- he filmed every single excruciating second of what happens in space. Now, there's something worthwhile about that in itself, and if he were making a documentary about space exploration, I could forgive it. But this is a fictional story; it was based on Arthur C. Clarke's short story of the same name. None of that is necessary to tell the story. None of that belongs in this movie. Yet many critics still say this was groundbreaking. Of course it was - no one ever did it before. You know why? It was BORING AS SHIT. Are we sensing a running theme here?
After the space station, we take a trip through the Jupiter Infinity Wormhole of Inexplicable Crap. I dare you not to fall asleep during this sequence. This was comparable to sitting down and watching the colorful patterns that play on Windows Media Player during the songs; a lot of color and wonder, but no meaning whatsoever. If you manage to stay awake (or wake up) in time for the ending, you're treated to a few shots of the surviving astronaut from the space station arriving in some room, seeing himself older, eating at a table, then seeing himself older, dying in bed. And the monolith reappears in front of him. Again, discovery, exploration, blah blah holy shit my eyes are bleeding blah blah. Then, finally, a giant baby floating in space, staring at the earth. Then its all over.
Aint that a kick in the scrote.
My score: C-
Recommendation: Maybe you can get more out of it than I did, or maybe you should spare yourself the pain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As you know, I disagree about Grindhouse. I was entertained by Planet Terror, but Death Proof left me cold.
However, I could not agree with you more about 2001. That movie sucks fat cock.
On a side note, I said one of the stupidest things I've ever said while watching 2001: at some point during the space station sequence, I asked "So, what year is this supposed to be happening in?"
Yeah, not so smart.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
The monkey and monolith scene is staged to show that some of the dull useless monkeys gained the ability to use their brains and tools when the monolith appeared. The monolith appears to be or represent an influencer from the advanced society from another galaxy that guides man to the outer reaches of the solar system. At the end of the movie the astronaut is being reborn into the higher state of the advanced beings. If you will, it is another monkey/monolith moment as man evolves once again...under the guidance of the more advanced race.
Mr Lomax, that very well may be true, but I still don't care. I'm not saying the movie didn't have some profound statements to make, I'm just saying it presented them in such a way that I, an avid lover of movies and sci fi in general, couldn't bring myself to care or even try to understand.
Also - something has been brought to my attention about Death Proof that puts a whole new spin on things. PH informed me that the sequence of events may have been happening in reverse, as in Stuntman Mike went after the second group of girls first, and his attack on the first group of girls happened later. This is a completely Tarantino-esque thing to do, which is why John Travolta appears on screen, alive and well, for the final portion of Pulp Fiction after getting gunned down by Bruce Willis earlier in the movie. As PH indicated, the film may have intended to show Stuntman Mike's progression from twisted stalker to serial killer after getting his ass whipped by a group of girls the first time. And certain things about the continuity (his scar, absent in the second half; his car, death proof in the first but not second half, etc) seem to support this theory.
Vice-
I initially jumped to that conclusion as well, but made it a point to look for the scar and made sure it was there in the second scene as well. I took the progression to portray the stalker's true character in light of his victims: weak and then strong. The confusing part came when he didn't kill the girls right away in the second scene, but sat there and mocked them from his car, so you may be right about the reverse order. However, I like thinking about it the other way in the form of a classic Tarantino character-revealing moment. Plus, that last job to his throat didn't look so good for Stuntman Mike.
In any event, I need to get one of those Icy Hot jackets.
I don't disagree entirely. I always thought Kubrick was vastly overrated. The Shining, 2001, and Full Metal Jacket are his best works, but that isn't saying much. Steven King disliked Kubrick's Shining so much that he had it redone.
I prefer 2010 to 2001 as films go anyway.
I also am amongst those who believe that Kubrick's work is overrated. In fact, I hate 2001 and The Shining. I think both are boring, bloated movies. I have only enjoyed two of Kubrick's movies: Dr. Strangelove (which, of course, is awesome), and A Clockwork Orange (which is also awsome).
Clockwork Orange was solid; I'm going to have to watch Dr. Strangelove again because the only time I've seen it I couldn't hear much, so I missed at least half of the movie. The half I caught seemed damn funny though. Eyes Wide Shut was pretty much crap. I've never seen Full Metal Jacket or the Shining, so I can't say that much about Kubrick. I just hated 2001 with a passion.
In other news, Grindhouse opened at #4 in the box office. Looks like it's going to have to survive on cult status, because the numbers just aren't cutting it.
Yeah, I was really surprised by Grindhouse's weak opening. I really expected it to do much better at the box office, although perhaps the nearly empty theatre we were in should have been a tip off.
2001 was the most boring movie in the universe. Here is a preview of my still unpublished review of it as it is #22 of the AFI top 100 American movies somehow:
I love Stanley Kubrick, but I HATE this movie. It’s structured like an epic such as Lawrence of Arabia but set in a location even more desolate than the desert. There are no compelling characters in the first 90 minutes. Hal isn’t even that great, just a parody of politicians or anyone else who shirks responsibility. See Dr. Strangelove if you want satire. Here, you find nothing. The boredom is unbearable. The first time I tried to watch this was New Year’s at midnight into 2001. Both my buddy and I fell asleep at about 12:40. I don’t care if the cinematography is wondrous or if the music is moving. It’s a lullaby.
I like much of what Kubrick did. Dr. Strangelove is one of my favorite movies of all time. The first half of Full Metal Jacket is brilliant, but the second half devolves into foggy war of little value. Somehow the gray English countryside didn't look like Vietnam.
When Kubrick took himself seriously, he made bloated epics. 2001 was just awful, no matter how pretty. Barry Lyndon (also pretty) and Spartacus are both well done, but just too long. Same with Lolita. Eyes Wide Shut was terrible, just excess. The Shining had strong moments but didn't click with me. But when satirical, Kubrick was brilliant.
It's extremely comforting to me to know that my friends, particularly those that enjoy classic cinema (specifically RPM and Ismael, with apologies to Mr. Utah) hated this movie as much as I did. While I've always tried to look beyond the face value of movies and discover the greater message and the themes, I realize that sometimes I fail to do that with older movies. Often times when I go back and try to watch older ones I can get bored easily and tend to lose interest and miss out on the value of those movies (for example, Blade Runner). So to find out that people who really can appreciate classic movies still thought this one was a steaming pile, I feel better about my own reaction.
I made myself watch Blade Runner not that long ago. Did nothing for me.
Post a Comment