Dark Streets

I have never really been a huge fan of the film noir, they all tend to play out basically the same, and are fairly predictable. That was the case here, but surprisingly I liked it.

Chaz is a night club owner who isn't doing so hot at the moment, he took out a loan with some sharks and now they want to be paid back, but he doesn't have the money yet. When a police lieutenant helps him out by shooting one of the goons sent to collect the loan, he allows for a friend of the cop's to audition to be in the nightclub as a singer (Madeline). She is of course amazing, and he falls in love with her quickly, leaving behind Crystal the other singer of the club who is in love with Chaz. Chaz's family is fairly well off, in fact they own and operate the power company that powers the unnamed city they live in. As rolling blackouts occur tensions rise, why are they happening? Chaz starts to stumble over clues that his late father was murdered and didn't commit suicide, and someone near him is responsible. As he delves deeper he finds out things he'd prefer not to know.

The script is not very good, there are a lot of loose ends and things that just don't make sense.

-Why does he need to take money from loan sharks if his family is so rich?

-At one point he finds some money that his father had hidden, but we never see it or refer to it again.

-The police never get involved other than the one lieutenant who doesn't actually seem to do any police work anyway.

I am willing to overlook this for the most part, because like I said before, all these noirs tend to play out the same anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't fit into most of the earmarks of what makes a noir a noir. If anything this is a love letter to the film noir and not so much a noir itself.

Chaz is only just barely likable and it's because he seems to be just stumbling through the story with the plot moving around him, even when he does find out some rather upsetting news, he doesn't really seem to care, he's to in love to see the actions around him.

The saving grace was the way it was shot, and the music and dance numbers, in fact they could probably have done a whole movie of just that and left the plot out and been okay. This film is a great example of being atmospheric. The club is an animal of its own, its lighting, the smoke in the air, the vibrant colors all focusing on the difference between the hard stage and the soft flesh that is on it. The dancers are gorgeous, and the camera really plays to them and to that.

They did some interesting things with focus, coming in and out at times, or purposely making parts of the frame out of focus so only maybe a quarter of the actual frame is in proper focus. The lighting as well was very purposely conceived and handled. The light was directional, that's the simplest way to put in, they wanted only certain things lit up, so that's the way they did it. Whether it was a candle on a table, or sunlight spilling through a window and onto a chase lounge they kept it contained. Many parts of the image were just ignored because it just wasn't all that important to what they were trying to do.

The dance numbers are...fun to say the least, as well as the music which is Blues. The dancers and singers (both Crystal and Madeline) are a treat to look at, the way they move, and like I said before, the camera knows right where to go, the right speed to really make the shots work. Also I liked the casting of those two girls, Crystal is olive skinned with nearly black hair, she is sweet and yet a little threatening, she is independent, but so into Chaz she allows herself to get screwed around some. Madeline on the other hand is blond with pale milk skin, she is more angelic, but of course appearances are deceiving, and always are in film noirs.

I want this type of night club to come back, it is truly cool. Unlike the clubs of today this one was filled with adults, coming to drink and have a good time, the sex was only just under the surface, there was a coyness to it that you don't find today. The clubs now are techno hormone filled dance parties where the young and stupid gather to rub on one another. The clubs of old were dark and warm, there was a theatre quality about it, the show and the girls, and the live music, Maybe one day all that will come back.

Overall the film had problems, mostly writing wise, image wise I loved it. You could tell they were fans of "Chicago" and "Moulin Rouge" and it comes through. If you like Blues music, and like this time period then it's something you might enjoy, but isn't a must see. I only wish to see the kind of atmosphere and girls from this in a better written movie, then they would really have something. The film gets a low 7/10 stars.

Director: Rachel Samuels

Starring: Gabriel Mann, Bijou Phillips, Izabella Miko, Elias Koteas, Michael Fairman

Sidenote: It's good to see more female directors making movies.

Jacob's Ladder

I'll just start with intense, this movie is intense. I had heard people mention this film before, and Netflix was certain that I would like it, but wasn't in the mood for it for a long time, I mean lets be honest, there are certain movies you cant just pop in and watch (Schindler's List for example)

Jacob is in Vietnam, laughing and joking with his platoon mates, when they are attacked by the enemy, something goes wrong, some of the men go into spasms, others are killed horribly or maimed. He wakes up from this nightmare flashback in NYC 1975. He starts to see strange things, he is being bullied and attacked by people that appear to be demons to him. He is living with a woman (Jezzie) away from his ex-wife and children, but still thinks of them often. He starts getting sick, and "imagining" the demons more and more. The line between reality and delusions begins to blur to the point of no longer being able to distinguish the two, and is there a difference?

This film served as a frame work for other films in the past few years, with its confusing twists and turns. But as a pioneer of this sort of story it stands apart from the copy cats. This is by no means a horror movie, although we do at times see some very disturbing things, it is more a pure thriller. He is freaking out just as much as we as the audience is, because unlike a horror movie we are just as in the dark as Jacob is.

With a strong performance by Tim Robbins the film revolves around him almost entirely even with a cast of supporting characters who are just as interesting and well played. The title refers to a few things, one a possible drug called "Ladder" which creates a sort of aggressive frenzy in those who are exposed to it. As well as referring to the biblical staircase known as Jacob's Ladder which you ascend to get into heaven. For a thriller there is a lot of supernatural, specifically biblical implications in the story. The demons that are watching him, and tormenting him are real, the idea of going to hell is fresh in the men's minds. After coming out of Vietnam they are broken and tortured by what they did and saw, and to them Hell is a very real thing.

The lighting and Cinematography was very impressive, I am a sucker for a dark image and someone who is unafraid of shadow, and they bathed the film in it. There was one scene I wish they had lit differently, but was overall not to much of a distraction. The lighting fit with dealing with the dark nature of the film as well as the inner workings of Jacob's broken soul and psyche.

After this I am in the mood for something a fair lighter, maybe something that doesn't deal with death so much...maybe. This is a benchmark in its genre, it really pushes the bounds and should be seen. 8/10 stars.

Director: Adrian Lyne

Starring: Tim Robbins, Elizabeth Pena, Danny Aiello, Matt Craven

Bright Star

I don't know much about John Keats, I know he was a poet and died young (don't all the greats?) I'm surprised to say that I don't really know all that much more about him after seeing this.

Detailing a romance that slowly built and burned between him and a woman he lived near named "Fanny" is shown over the course of three years, although it seems a lot shorter. I know that in that time people went slower, and didn't date like they do now, but really, get the show on the road people and as one of the characters says to Keats "Just bed her already" After meeting Keats, Fanny becomes interested in him, but his friend Mr. Brown does his best to make sure that they stay apart, most of the time succeeding. Even so the young possible lovers still fall for one another. When things start to get serious or at least more so leaning towards becoming involved, Keats falls ill, it is then a waiting game to see if he gets better or not, and how Fanny deals with it.

Like many other period pieces the cinematography has a leash and collar on and can only stray so far without starting to look odd, such as with the film "Marie Antoinette" If you want to make a period piece the shots and composition have to fall in line with that. With that in mind they still kept some amazing images on screen much of the movie, even with the limitations. Much of the film has a muted and at times stark look, so when there is color it looks all the brighter and vibrant.

The film does a great job in showing the desperation that forms during a first love when people are torn apart. The longing looks, the quick kisses they steal from one another are adorable, and so sad because it cant last, and they don't know that yet. Its a quiet movie that revolves around Fanny, and her fascination with Keats who I'm sad to say we never really understand, he is quiet and reserved and just as much as a mystery to me as he was before I saw the film.

In its way it is not much different than a lot of other fare of this same period, two people want to be lovers and they cant because of family, or money, or status. I get it, so in that way it was nothing new, but it was still beautiful and sad. The lighting in parts of it looked like a painting, which as a Gaffer and Cinematographer that's what they are supposed to do, paint with light, and they took their job very seriously.

Its not really my kind of movie, after all the praise I have given it, its not a film that really appeals to me, I prefer contemporary stories, and cinematography, but this wasn't a bother to watch like some others Ive seen (Age of Innocence, to be specific) If you like movies that take place in this era then this will be something you will enjoy. 7/10 stars.

Director: Jane Campion

Starring: Ben Whishaw, Abbie Cornish, Paul Schneider

Happy Endings

This is a terrific example of what is wrong with independent cinema. Now don't get me wrong, it is by far my favorite kind of film to watch because they really do whatever they want, and is a great training ground for up and comers (Chris Nolan, Darren Arronofsky, even Sofia Coppola) But for all the good films that come out of that vein there are just as many bad ones.

I won't even try to give a break down of what the story is about, its just too confusing, and much to complicated, and right there we find the problem. If I cant easily describe what a film is about, and the film is under say...4 hours, then there is a problem with the writing. We are basically following a series of characters, most of whom are connected to one another in one way or another and are living sort of strange lives. The characters are by and large boring, and pretty flat, even with a pretty good cast, who do the best they can, there isn't much salvaging of the boring story and boring characters.

The idea of a story is to see change in a characters, usually from some state of "being dead" to "being alive" such as boy finds girl, or needing to destroy a ring to save the world, you get it. These characters do grow and change, but so much of it is minuscule and not really done by themselves, and is forced upon them that I don't ever really care about them...at all.

This is a personal complaint, but one that I think still holds water, I hate it when a film is made that depicts another film being made and it is so unrealistic and ludicrous that its laughable. If they are making a film, the one I'm watching, then how do they mess up a dramatization of making a film so badly. Also they make filmmakers look so stereotypical, and the thing is, is that I know people like the "filmmaker" they showed, and they after graduating, if they even got that far have failed because they never had talent and were never willing to actually understand film.

Long story short, they went high concept on this, but bottomed out quick, its not a good film. There are a few memorable parts, but over all in a month I wont even remember anything about it. 5/10 stars.

Director: Don Roos

Starring: Lisa Kudrow, Steve Coogan, Jesse Bradford, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jason Ritter, Tom Arnold, Laura Dern

What's Up Doc?

For the holidays this year I was given a book of 501 must see movies, I have been casually looking through it and adding movies to my Netflix as I find ones that appeal to me. This ones page in the book had a photo of Barbara Streisand in a bathtub filled with bubbles and her hair up...how could I resist.

Now before I get to the story, I'm going to admit right now, I only rented this because of Barbara Streisand's nose. I like girls with interesting noses, and no one can really deny that hers is up there. She might not be a great sight now, but in her day, right up my alley.

Howard Bannister is heading to San Francisco with his fiance to try and get a grant to fund his research about cave men making music with rocks. He is a forgetful man with strange tendencies and a pretty pushy fiance (Eunice) In the hotel he meets another woman, one he doesn't exactly find charming (Judy) He does his best to stay away from her, but she for some reason has latched onto him. As all this is going on there are a few other people coming into the hotel, many of which have the same over night bag which is the basis for the comedy in this. One bag is filled with expensive jewelry, one is filled with top secret documents, and of course one is filled with rocks. Along with the cases comes the people who want to steal them. So there are a bunch of these bags being mixed up and misplaced as they get more and more confused.

The man who is supposed to give out the grant to Howard, or another scientist really takes to Judy when she pretends to be Eunice to get closer to Howard. And as all these mix ups occur they begin to fall for one another.

Its 2 parts screwball comedy and 1 part wry sense of humor. The physical gags are thrown out quickly, but what was making me laugh was the one liners that they were throwing out and then doing it again. They talked so fast and were putting so many little quips into each conversation it would be easy to miss a lot of it. Even just the absurd conversations that didn't even make sense because of the delivery made them hilarious. Example: A woman comes into the hotel and says hi to the man behind the counter and calls him Hans, he says his name is Fritz. She asks what happened to Hans and when he tells her there is no Hans only Fritz she responds with "Oh what a shame"

Why is that a shame? Who cares its funny. The actors were all very funny and I just loved Streisand, why couldn't she have just stayed young, she is a modern hipsters dream in this. Why it took Howard a while to warm up to her is beyond me, she was adorable.

It was a very enjoyable movie, not for everyone, they don't really make comedies like this anymore, its a bit out of style. Even so that doesn't mean that its no longer funny. 8/10 stars.

Director: Peter Bogdanovich

Starring: Barbara Strisand, Ryan O'Neal, Madeline Kahn, Kenneth Mars, Austin Pendleton

Black Dynamite

Surfing on the left over popularity of the "Grindhouse" films comes a Blaxplotation film completely aware of what its doing. When I saw the preview for this I was certainly intrigued because it looked hilarious. Even though I was alone I will still laughing out loud.

The film opens with a drug deal going down, and the ring leader saying that someone among them is not who they appear to be, a man speaking very "preppy" gets shot for obviously being the rat. When the cops find his body they realize that its BD's brother (BD=Black Dynamite) So now he is out for blood, he is Kung Fu fighting ex-CIA operative that takes care of the ho's in the hood, and makes all the women scream. The story gets to the point of being ridiculous and they pack in as much as they can, and since the premise already was so out of this world when they get to the point of getting really insane I just let it go, its a parody anyway.

The acting was delightfully tacky and over done. They wisely chose to keep most of the cast unknowns or at least hid them under enough make up and Afro wigs that it took a few minutes to figure out who they were. The acting was spot on for a bad, cheaply made movie. There were scenes that the boom mic is visible, which is funny enough, but right at the last minute one of the characters will glance at it out of the corner of their eyes which is what made it really funny. It was the small facial ticks or the obviously fake punches that really sold it. Or things like if a crazy fight was going on they would focus on one guy reacting to the other fights so then they wouldn't have to spend money and time to do all the stuff they wouldn't have had the expertise to do anyway.

Its been a few days since I watched it so I'm trying to remember everything that I liked about it. It has also been a few weeks since Ive written a review and am rather rusty, so if anyone is reading this bear with me.

I was impressed with how much the film actually looked like it was made in the 70's, technically it was done very well, even though there were tons of "mistakes" purposeful as they might have been they made them look like accidents. The music is something to keep your ears open for, they do their own lyrics to the funk that us merely describing whats happening in the story.

Overall it was very funny, better than most others of this fare. With the "Grindhouse" films Tarantino and Rodriguez were to busy making themselves happy to make a truly funny and outrageous movie, as much as I liked them they were flawed. This kept it short, to the point like a shot of adrenaline and then let you go laughing. 8/10 stars.

Director: Scott Sanders

Starring: Michael Jai White, Salli Richardson-Whitfield

La Puta y la Ballena

The translation means "The Whore and the Whale" Not a great title if I do say so myself, thing is though, that is basically what the story is about.

Vera is a writer, she hasn't written anything in many years, when her old lover and editor (Jordi) brings her love letters and photos taken by a man who died during the Spanish Civil War a curiosity and obsession begins to grow in her. She tells Jordi about a lump that she found in her breast that she is getting checked out. She travels to Argentina to find out what happened to the photographer (Emilio) and the woman from the love letters (Lola) We start jumping back and forth in time, from 2003 to 1933 to see her finding out the story, and then seeing it actually play out. She underestimates the tumor and is right away in the hospital in surgery. They end up having to take her entire left breast.

Emilio is in love with Lola, he gets a job out in the middle on nowhere on the coast of Argentina, he takes it and brings Lola along, when he gets there he discovers that he is taking nude photos for the cover of sheet music for the tangos that a blind composer (Suarez) writes. Suarez becomes interested in Lola right away. A jealousy begins to build in Emilio.

While in the hospital Vera finds out that the woman (Matilde) who is in the bed next to her was a prostitute who worked at the whore house that Suarez owned and that Emilio and Lola stayed in while they were there taking photos. I'm going to leave it at that when it comes to describing the story, I don't want to give away how Lola dies, or what kind of betrayals they do to one another, it would be unfair.

Even though it clocked in at two hours, and at times I felt slightly bored, and wanted them to push the narrative along, the story is such an epic that it should have been longer, I was thinking 4 hours. That of course would have pushed away a large chunk of the audience and that's never good, but it was this tragic love story and needed the time to really let it soak in and marinate. I was very happy with it and surprised at times. The effects though really needed work at some parts, you could tell they didn't have the budget they needed to have for a period piece, as well as needing to make a whale look real when it's merely CGI.

The acting was beautifully done as well as the actresses were gorgeous. From the girl who played Mathilde as a young woman, to Vera or Lola, I was always happy to see them on screen. Ive made this same statement before, I believe it was when I wrote about "House of Sand" but Ill say it again for this, the actresses are women, not girls. If this was an American film I'm sure they would have went with a younger group of actresses or at least women who have a certain young look to them. There is a certain maturity and hardness about these characters that needed even if a young actress plays them to have a look about them of knowing the world.

There were a few really cool scenes where Vera is writing about an argument that Emilio and Lola are having, and they take her table that shes writing at and stick it in the 1933 time in between them as they argue, very cool. They let the cinematography sort of just play and meander as it should, its very free like that. Besides the story of Emilio and Lola its amazing and sad to watch Vera try and come to terms with what she and other women who go through this consider no longer being a full woman, or no longer beautiful.

The story is not all that original, I didn't really care though because what makes it so enjoyable to watch was that the writing and dialogue was to a T. They didn't really over write anything, things that bordered on cheesy weren't.

This would be the 2nd movie in as many days that deals directly with cancer, I need to get away from this trend, movies like this never end happy. Films that take a mirror and hold it up and instead of seeing your own reflection you see your own destruction should only be watched once in a while, they aren't really party movies.

It was a very enjoyable movie, not for everyone, but it was certainly a venture away from the norm and will be telling people to check it out for a while, even though it might not be the best movie I've seen recently it certainly earned a mention. 8/10 stars.

Director: Luis Puenzo

Starring: Leonado Sbaraglia, Aitana Sanchez-Gijon, Pep Munne, Merce Llorens, Miguel Angel Sola, Belen Blanco, Lydia Lamaison