Dead Alive (1992) directed by Peter Jackson

Peter Jackon's early cult phenomenal film, Dead Alive, is about the greatest clash of comedy and horror one can find. It's worlds away from The Lord of the Rings...and that's a good thing.

I'm not taking a strike against Lord of the Rings, but it's nice to know that someone capable of such a massive production for the masses was able to make such phenomenal cult masterpiece. There are many reasons for Dead Alive's cult status. First and foremost, it's quite possibly the goriest film ever made. It's a fine example of state of the art special effects. Secondly, it's simply hilarious. Third, It's unconventional. It plays by the rules of horror and at the same time creates a somewhat innocent and positive atmosphere. All of this is consistent from the start to the bizarre finale.

Taking place in the 50's, a ratmonkey is brought from a desolate island to a zoo in New Zealand. While a young couple, Lionel and Paquita, are visiting the zoo, Lionel's obsesive, wicked mother spies on them. In the process, she gets bitten by the rat monkey. Now she's caught the dreaded ratmonkey virus

While Lionel tries to take care of his infected mother, things get worse...much worse. What seemed like his mom the day before now seems like a zombie. Through a series of funny yet gory twists, the virus has spread to a few others. Lionel tries to control them by keeping all of them in his mother's large home as well as constantly injecting them with tranquilizers. However, things fall a part for Lionel and his neighbors are become suspicious. All leads to a house party turned blood bath, a wonderfully directed special effects extravaganza. One that should be experienced.

A

Slacker(1991) directed by Richard Linklater

adj. slack·er, slack·est

1. Moving slowly; sluggish: a slack pace.
2. Lacking in activity; not busy

Richard Linklater's pivotal debut film, Slacker, has as much importance as its "lacking" conventional substance. It was a key element in the early 90's cultural wave, the so called generation x. What exactly is generation x though? To this day, there's still some debate about it and what it means. Basically, generation x are the children of the baby boomers(people born after WWII). However, some will argue that they have to be born in the 60's and 70's to fit in with a particular subculture. Music in the late 80's and early 90s drastically changed and completely new forms of rock and hip hop were entering the mainstream. Naturally, to be a part of this wave, people were generally in their teens and 20's. That means that they were probably born in the 60's and 70's. That's the argument anyways. It differs for everyone. You could easily be 8 years old and be a part of it one way or another. Basically, it was a generation of new ideas, music, films, and fashion. It's often compared to the 60's. What's funny about this is that the term stemmed from the baby boomers trying to figure out what the next generation was all about, as if it had to have meaning. Ultimately, the only thing it meant was nothing. It must be hard for aging yuppies to comprehend the fact that this generation had no social unity. Unlike the 60's political orgy of free love, drugs, and music, generation x is more of a "fuck you, do whatever, say whatever" mentality. This is where slacker shines.

Unlike 99% of all films, Slacker has no main characters or story. This $20,000 indie film is about a moment in the day in the life of about a hundred or so different slackers living in Austin, Texas. It might sound boring but it's quite facinating and funny. It has a unique usage of narrative. The film opens with a man(none other than the direct himself) catching a taxi cab at a bus station. During the cab ride, the man(first slacker) spends about 5 minutes talking to the driver about dreams and seperate realities. He emphasizes that every choice we make fractions off and becomes it's own reality. He goes far enough to suggest that the reality you are living in right now is perhaps a dream from another reality. After his philosophical rant, he gets out of the cab, walks down the street to the next intersection. It is there where he witnesses a hit and run and then decides to call the police. From this point on, we follow the driver who hit and ran. We watched him go back to his home where he lights up a shrine. The police show up and arrest him. While he's being walked to the police car, a couple of bystanders watch. From this point on, we follow the bystanders to a coffe shop. Around this point in the film, you begin to understand the way this film works. It just circulates around austin, from one slacker to the next, over a 24 hour period. If you don't like the person you are following, wait a few minutes because you'll meet someone new. Each has their own little philosophy. This film created itself. The people you'll see are more realistic than MTV's the real world. It's a small film for a small audience. However it's made a big impact on independent film and Austin. The Texas city is now home to one of the largest film festivals in the United States, SXSW. Coencidence?

It might put you to sleep or it might make your day. One thing is for sure, Slacker is one of kind.

A-

Bully(2001) directed by Larry Clark

Larry Clark's third film, Bully, is like a cousin to his critically acclaimed film debut feature, Kids. While watching Kids, you'll spend an hour and a half viewing a day in the life of a group of contemporary teens. Kids has very little plot as well as very few real actors. You watch a group of urban teens with no direction, have sex and take drugs. It's a parent's worst nightmare that acts as a wake up call. Why did the film get so much acclaim? The hype most likely stemmed from the appreciation in a film that beautifully photographs something that is so hauntingly realistic and unconventional. Bully falls into the same realm.

Bully, like Kids, is about a dysfunctional(a term that Larry Clark might contest) group of Floridian teens who take drugs and have sex. The film, again like Kids, is a parental nightmare as well as glimpse into lives of today's troubled youth. However, Bully does have a story to tell. Whereas Kids was more of a statement. Bully revolves around the friendship between two boys, Martin(Brad Renfro) and Bobby(Nick Stahl). Martin is a high school dropout surfer boy who's IQ, judging by his dialogue, is well below average. Bobby, however, is an arrogant teen who actually has a sense of direction in life. His grades are good and his dad has paved a way for his future. Their childhood history is the core of their friendship. If it wasn't, they probably wouldn't be friends. Bobby, the smart one(or at least average) is one cruel person. He physically hurts and belittles Martin. The remaining friends in their gang experience it as well.

Their gang of friends include two whorish girls, Lisa(Rachel Miner), Alice(Bijou Phillips), and a human joke named Donald(Michael Pitt). They, like Martin, are dumbfounded teens with no sense of reality. The drive around, drop acid, smoke weed, drink beer and have sex. All of which takes place in their upper middle class neighborhood. The only thing that disrupts their corrupt life style is Bobby, who's as corrupt as they are. He antagonizes everyone repeatable to the point where they can't take him anymore. They come up with a plan to rid Bobby out of their lives, but at a horrifying price.

The film is based on a true story that occurred in 1993. However, I am unaware of how accurate the film is. I simply do not care. Bully doesn't have the realistic edge that made Kids so unforgettable. It does have a story to tell though. However, that's not to say it's a significant one. It has much more sex and drug use. Yet, it doesn't seem to provoke near as much as Kids did. I guess it proves that style can override content. Bully is, however, probably a more important film in terms of Clark's aesthetic. It's a signature piece. We can now consider Larry Clark to be auteur. Should Clark or Bully be respected though?

This seems to be a controversial debate amongst film critics. Clark's films have all captured edgy youth culture. If you were to take out the sex and drugs, his films would be bare, leaving him with nothing other than his photography skills. The acting wouldn't be enough to carry to weight although his films have jump started the careers of some talented young actors. Some critics feel that Clark's films are an excuse to get barely legal teens to undress. Some view him as nothing more than a dirty old man using explicit content for shock purposes. It's hard to say. It should be noted that his characters end up in worse places due to their life style choices. Perhaps Clark is sending out a positive message here? Clark could easily be all these things or he couldn't. Ulimately, he's created a space for himself in the world of contemporary film making. Should Clark be respected though? I think he should be acknowledged as a director, respected as a photographer, and ignored as a storyteller.

As for Bully, it has its moments of shame as well as it's moments of pleasure. If you can survive on cinematography and a talented young cast, see it. If are quick to morally object sin cinema, ignore.

B-

A History of Violence(2005) directed by David Cronenberg

Before delving into A History of Violence, it's best to understand the film's director, David Cronenberg. For the past 30 years, the Canadian Cronenberg has made films that have fallen into such genres as science fiction and horror. His films have usually been a clash between the two, bonded together by philosophy. In other words, his films are nothing like the Alien trilogy. While other directors in the genre, like John Carpenter(Halloween), were making so called monster/slasher films, Cronenberg was making completely different types of monster films. Rather than have monsters or psychotic killers chase young women, the monster in his films would be the body of the protagonist. Many of his films have a subtle nature vs. nurture concept. Because of this, his film's have often captured the battle between body and mind, where prescience leads to self destruction. Destruction, both physically and mentally, have been a focal point of his films and none the less memorable. That's because many of films contain graphic violence and sexuality. However, Cronenberg doesn't use this explicit content for just shock value. It's there for symbolic means. In his film, Scanners, there's an extremely graphic scene where a man's head literally explodes as a result of being tested on telepathically. This scene could easily be amongst the most vivid gore clips in the history of cinema. However, it's not that offensive. Simply because it makes sense within the context of the film. Cronenberg once explained that this particular scene was supposed to symbolize an energy that couldn't be contained within a mind. This is how Cronenberg's mind works. It's radical, honest and reasonable. He knows how to film near unfilmable ideas. Few Directors are as unique and focused in their realm of filmmaking. Most of David's original ideas(The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome) remain in the 80s. from 1990 up until now, he's successfully adapted many novels(The Naked Lunch, Crash, Spider) to the screen. His latest work, A History of Violence, is amongst his finest.

Tom Stall(Viggo Mortensen) and his family live in a small midwestern American town where he runs a local diner. Everything about Tom's life seems ideal for him. He has a beautiful loving wife named Edie(Maria Bello), two children, and he is a well respected member in his close knit community. One night, while Tom is closing at work, two outlaw killers decide to stop in. Not for food. Not for money. Only for a little fascist fun. Before the two begin to rape a waitress, Tom takes matters into his own hands. The result; a heroic self defense murder. One that grants Tom national attention along with a few unwanted visitors.

Trying to keep a low profile, Tom continues to live his life the way it was before. However, everyone can't stop talking about it, including his wife and son, Jack(Ashton Holmes). This is because the nature of Tom's actions created the buzz and not so much his will. One day, while Tom is busy working, a man with a slightly disfigured face named Carl Fogarty(Ed Harris) walks in and questions Tom's identity. Carl thinks Tom is someone else, a man named Joey. Tom insists that he is who he is. Carl, however, does not back down. Tom then asks Carl and his men to leave. When they do, the Stall family is forced into a world of paranoia, violence and confrontation.

A History of Violence gives the viewer a painfully refreshing perspective on the animalistic side of human beings. Though the title suggests that the film is about violence, there are many more underlying themes. However, violence is a reasonable place to start. The film doesn't contain that much violence though. The violence that is there, however, is graphic and realistic. It speaks a completely different language. One that gets under your skin and prompts questions regarding the nature of violence. Is every man capable of such violence? Is hostility in our nature? Personally, I've always felt that every man has the ability to be hostile. It's the way a man releases it that should be examined. After seeing this film, I've reexamined my own take on violence and even I have a question. Does the vitality of hostility dictate violence? It didn't appear so in the film. Tom's actions were instinct and controlled. It was so controlled and natural to the point that we, the audience, began to question who Tom Stall really is. Having felt this the way about violence, seeing a film that explores this perspective was quite satisfying. There's also a survival of the fittest mentality in the film that is self explanatory. The violence in the film is fairly focused and limited in discussion compared to other aspects of the film, such as Tom's family.

Tom's son, Jack, is a much more sensitive character. Jack is a passive teenager that lacks the jock mentality. He's not popular and he's not tough. He's a likeable character though. One we feel bad for when he gets bullied in the locker room by other jocks. In fact, bullied is far too soft of a term. His life is practically threatened by hostile peers. When Jack witnesses his dad's violent nature, he discovers a violent nature within himself. It's a self discovery that he takes advantage of on campus, while disappointing his dad. It's a interesting father+son relationship. However, not near as interesting as the relationship between Tom and his wife, Edie. In the first half of the film, we see a playful and happily married couple. A true friendship reveals itself quickly between the two. There's a sex scene where the two engage in a role play. She's dresses up as a high school cheerleader and they speak to one another like a teenagers. Later in the film, during the downward spiral, the two are arguing, near fighting. Right before they look as if they are about to attack one another, they embrace and have sex on a wooden staircase. However, it's hard to understand weather or not they are still fighting. It's very agressive. It's as if they are expressing their anger with their love. It's a very facinating scene that is very animalistic. It's a scene that only David Cronenberg could execute on film. You can tell it's a Cronenberg film by the sex scene alone. Like violence, the sexual content speaks another language. It almost always does in a Cronenberg film. This scene, a long with so many others are just brilliant.

The performances are realistic, intense and powerful. Cronenberg has given yet another intellectual thought provoking thriller. Very few films on the big screen have as much cinematic importance. I strongly recommend this film. It's a masterful study on the nature of violence, perception of identity, and family connection. From start to finish, A History of Violence is a disturbingly brilliant film.

B

A Map of the World(1999) directed by Scott Elliott

A Map of the World is a surprising little gem about a Mother of two named Alice(Sigourney Weaver) and her Husband, Howard(David Strathairn). They move to the countryside so Howard can pursue his dreams of becoming a farmer. While everything seems to be going well for Howard, Alice is struggling to adjust.

Alice works as a school nurse and becomes stressed with dealing with difficult children, including her two daughters at home. Alice's only friend, who she confides in, is named Theresa(Julianne Moore). Theresa, like Alice, is married with two daughters of her own. Despite Life's ordinary struggles, life for Alice seems to be ideal. That is until her life takes a turn for the worse.

When Alice's friend, Theresa leaves her daughters in her hands, one disappears. Within no time, Alice finds the little girl on the brink of death in an unfortunate accident on her property. The girl eventually dies and thus diffuses the bond between Alice and her friend while crippling her relationship to her husband. This moment of loss represses Alice as a mother, a wife and a human being. Everything shuts down.

The film has three movements. This repression marks the end of the first movement. The second movement begins when she is question by police regarding one of the difficult children she sees daily in her nurse's office. Alice is under such distress that she makes a number of suspicious remarks. There are also a number of flashbacks sequences regarding her interaction with this disturbed child. However, it isn't quite clear to the viewer what exactly happened. That is until much later in the film. There is one particular scene early in the film where Alice confronts the mother named Carole(Chloe Sevigny) about her child's problems. The Mother is a young irresponsible waitress. One who takes offense of Alice's remarks. When the death of Thersea's child becomes the talk of their small town, Carole takes advantage and reports that her child was sexually abused by Alice. Officers show up and arrest Alice.

While Alice is in jail, her husband has to helplessly take care of their children. That is a given. However, their community neglects after Alice, yet again, becomes to the talk of the town. Her high bail forces to Howard to consider selling his farm. While time is ticking for Howard, life is changing for Alice. She treats jail as a vacation. A time to justify what life means to her. She comes to terms with the truth. Not just in the court, but in her heart as well. When the complexity of her guilt and innocence is understood, the second movement of the film comes to an end. The third movement captures the aftermath of the trial. Life as she knew it before no longer exist. It's surprisingly better.

A Map of the World is a great exploration into the nature of Motherhood. The effects of loosing a child is a tragic situation. Not just because an innocent life is lost, but because a part of its mother is lost as well. It is a haunting realism that women face all over the world. In respect to the film's plot, Alice didn't even loose her child. Yet she was broken from it. Possibly because of the overwhelming fear she had for her own children. Perhaps it was the guilt of having it happen on her watch. It's up for debate. This brings me to another point. Any film worth debating is generally a good film. This indeed is a good film worth checking out, if it can be found.

As I mention before, A Map of the World is indeed a surprising gem. It's filled with powerful performances from Julianne Moore, David Strathairn, Chloe Sevigny and especially Sigourney Weaver.

B

Solaris(1972) directed by Andrei Tarkovsky

When Stanley Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey(1968), a revolution started. The film, although very much a classic now, gave birth to contemporary sci-fi cinema. It was an epic masterpiece in every sense. The film contained overwhelming technical achievements including groundbreaking special effects. The film also showed audiences how much depth a vision can have, only to be magnified by George Lucus a decade later. Stanley Kubrick, however, is amongst the greatest and most influential film directors of all time. Kubrick's influence is arguably more international than in North America. It is known for a fact that 2001 had to of made a splash in Russia. This is because legendary Russian filmmaker, Andrei Tarkovsky made a film in slight response to 2001. That film is called Solaris.

After seeing 2001, Tarkovsky was impressed with the film for obvious reasons. However, he was a bit disappointed in the lack of emotions and spirituality within the characters. For anyone who's seen 2001, you probably know what he means. This gave him ideas and vision of his own. It might be hard to believe it considering he might not have ever thought of making Solaris because it's a sci-fi space epic similar to 2001. It's best to consider the two films allies. Now, what is exactly is Solaris about?

Solaris is about a psychologist named Kris Kelvin who is sent on a mission to a space station within the atmosphere of a planet called Solaris. He is sent to investigate the strange phenomenon that has taken over the space station crew. Solaris radiation seems to be the cause. However, it's results are near unfathomable. When Kris arrives, he quickly learns of its effects which includes the death of all but 2 crew members. However, these two are barely sane. Almost instantly, Kris starts to experience the phenomenon himself.

Solaris is a film that brings the audience into the dark recesses of Kris's consciousness. One important aspect that we learn in the beginning of the film is that it's be several years since the death of his wife. We watch Kris reunited with the memory of her. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg for what's to come. More importantly, the questions to come.

Solaris is a film that is much more than a space epic. It's much more than a love story. It's a commentary on the phenomenal aspects of human life. Those aspects we can feel but can't explain. It's the spiritual aspects. While Kris struggles to redefine love, truth, and Humanity, the film prompts the same questions for the audience. The beauty of it, like philosophy itself, is that there is no universal answer. It's all perception. Solaris allows us perceive Kris's perception. It's a film that is very much within itself. It's quite brilliant and in my humble opinion, more important than 2001. However, as I mentioned before, 2001 and Solaris are of relation to one another. They compliment each other.

Solaris is as much of a philosophical masterpiece as it is a work of science fiction. It's out there for any one is willing to loose themselves in a character's consciousness. It's frighteningly beautiful.

A+

Mulholland Dr. (2002) directed by David Lynch

Muholland Dr. is a mystery within a mystery about a dream within a dream. At least that's one way to put it. It's certainly a mystery though. It's one that few people can solve. The question is, are we supposed to? David Lynch has a history of doing this. He knows how to welcome his audience into his odd world, make them care and then loose them in the void of mystery. He does it right every time, and because of this, he is considered one the greatest living directors.

Betty Elms moves to L.A. to pursue her acting career. She comes to live at her aunt's lavish apartment complex while her aunt leaves town. Hiding in the apartment complex is Rita , who sneaked in after escaping a horrible accident on Mulholland Dr. When Betty finds Camilla in her new home, they immediately enter a bizarre friendship fueled by mystery. Much is the mystery stems from the fact that Camilla knows not who she is or what has happened to her. Together, they try to put the pieces back into the puzzle. This is the only clear part of the story. This takes place in the first half on the film. The second half of the film takes a radical turn, requiring the audience to put the pieces together. Everything we've assumed up to this point is now false. Nothing is what it seems.

If you have not seen this film, I suggest skipping over this paragraph for I am attempting to put the pieces together myself. At this point, it feels as if we have left reality, when in fact we are entering reality. We learn who the real characters are. Betty is a struggling actress named Diane. Rita is a worshiped actress named Camilla. Why the sudden change? It's because Betty was dreaming. All of the events that took place in the first part of the film, which I've chosen not to delve into, are mere elements of reality in Diane's(betty's) life. Psychologically, she was displacing her guilt, envy and wishes. By dreaming, she was running away from who she is in reality. This is why she's not Diane in her dream. Who is Diane? Who is Rita? There's references to these people in the film. Are they important? Their only importance is that they act as clues to help us understand the second half of the film. There's many more clues, both people and objects. This film speaks through symbolism and that is, to an extent, a vital element of dreaming.

What David Lynch has done here is that he's taken a typical medium, and given it the most realistic form possible. That's why this film is so haunting. Upon first viewing, this film will probably leave you baffled. However, watch it again, and don't blink your eyes. Again, symbolism tells this story. It's easy to assume that this film has no purpose nor does it make sense. There might be a tad bit of truth in that. However, that truth gives this film its backbone. It's subject matter and plot needs to be presented the way Lynch has perfectly done. Watch it and watch it again. It's one of the most enigmatic films ever made from one of the most enigmatic directors.

A

Ratcatcher(1999) directed by Lynne Ramsay

Few films transcend the art of cinema the way Ratcatcher does. The story of this hauntingly beautiful film is expressed through imagery and poetic photography, creating a cinematic abyss.

Set in the mid-1970s during Scottland's national garbage strike, director Lynne Ramsay creates a world of beauty within the decaying city of Glasgow. The film captures the life of a poor young boy who's being swallowed by his horrible environment. He spends his time wandering from the rat infested streets to his crumbling home. The film has no particular story to tell. However, it has more thematic elements and symbolism than most films. That's what makes it shine.

The film's cinematography is breathtaking and sharp. Film is photography, 24 times a second. However, Ratcatcher is in the rare position to reverse that statement. Photography is film. It's hard to divert your eyes from the screen because of this. There are many films that have great cinematography. What sets Ratcatcher apart is the lyrical aspect of the photography. It literally tells this story. What makes that so powerful is that it requires the viewer to be much more engaged with the film. It requires us to decipher what the characters are feeling, and ultimately that's what we are feeling. Ratcatcher has many different themes. However, hope seems to be the primary key. Perhaps, that's why the film is so beautiful.

Ramsay turns garbage piles into playgrounds. Ratcatcher is her surprising debut. This film alone justifies that she has the vision and talent of a great director.

A+

Bottle Rocket (1996) directed by Wes Anderson

Bottle Rocket is one of those films that, depending on who you are, might seem pointless or full of purpose. It's up for debate. However, this debate alone gives the film purpose. So, for all those who are willing to say that it is without a point, are in fact wrong.

In the early 90's, director Wes Anderson met co-writer/friend Owen Wilson in a play writing class at The University of Texas, Austin. They started writing together and came to the idea that their generation needed a new voice, something to represent the mentality of the post gen-ex youth. In 1994, they filmed a short about it called Bottle Rocket.

Bottle Rocket made it's way to the Sundance Film Festival but didn't make much of a splash. However, a few people in the business were charmed by it. Not long after, They were offered a deal to make it a full length feature. The full length was quietly released in 1996. However, it has built a fairly large cult following and can even be seen on Comedy Central.

Now, back to the point of the film. Though it's a bit subjective, I believe it's a story about the friendship of 3 men and the failure these friends have to be normal working young men. Rather than follow conventional life style, they choose to be criminals on the run instead, but fail at that as well. Another point of this film is that the main characters have no point in life. They are just trying to find one. Themeatically, it's quite funny.

Bottle Rocket features Owen & Luke Wilson in their first acting roles. Owen's character, Dignan, is the enthusiastic crime planner for their gang. Luke's character, Anthony, is a true friend of Dignan, but only a follower when it comes to Dignan's wild crime plans. While Dignan is obsessed with the idea of being a fugitive, Anthony is fixated on the woman of his dreams. Both obsessions lead them to a crossroads where their friendship is put on hold.

For director Wes Anderson, this is an excellent debut. Though evidence of his style and talent was highly magnified in his second film, Rushmore, it's clear that the roots are in Bottle Rocket. Wes is brilliant when it comes to the colors in his films. His choice of colors for characters and settings are huge elements that add to the richness of his films. For an example, the opening scene shows Luke Wilson in his hospital(resort) room, tying a bunch of different colored bedsheets together. He does this so he can escape out of his 2nd story room. The shutters are open and he flings the sheets out into the open air where they beautifully stretch out into the sunny atmosphere, exposing their true colors. The camera shows this in first person, a trade mark of Wes Anderson. There are a lot of similar subtle moments. The humor is subtle as well. At times, there is a lot of dialogue, or no dialogue. Wes Anderson has a great ear as well. His musical choices are perfectly fitting. Bottle Rocket is full of exotic tunes. It's a mixture of jazz and rock, no stranger to Wes Anderson's films.

Bottle Rocket is an unconventional comedy that becomes better and funnier with each viewing.

A-

Mission

Though blogs tend to be ironically personal and self entertaining, they have always been a great medium for expressing perceptions of the world. I've chosen Blogger to be the home of my film analysis. More or less, every blog will be a film review. I will try to fully disect and report every recently watched film. There will be no limits.