To some, it is known as the bastard step-brother of The Simpsons. To others, it is one of the greatest animated series ever created. Call it what you will, but Futurama gave us 5 seasons and 72 episodes of futuristic hilarity with the rag-tag crew of the Planet Express delivery company.
In 2002, Fox canceled the show, but it soon found its way to Cartoon Network in syndication alongside Family Guy, another fan favorite canceled by Fox. And like Family Guy, Futurama seemed destined for rebirth on Fox. Billy West (the voice of Fry, Zoidberg, and the Professor, among others) even went so far as to announce the greenlighting of 26 new episodes before being firmly corrected by series co-creator David X. Cohen. What emerged instead was the direct-to-DVD feature Futurama: Bender's Big Score (2007), followed up by two more features (so far!).
In Big Score, Planet Express is taken over by internet scam artists and Bender is made into their robot slave by the Obey Virus. After Fry is found to be in possession of a secret time-portal summoning computer code, the scammers send Bender back in time to swipe history's loot for them. But when the space-time continuum is threatened by excessive time travel, the scammers try to eliminate Fry and his code. Fry escapes back to the year 2000 and Bender is sent back to dispose of him. What follows is a mad-cap romp (yeah, I just said mad-cap romp, you got a problem with that?) through time and space as only Groening, Cohen, and Futurama can do it.
The beginning of the film is somewhat annoyingly self-referential, as the writers fill in the gap in the storyline after cancelation and lampoon the Fox network's executives for that decision. But things soon fall into line and you feel right back at home in the Futurama universe. The movie, by necessity, is a little lighter on laughs and a little heavier on story than a typical episode, but you'll still find plenty of funny here.
The familiar themes are still here: Bender's still a loveable dirt-bag, Fry's still a bumbling but endearing fool, and the romantic tension between Leela and Fry is still center-stage. All in all, well worth the price of admission, as they say.
The Reverend says: 8/10.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Two Thousand Maniacs!
Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964), written and directed by the original splatter exploitation king, Herschell Gordon Lewis, tells the story of the centennial celebration of Pleasant Valley, a town in the deep South founded at the end of the Civil War. The inhabitants of Pleasant Valley plan to lure six Yankees into the town to take part in the celebrations. Little do the Northerners know that they will be the focus of an elaborate revenge for violence visited upon Pleasant Valley by retreating Union troops in 1865.
The premise of Maniacs is fairly simple. Although there is some attempt to address the paranoia and bitterness harbored over the outcome of the Civil War and of continued Civil Rights activities, in the end this film is basically about exploitative gore. By today's standards, the graphic violence and gore of the film would hardly bat an eye, but this was both cutting edge and highly controversial filmmaking for the mid-1960s. By this time, Herschell Gordon Lewis had already made a name for himself in the sexploitation genre and had cut his teeth in splatter films on 1963's Blood Feast. But Maniacs was an early film for the man who would soon be known as the King of Gore, and the violence and blood here is only a fraction of what it would be in later films such as 1970's The Wizard of Gore (exposed to a whole new generation of movie-watchers by a featured reference in 2007's Juno).
There are a few aspects that can be a little off-putting about this film, and about the DVD release. First, obviously, is the gore. Although the blood in the film is quite obviously fake, appearing to be a mixture of spaghetti sauce and red paint, it is dealt with in such a straightforward and unflinching manner that it can make one feel a bit queasy at times. Secondly, the portrayal of Southerners and Southern culture, both intentional and unintentional, can vary from laughable to downright annoying. The actors are laying the "Southern yokel" on a bit too thick, and some of their accents are pretty terrible. Props, however, to Jeffrey Allen, who plays the town mayor. He is expansive but not over-the-top, and his accent is probably the best in the film. Thirdly, the audio and video quality of the film are sometimes not so great. This is due to a few factors. Herschell Lewis worked on a very small budget, and most of this was put towards props and makeup, leaving audio, video, and editing short-changed. These problems might have been addressed in the DVD release, but were left as is, and so, at times the audio is practically inaudible, and there are a few rough transitions and color shifts in terms of video quality.
For all its shortcomings, the film succeeds where it needs to. It is a great example of the classic gore exploitation, and it has quite a few inventive death scenes to keep your interest up. Just don't go into this film expecting anything to grand, and you'll be entertained.
The Reverend says: 6/10.
The premise of Maniacs is fairly simple. Although there is some attempt to address the paranoia and bitterness harbored over the outcome of the Civil War and of continued Civil Rights activities, in the end this film is basically about exploitative gore. By today's standards, the graphic violence and gore of the film would hardly bat an eye, but this was both cutting edge and highly controversial filmmaking for the mid-1960s. By this time, Herschell Gordon Lewis had already made a name for himself in the sexploitation genre and had cut his teeth in splatter films on 1963's Blood Feast. But Maniacs was an early film for the man who would soon be known as the King of Gore, and the violence and blood here is only a fraction of what it would be in later films such as 1970's The Wizard of Gore (exposed to a whole new generation of movie-watchers by a featured reference in 2007's Juno).
There are a few aspects that can be a little off-putting about this film, and about the DVD release. First, obviously, is the gore. Although the blood in the film is quite obviously fake, appearing to be a mixture of spaghetti sauce and red paint, it is dealt with in such a straightforward and unflinching manner that it can make one feel a bit queasy at times. Secondly, the portrayal of Southerners and Southern culture, both intentional and unintentional, can vary from laughable to downright annoying. The actors are laying the "Southern yokel" on a bit too thick, and some of their accents are pretty terrible. Props, however, to Jeffrey Allen, who plays the town mayor. He is expansive but not over-the-top, and his accent is probably the best in the film. Thirdly, the audio and video quality of the film are sometimes not so great. This is due to a few factors. Herschell Lewis worked on a very small budget, and most of this was put towards props and makeup, leaving audio, video, and editing short-changed. These problems might have been addressed in the DVD release, but were left as is, and so, at times the audio is practically inaudible, and there are a few rough transitions and color shifts in terms of video quality.
For all its shortcomings, the film succeeds where it needs to. It is a great example of the classic gore exploitation, and it has quite a few inventive death scenes to keep your interest up. Just don't go into this film expecting anything to grand, and you'll be entertained.
The Reverend says: 6/10.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Happy Birthday to Me
NOTE: This wasn't on the Netflix queue. We rented it on a lark after My Bloody Valentine 3D was sold out.
Happy Birthday to Me (1981) follows a prestigious Canadian prep school's "Top Ten," the students belonging to the richest and most influential families on the school's board. Though apparently rich and influential, the Top Ten seems to be made up of losers, loners, geeks, and annoying jokesters, which makes it easy when they start turning up missing (although the audience knows they've been murdered) one by one.
We soon learn that one of the Top Ten, Virginia, has a tumultuous past, including an accident that took her mother's life and left Virginia half brain dead. A controversial and experimental treatment regimen restores function to Virginia's brain, but at what cost? As the days count down to Virginia's birthday, more students disappear, and we learn more bits and pieces of Virginia's past. Pretty soon, all clues point to her as the killer. But did she really do it?
This film was just so-so for me. Much of the film made little sense, as the audience is bounced from killing to killing and around Virginia's past. At times, it's not even clear if events are really taking place or if they're some figment of Virginia's shattered psyche.
And the ending...... don't even get me started. Most horror/slasher films of this nature have a twist at the end. We expect it. But the twist, while sometimes surprising, is usually within some realm of believability. Happy Birthday's twist, hurriedly written and filmed at the last moment, is unbelievable (in a bad way), laughable, and makes about as little sense as the rest of the film.
Happy Birthday might be good for a laugh or two if watched with a group, but it's not much good for anything else.
The Reverend says: 4/10.
Happy Birthday to Me (1981) follows a prestigious Canadian prep school's "Top Ten," the students belonging to the richest and most influential families on the school's board. Though apparently rich and influential, the Top Ten seems to be made up of losers, loners, geeks, and annoying jokesters, which makes it easy when they start turning up missing (although the audience knows they've been murdered) one by one.
We soon learn that one of the Top Ten, Virginia, has a tumultuous past, including an accident that took her mother's life and left Virginia half brain dead. A controversial and experimental treatment regimen restores function to Virginia's brain, but at what cost? As the days count down to Virginia's birthday, more students disappear, and we learn more bits and pieces of Virginia's past. Pretty soon, all clues point to her as the killer. But did she really do it?
This film was just so-so for me. Much of the film made little sense, as the audience is bounced from killing to killing and around Virginia's past. At times, it's not even clear if events are really taking place or if they're some figment of Virginia's shattered psyche.
And the ending...... don't even get me started. Most horror/slasher films of this nature have a twist at the end. We expect it. But the twist, while sometimes surprising, is usually within some realm of believability. Happy Birthday's twist, hurriedly written and filmed at the last moment, is unbelievable (in a bad way), laughable, and makes about as little sense as the rest of the film.
Happy Birthday might be good for a laugh or two if watched with a group, but it's not much good for anything else.
The Reverend says: 4/10.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
When a Stranger Calls
NOTE: I'm talking about the original version (1979), not the 2006 crapfest (I assume; I haven't actually seen that one). Also, this is actually the 3rd time I've seen this movie, but my wife had never seen it. And I've never reviewed it. So here we go.
It's difficult to summarize this movie without spoilers. The structure of the movie is somewhat odd, and that's always been one of its detractors. The movie starts off with 30 minutes of terror that in other movies would be the buildup to a crescendo climax. The main twist of the movie is also revealed within the first 30 minutes.
Suffice it to say that a young babysitter, Jill (played by Carole Kane), is terrorized by twisted phone calls from someone who claims to be watching her, and who claims knowledge of the children sleeping upstairs. The police come to the babysitter's rescue, but not before things have gotten out of hand. The caller is arrested and confined to a mental hospital. Fast forward 7 years, the caller has escaped, and he's on a mission to track Jill and her family down and finish what he started that night.
I feel torn in different directions over this film. On the one hand, the 1st half hour of the movie is just about the most intense 30 minutes in film history. On the other, much of the rest of the film plays like a slow denouement to the early climax. Things pick back up in the last 15 minutes of the movie, but the middle can drag quite a bit. Through the middle of the film, I console myself with the hilariously ineffectual bumbling of John Clifford, an ex-cop turned P.I. hired to hunt down the escaped Curt Duncan. Some of the chase scenes play out like OJ's slow-speed Bronco getaway, and Clifford repeatedly overlooks Duncan's m.o. of stalking people and breaking into their houses while they're away, to lie in wait when they return home.
And speaking of Duncan, I'm torn on him, too. He's such a scrawny sad sack to look at, and he's socially awkward to such a painful degree that one wonders if major errors in casting and character-development have occured. But what fills you with dread about this film's psychopath is his dead gaze and his voice. His slow, soft British drawl leaves you hanging on each word, and when he pauses over the phone to breathe heavily and chuckle to himself, you know that he's completely and utterly insane, and there's no coming back. Regardless of what you think of this movie in the end, there will be nights when the sound of Curt Duncan asking, "Have you checked the children?" will haunt you as you lie awake in bed.
The music for the film is spot-on in creating a sense of dread and keeping you on the edge of your seat. In fact, a little tidbit: the symphonic crescendo known as the THX Sound was first employed in When a Stranger Calls. A full 4 years before the sound started making viewers uncomfortable during movie previews, it made viewers uncomfortable and scared in When a Stranger Calls.
The Reverend says: 6/10.
It's difficult to summarize this movie without spoilers. The structure of the movie is somewhat odd, and that's always been one of its detractors. The movie starts off with 30 minutes of terror that in other movies would be the buildup to a crescendo climax. The main twist of the movie is also revealed within the first 30 minutes.
Suffice it to say that a young babysitter, Jill (played by Carole Kane), is terrorized by twisted phone calls from someone who claims to be watching her, and who claims knowledge of the children sleeping upstairs. The police come to the babysitter's rescue, but not before things have gotten out of hand. The caller is arrested and confined to a mental hospital. Fast forward 7 years, the caller has escaped, and he's on a mission to track Jill and her family down and finish what he started that night.
I feel torn in different directions over this film. On the one hand, the 1st half hour of the movie is just about the most intense 30 minutes in film history. On the other, much of the rest of the film plays like a slow denouement to the early climax. Things pick back up in the last 15 minutes of the movie, but the middle can drag quite a bit. Through the middle of the film, I console myself with the hilariously ineffectual bumbling of John Clifford, an ex-cop turned P.I. hired to hunt down the escaped Curt Duncan. Some of the chase scenes play out like OJ's slow-speed Bronco getaway, and Clifford repeatedly overlooks Duncan's m.o. of stalking people and breaking into their houses while they're away, to lie in wait when they return home.
And speaking of Duncan, I'm torn on him, too. He's such a scrawny sad sack to look at, and he's socially awkward to such a painful degree that one wonders if major errors in casting and character-development have occured. But what fills you with dread about this film's psychopath is his dead gaze and his voice. His slow, soft British drawl leaves you hanging on each word, and when he pauses over the phone to breathe heavily and chuckle to himself, you know that he's completely and utterly insane, and there's no coming back. Regardless of what you think of this movie in the end, there will be nights when the sound of Curt Duncan asking, "Have you checked the children?" will haunt you as you lie awake in bed.
The music for the film is spot-on in creating a sense of dread and keeping you on the edge of your seat. In fact, a little tidbit: the symphonic crescendo known as the THX Sound was first employed in When a Stranger Calls. A full 4 years before the sound started making viewers uncomfortable during movie previews, it made viewers uncomfortable and scared in When a Stranger Calls.
The Reverend says: 6/10.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
And Soon the Darkness
Hitchcock must have been both proud and wary of the young British director Robert Fuest's work on And Soon the Darkness (1970). This is easily one of the most suspenseful and terrifying films I've ever seen. And it's pulled off without a drop of blood, a single scene of gore, and just one little jump-scare. In fact, there's hardly any violence in this film to speak of. Instead, Fuest carries through with the roots of the thriller genre, pulling away from visceral violence and gore, and instead turning the dread, terror, and paranoia to a fever pitch with the artful use of music and camera work.
The film starts out at a leisurely pace, fitting for a leisurely biking holiday through France for two British tourists. The girls dine at an outdoor cafe and then spend the morning pedaling down the back roads of the vast French farmland. A mid-morning rest in the woods by the road leads to a little fight, and the girls split up as Jane decides to carry on and Cathy stays to rest. In the next village over, Jane finds glimpses that all is not quite so right with the idyllic French countryside. A young Dutch tourist had been murdered on the same stretch of road the year before, and the crime remained unsolved. Feeling spooked, Jane returns to the woods to find Cathy is, you guessed it, missing.
The search for Cathy begins in earnest, with Jane finding help from the mysterious Paul, who may or may not have been following the girls all morning and who may not be who he claims to be. Red herrings abound, as it seems that everyone around knows more than they're telling. Everyone's a suspect, and the atmosphere of paranoia is thick. The viewer is also left disoriented by unsubtitled conversations in French. You will probably guess the murderer's identity a few minutes before the reveal, but up until then, you will be completely in the dark.
This film is a real gem. A superb thriller by a British director NOT named Hitchcock.
The Reverend says: 10/10.
The film starts out at a leisurely pace, fitting for a leisurely biking holiday through France for two British tourists. The girls dine at an outdoor cafe and then spend the morning pedaling down the back roads of the vast French farmland. A mid-morning rest in the woods by the road leads to a little fight, and the girls split up as Jane decides to carry on and Cathy stays to rest. In the next village over, Jane finds glimpses that all is not quite so right with the idyllic French countryside. A young Dutch tourist had been murdered on the same stretch of road the year before, and the crime remained unsolved. Feeling spooked, Jane returns to the woods to find Cathy is, you guessed it, missing.
The search for Cathy begins in earnest, with Jane finding help from the mysterious Paul, who may or may not have been following the girls all morning and who may not be who he claims to be. Red herrings abound, as it seems that everyone around knows more than they're telling. Everyone's a suspect, and the atmosphere of paranoia is thick. The viewer is also left disoriented by unsubtitled conversations in French. You will probably guess the murderer's identity a few minutes before the reveal, but up until then, you will be completely in the dark.
This film is a real gem. A superb thriller by a British director NOT named Hitchcock.
The Reverend says: 10/10.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Why so long between reviews, Q?
It was a week or so between my first couple reviews, and it may continue to be this infrequently. There are a few reasons why.
1) Our Netflix account is 3-at-a-time, so sometimes there's a gap of a few days with no movies as some have been sent out and the new ones aren't in yet.
2) I share the queue with my wife, and sometimes she gets movies that are just for her, that I'm not particularly interested in.
3) One third of our queue is composed of TV seasons. Several different TV shows. Interspersed, so we don't get too much of one show at once. So, basically, every third disc we get is not a movie, but a disc from a season of a TV show. And we have about 8 shows rotating around in our queue. I do plan on reviewing these TV shows, a season at a time, but it may take a while to actually watch an entire season of a particular show.
So, there ya go, if anyone cares.
1) Our Netflix account is 3-at-a-time, so sometimes there's a gap of a few days with no movies as some have been sent out and the new ones aren't in yet.
2) I share the queue with my wife, and sometimes she gets movies that are just for her, that I'm not particularly interested in.
3) One third of our queue is composed of TV seasons. Several different TV shows. Interspersed, so we don't get too much of one show at once. So, basically, every third disc we get is not a movie, but a disc from a season of a TV show. And we have about 8 shows rotating around in our queue. I do plan on reviewing these TV shows, a season at a time, but it may take a while to actually watch an entire season of a particular show.
So, there ya go, if anyone cares.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Kind Hearts and Coronets
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) is so many things: a study in early 2oth century British class structure, a chilling tale of methodical revenge, a bitingly funny examination of a man caught between his humble past and his high ambitions, and a showcase for Alec Guiness's considerable acting talents. Above all, Coronets is a really great, really enjoyable film.
Louis Mazzini grows up in suburban London in the early 20th century, eking out an existence as a clothier's apprentice and living with his mother, a disowned member of the noble House of D'Ascoyne. Repeated attempts by Louis's moher to contact the D'Ascoynes to sponsor her son's vocational growth meet with cold refusal.
After his mother's dying request to be buried in the D'Ascoyne family vault is once again refused, Louis hatches a plot to eliminate the remaining D'Ascoyne's, therby exacting his revenge and bringing himself closer to inheriting the dukedom.
Arrayed against him are a veritable army of Alec Guinesses. Guiness portrays no less than 8 of the D'Ascoynes, including memorable turns as a crotchity and drunken parson, the painfully haughty Ascoyne D'Ascoyne II, and a burly sufragette. Guiness submerges completely within each character, playing each to a T and never over the top. This is the stuff of Eddie Murphy's wildest dreams.
As truly awesome as Guiness's performances are, the real star of this movie is Dennis Price as the cold, polite, and methodical Louis. He barely hesitates to murder those he deems in his way, but he also oozes a cool British charm. His wit is razor sharp, but you'd be hard-pressed not to say thank you after he insults you.
And the film is carried along by Louis's internal monologue in the form of a voice-over. I am not usually a fan of voice-overs. They don't usually add anything to the film, and they are often distracting (think Harrison Ford's disinterested ramblings in the theatrical cut of Blade Runner). But Price's voice never wavers and never bores. It serves as a running memoir, a diary of Louis's murderous motivations.
Highly recommended. A true classic. See this movie now.
The Reverend says: 9/10.
Louis Mazzini grows up in suburban London in the early 20th century, eking out an existence as a clothier's apprentice and living with his mother, a disowned member of the noble House of D'Ascoyne. Repeated attempts by Louis's moher to contact the D'Ascoynes to sponsor her son's vocational growth meet with cold refusal.
After his mother's dying request to be buried in the D'Ascoyne family vault is once again refused, Louis hatches a plot to eliminate the remaining D'Ascoyne's, therby exacting his revenge and bringing himself closer to inheriting the dukedom.
Arrayed against him are a veritable army of Alec Guinesses. Guiness portrays no less than 8 of the D'Ascoynes, including memorable turns as a crotchity and drunken parson, the painfully haughty Ascoyne D'Ascoyne II, and a burly sufragette. Guiness submerges completely within each character, playing each to a T and never over the top. This is the stuff of Eddie Murphy's wildest dreams.
As truly awesome as Guiness's performances are, the real star of this movie is Dennis Price as the cold, polite, and methodical Louis. He barely hesitates to murder those he deems in his way, but he also oozes a cool British charm. His wit is razor sharp, but you'd be hard-pressed not to say thank you after he insults you.
And the film is carried along by Louis's internal monologue in the form of a voice-over. I am not usually a fan of voice-overs. They don't usually add anything to the film, and they are often distracting (think Harrison Ford's disinterested ramblings in the theatrical cut of Blade Runner). But Price's voice never wavers and never bores. It serves as a running memoir, a diary of Louis's murderous motivations.
Highly recommended. A true classic. See this movie now.
The Reverend says: 9/10.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
A Scanner Darkly
A Scanner Darkly
Richard Linklater's (Dazed and Confused, Fast Food Nation, The School of Rock) take on Philip K. Dick's novel of drugs, identity, and the tolls they can take is novelly rendered in interpolated rotoscope animation. The scenes were shot digitally and then run through the computer animation ringer to look kinda like a matte painting.
The animation style was fairly unique when it was done. It can turn some people off, however. The constant jittery shifting of the colors, coupled with the scrambler suits that the undercover cops "Fred" and "Hank" wear through most of the film, are fairly seizure inducing. If you let your eyes relax and take in the entire scene instead of the details, you brain will thank you.
The story follows narc Fred whose undercover persona Bob Arctor reels and deals in LA's increasingly subversive drug scene, dominated by the uber-pill Substance D. Substance D can seriously fuck you up. It agressively decimates the dominant half of your brain, forcing the other half to compensate, resulting in crises of identity, language, and pattern recognition. Like all drugs, there must be an upside, though you'd be hard-pressed to find it in this movie. Unless rampant paranoia, hallucinations, and mania are considered that much of an upside. Fred eventually finds himself trapped in one of these webs of paranoia, and he becomes confused about a great many things, including who he really is, and if he's playing or being played.
Keanu Reeves, as usual, is merely a place-filler of an actor, although he does a convincing job of looking burnt-out fucked-up stoned. The real one to watch here, though, is Robert Downey Jr. as Arctor's fast-talking, plan-hatching, double-crossing, manic buddy James. Equal parts Walter from The Big Lebowski and, well, RDJ himself, James's crazy ideas and rambling soliloquys flit by faster than you can grasp their meaning.
Mostly playing it cool as a stoner buddy comedy, Scanner makes an abrubt dive for the deep with the reveal of Fred's true mission, and what he sacrificed to pull it off. It is only with a scrolling message from Philip K. Dick himself (over 25 years gone!) as the credits roll that you really understand what this movie was meant to be about but just wasn't quite.
PKD spent his life in pursuit of the perfect drug, one that would give the user all the benefits and none of the detriments. Why should we be physically, mentally, psychologically, and legally punished for wanting to get high and feel good? To PKD, this did not make any sense, and he felt if legal restrictions on drugs were loosened, that a true scientific pursuit of happiness through substance might flourish, and eventually produce the fabled perfect drug. In the meantime, drugs also brought with them the attendent misery, damage, and death.
The Reverend says: 7/10.
Richard Linklater's (Dazed and Confused, Fast Food Nation, The School of Rock) take on Philip K. Dick's novel of drugs, identity, and the tolls they can take is novelly rendered in interpolated rotoscope animation. The scenes were shot digitally and then run through the computer animation ringer to look kinda like a matte painting.
The animation style was fairly unique when it was done. It can turn some people off, however. The constant jittery shifting of the colors, coupled with the scrambler suits that the undercover cops "Fred" and "Hank" wear through most of the film, are fairly seizure inducing. If you let your eyes relax and take in the entire scene instead of the details, you brain will thank you.
The story follows narc Fred whose undercover persona Bob Arctor reels and deals in LA's increasingly subversive drug scene, dominated by the uber-pill Substance D. Substance D can seriously fuck you up. It agressively decimates the dominant half of your brain, forcing the other half to compensate, resulting in crises of identity, language, and pattern recognition. Like all drugs, there must be an upside, though you'd be hard-pressed to find it in this movie. Unless rampant paranoia, hallucinations, and mania are considered that much of an upside. Fred eventually finds himself trapped in one of these webs of paranoia, and he becomes confused about a great many things, including who he really is, and if he's playing or being played.
Keanu Reeves, as usual, is merely a place-filler of an actor, although he does a convincing job of looking burnt-out fucked-up stoned. The real one to watch here, though, is Robert Downey Jr. as Arctor's fast-talking, plan-hatching, double-crossing, manic buddy James. Equal parts Walter from The Big Lebowski and, well, RDJ himself, James's crazy ideas and rambling soliloquys flit by faster than you can grasp their meaning.
Mostly playing it cool as a stoner buddy comedy, Scanner makes an abrubt dive for the deep with the reveal of Fred's true mission, and what he sacrificed to pull it off. It is only with a scrolling message from Philip K. Dick himself (over 25 years gone!) as the credits roll that you really understand what this movie was meant to be about but just wasn't quite.
PKD spent his life in pursuit of the perfect drug, one that would give the user all the benefits and none of the detriments. Why should we be physically, mentally, psychologically, and legally punished for wanting to get high and feel good? To PKD, this did not make any sense, and he felt if legal restrictions on drugs were loosened, that a true scientific pursuit of happiness through substance might flourish, and eventually produce the fabled perfect drug. In the meantime, drugs also brought with them the attendent misery, damage, and death.
The Reverend says: 7/10.
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Netflix Q mission
I've decided I need more in the way of creative outlet. So I thought long and hard (45 seconds or so) about how I should go about it. Turns out, I love movies. And I have a Netflix subscription. And I often like to talk about the quality of the movies I watch with my wife, friends, random strangers, dogs, and pretty much anyone who happens to be around.
So, I figured, instead of subjecting people to an oral rendition of my movie meanderings, that I'd make a blog and write it down. And then maybe it would be less rambling, given that I have the luxury of time and distance from my audience to compose. But no guarantees. I may still ramble, and be complex, and at times, completely incomprehensible.
So, check back from time to time and see if there's anything new here. There's no schedule. I watch my movies whenever I watch them, and then I'll post about it here. From time to time, I may review a movie that I've seen in the theaters rather than on Netflix. But I don't make it to the theater that often, so mostly Netflix.
So, I figured, instead of subjecting people to an oral rendition of my movie meanderings, that I'd make a blog and write it down. And then maybe it would be less rambling, given that I have the luxury of time and distance from my audience to compose. But no guarantees. I may still ramble, and be complex, and at times, completely incomprehensible.
So, check back from time to time and see if there's anything new here. There's no schedule. I watch my movies whenever I watch them, and then I'll post about it here. From time to time, I may review a movie that I've seen in the theaters rather than on Netflix. But I don't make it to the theater that often, so mostly Netflix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
