Cronos

Cronos

1993

Directed by Guillermo del Toro

This is the first feature film of Mexican director Guillermo del Toro's so-far uneven career. On the one hand, he directed the superb dark fantasy/historical drama Pan's Labyrinth, and I heard that the similarly-themed The Devil's Backbone was also quite good. On the other, he was responsible for the terrible Hellboy II: The Golden Army (don't believe the hype, people, it was a complete travesty) and its middling predecessor, as well as such mediocre fare as Mimic and Blade II. A special-effects whiz and so-called "visionary" filmmaker, del Toro has scored a ton of fans with his unique brand of fantastical faeries and beasts, and some creepier fare as well. But personally, I feel that the content of his films struggles to keep up with their visual inventiveness. I think that being pegged as a visionary has set up the expectation that he will continue to wow audiences with special effects, but the brilliance of Pan's Labyrinth suggests that he can do so much better than, say, completely burying the beloved Hellboy comic series beneath a goofy storyline whose sole purpose is to serve as a vehicle for a series of goofy goblins, ogres, elementals and faeries of his own devising. I mean, he didn't even make any attempt whatsoever to stay true even to the basic tone and style of Hellboy!

But this isn't a review of Hellboy. On to Cronos. What can I say about this one? I'll start by noting that I was rather disappointed. I was expecting a dark horror fantasy, but Cronos is just plain silly. Sure, it starts off well, with an aging antiques dealer named Jesus Gris coming across an ancient device that grants immortality to its posessor. The only thing is, it turns you into a vampire, more or less. Not at first, to be sure. The story is typically Faustian; the Cronos device begins by making Jesus feel younger and more vigorous. He quickly becomes reliant upon the device. It's an old story and its been told better elsewhere. His young daughter tries to stop him from using the device, but it's too late. The other plotline involves a rich but terminally ill, crusty old bastard, a cartoonish Claudio Brook as De la Guardia. For obvious reasons he wants the Cronos device for himself, and he elects his thuggish, plastic-surgery-obsessed nephew Angel to "acquire" it from Mr. Gris. Ron Perlman is bafflingly cast as Angel. His performance is atypically ridiculous - I really don't know what to make of it. At one point, he even affects the old evil "muwahahahahaha!!!" laugh; I have no idea if it's supposed to be a parody or not. Every scene with him in it is rendered absurd by his cheesy performance. I don't say this lightly because I normally like Ron Perlman!

For what appears to be a horror film, Cronos is damnably slow. It plays out more like an amateurish moral allegory. The story is boring and frequently ludicrous. Really, the only interesting thing going on is del Toro's visual flair, on display even at this early stage in his career. The Cronos device itself looks pretty cool, especially shots of the various mechanical goings-on inside. There's also a pretty amusing scene where Jesus rises from the grave. Makeup effects are decent if not amazing. Basically, you can see the groundwork that would eventually lead to much better and more entertaining movies.

Even if you're a del Toro fan, damn you, I wouldn't really recommend Cronos. It's not awful, but it's terribly blase. All I have to say to you, Mr. del Toro, is you had better not fuck with The Hobbit! I'm watching you!! It does not need any "improvements" from you. If I see a single creature that you made up yourself, I'm going to hunt you down, man! Am I allowed to say that? I'm not really going to hunt you down, Guillermo... just... cool your jets. I know you can't help yourself. You're thinking, "oh come on... Tolkien wouldn't mind if I insert just one no-face monster with eyes where they're not supposed to be..." But no, just no. Don't do it. People are gonne be really angry. They're going to give you the Evil Eye and you're gonna have to burn a weirdo special rock on your stove all the time to ward off the bad vibes. Okay, okay, I'm done.

4.3

NOTE: Cronos bears no relation whatsoever to the detail of Francisco Goya's similarly-titled painting, above; but it's way cooler than anything you're going to see in the movie.

The Brood

The Brood

1979

Directed by David Cronenberg

David Cronenberg is one of Canada's few auteurs. With a solid output of creepy and very unconventional horror, sci-fi, and dramas, Cronenberg should really be more popular than he is. I guess he just sort of falls somewhere in between conventional genre fans and a rather squeamish mainstream audience that can't seem to warm up to his work.

The Brood is a flawed but mostly excellent thinking man's psychological horror film. Reading the description on the back of the box, you might think you know what to expect from it, but that's not really the case. This was one of Cronenberg's earliest films, obviously he was working on a smaller budget than later classics like The Fly. Otherwise, many of his hallmarks are here - a sharp, intelligent script, creepy and sometimes repulsive special effects, visceral scenes of violence. The only thing that mars the movie is somewhat limited acting performances; Cronenberg is usually able to draw the best out of his cast (Jeff Goldblum at his insane best in The Fly, Jeremy Irons' creepy, layered performance as twin gynecologists in Dead Ringers), but there is a lack of depth in the cast of The Brood.

The Brood is probably the closest Cronenberg got to directing a straight horror flick, with a deceptively simple plot. Dr. Hal Raglan (a glowering Oliver Reed) is a pioneer in the field of "psychoplasmics," a parapsychotherapeutic method involving drawing out patients' anger in metaphysical manifestations. He would seem like a quack except that what seems metaphysical actually turns out to be rather more physical. Manifesting itself as cancerous growth and skin affliction in some patients, psychoplasmics definitely redefines expressing one's inner rage. One of Dr. Raglan's patients is the disturbed Nola Carveth, unfortunately over-played by Samantha Eggar. When things start happening to people related to her, her separated husband Frank starts to investigate further, in the interest of protecting their daughter Candice - unexplained bruises start to appear on her, but Frank thinks it has something to do with his crazy-as-a-loon wife.

Cronenberg launches into a series of grisly and bizarro murders, perpetrated by... well, I won't ruin any surprises, I'll just say that they're creepy. Things just get weird from this point on. It's like he took a standard slasher concept and set it slightly askew. As Frank delves into psychoplasmics, he finds more pronounced versions of the manifestations of anger and self-loathing in the patients he meets. The film has a sort of minimalist production which fits the overall mood, but it carries over into Art Hindle's performance as Frank. He seems improbably credulous of the many shocking developments, including the brutal killings of relatives, police investigations, freaky creatures, injury to his daughter. In his situation, I would be flipping out. Still, considering most horror movie acting in the seventies, I guess I can't really complain much. These lapses were somewhat lessened by a few excellent performances from the supporting cast. Gary McKeehan is good as disturbed patient Mike Trellan, and Robert Silverman is just great as the wry and off-kilter Jan Hartog.

More unsettling than outright scary, you'll still probably jump more than once during The Brood. It can be easily appreciated as a straight horror film, but the themes it explores venture into the allegorical as well. This is probably the best thing about Cronenberg's work; uncompromising intelligence along with excellent special effects and engaging stories. Plus the odd scene or two that might make you want to hurl. He has been able to bring legitimacy to the horror genre like no other filmmaker I can think of. Hopefully the success of Eastern Promises and the superb A History of Violence prompts moviegoers to explore his sorely underrated earlier work.

7.5

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009
Directed by Wes Anderson

I've been highly anticipating Wes Anderson's screen adaptation of Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox ever since I saw the first preview several months ago. Not only was it not a disappointment, it verily surpassed expectations.

Mr. Fox is something of a gentleman thief, stealing chickens from nearby farms with his wife, until they get busted. After having a child, Mrs. Fox forces her husband to leave his criminal past behind him and to seek legal employment. But the incorrigible Mr. Fox misses his old life of derring-do and falls off the wagon, with the help of his vacant and reluctant landlord. But he messes with the wrong farmers, and they aim to strike back with a vengeance.

I never read the book, unfortunately, but this movie has Anderson's fingerprints all over it. I read that it was originally supposed to be co-directed by The Nightmare Before Christmas animator Henry Selick, but he was tied up with Coraline. This left Anderson to his own devices. About the only thing I was worried about was that he might lay a big hipster boot-print on the face of Dahl's own comedic sensibilities - but apparently Anderson is a big Roald Dahl fan, and it seems to me that he didn't want to mess too much with a good thing. The result is that all the best elements of Anderson's wry, clever comedic touch are infused into an already hilarious story. I remember seeing Anderson's The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou with my girlfriend, and we were frequently the only people laughing in a packed theatre. His frequently deadpan writing style and love of awkward moments definitely seems to alienate mainstream audiences, but I think that I can safely say that there is nothing alienating about Mr. Fox.


Another thing I've come to expect from and love about Anderson's work is his great attention to detail. Set design, wardrobe, lighting, even colour coordination are always hallmarks in his films, making them eminently watchable even when nothing much is happening. Having more or less free reign on Mr. Fox certainly seems to have brought out the best; I've never seen stop-motion animation quite like it. Used to the rougher style of Ray Harryhausen, the otherworldy stylings of Henry Selick, or the cartoonish "Wallace and Grommit" (all excellent in their own way), I was surprised at how organic everything looked in Mr. Fox. From the models for Mr. Fox and his cohorts, to the fabrics and other materials for the clothing and set pieces, everything looks great and surprisingly legit as well - tiny utensils, room decorations, paintings, furniture, carpets, floral arrangements, even some pretty hilarious "bandit hats".

The voice-acting is tops. George Clooney plays the dashing Mr. Fox with egomaniacal vigour. The supporting cast including Meryl Streep, Willem Dafoe, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Michael Gambon - I could go on - are excellent. The dialogue is often quite low-key and dignified, a comedic device Anderson employs in much of his work, but equal kudos to the cast for not overdoing things. It is, after all, a story about a gentleman fox; over-the-top emoting a la Jim Carrey would not suit this material.

So. Mr. Fox is probably not a loyal transcription of Dahl's original story. Some serious daddy issues, goofy existentialism, yoga, a knife-wielding rat - I kinda doubt this was all in the book. Some people want nothing less than complete faithfulness in a movie adaptation. I don't really see the point; why bother to watch the film then, if you have the book and they're both the same? For my money, I was totally satisfied. More than. Don't believe the naysayers. This is not a beloved children's story being ruined by hipster posteuring. It's a wildly successful meeting of two talented humourists, and a brilliant film by any standard. And yet... somehow I get the feeling that the box-office will not be kind to Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's a cussing shame.

9.7

Medieval Comedy Double Feature: The Princess Bride / Monty Python and the Holy Grail

This is a fake double-feature because I actually watched them separately, but I don't feel like making two posts, and they're kind of related.

The Princess Bride
1987
Directed by Rob Reiner

This is a really well-liked movie, apparently. Lots of people love it and it's even rated within the top 250 on IMDB. It's written by William Goldman, who wrote the screenplay for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and directed by Reiner, the writer of This is Spinal Tap. Andre the Giant is in it. Clearly, The Princess Bride has a lot going for it. Mostly everybody is familiar with it, but my girlfriend and I hadn't seen it, so I picked it up and we gave it a spin.


My first impression was that it wasn't as funny as I had been led to believe. Sure, it had its moments, but it's more of a charming fairytale with amusing moments than a straight spoof or a comedy. After I got over that, I found that there was a lot to like about The Princess Bride. To begin with, the cast is stellar and extremely well-chosen. Cary Elwes plays Westley, a poor farm-hand who falls in love with Buttercup, charmingly played by Robin Wright. In spite of their economic differences, they plan to marry; but Westley is said to be killed by pirates and Buttercup is selected to marry the pompous Prince Humperdinck (a detestable Chris Sarandon.) But Westley is not dead; in fact, he's taken on the job of the Dread Pirate Roberts, and he returns to reclaim his lost love. This is made difficult, as Buttercup is kidnapped by three mercenaries (the excellent trio of Andre the Giant as the soft-spoken Fezzik, a swashbuckling Mandy Patinkin as gentleman Spaniard Inigo Montoya, and a hilarious Wallace Shawn as the nefarious mastermind Vizzini.) Westley battles through a plethora of dangers, ranging from torture and fencing to partial paralysis and "rodents of unusual size."

Elwes is perfect as the daring Westley, and he has real chemistry with Wright. Patinkin is a standout as Inigo, a gentleman swordfighter trying to find his father's murderer; he adds some real pathos to the film, and his final confrontation with his sworn enemy (a dastardly Christopher Guest) has unexpected results. Patinkin and Andre the Giant make a surprisingly good comic duo - their rhyming scenes are awesome. Shawn steals a few scenes, especially one where he has to guess which cup Westley has poisoned in a contest of wits. The only weird thing is that the whole film is narrated as a fairytale novel by a grandfather (Peter Falk) to his grandson (Fred Savage.) Savage's interjections are sometimes off-putting and disrupt the flow of the story.




The movie chugs along amiably, tongue in cheek. There aren't a lot of surprises, as it is a fairly simple story; it would actually be rather dull if it weren't for the humorous tone and likeable characters. The Princess Bride is a typical happy-ending story, almost like an old Disney animated film brought to life. But Westley, Inigo, and Fezzik are all so gentlemanly and polite, even in the heat of battle, the movie takes on a refined quality.

For a straightforward fairytale film with relatively few complications, The Princess Bride is probably better than any other that springs to mind. Does this make it a great movie? I would say no. It's likeable and surely has a lot of character, but it could be funnier. I said earlier that it is amiable, but I'm almost tempted to say "merely amiable." It's hard to ask of anything more from The Princess Bride, but while it may be classy, it falls a little bit short of classic.

7.6


Monty Python and the Holy Grail
1975
Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones

After years of pioneering absurd and nonsensical humour in their show "Monty Python's Flying Circus", the Python gang (John Cleese, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle and animator Terry Gilliam) took on the medieval fantasy genre with what is surely one of the funniest films ever made. But will you enjoy this anglo humour if you aren't white? I have no idea. Mostly every non-white person I know who has seen anything Monty Python uniformly detests it. Why is that? And while I'm at it, what's with white people and cheese?

Cheese and racial considerations aside, the Pythons really outdid themselves with The Holy Grail. Irreverent, witty, metatheatrical, extremely silly, baffling and sometimes just plain stupid, it's truly a work of inspired lunacy. From the faux opening credits with ridiculous fake Norwegian subtitles focusing mainly on moose-training, to its abrupt and preposterous ending and exit music, there is hardly a single moment when you should not be laughing your ass off. You know you're off to a good start when, instead of riding a real horse, King Arthur (Chapman) pantomimes by skipping along while his servant follows behind, banging two halves of a coconut together. They find themselves accosted by two castle-dwellers who proceed to have a debate about how likely it would be for a coconut to be brought to England by a migratory swallow.

The rest of the film follows in a similar manner, sending up many of the legendary figures of Arthurian legend, as well as spoofing a great deal of medieval material. From anachronistically politically autonomous peasants to the fearsome Knights Who Say NI!, a sorceror named Tim to a song-and-dance number featuring preposterous Camelot rhymes (my favourite is "I have to push the pram a lot," sung in lovely baritone), and of course the greatest barrage of insults ever heard from a Frenchman, The Holy Grail is completely insane. Who would expect any less?

The Python crew clearly saw an incredibly low budget as not an obstacle, but an opportunity for more humour. The coconuts, to begin with - genius. And Gilliam's fantastic animated interludes standing in for potentially expensive action scenes are not only funny in and of themselves, but also for the fact that they are supposed to stand in for what would be a climactic scene in any blockbuster. In fact, there's only one scene that is painfully unfunny, featuring a bevy of amorous damsels and a reluctant Sir Galahad; the scene even features dialogue about how crappy it is - I think the Pythons just left if in there to fuck with you.

I don't know what else I can say about The Holy Grail and the Monty Python gang in general to win over the unimpressed; to this day my dad can't stand them, he just doesn't get the humour. My mom and I practically piss ourselves every time we watch them, on the other hand. Just watch it if you haven't seen it yet, I guess. There's never been a better medieval comedy; in fact, not many comedies at all can rival it. The Holy Grail, like the Pythons, was way ahead of its time. It also features my favourite summation of medieval life, both hilarious and surprisingly erudite: "He must be the King," says one peasant, watching Arthur go by. "How do you know?" asks the other one. "He's not covered in shit!" May you be covered in shit if you don't like this movie.

9.7

Dragonslayer

Dragonslayer
1981
Directed by Matthew Robbins

I like fantasy movies from back in the day. I think Conan the Barbarian and Legend kick ass. Yeah, the writing is sorta cheesy, the acting is not so great, the stories are kinda gay and even fairly formulaic. Now I watch Dragonslayer, which follows a pretty old formula as well. I just wrote a scathing review of Blown Away and bitched about how it followed standard thriller formula. So why am I about to tell you about how Dragonslayer was a pretty decent film when it had the same problem as Blown Away? Well, for one thing, thrillers are pretty much based around tension and the surprise factor. How can you be surprised or tense when you feel like you've watched the movie a hundred times before? But fantasy as a genre is based mostly on archetypes. In real life, good vs. evil quickly becomes complicated the more you look into it. We live in a world of grey, where nothing is certain. How can we have heroes in such a world? There is nothing absolute to fight for. Everybody has valid motivations. Things are not easily categorized. One of the main functions of the fantasy genre is to create or resurrect a mythical past in which archetypes and principles still exist and stand for something. A dragon, for instance, kills because it is its nature; there is no more motivation required. Therefore a hero must be opposed to this evil, for the sake of life itself. Within this milieu, a great number of other archetypes exist which are in reality the very essential form of all things within our own world, without the complicating factors of moral ambiguity. In a world where moral parameters are clearly defined, taking a stand means a lot more than it does in our skewed and unclear contemporary existence. My point being that fantasy films and literature seem to repeat themselves endlessly, and yet it is this very orthodoxy that gives them that elusive quality of universality.

Dragonslayer is pretty much your typical sword and sorcery flick, except that it isn't quite. There's the standard story of an evil dragon who terrorizes the countryside, and a hero who is summoned to vanquish it. There is a brave young apprentice who uses magical artifacts to help to achieve this. There is a corrupt king and there are virgins to sacrifice to the dragon. These are all things I've seen before. But there is a sort of weirdness to Dragonslayer that is a bit hard to explain. Things don't always work out quite the way you would expect. The old wizard recruited at first to kill the dragon predictably dies before his task is complete; as usual, his job falls to his inexperienced apprentice, a common enough plot. But the old wizard may still have a trick up his sleeve from beyond the grave. A spoiled princess turns out to be braver than expected. The existence of evil, as in Legend, is at least partially attributable to the magical forces of good. The ending, then, carries a bit of a sour note, and a bitter one, although not unsatisfying.

The odd note carries over into the acting performances as well. Everybody seems a little weird. The venerable Ralph Richardson is good as the aging wizard Ulrich. He draws a little more humanity out of the character than is typical for this sort of role, musing on his past life and the nature of good and evil. Peter MacNichol is sort of goofy as Ulrich's apprentice Galen, who takes up the task of dragonslaying with surprising carelessness, and yet somehow seems to fit the story anyway; instead of a brave and bold hero, more of a foolhardy and delusional one. Caitlin Clarke is not particularly good but not bad either as Valerian, a virgin disguised as a man to avoid sacrifice to the dragon. Oh yeah, I wanted to talk about that. Why do mythical beasts love virgin sacrifices? I mean, why do they care? Furthermore, wouldn't an extremely powerful beast who loves nothing better than to burn people to a crisp just rampage about all the time, instead of making a deal with the locals for a yearly sacrifice? Who managed that treaty anyway? Does somebody speak dragon?

Of course, one of the main attractions in a movie like Dragonslayer is the dragon itself, which is awesome. At first it looks a little cheesy when it's flying around the countryside, but the scene in the dragon's lair looks great; I don't know how they did the effects, but it really looks like they built a giant dragon. It's probably one of the best scenes I've ever seen in a fantasy film; it just looks legit. Speaking of legit, the whole film summons up a nice dark ages vibe. From the costumes to the set design, Dragonslayer looks like the real deal. Even the cinematography is pretty good, with nice, austere highlands and moors creating a rugged and suitably foreboding medieval Ireland.

Things are a little uneven, sure. You don't really get connected to the characters very much; but then again, Dragonslayer manages to not overdramatize everything as well. Most characters seem to accept fate without much fuss. It might just be a lack of acting acumen, but the absence of extreme emotionality creates an interesting tone for the film. It's sort of refreshing after such weepy (no offense Peter Jackson) epics as The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

It's hard to say what rating to give Dragonslayer. It doesn't really blow you away, and it's a bit odd at times, but there's definitely something about it. The thing is, I can't really tell if its restrained and definitively un-showy manner is the result of a low budget or deliberate. In either case, I think the effects benefit from it, giving the movie a more realistic quality. Perhaps unintentionally original, overall a solid effort. Directors of recent fantasy fare such as Beowulf and The Lord of the Rings might take a few lessons from it. In fact, I think it reminded me most of the rather crude Beowulf and Grendel, the decidedly low-key (and sorely underrated) predecessor to the CG-happy 3-D Beowulf mentioned above. Expecting flashy production and exciting battles, people seem to fail to understand what, exactly, myth and fantasy are about.

7.3

Blown Away

Blown Away

1994

Directed by Stephen Hopkins

One of my co-workers brought this in because he thought I would like to see it. Nope.

Jeff Bridges is a bomb squad dude with a history of Irish anti-British terrorism. He's put that all behind him and is newly married when, surprise, his old mentor breaks free from prison and starts killing off his colleagues as part of an elaborate revenge plot. Now let's see, who would be a good guy to get to play a slightly insane Irish terrorist? Oh yeah, Tommy Lee Jones... not! Jones is pretty fucking ridiculous with his silly Irish accent and his hammy villain routine. You get the feeling that somebody should draw a pointy moustache on him. Bridges dials in a routine performance with lots of scenes where he runs towards somebody who just got blown up screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" The only decent actor here is The Forest Whitaker as a Bridges' cocky rookie replacement; it's a pretty archetypal role, but he brings some character to the role which is sorely missing from the rest of the film.

I could tell exactly what was going to happen throughout the entire movie before it occurred. Really typical thriller crap, written from a template. This can be used for any thriller you can think of: 1) Opening scene where crazy villain escapes improbably from prison. 2) Happy times on the homefront as hero and girlfriend/ mandatory cute kid are intro'd. 3) First conflict situation unrelated to villain, introducing hero and his dangerous and thankless job. 3a) preferably add in some flashbacks to a tragic past related to said job. 4) Happy times wedding proposal and marriage, quitting the dangerous job and leaving tragic past behind him.

5) BUT! Villain strikes and hero is drawn back into job to take on his old mentor. 5a) Plucky rookie takes over job, preferably gets upbraided by hero and has a beef. 6) Dramatic scenes where people are being killed in unlikely masterminded ways. 6a) Don't forget to have hero run towards the wreckage and go NOOO!

7) Hero must save rookie from villain, cementing their bond. 7a) Meanwhile villain visits hero's family; tension! 8) Death of close friend causing hero to go apeshit and hunt down villain. 9) Climax in villain's lair or some sort of arena. 9a) Villain has upper hand but wow, rookie to the rescue, who saw that one coming? 10) Victory! Except no, there is one last pitfall designed by the villain. 10a) Second climax where hero succeeds in daring rescue of family members. 11) All is well and characters may walk off into the distance.

This is the format for literally every mediocre thriller I've ever seen and so I really can't watch these sorts of movies anymore. Blown Away gets zero points for creativity. I also detract points for its annoying use of cultural stereotypes. Not all Irish people drink Guinness, watch the boxing, wear a tam, dance a jig at a wedding, etc. Also, pretty gay to throw in a U2 song during a climactic scene. Also, not all black funerals feature holy rollers singing amazing grace soulfully. Also, not all Spanish-speaking men are womanizers. There were more instances, but I don't really feel like trying to remember them.

So yeah, even though it wasn't absolutely terrible, its utter mediocrity makes me want to give it an even lower rating than a horrible movie. Star power could not save this piece of crap.

3.8

Double Feature of Horrors: Brain Damage and The Toxic Avenger

Got some new movies in the mail, so I watched a couple of trashy horror classics with my old pal Corey. It's difficult to rate movies that are intentionally ridiculous and have such a love em or hate em appeal. There's an automatic fan base for these things, and mostly everybody else probably wouldn't care for them. Well, I tried.

Brain Damage
1988
Directed by Frank Henenlotter

I have an enduring love of trashy, campy movies, particularly of the horror variety. Directed by Frank Henenlotter of Basket Case fame (unfortunately have not seen that one), Brain Damage has enough camp, trash, and brain-eating to go around, so I was sold on it pretty quickly.

Brian (Rick Hearst, who somehow went on to star in "The Bold and the Beautiful") wakes up one evening to find his neck covered in blood, and proceeds to have trippy and enjoyable hallucinations. Turns out a weird worm-like creature named Aylmer which injects people with a hallucinogenic substance has turned up, and he wants to help Brian have a real good time. All he wants are some nice human brains to munch on. Brian goes around tripping out and Aylmer devours lots of brains, but Brian doesn't seem to remember what happened after the fact. When he finally clues in, he's already addicted to Aylmer's "juice."

Brain Damage belongs to an older variety of horror film, riding the last wave of extreme gore and ridiculousness that probably had its culmination in Peter Jackson's Dead Alive in 1990. Things just haven't been the same since, with spooks and creepiness replacing good old gory lunacy like this. Not to say that's necessarily a bad thing, but I miss films like Brain Damage: weird, original, funny, disgusting, and yeah, a little uneven too. There is really no such thing as character development, the acting is pretty hammy, and some of the violence is in pretty dismal taste - but in a film like this, those are actually good things. It's not trying to change your life, it's not trying to be a masterpiece. It's just... a lot of fun.

Negatives? Sure. The pacing is a little odd, there's some scenes that feel pointless or dragged out. But overall we enjoyed this movie. The effects for Aylmer were pretty good, and his voice... well, you just have to hear it for yourself. Hearst is actually not too bad, for a C-lister in a low-budget horror pic. The violence is gruesome, ridiculous, and funny - there are a few things you've probably never seen in a movie before, nor will you anymore, considering the contemporary market. The bottom line is, if you're a fan of old-school horror, this is going to seem like gold to you. For everyone else, well, it's a movie about a talking, brain-eating, hallucinogenic worm; if you think that sounds stupid and juvenile, avoid this film.

6.7


The Toxic Avenger
1984
Directed by Lloyd Kaufman

Corey and I were in stitches for much of this movie. I'm actually surprised I haven't seen it yet, as it undoubtably deserves its cult status. I thought Brain Damage was pretty trashy, but The Toxic Avenger has it beat by a long shot!

It's really more of a comedy than a horror film. The first (I think) feature produced by the legendary independent Troma Productions, Toxic Avenger blends Mad Magazine farce, old-school brutality and gore, a sort of crude Swamp Thing comic-book hero plotline, over-the-top crappy acting, and social justice into a completely outrageous and baffling whole. It's no surprise to me now that they've made it into a musical in recent times - for a movie this insane, it's really not a stretch to imagine it put to music.

The story revolves around the nerdy janitor Melvin, who is turned into a huge, beastly mutant after a toxic chemical accident. He inherits a sudden drive to eliminate evil and goes around the corrupt city of Tromaville mashing a variety of criminals. The effects are ridiculous, but somehow effectively vile. In fact, the whole film is basically vile. If that's what you're into, then pretty much everything you usually want to see in a horror film (but don't) can be found right here. There's enough amputation, running over of children, head-crushing, and yes, even granny-punching to keep any 13-year-old boy or underdeveloped adult male (hi!) smiling for weeks. But wait, there's even a love story between Toxie and a blind bombshell. Total wish fulfillment for every nerd who never got his due. But for a guy who brutally murders people for a hobby, Toxie is a real sweetheart to regular folk, and he wins Tromaville over with his "good works."

Toxic Avenger is super-low budget. The effects are laughable. I won't even discuss the "acting." Even the writing is frequently stupid - some of the jokes are just terrible. But in such quantity, you won't really care if some of the humour falls flat. What this movie has going for it is that it uses all of these negatives to its advantage. Knowing that it was stupid, atrocious, in poor taste, etc., Kaufman clearly decided to go for the gold. Always tongue-in-cheek, it's actually a great send-up of more serious horror fare. Not everybody will find running down a kid on a bike for "points" funny, but it's pretty hard to be seriously offended by anything in a movie so obviously excessive.

Some people have pegged Toxic Avenger as a "so bad it's good" movie. Those people are wrong, because that term really refers to movies that failed so miserably at being good that they went right past sad and unwatchable to being unintentionally funny. The earnest but completely talentless Ed Wood falls into this category. But there is no way that Kaufman and friends set out to make a passable movie here. Toxie is meant to be bad, and it totally revels in it. It turned out exactly the way it was intended to turn out - love it or hate it, it is the definition of a cult classic.

7.9

Broadway Danny Rose

Broadway Danny Rose

1984

Directed by Woody Allen

Some people forget, but Woody Allen had the whole attractive woman improbably falling for a neurotic and relatively unattractive man thing down long before Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow were old enough to walk. But instead of burnouts and immature man-children, Woody Allen played the gawky (and talky) yet erudite intellectual - something to be desired in this age of ignorance.

To begin with, I should note that I am a Woody Allen fan. His later work has seemed mediocre to me at best, but all of his old movies I consider to be ingenious and classic. Broadway Danny Rose fits nicely into that category, and I would have to say it's one of his best. However, if you already don't care for Allen, this probably won't change your mind.

Populated by stuttering ventriloquists, poetry-spouting mafiosa, blind xylophone players, and starring Allen as Danny Rose, a bottom-rung New York talent agent, BDR is sort of like Allen's tribute to vaudeville and the old-timey entertainment industry. Saddled with mostly crap, Danny Rose still gives everything he's got for his clients, working his ass off to find gigs for them. Rose is a refreshingly un-cynical protagonist for Allen; watching him get pumped up over a balloon-folder is both hilarious and oddly touching in its sincerity. Needless to say, a man whose main clientele include a man whose birds play the piano is not really doing too well for himself. Things start to change a little when a surge of interest in nostalgia brings some popularity to one of his clients, washed-up crooner Nick Apollo Forte. Allen wanted a real lounge singer for the part, and found that small-time act Lou Canova fit the bill. With no acting experience whatsoever, Canova does a teriffic job and lends a lot of authenticity to the role. Set up for a show at Carnegie Hall, Forte convinces Danny to accompany his girlfriend Tina Vitale (Mia Farrow) to the show (as her boyfriend, as Forte is married). What Danny doesn't realize is that Tina is involved with the mafia, and his involvement with her may cost him his life.

Danny Rose has got to be the most endearing and appealing of Woody Allen's many incarnations. In spite of the fact that he's clearly a total loser, he's almost always sweet and earnest - and also quite funny. It's a nice break from some of Allen's more curmudgeonly intellectual roles. Danny is frequently funny without intending to be. He uses the same bag of old vaudeville jokes to win people over throughout the movie. It's a lot of fun to watch him bend over backwards to accommodate everybody. You can really tell that the whole cast had a good time making this film. The narration by the group of old entertainment biz types in the Carnegie Deli is a nice touch and adds to the overall warm tone of the movie. (Been to the Carnegie Deli with my girlfriend, by the way - it was good but the sandwiches are massive, there's no way you can eat one while sitting there. I recommend the cow tongue sandwich!) Mia Farrow is pretty entertaining as Danny's unexpected love interest.

There are plenty of Allen's tossed-off jokes and gags to keep you laughing throughout most of the movie. The man makes writing these sorts of movies look effortless, but if it were, there would be more of them out there. Woody Allen is one of a kind, though, and nobody, including himself, makes movies like this anymore. It's too bad, because beneath the lighthearted silliness, Allen always digs deep and works hard for his laughs. Such consummate professionalism is sorely lacking from the contemporary comedy.

9.5

Old School

Old School

2003

Directed by Todd Phillips

If you're like me, you saw the previews for Old School back in 2003 and thought to yourself, "man that looks stupid, there's no way I'm watching that movie." But maybe, after six years of people telling you that it's one of their favourite movies, and that it's soooo funny, you're thinking, hey, should I give it a chance? Let me tell you that the answer is unequivocally NO!!! I can honestly say that it has basically no redeeming qualities. It's not funny, it's racist, misogynistic, utterly mediocre and kinda pathetic.

The story revolves around sad-sack Mitch (Luke Wilson in the least interesting incarnation of his nice guy schtick) who finds that his girlfriend is having orgies behind his back. He moves out and ends up living in a house near a college campus. Enter friends "Beanie" (an annoying Vince Vaughan) and recently married, soon-to-be-divorced Frank "the Tank" (Will Ferrell in his usual man-child mode), who try to get Wilson hooked up with some college types in a frat-style party featuring (yawn) Snoop Dogg. Can somebody get this guy to stop ruining everything, please? One cameo on "Weeds" was bad enough. Anyway, due to some preposterous zoning change, Mitch's place is supposed to turn into a campus building and he has to move out. Except that every Man over thirty in America is supposed to live with a deep longing for the days of college debauchery - therefore, they decide to create their own fraternity, accepting anybody at all, whether or not they attend the college. The result is a bunch of pathetic old white guys who can't get on with their lives, and a few black kids thrown in to make the film seem less vanilla I guess. I can't see why in hell they would want to hang around with a bunch of washed-up losers. So they get into an uninteresting battle of wills with a vindictive dean who wants to close down the frat and, supposedly, hilarity ensues.

Except that hilarity never ensues. I could see every joke coming form a mile away, and none of them were particularly amusing. If you think the following things are funny: Will Ferrell running around naked; penises being yanked by strings attached to cinder blocks; a thirty-year-old sleeping with a drunken high-school girl; fat people being forced to compete in gymnastics competitions; an old man wrestling two topless girls in a tub of KY Jelly; homophobic stereotypes fellating carrots to give blowjob classes to housewives - then you might think this is the Citizen Kane of comedies, but you should also stop recommending movies to me.

There's no accounting for bad taste, I guess, but my girlfriend and I both found Old School to be quite clearly a craptacle. It's hard for me to understand why people like this sort of shit, when there are so many good movies out there that go unlauded. People seem to have an enduring tolerance for stupidity and mediocrity. I'm honestly not being overly harsh here. I can even abide stupidity if it at least makes me laugh. Take Step Brothers, for instance - another idiotic flick that nonetheless drew quite a few laughs out of me. Or more recent films like I Love You Man and Role Models, both unfortunatly drawing on society's disconcerting affection for man-children, but also well-written and funny. But millions of people are out there, enjoying complete shite. I've had various friends, co-workers and acquaintances wax rhapsodic over the excellence of such whoppers as the racist and insipid Transformers 2, GI Joe, fucking Old School and I don't even want to remember what else. When I think about it, I wonder why I bother recommending any good movies to anybody at all, when everybody seems to find their attention better spent on the most mundane, low-quality, immature shit available. Every day I see the cultivation of this obsession with junk culture. It's not a wonder to me why ignorance reigns.

And did I mention racist? Yeah, I'm getting pretty sick of all this anglo-centric blatant racism in major Hollywood productions. The head of student council, willing to take a bribe to further her academic career, is of course an Asian girl. One of the black students explains at one point that he is the first person in his family to attend college. The only reason for a brown guy to be in the movie seems to be as a visual joke based on his scrawny build. Add to this a misogynist bent: your life is over, says Vaughan's character to Frank on his wedding day. This whole view of marriage and monogamy as a virtual castration penetrates the whole film. Wives take blowjob classes to please their husbands while their husbands throw parties with topless college "babes". And yet, somehow the heroes of this movie are supposed to be the guys. Why any woman would be interested in a single one of these losers, I have no idea. As I said before, there's no accounting for bad taste.

Personally, I find the American obsession with college and high-school life pretty depressing. Every comedy, soap opera, and tear-jerker based around a longing for a mythical past strikes me as unhealthy, a tragedy. Henry Miller recognized this trend and wrote "Death of a Salesman". Somehow, Hollywood continues to cash in. No matter what I say, there will always be a market for movies like Old School. Thinking now of the sickening popularity of professional douchebag frat-boy blogger Tucker Max, whose best-selling "memoir" I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell has just been released as a film in theatres. But why do women like it? And how did we get to the point where sexist, womanizing, immature assholes become comedic and sometimes heroic figures in the popular culture? I have no idea, but like I always say, there's a reason I hate people.

0.0

Metropolis

Metropolis

1927

Directed by Fritz Lang

I've been waiting to see this for a while, wondering if it would live up to all the hype surrounding it. Hell yes it does. Metropolis is German director Fritz Lang's science fiction opus, a wild tale of a futuristic city run by great machines and fueled on the hard and thankless labour of a subterranean working-class. Unfortunately, as much as one third of the movie is considered lost; the version I watched, restored and distributed by Kino, drew from the original negative, partially destroyed, and scenes from later versions. Scenes that were not available are replaced by captions describing what would have been happening. These didn't really interrupt the flow of the movie as much as I thought they might. In fact, Metropolis was entertaining and very watchable in spite of its defects.

I don't know what sort of budget Lang had to work with, but Metropolis looks great. The city, the underground worker's city filled with giant machines, everything looks better than anybody could expect from a film made in 1927. The story is interesting enough. Drawing on the preoccupation with working-class struggles in its time, Metropolis is something of a call to arms for workers in an increasingly industrial and economically segregated society. But it also calls for compromise, as it is openly critical of violent revolt. The main story follows Freder, the pampered son of Joh Fredersen, the ruler of Metropolis, as he pursues his fascination with Maria, a socialist pedagogue and sort of worker's saint. This leads him from the leisurely high-society to the depths of the city, where workers slave away at great machines in a nightmarish industrial underground world. His support of the workers causes a rift between Freder and his father, and also leads Joh to discover Maria and her religious-toned oration. She is preaching that there must be mediation between the "brains" and "hands" of the city, but Joh wants to incite the workers to open rebellion so he can crush and demoralize them. To this purpose, he gets the unstable scientist Rotwang to create a robot in Maria's image. This alternate Maria is her opposite in every respect. Deceptive, sexual, she incites the male workers to violent uprising.

I feel that I should warn everyone that Metropolis is a silent film. It's hard to judge the acting performances without the benefit of dialogue; silent film acting is based on a different dynamic entirely. I thought they fit in well with the apocalyptic tone of the film, but I suppose they could be construed as being overly emotive. Brigitte Helm in particular seemed quite good, switching between the demure Maria and a vicious and feverish performance as the Machine Man impersonating her. There's a lot of hand-wringing and flailing about on the whole, but really, that's the way that actors had to express themselves before the dawn of "talkies."

Fritz Lang clearly set out to make a monumental film, and he certainly acheived that goal; he set the bar high for all science fiction to follow. I've never seen anything quite like it, and I doubt it will ever be imitated with much success. I have seen the anime by Rintaro and Katsuhiro Otomo, based on Osamu Tezuka's manga series; it's also quite excellent, but another animal altogether. In any case, Metropolis is a visionary work of art; I only wish the entire film was intact. I would highly recommend it to cinema nuts - but too much time may have passed for it to appeal to casual moviegoers anymore.

9.9

The Brothers Bloom

The Brothers Bloom

2008

Directed by Rian Johnson

A beautiful film. Rian Johnson is the best new writer and director in film today. His high-school film noir Brick came out of nowhere and made a big impression on critics with its sharp writing and sly humour. The Brothers Bloom is his stylish entry into the con-artist sub-genre, starring Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody as Stephen and Bloom, brothers and con artists extraordinaire, Rinko Kikuchi as Bang Bang, their mysterious companion, and Rachel Weisz as their eccentric target.

As in Brick, the first thing you'll notice is the high quality of the writing. The lyrical tale of the brothers' childhood at the start of the film was funny, moving, and truly original. Things pick up years later, with Stephen and Bloom at odds regarding their careers as wildly successful international con-artists. Bloom, sensitive and forlorn, is ready to call it quits, but Stephen convinces him to join him for the con of a lifetime. The target is one Penelope Stamp, a super-rich heiress who lives alone in a giant, tacky mansion in New Jersey. Weisz is superb as the excitable and odd Penelope. A natural talent, she picks up hobbies with virtuosic and hilarious results. She is also quite intelligent and seems to know more than one would expect. Rinko Kikuchi, who made waves with her performance in Babel, is charming as the brothers' aloof fellow artiste. The whole cast, in fact, is amazing. Personally, I'm partial to Mark Ruffalo, even if he does tend to overact. As a natural swindler looking for the perfect con job, he is perfectly cast. It's a joy just to see watch everybody do their thing. You really get attached to each character. Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid!) even shows up to steal a few scenes.

The story is certainly rather fantastic; too fantastic to be true, in fact, but that's rather the point. The con itself is a ridiculously elaborate, world-traversing romp. You really have no idea when one con begins and another ends. You have no idea who is conning who at any given time. Bloom is trying to escape from this life, where you can't tell if you're living someone else's story, or if its the real thing. The film bounces easily between romantic adventure, quirky comedy, and emotionally resonant drama. The whole thing feels so... cinematic. I mean that in the best sense of the term. Films like this are the whole reason the movies exist; pure escapism, but poignant as well. I think its destined to become a classic, even if it has been criminally overlooked thus far.

9.5

Iron Monkey

Iron Monkey

1993

Directed by Woo-ping Yuen

Woo-ping Yuen has choreographed fight scenes in a shit-load of movies, including The Matrix, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Fearless - really the only reason I picked this one up.

Iron Monkey is more of a comedy than an action film. Yeah, there's plenty of characters flying around on wires and kicking the crap out of each other, but even the fights seem to be at least partially for comedic value. I knew it was a more light-hearted movie than Crouching Tiger, so I suppose I can't complain. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but I have to admit, Chinese action-comedies don't really appeal to me very much.

Iron Monkey wasn't bad, but my predominant feeling during the movie was mild disinterest. It was obviously not a character drama, but I would prefer if everybody was less one-dimensional. Some parts were pretty funny, if a little over-the-top. Other jokes were just annoying. Frequent references to shark fin soup were getting on my nerves, especially after watching Sharkwater. The fight choreography was okay, but a bit too goofy for me. I've seen various odd fighting techniques and weapons used in a number of martial arts movies, including a woman fighting with her own hair. Still, I don't think I've seen anybody fight with their magical sleeves before. I don't really know what to make of that.

That's that. I don't really feel like talking about the plot. Okay, okay. The Iron Monkey is a Robin-Hood type guy who goes around stealing from corrupt government officials and giving it to the poor. The officials aren't happy and they employ corrupt shaolin monks, etc., to capture him. That's really all you need to know. At least it was better than The Forbidden Kingdom.

6.0

Jennifer Connelly Double Feature: Phenomena and The Labyrinth

Jennifer Connelly might not be the greatest actress around, and it seems to me like she's had some work done to herself lately, so she looks sort of weird now... but she used to do some kick-ass movies. Here are a few from her severe eyebrow days: Dario Argento's Phenomena and Jim Henson's Labyrinth.



Phenomena
1985
Directed by Dario Argento

Surprisingly, this is my first time watching a film by the legendary Italian master of horror, Dario Argento (Suspiria, Tenebre). Featuring a fifteen-year-old Connelly as Jennifer Corvino, an insect-loving girl attending a private school in a remote region of Switzerland, Phenomena is certainly one of the oddest horror movies I've been privy to.

Jennifer arrives in a weird area of Switzerland that people keep referring to as "the Swiss Transylvania," home to a mountain wind that supposedly drives people mad. She arrives at a fancy private school in a smallish town with a serial killer on the loose. Naturally, this killer preys on schoolgirls, of which there are plenty in this film - thank you Mr. Argento! With the help of a disabled entomologist (Donald Pleasance, of multiple Halloweens) and his scalpel-weilding chimpanzee helper, Jennifer discovers that she is able to communicate telepathically with insects. She also begins sleepwalking, and begins to find clues to who and where the serial killer might be located, as more murders occur in gory detail. Argento doesn't bother explaining any of the weirdness; but you probably won't bother questioning it either, as Phenomena really seems to operate by its own peculiar logic.


An engaging mash-up of slasher horror shlock and hallucinogenic art-house, Phenomena is a true original. It seems cheesy at first with its odd cinematography and goofy soundtrack by horror standbys Goblin, but somehow, as the film progresses, these elements begin to click, creating an unusually atmospheric experience. The dialogue and acting is awkward and frequently laughable, but has its moments of inspired lunacy. In fact, "inspired lunacy" probably best describes the whole film. The story is completely absurd, but that actually works in its favour. Once you stop judging it by preset standards, you will enjoy Phenomena a lot more; just don't expect it to be anything close to normal.

There's enough gore to go around, as well as scares and some genuinely creepy moments. On top of that, Phenomena features one of the best horror-movie endings ever, totally classic. Not perfect, and probably rather jarring for viewers used to more formulaic horror, this is nonetheless a lot of fun to watch.

7.6



Labyrinth
1986
Directed by Jim Henson

Starring none other than David Bowie, and featuring the amazing muppetry of Jim Henson, Labyrinth is a popular childhood favourite that probably doesn't need to be reviewed by me. But I'm gonna do it anyway, tra la la.

If for some reason you haven't seen this film already, here's a synopsis: Sarah (Jennifer Connelley) is a bratty young girl who is obsessed with fantasy and fairy tales, and resents her parents and her baby brother for making her life crappy. So, one night she makes a wish that the Goblin King (Bowie) will come and take her brother away - so he does. Sarah regrets her actions and must pass through a labyrinth, cross the goblin city and enter the castle of the Goblin King in order to get her brother back. She meets a bunch of oddball characters (Henson's wide array of muppets) who help (and hinder) her on her way.


David Bowie is in full glam garb, but this is a good decade after Ziggy Stardust and it's sometimes a little bit embarrassing watching him - particularly at least one dreadful, cringe-inducing musical interlude. But that's part of what makes Labyrinth fun - and funny. Bowie actually brings quite a lot of character to the role, and he sure gives a stand-out performance - at least, his package sure does. Never before or after did a children's movie feature such a prominent display of eye-catching pelvic bulge. These distractions aside, the movie is surprisingly good. Some of the humour falls flat, but more often than not, it hits the mark. It still makes me laugh, anyway.

The soundtrack is goofy mid-eighties new-wave with Bowie's distinctive but sometimes oddly off-tune crooning here and there; other than that, there's not an over-abundance of musical numbers, thank the gods. As I've said already, Henson's various puppets are typically entertaining. Sure, they always sort of look similar in all of his projects, but they look great and should please any CG animation-haters out there. Connelly and her eyebrows aren't too bad either. (Eyebrow severity rating: 8.5) She's pretty young and it's a cheesy 80's movie, so what can you expect? She has her moments. I don't like when she says, "Well, come on, feet!" But I guess I can't complain.

Labyrinth may not be a masterpiece (I still think Ridley Scott's Legend is far superior), but it's still a classic. In any case, it's a hell of a lot better and more creative than any kids' movies coming out nowadays. Yeah, it might have some kinda scary scenes that might make your bastard children cry, but what do I care? I like it, and so does pretty much everybody I know who's seen it. Whatever happened to movies like this? The Dark Crystal? The Neverending Story? Gone the way of the dinos it seems. Unfortunately for us, all we get is crap like Madagascar now.

7.5

Sci-fi double-feature: Consider Phlebas and The Surrogates

I just finished a few sci-fi books, Consider Phlebas by Iain M. Banks, and The Surrogates, a comic by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele. Here I go.

Consider Phlebas
Published 1987
By Iain M. Banks

Iain M. Banks started off writing well-received (or so I've heard) fiction novels. Consider Phlebas was Banks' first foray into the realm of science fiction, and the start of his rightfully acclaimed series of Culture novels; and what a debut. A virtual Odyssey of a space opera, alternately mind-bogglingly huge in scale and surprisingly personal, Consider Phlebas really has to be experienced to be believed.

Banks' Culture series is centred around an intergalactic society of eccentric, liberal, hedonistic humanoids and their incredibly intelligent machines, called Minds. So technologically advanced and resource-rich as to render commerce irrelevant, people in the Culture are left to their own devices, to pursue any interests, study, go native, defect, rejoin, change sex and appearance, and really anything else you can imagine. It's basically a pan-human Utopia, but a moral one. Naturally divergent in opinion, as its population is measured in many trillions of beings, citizens of the Culture share an interest in good works - helping "primitive" societies develop without resorting to violence, preventing genocides, and maintaining diplomacy with the many other galactic civilizations (both less and more powerful.) Banks' universe is easily the most fully realized, complex, and yet somehow utterly believable of any comparable science fiction I've read. If you are new to sci-fi or are only familiar with the classics, you'll probably be completely stunned by the depth and fullness of Banks' vision. At the centre of the Culture are the Minds, massively powerful and intelligent sentient machines that help to guide and assist the humans in achieving their goals. Banks should be commended for envisioning a future in which the tired old theme of sentient machines being the beginning of the end of civilization is abandoned for a more benificent possibility. In spite of our differences, might machines and humans not share similar sentiments?

Consider Phlebas is about a holy war between the mainly secular and materialist Culture, and a powerful race of tripedal religious zealots called the Idirans. The Idirans' religion calls for them to expand and conquer infidel civilizations in the name of their God. On the galactic scale, they eventually find themselves in conflict with a young and still developing Culture, unprepared for war and naturally prone to pacifism. The Culture objects to the Idirans' expansion on principal; what the Idirans' don't realize is how willing the Culture is to fight for its moral convictions. Expecting an easy victory, instead the Idirans are drawn into a full-scale war of immense proportions, measuring deaths in the hundreds of billions.

Banks' style bounces easily between these incomprehensibly huge scales - millions of light years, "gigadeaths," giant artificial worlds, extinctions of whole civilizations - and a very personal story of one man's crusade in the midst of this war. Bora Horza Gobuchul is a Changer, a shape-shifting human fighting his own war; except that he is fighting for the Idirans against the Culture. While not prescribing to the religion of the Idirans, he supports them precisely because they are against the Culture. For Horza, the Culture represents the unnatural; it is his belief that the Minds that run the Culture also strip it of its humanity. In spite of their bigotry and fanaticism, the Idirans are, as he says, "on the side of Life." Horza is recruited by the Idirans to find a rogue Mind that has escaped their grasp and hidden on a forbidden world watched over by god-like beings called the Dra'Azon. Hitching a ride with a mercenary ship, Horza sets out to capture the Mind with a captured Culture agent in tow, but things don't exactly go as smoothly as planned.

All this might sound like typical sci-fi, but what separates Banks is his atypical style. Behind the baffling technology, descriptions of hyperspace travel and impossibly grand scale, the story of Horza's quest is gritty and immediate. Filled with humour, lofty philosophical diatribes, sexual, violent, disturbing, scatalogical, unpredictable and oddly poignant, and almost never slackening its pace, Consider Phlebas maintains an earthy and personal feel in spite of its huge ambition. Banks is thoroughly hip and ironic, and these characteristics weave themselves into the story and into the fabric of the Culture itself; intelligent, knowing, reflective and self-depracating, Culture citizens seem to accompany all of their actions with a wink. Likewise, Consider Phlebas is easy to breeze through, but begs to be taken seriously as well.

It's not my favourite Culture novel, and it does drag a bit in the final chapters, but Consider Phlebas is a great intro to Banks' peculiar and bombastic brand of science fiction. As with all of his Culture series, highly recommended.

9.0

The Surrogates
2006
Written by Robert Venditti
Art by Brett Weldele

The Surrogates was recently made into a film of the same title starring Bruce Willis, but I heard it wasn't very good. However, the comic was generally well-received and I thought I would read it rather than watch a mediocre movie.

The story is about our society in the not-too-distant future, and the introduction of the surrogate, a marriage between virtual reality and robotics that allows people to live life by proxy without having to leave their homes. Originally created to help the disabled and paralyzed lead a normal life, big business sees the potential marketing value of the product to regular citizens. By the middle of the 21st century, 92% of North American society uses a "surrie." Surries are customizable, giving people the option of altering their physical appearance, even sex, recording and playing back data, altering sensory experience, and so on. As Virtual Self Inc., the company in charge of surrie production, says in its advertising campaign, living via surrogate is "Life. Only better."

The story follows detectives Harvey Greer and Pete Ford as they track down a mysterious terrorist who seems intent on changing the world back to its pre-surrogate state. In its five issues, The Surrogates manages to cram in a lot of food for thought, despite being based around a fairly simple cat and mouse detective story. In between issues are supplementary materials a la Alan Moore's The Watchmen, designed to add depth to the future society. Between these materials and the philosophical implications of the adoption of surries into society, there's quite a lot to chew on.

The interesting (and scary) part is that I can totally see this happening. The surrogate to me seems to just be an extension of online anonymity. Millions of people are already opting to create personae for themselves in a technological milieu free of actual interaction. In many ways people already live "by proxy." We have grown so reliant on new technology even in the last twenty years; it's sort of hard to imagine returning to a pre-internet world at this point. But at which point does our anonymity and dependence on technology prevent us from living our lives as human beings? This is one of the main themes of The Surrogates, and it seems like a timely question to me. It's also a succinct commentary on our obsession with physical appearance and how we wish to represent ourselves in society; how we wish to be perceived.

Venditti's writing is the main attraction, but Bret Weldele's sketchy, monochromatic artwork definitely grows on you, and it suits this gritty tale. The Surrogates is quite accomplished for an independent comic. Recommended.

8.2

Princess Mononoke

Princess Mononoke
1997
Directed by Hayao Miyazaki

I often debate with myself whether Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away is Miyazaki's finest film, but the fact is that they are both pretty much flawless. You'll have to excuse me if I sound more like a fanatic than a critic when reviewing this animated opus; it's just that good. Full of wonder, action, and romance, it is also a surprisingly complicated and nuanced moral and spiritual allegory, exploring various motivations and perspectives without plotting any clear villains or heroes. A Disney film this ain't.

Princess Mononoke takes place in a mythological Japan at the brink of the iron age. Predominantly a wilderness populated by a multitude of forest gods and other mystical creatures, industry and the desire for conquest is causing a rift between the advancing humans and the gods of old. When Ashitaka, the young prince of a forgotten tribe in the east is cursed by a rampaging demon, he sets out west to find out where it came from. His journey takes him to Tataraba, "Iron Town", an iron manufacturing centre run by the fearless Lady Eboshi, who has pitted herself against the local gods in her quest for land and resources. She is locked in conflict with a mysterious human girl, the Princess Mononoke, who was raised by Moro, a wolf goddess, and who fights by their side. Ashitaka also meets Jiko, a shady character with a task to perform in the forest of the legendary Deer God. Doomed by the demon curse and fascinated by Mononoke, Ashitaka finds himself trying to create peace between the humans and gods.

Princess Mononoke is markedly darker than most of Miyazaki's other films. "The land teems with the twittering of bitter ghosts, dead from war, sick or starved and fallen where they stood," says the cynical Jiko at one point. "A curse, you say? This world is a curse." The overall tone of the movie reminded me most of the bittersweet sadness of the Lord of the Rings novels - a land experiencing the painful transition from mythical to modern, and losing much of its majesty and wonder along the way. In spite of this, there is a typically Miyazakian hopefulness just beneath the surface. The writing is quite eloquent, and the cast of characters is notably free of any clear villains. Miyazaki distances himself from the tradition of Walt Disney by way of exploring the motivations of his many characters. There are no evil witches or treacherous advisors to be found in Mononoke. Each character has his or her own reasons for their actions; each feels that they are acting justly, and in some ways, they are. Lady Eboshi, for instance, appears at first to be overly proud and disrespectful of the gods. With her new technology, she is able to even the playing field, and is responsible for creating the demon which curses Ashitaka. However, she is intent on creating a better society for the many marginalized people she employs and trusts; prostitutes, lepers, she treats these people with respect, and protects them from the ruthless warlords with the dream of creating a united country. Princess Mononoke is seen as a savage and an enemy by the people of Iron Town, but she is fighting to maintain the balance of nature and to protect the gods and the old ways. Ashitaka, as an outsider with nothing to lose, comes to "see with eyes unclouded," in his own words; the result is a nuanced view of the various players and their dreams, fears, and ultimately their humanity. The depth of character and the complexity of the story really puts Mononoke on a higher level than most of the competition. The result is that it isn't exactly a movie for children. Violent and frightening at times, and probably too morally ambiguous for youngsters, Mononoke is definitely geared towards an adult audience. It's no surprise that this was the only one of Miyazaki's films not to be distrubuted by Disney in North America.

I think that a lot of reviewers have miscontrued Princess Mononoke as a mainly ecological moral allegory. However, I think that it has more to do with humankind's rejection of spirituality. Certainly it connects this spirituality with respect for nature, and there is a concern for striking a healthy balance between progress and the preservation of nature. But I think the main theme is humanity's inability to reconcile itself with the mysterious and unknown quantities of mortality - death, as represented by the Deer God, a force of creation and destruction. Humanity struggles against the perceived evil of creative and especially destructive powers that are beyond its control. The allegory of setting out to kill a god in a quest for self-determination and immortality is timeless, and elevates the story beyond a simple tale of fantasy.

I've already spoken of Miyazaki and Studion Ghibli's outstanding artistry in my review of Kiki's Delivery Service, so I'll just say that Princess Mononoke looks and sounds even better. The animation is truly breathtaking. I guarantee you that you will not have seen any animated film that looks better than this, with the possible exception of Spirited Away. The sound is as realistic as it can get. And Joe Hisaishi's beautiful, mournful musical score is one of the best I've heard for any movie, animated or not.

I can't recommend Princess Mononoke highly enough. It is without question a masterpiece, and if you are at all interested in cinema, you owe it to yourself to see it. I can't think of any reason not to give it a perfect rating.

10

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

1984
Directed by W.D. Richter

It's difficult to give a rating to Buckaroo Banzai. Chances are, you're either going to love or hate this campy and extremely odd low-budget sci-fi spoof. To me, it's a complete riot, full of non-sequiturs, cheap gags, inside jokes and general weirdness; but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody said that they felt they were not in on the joke. You definitely have to pay close attention to get a lot of the humour, and even then you might find yourself lost. There is a non-sensical, slightly insane dynamic to Buckaroo Banzai, and if that's not your idea of comedy, then you might be better to avoid this film.

Discussing the plot could get a bit complicated, so I'll be brief instead. Dr. Buckaroo Banzai is a brilliant polymath, equally at ease performing brain surgery, engaging in theoretical physics, playing the guitar, french horn, piano, and singing in his band the Hong Kong Cavaliers, gunslinging, brandishing a samurai sword, and adventuring. When Banzai drives a modified Ford pickup through a mountain using a prototype Oscillation Overthruster, he discovers an 8th dimension existing parallel to our own universe - except that he wasn't the first to discover it. That honour goes to Dr. Emilio Lizardo, who literally made it halfway into the 8th dimension and was possessed by the evil dictator Lord John Whorfin of Planet 10. Stranded and determined to return to his homeworld, John Whorfin plans to take Dr. Banzai's Overthruster. With the help of other extradimensional beings called Red Lectroids (all named John), Whorfin puts into motion events that may lead to the destruction of planet Earth. It's Banzai's job to stop him, along with the rest of the Hong Kong Cavaliers - all gunslingers and scientists like himself.

The cast is awesome. Peter Weller plays Buckeroo Banzai with a combination of zen-like detachment and Flash Gordon swagger. The great John Lithgow is the nefarious Dr. Lizardo - a true lunatic. If this movie had nothing else but Lithgow and his ridiculously funny Italian accent, it would already be a classic. Definitely the funniest I've ever seen him be. Ellen Barkin is hilarious as the unbalanced and comically over-sexualized Penny Priddy (what passes for a love interest in this most bizarre film; at one point, being held for ransom and bravely telling Banzai not to give in to the kidnappers' demands, Banzai rather unromantically tells her to "get off the phone"). Highlander's Clancy Brown and Lewis Smith are standouts as Rawhide and Perfect Tommy, members of the Cavaliers. Jeff Goldblum plays a cowboy brain surgeon who for some reason is nicknamed New Jersey. Buckaroo Banzai even has Christopher Lloyd as a Red Lectroid.

The humour is weird to say the least. So many things are going on at any one time, your head might be spinning a little bit. Some of the humour is immediately appealing, but a lot of it doesn't make sense at first. You sort of just have to roll with it and be prepared for anything. I honestly still don't get some of the jokes. I have no idea why there is a random watermelon in one scene, and they never explain anything. I'm thinking the commentary in the special features might be instructive. But for the most part, Buckaroo Banzai has me laughing my ass off constantly. An example of the humour: in the middle of a rock concert, Dr. Banzai stops the show because he hears somebody crying in the audience. His encouraging words for the suicidal woman and the restless audience? "Hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean... cause wherever you go... there you are." He then mispronounces her name and launches into a sappy ballad. Using completely absurd deduction, various characters have epiphanies about the nature of the bizarre phenomena they encounter. A Lectroid with a Jamaican accent (a hilarious Carl Lumbly) wearing something out of Little Richard's wardrobe and named John Parker, arrives with a big pink box for Dr. Banzai. In the box? A hologram player that can only be viewed with goggles clearly made out of bubble wrap. One Red Lectroid announces his comrade's death in complete seriousness: "John Valuk is dead. He fell on his head." You get the idea.

The filmmakers make the best possible use of their limited budget. The interiors of the alien spacecraft are full of random junk ranging from tin cans to plastic tubing held up by electrical tape. The Lectroids themselves are just people wearing Halloween-costume grade masks. The ship itself looks like a conch shell. Clothing ranges from new wave to lounge act to cowboy. All of this just makes the movie funnier. It actually blends together to really compliment the overall feel of the film.

It's actually amazing to me that they managed to get Buckaroo Banzai produced at all. In today's market, there is no way that it could exist. People are not willing to work for their laughs anymore; everybody wants everything laid out, plain and accessible. The makers of Buckaroo Banzai were not going to have any of that. Good for them, and too bad for us that we won't see another film like it. A true original, Banzai is deservedly a cult favourite. I just wish more people knew about it.

8.8