A buncha recent stuff:

SHAOLIN SOCCER- [3.9] There’s something magical about Chinese comedies. They have this energy, enthusiasm, and zaniness that makes even the most original of Hollywood comedies feel stale and clichéd by comparison. And Stephen Chow is a magical clown, with just the right touches of realism and child-like exuberance (but not so much that he becomes the obnoxious manchild, like Adam Sandler). And he surrounds himself with such a great supporting cast: his fellow soccer players are hilariously earnest (even ol’ “Iron Head,” the self-deprecating chainsmoker), the tai-chi jiaozi-making love interest is hilariously air-headed (and when she appears, made up like an ‘80s doll, shoulder pads and all…it’s a laugh out loud “WTF” moment), and the villain looks like he inexplicably appeared out of some ‘70s Chinese Gangster flick. The plot is light: a young man wants to find an outlet to show the world how great shaolin kung-fu is, and he meets a former soccer player. They team up and try to defeat the big bad bossman. Like the best comedies, there are hardly any dull moments, and the humor rarely falls flat enough to warrant an embarrassed glance to your neighbor. Stephen Chow scores again!

THE BLUE ANGEL- [4.1] Wonderfully bleak German film, following the downfall of a professor after he falls in love with the young dancer, Lola. This is Marlene Dietrich’s first role, and its obvious why this made her a star. She oozes a natural sexuality that most other performer’s can only imitate. It would be easy to say that Joseph Von Sternberg is responsible for capturing her vitality on camera, but watching her screen test (one of the many great specials on the DVD), there is no doubt that she is in complete control of her sexuality. She slouches, grimaces, and strolls through a scene as if she doesn’t have a care in the world; she is able to emote a knowledge of her own sexual prowess, while also making us feel that she really doesn’t pay it any heed. Its just natural. This instinctual performance is pitted perfectly against the expressionistic style of Emil Jannings, who is a fantastic choice to embody the formal rigidity and old-fashionedness of his character, the moralistic Professor Immanuel Rath. In many respects, this goes along with many Weimer-era productions (like the Louise Brooks films in which a young girl gets pulled into ‘corrupt’ society, only to have her life fall apart around her), with the ending hardly what one would consider uplifting. Yet, Sternberg uses many interesting devices that make this stand out, aside from performances. First of all, he mixes realism and German Expressionism beautifully, creating a twisted embodiment of the street and building of “The Blue Angel”, reflecting its corrupting powers. Also, the mix of music, complex cut-aways, and hilarious throw-away shots seems advanced for the time (the fat girl dancing, rolling her eyes as she does so, the clown that pops into and out of scenes without uttering a word, etc). As well, the theme of the film doesn’t seem to condemn the behavior of Lola; instead, it merely shows how the professor could not adapt to this world so different from his own. He loses his tentative sense on his identity, and thus, loses his self respect and loses the interest and love of Lola. Lola is perfectly content to perform for men, and one gets the impression that if the professor had tried, he could have held on to Lola. Instead, he is humiliated in his hometown, and blatantly cuckolded by a younger man. Depressing, sure, but mesmerizing.

MISHIMA: A LIFE IN FOUR CHAPTERS- [4.3] Perhaps TAXI DRIVER is Paul Schrader’s written masterpiece, but MISHIMA is his directorial triumph. Okay, maybe it’s a little difficult to say that, considering this is only the second Schrader film I’ve seen (and PATTY HEARST was far from being a great movie), but he has certainly created a dynamic combination of color, music, and production design. This isn’t at all your standard bio-pic. Instead, it masterfully intercuts segments from three of Mishima’s novels with parts of his real life (mostly from his last day alive). The acting is superb, with Ken Ogata giving a wonderfully layered performance in which we are won over by his charisma and charm, but turned off by his moments of frustration and delusion. The colors are like a dream, especially in the scenes depicting the novels, which take place on unique sets designed in the most surreal fashion (a twisty, curved pink apartment, a gold and green fake pavilion, and a conspirator’s “house of cards” that falls apart as police invade). While we don’t spend a lot of time focusing on the specific’s of Mishima’s life, we get a wonderful sense of who he is and what he believes in reflected in his writing and in the superb narration (that constantly muses over the complex relationship between art, beauty, and action). The soundtrack by Phillip Glass is thrilling, if a bit overmuch at times, but would have had much more of an impact if I hadn’t listened to it several times before viewing the film. Paul Schrader’s wonderfully written and directed film poses a lot of questions about art, but like Mishima’s life, we are left to find our own answers.

THE FALL- [3.6] Very beautifully photographed film with fine acting and an interesting story, but somehow it all comes off as too manipulated and smooth. Tarsem, the “visionary” behind THE CELL moves beyond Hollywood with what seems to be his intent on channeling Alejandro Jodorowsky, but with a more straightforward narrative. The bright colors and widescreen desert landscapes are nearly breathtaking (wish I had seen them in a theater!), but it hardly ever seems to shake the feeling that its all for show. Tarsem, showing off his abilities. The story is simple, almost Wizard of Oz-ish, with a crippled stunt man telling a story to a young orphan girl in an old Los Angeles hospital. The characters in the story are acted by people who appear in the “reality” segments, and share similar thematic features. It’s a wonderful idea, and the acting is good, but the little girl steals the show in every scene she is in. She is completely natural, unlike other child actors who seem to force their cuteness and quirks onscreen. The backstories that are only touched on are interesting too (such as the plight of the migrant workers who are getting injured and dying off, the experiments on children, and the film that caused our stuntman protagonist to get injured). I really appreciate the fact that everything is not spelled out, but rather inferred (a far cry from THE CELL). Unfortunately, although all the elements are there for a great film, this never moves beyond adequate, for I couldn’t get emotionally involved in the story. The constant jumps to the fantasy story were actually distracting! They were fun, but were too showy and ostentatious, and made the “real world” scenes seem too fake themselves (even though they weren’t). I really respect what Tarsem was trying to do, and I wish I had loved it, but although there is magic on the screen, it fails to jump out and capture the audience.

MISSING- [4.3] What a gut-wrencher! I don’t remember much of the only other Costa-Gavras film I’ve seen (Z), but I was taken by surprise by the brutal drama of this movie. First of all, the story is dynamite: the true life “disappearance” of an American, Charlie Horman, living in Chile during the coup of 1973 that put Pinochet in power. Of course, we now know that the US government played a large part in helping the coup succeed, but at the time, their involvement was not discussed. Thus, when Charlie’s dad Ed comes down to Chile to investigate, he believes nearly everything that the military men tell him. Why would they be covering up? Charlie’s wife’s suggestion that the US was in cahoots with the Chilean junta just seems like paranoid talk to Ed. But of course, as the film proceeds, and Ed is met with resistance at every turn, new information comes to light, and Ed realizes that his son had knowledge of something far bigger than himself. It’s a real-life conspiracy story! But, not only is there incredible political intrigue, but the film does an incredible job of integrating the generational and ideological differences between Charlie’s wife and father. Its clear that Charlie’s father cannot understand why his son is down loafing around South America. He considers him a lazy failure. But, as Ed learns more about the circumstances of the coup, he begins to grow closer to Beth, Charlie’s wife. Now, take this story and add in the talents of Sissy Spaceck and Jack Lemmon, and you have some incredibly effective performances. Spaceck succeeds in her ability to act completely natural, with perfectly un-self-conscious, but revealing details and gestures (watch her body language as she roams the rooms of corpses, one of whom could be her husband; she wraps her hands in her sweater in a casual, but fidgety way; her eyes dart around the room; her steps are controlled, but exhausted; and yet, it never feels like ‘acting’). But Lemmon, with the far jucier role (his IS the main character arc of the script), blows everyone away. He can be a fierce bastard in some scenes, refusing to listen to Beth’s opinions, and then turning against the US officials who have been lying to him. And then, in other moments, he is a sick, lost father, teetering on the edge of despair and fragility. The ending is brilliantly frustrating (the family is forced to have Charlie’s body shipped back home, but it takes them seven months to send it, too late for an autopsy to determine the details of his death). As well, Costa-Gavras litters the mise-en-scene with a never ending assault of random spurts of violence and danger (almost all of which takes place in the background, and only partially comes into play in the greater story). As well, there are numerous displays of American logos (like at the stadium, where hundreds of political prisoners were still being kept, and the TEXICO sign looms over them), which take on a dreadful meaning by the film’s conclusion (the coup was supported because of the interests of American corporations). The facts aren’t shocking anymore, but the film still manages to make the horrors of these events painfully real.

E.T.- [3.0] Painfully disappointing. I guess I didn’t miss much by not seeing this childhood classic until now. Even for Spielberg, this is too corny and confusing, and its flights of fantasy are annoying and preposterous. So…an alien crash lands on earth, but some people (government agents? Its never quite clear) find out, and try to capture its survivor, E.T. But our little ‘cute’ protagonist finds his way to Elliot’s house, where he is taken in and hidden, for fear that other’s will find him and take him away. Through events that don’t completely make sense (Elliot bonds with E.T., so that when the alien gets drunk, so does the kid. But when the alien gets sick because he is not on his home planet, so does Elliot). Then, the other kids in the house find out about E.T., and they sneak him out so that he can try to ‘phone home’ (I was utterly confused about how the transmitter was built or used…). Instead, E.T. gets sick, and Elliot takes him home, only for his mom to discover him, just as government agents surround the home and seal it off, in case of radioactive contamination. But, these are benign gov. agents (hah!), and they make no secret that E.T. is an alien (nor do they seem particularly shocked). Elliot escapes with E.T., with the bumbling agents unable to catch him. Finally, E.T. leaves and everyone cries. Blah. I couldn’t care less.

HIS GIRL FRIDAY- [3.7] Pretty decent screwball comedy, but not the masterpiece that everyone makes it out to be. The casting is great, with Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and Ralph Bellamy doing fine in their roles. But, Howard Hawks has never won me over, and here he doesn’t exactly prove himself a master of the screwball comedy. Sure, this is supposedly one of the first films to extensively use overlapped dialogue. And while that is certainly a great film technique, Hawks dilutes it by including way too many slow, unimportant scenes that weaken the pace, and thus, the comedic timing. I never felt any real spark or romantic feelings between Grant and Russell (unlike the mismatched lovers in superior films, such as IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT). Yet, it was the acting that saved this film. Anyone else, and this wouldn’t have been nearly as enjoyable. Grant is one of the best actors for these sorts of roles, and his charming ruthlessness makes him our hero, and not villain (really, who else could harass and cheat and lie to and steal from our poor Ralph Bellamy and get away with our sympathies anyway!!?). As other reviewers have noted, there are some dark elements at work here, as well: a wrongly accused convict, a mayor who is trying to keep the guilty verdict so that he can get re-elected, the press’s harassment of a young girl who befriended the convict, and that young girl’s attempted suicide. I wish I had laughed more, but there was nothing that spectacularly funny. The dialogue was pretty good, but not nearly as many funny situations as other comedies (in fact, the plot was pretty straightforward and lacked the ridiculous flair that makes screwballs so light and amusing). The suddenness of the ending seemed to make no sense, and it failed to satisfy me as a real conclusion (so, are they really going to get married? These characters haven’t changed at all, so how can their new marriage fare any better than their first?). Overall, Hawks ranks a notch higher on my list of overrated ‘classic’ directors (John Ford, let’s see if he replaces you…).

OUT OF THE DARK- [3.7] Awesomely weird “trash” movie with an impressive cast of cult talent and people who make you shout out loud, “hey, its the guy/gal from ___!” There’s Karen Black, Bud Cort, Tab Hunter, Tracey Walter (from so many movies, inc. CITY SLICKERS and the bum in “Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia”), Irena Olga Lopez (the woman who questions Nomi in SHOWGIRLS) and Divine! The plot is a demented mix of porn, a phone sex service, and a killer clown. Karen Black does a very respectable job (hilarious, but not over-the-top) as the manager of the phone sex office, who is horrified as her girls start getting murdered. Bud Cort is delightfully creepy and grungy as the mousy accountant with dark secrets. There are some really effective, genuinely scary scenes here, like when the clown does some miming in the park, before bashing a girl in with a baseball bat. The pornographic photoshoot is delightfully cheesy and ‘80s (from the music to the fog to the red dress to the garish makeup). The script does a good job of keeping the audience guessing about who the murderer is (especially the red herring of the drunk ex-husband of Karen Black). The cops here are obnoxious clichés, horrible at their jobs. The killing of the Mexican man isn’t that great, but his wife’s callous responses to his death are hilarious. The ending scene is well done, but ends too hastily. Overall, a solid b-movie with a great cast. I only wish Divine had more than a few unimportant lines, especially given that this is her last movie.