JACKASS is an important new documentary produced by oscar nominated director Spike Jonze and the MTV television network. Using the “digital video” camera technology a group of young daredevils were able to capture a slice of life that just may blow the lid off of american culture, etc. Or whatever.
It turns out JACKASS: THE THING OTHER THAN THE MOVIE is a tv show on the MTV music channel. Created by Johnny Knoxville, who got the job by spraying himself in the face with pepper spray and shocking himself with a taser (but only on a camcorder, not on some ongoing competitive reality series or anything), it is some kind of tv show. I’m not very familiar with the character or storylines so I have no way of judging if the movie is faithful to the show. But I thought it was good.
I guess JACKASS comes out of the famous “extreme sports subculture.” Here is what I know about “the extreme sports subculture.”
- It has something to do with snowboarding, or that thing where you jump out of a plane but for some reason you are wearing a snowboard on your feet. Also there is probaly one where you jump out of a plane while playing one of those v-shaped electric guitars. I’m not sure about that one though I’ll have to verify that.
- It spawned many fine secret agents such as XXX and EXTREME OPS. They are different from James Bond because they are younger, they videotape everything they do for posterity, and they are fighting to protect rap music and video games instead of the monarchy
- Products such as Mountain Dew, Sobe Adrenaline Rush, and Extreme Doritos are in, drugs are out
- “in your face” attitude
- a way of life, etc.
Well I don’t ride snowboards but fortunately the movie stands on its own. The characters are introduced riding in a giant shopping cart. They all act real tough, with tattoos, or there is a fat guy and a midget dressed up kind of like Evil Kneival. After that strong opening the story is all over the place. I gotta be honest it was kind of hard to follow, like GUMMO with alot more stunts, vomit, shooting bottlerockets out of their ass, etc. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | 1 Comment »
The disappointment of that Planet of the Apes remake nonsense got me thinking about the old days. How you used to be able to make movies about talking gorillas that were still intelligent type pictures. You got all the rubber makeup and the spaceships and the fighting and what not that the nerds love but you also got some social commentary in there or some politics or some insights about our world and what not. You got vietnam and the civil rights movement going on in the real world and the apes really strikes a ball or whatever with people because of the obvious parallels. These were expensive studio movies but they were willing to give something back instead of just selling a product and then running like hell.
Then out of the blue I got an anonymous tip, telling me Vern, there was a movie in the mid-’90s which attempted this same thing. You got the rubber makeup and you got the sci-fi nonsense. It’s even a remake of an old movie based on a classic book, just like the apes picture. The one catch is that everyone in the world claims this movie is a worthless piece of utter garbage. but you should still watch it, Vern.
Well all I gotta say is that the world is wrong. Dr. Moreau’s Island is one of the greatest genre type pictures I have seen in my post-incerceration catchup period. And I’m gonna explain why. And you’re gonna sit here and you’re gonna keep your yap shut and you’re gonna just listen.
This is a picture that opens with a knife fight on an inflatable raft. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | 9 Comments »
Somehow this week I ended up seeing two independent movies starring Kieran Culkin as a troubled rebel kid in a private school uniform. That’s just the way life is sometimes, I guess.
You know my theory about Culkins. They squirt ‘em out on a conveyor belt somewhere and sell ‘em cheap to filmatists. I’m not sure they even have separate identities, they probaly just call them “Rory” when they’re young and “Kieran” when they’re a teen and “Macaulay” when they quit acting and start going to clubs. If you buy the media hype about them being actual kids, then Kieran must be the most successful of the group because he’s doing legitmate acting roles and he must be 16 or so.
Anyway the weaker of the two new “Kieran” pictures I saw was THE DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTAR BOYS. This one’s coming soon to video and it stars Kieran and a couple other kids as, you know, altar boys. The gimmick is that even though they go to a religious private school they say fuck alot and smoke and drink and have sex and are always planning some elaborate prank. Their dream throughout the movie is to build a pully system which they will use to steal a cougar from the zoo and transport it to their school.
Let me repeat that though. They smoke and they fuck but they’re ALTAR BOYS. See, it’s the juxtaposition. WHO KNEW this kind of shit was goin’ on, man. This one is gonna blow the lid offa organized religion, in my opinion. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | 5 Comments »
Sometimes at my age a fella has to admit he’s not exactly up on things. Not exactly with it. Specially when it seems like every other weekend I’m writing a review for a sequel to some movie where I never even saw the first one. Hell I never even HEARD of the first one half the time how the fuck I’m supposed to seen it already. Cut me some slack buddy.
But I picked up the dvd for this one because of a certain powerful force – the force of young Chloe Sevigny’s eyes staring out at me from the cover. I think most of you know how I feel about this gal, ever since I first spied her in the Last Days of Disco picture where her eyes were able to cut through seven layers of postmodern bullshit spewing out of the mouths of the pretentious yuppies in the movie. This girl is a hell of an actor but the main thing I’m talking about here is the presence. She has the presence of a real movie star. In my opinion. So I’ll see any movie she’s in even if it has her with her hair slicked back, wearing a tie, like in this one.
And please people, I’m just saying she’s a good actor. I’m not trying to pull some Jerry Seinfeld/Michael Douglas/Harold and Maude type bullshit here. Unless she’s offering.
Now I’m not sure what happened in the first one but this seems to make sense even without having seen it. It is three stories of three generations of lesbians with one thing tying all of them together – they are all lesbians, from three different generations.
The best story is actually not the one with Chloe in it. It’s the one starring Vanessa Redgrave as an elderly gal in 1952, who has spent her life in a loving relationship with another gal, sharing a house, birdwatching together and what not. They are very nice and lovable and have a nice house full of antiques. They are like the ultimate grandma team. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | No Comments »
Actually, not bad.
This is the story of a world not too far off where everything is similar to now except that Converse All Stars are rare and robots are common. Instead of the other way around. These robots are used to walk dogs, clean the house, chop the vegetables, etc. Everybody loves them, the same way assholes today love their cell phones and their iPods. And they got these new ones coming out pretty soon, the US Robotics corporation is making a big deal about it. These ones talk more like humans and have cute little rubber noses and they are see-through like my iMac. When they talk you can see little dealies moving around inside their heads. Good job on that detail, computer animators.
Also cars don’t have wheels and ceiling fans only have one blade. Otherwise though it’s the same almost.
The story follows a cop played by Will Smith, who enjoys sweet potato pie so he’s alright in my book. At first his character traits verge on the corny. He is obsessed with things that are old, like manually operated CD players and the aforementioned Chuck Taylor approved sneakers. I guess the idea is we can relate to this guy in the future because he likes the same not futuristic stuff we like. I guess. (I didn’t really buy that they would stop making Chuck Taylors by then, though. Those things have been around forever. Where are they gonna go?)
Anyway, this guy is also real paranoid of robots. He always thinks they’re up to no good. And when the CEO of USR dies of an apparent suicide, and there is one of the newfangled robots hiding in the room where it happens, he is SURE the thing did it. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | No Comments »
It took me a while to get to this one because 1) cartoons are only for children and 2) it wasn’t nominated for the best animated feature oscar so it must not have been any good. so I watched Jimmy Neutron instead.
Actually that is all bullshit. I know this movie was beloved by critics and people alike. I even talked to one dude who hates all Richard Linklaters other movies but liked this one. As you probaly already know this is a movie that Linklater shot on digital video, then had computer animators paint over the video in their computer programs and turn it into surreal computer art type business. What the plot is about is this kid is dreaming, but he can’t wake up, and everywhere he goes people talk to him about free will or lucid dreaming or show off that they have some wacky quirk like they pretend their car is a boat.
Now let me tell you something. This is a completely original idea for an animated feature and I respect that. The animation style itself is also original and sometimes even looks good. Because of the software tracing over handheld video camera footage the backgrounds end up bouncing around like the whole city is built on the surface of a giant water bed, and everywhere you walk the trees and the buildings and the signs wobble around. Some of these shots, especially walking around on city streets, look stunningly beautiful and are a good totally phoney way of portraying a dream life. (I mean seriously, have you ever had a dream that was anything like this animation in any remote way? Of course not.)
There are also some interesting ideas to ponder in this movie. And some of the acting is good, like the one scene with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. A few of these actors know how to deliver this dialogue and make it sound like they’re actually talking and not just spewing memorized lines. Also some of the scenes obviously are real professors talking about the type of shit that they, unfortunately for us, like to talk about. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | 12 Comments »
I’m not 110% sure but I think there may be a new movement poking its head out from over the Hollywood hills. Only a few years ago it was unimaginable that a Hollywood studio would make an entertainment-oriented movie with recognizable stars but also with a premise so weird and convoluted that it is hard to even explain. Then all the sudden there was this movie starring John Cusack and Cameron Diaz and it was about how there’s a door hidden inside an office building that you can go through and you will be able to control John Malkovich and make him quit acting to become a puppeteer. Then also there was the movie by the same director and writer where Nicolas Cage played twin brothers who try to write a movie based on a non-fiction book about collecting rare orchids but they can’t do it and instead write the movie that you are actually watching about twin brothers who try to write a movie based on a non-fiction book about collecting rare orchids but they can’t do it so instead they write the movie that you are actually watching.
Usually Hollywood is all about what they call “high concept” where the movie can be explained in one sentence or less. For example, Martin Lawrence has to go under cover so he dresses up as a fat old lady. Or, the Wayans brothers have to go undercover so they dress up as creepy blonde zombies. Or, Robin Williams is a bad father and husband so he dresses up as an old lady and lights his fake tits on fire.
But now all the sudden we got this different category of film that cannot be summed up so easy. And I’m not talking about some experimental arthouse type deal, I’m talking about movies that are intended to entertain the audience, etc. I don’t know what to call this movement other than Kaufmania in honor of its founder, Charles Kaufman. Or Kaufman Fever. Or Kaufmandomonium. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | 1 Comment »
I don’t know if you guys have ever heard of this one. It’s a weird crime movie starring Fred Ward as a cop with fake teeth, Alec Baldwin as a crook who steals his teeth, and Jennifer Jason Leigh as Baldwin’s dumb hooker turned naive fiancee.
From the cover you’d assume this is just some boring cop movie, so you’ll just have to take my word for it that it’s something completely unique. Or don’t take my word for it. Let me explain to you a little bit about the plot, and see if that waxes your mustache.
See, Alec Baldwin (back when he was young and skinny, and made the gals swoon) gets off a plane in Miami, steals somebody’s luggage, and heads for the exit. At the bottom of an escalator he is approached by a hare krishna, who asks him what his name is. He says, “Trouble,” breaks the guy’s finger, and leaves.
So far he’s a petty crook, and kind of an asshole. Or maybe hare krishnas killed his father, I don’t know. The point is, breaking a guy’s finger for trying to push his religious beliefs on you is not usually a big enough crime to be the center of a movie plot. But we find out later that being a sensitive peace loving religious dude, the hare krishna went into shock after the attack and died. Of a broken finger. And maybe a broken heart. So that’s where Fred Ward, the homicide detective, comes in. He’s gotta find the perp, and even he doesn’t take it that seriously (him and the other cops laugh about the murder) but it’s a job, you know. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | 3 Comments »
Damn, this week must be some type of religious holiday because every fucking movie seems to be about religion. Dogma: religion. Messenger: religion. I haven’t seen the dog movie however i have seen messenger so here is my review.
First off let me say that I am not an expert on religion although I found and accepted the lord jesus christ while i was in the can and have since turned my life around to become a Positive Writer and critic of Cinema as well as to overcome the shit out of alcoholism. I am not a catholic or anything, so I don’t know a whole lot about saints and popes and all this type of shit. I never really got into all the technical stuff beyond praying, positivity, etc.
Point is, I liked this messenger movie. Now I’m not saying its perfect. In fact if I were to give it a 10, it would be on a scale of 1-15 with 1 being Halloween Curse of Michael Meyers and 15 being, of course, Bruce Willis’s Die Hard. I think Messenger will be very controversial and for one reason. You see, a lot of dudes don’t like to see a pretty young gal who has an opinion, let alone a pretty young gal who has an opinion that she is a messenger from god who is going to lead an army and crown a new king and all this.
The pretty young gal of course is Joan of Arc, or Jean of Arc as she’s called in this movie if I may nitpick. Now this gal is really the heart of the picture and whether or not you enjoy the movie is based on what you think about her. Maybe this gal that plays Jean of Arc is a little too into it sometimes, but for the most part I liked the way she did it. She seems like a total loon just like the real Joan of Arc must have, whether or not she was. She is pretty and delicate but also tough and often covered in blood. Although later on she looks like Eddie whatsisdick, the kid from Terminator part 2. (read the rest of this shit…)
January 1st, 2005 | No Comments »
Anybody seen this movie. its probaly pretty old but – I just got out so I haven’t seen that many movies, but i just saw men in black at a girl’s house and it wasn’t that bad. personally i thought it was pretty stupid but there was some funny shit at times. she liked it i think i will ask her if i see her again (probly well, wink).
a couple a comments – number one, the black guy is okay i guess, but i don’t think he would last long inside. number two, i guess it was pretty funny at times. the woman, whatserfuck, she looked pretty good.
sorry if this has already been cover – first timer here
–vern
January 1st, 2005 | 2 Comments »
