Saturday, July 25, 2009

a day dedicated to movies

every month or so, i stay in all day and watch movies. the sources are netflix and my DVR and each film is unrelated to the other. its a day i can relax. my wife is at work and i can go through an entire day without speaking. in short, its one of my favorite ways to spend a weekend. i even manage to work in some exercise when i head to my home gym and bike for 90 minutes and do 30 minutes on my rowing machine; two exercises that are perfectly conducive to dense foreign films. im going to live blog these days that are so sacred to me.

i was considering adding this to my animationcentric post from yesterday but since it was a piece of movie day, ill open with it. anyway, this is a release from the fabled studio ghibli; internationally known as the company that releases films by hiyao miyazaki, considered by many to the greatest director of animated films of all time. this isnt miyazaki but isao takahata, the other jewel in studio ghibli's crown. he made grave of the fireflies, maybe the most depressing movie ive ever seen. my neighbors wasnt depressing at all, but a unique pastiche of skits about a middle class japanese family. if everyone's family is crazy, then this is the normal familial experience. it is equal parts humourous and sweet and decidedly human. not takahata's best but an amusing watch nontheless

this is sort of related to yamadas. it is a part documentary/part surrealist drama on guy maddin's childhood and memory reflection on winnipeg, manitoba the city of his youth. starring ann savage (from the legendary film noir detour) as his mother, its a wierd and entrancing trip around what many people thinkto be a boring canadian city. yeah, winnipeg probably still is boring but with maddin's camera, it looks fascinating. maddin has perfectly made a profoundly unique style over his last 8 or so films. it is usually B&W with choppy fade ins and vague and mysterious title cards. the style is not dissimilar from abstract expressionism but also has a vague noirish feel to it. this is a fascinating and intelligent watch, much like maddin's other work (brand upon the brain, cowards bend the knee, saddest music in the world).

this is sort of related to my winnipeg is a wierd kind of way. ann sheridan, the star of winnipeg was the star of detour directed by edgar ulman, who directed this film! woo! this wasnt as good as detour or my winnipeg. i thought this was on's 250 essential noir films. it wasnt. this is a dull melodrama redeemed only for the puncturing gaze of hedy lemarr. NEXT.

note: this has nothing to do with the last 3 movies i watched thematically, stylistically, or actor wise

i have seen this a couple times before and i like to give it a watch every time it pops up on sundance or TCM. its not my favorite film from jean pierre melville, but its a great one nontheless. this is a french noir from the 50s and one of the first films to transition from noir to new wave. melville walked this line on the cutting edge of film. he films were dated in some ways in that they transported the audience to a paris of the 40s with gangsters in cool hats. what made his films cutting edge but the style and the early techniques of the new wave. bonus: isabelle corey is in this movie who is one of the most beautiful french actresses ever to grace the screen.

this is a recent effort from the prolific french filmmaker claude chabrol. he started in 1959 and has 77 IMDB credits to his name. among them are some bonafide classics (le ceremonie, les cousins, this man must die, the butcher) but most of them are boring pretentious french films and this one falls squarely in the latter category. i didnt really watch it for chabrol though. i watched it for the otherworldly beauty of ludivine sagnier. sorry isabelle corey, but ludivine is THE MOST beautiful woman ever to grace the french (or maybe the world's) cinema. it wasnt terrible and had some good bits of drama but overall, a meh effort.

now this is type of boring prententious foreign film i can really sink my artsy teeth into. bela tarr, the director of this film usually films in B&W, uses long takes involving slow tracking shots across barren landscapes. his masterpiece is satan's tango, a seriously depressing 5 hour experiment though his wreckmeister harmonies is also pretty damn good. damnation isnt my "favorite" film of his ive seen but its pretty good. there are some great tracking inside dance halls which tends to be a reoccuring theme in his films. after watching this 2 hour loosely plotted film with oh so many tracking shots of rainy muddy landscapes, i can only help but feel that hungary is not a place i would want to visit anytime soon. EDIT: the prefab people is really an underrated bela tarr masterpiece.

i literally cried at the end of the movie from laughing. i havent cried from laughter in a really long time. this was a seriously funny movie. it is way over the top gay (duh) and a bit offensive but isnt that why we love it? of course. the more offensive the better though it wasnt as bad as borat (i know. sad). there are some cringe moments but again, borat had more. i didnt think id enjoy this movie as much i did. i also never thought id see a male urethra open up and sing. sometimes, we surprise ourselves. it was a good night.


i went from talking about hungarian art cinema to open male urethras singing in about 4 sentences. for those of you who are still reading, recognize my random genius!!

::back to blog::

im running out of steam here. its been a long day and i wrote a lot of words not many of which make sense. maybe i shouldnt use this format anymore. maybe i shouldnt blog EVERY movie i see or attempt to write intelligent things (or even things) for EVERY movie. after all, i occasionally have nothing to this one. this movie is famed director luchino visconti's last film. it was alright...which is pretty much how i feel about most of his movies. i only really loved death in venice and found of his other works pretty boring. at least his films are nice to look at. alright, thats it. no more blogginess

Thursday, July 23, 2009

animated films i didnt think id like and one i was suprised i didnt like

When CORALINE appeared in theaters earlier this year i immediately wanted to see it. neil gaiman+henry selick+music by they might giants+french and saunders seemed like a great combination. when my wife put the kibosh on seeing it in theaters, i rushed to rent the DVD and was really suprised at how uninteresting i found it. i was floored. the day earlier, i watched THE IRON GIANT directed by the mythic and wonderful brad bird (the incredibles and a crapload of simpsons episodes) and was shocked at the reverance i had for it. i heard it was good but man, it was like wall-e esque in terms of inspiration.

why didnt i like coraline? perhaps it was a bit too childish for me. that is strange given the general love i have for childlike wonder and amazement. the plot didnt pull me in the least. the visuals however, were fantastic and kept me watching albiet staring at the clock quite a bit. i probably would have appreciated this in the theaters quite a bit more especially with 3D. i think the problem was that there was nothing in the script for the adults. the message was pretty simple and clearly directed towards children. the main part directed towards adults was the macabre and gothic style stop motion. perhaps ive been spoiled by pixar who plant adult oriented material throughout the entire film.

why did i love the iron giant? it was really directed towards children but the obvious themes of warfare, mistrust, and preconceived prejudices (towards robots?) give it an adult sheen. i would say that this is sort of an anti-the day the earth stood still. alien robot comes to earth to pal around with humans. in both films, humans are the monsters AND other humans are the heroes but in the iron giant, the robot is the hero. to risk spoiling the film, ill stop now but the ending is heartbreaking and then heartwarming (pixar?). the moral is that everyone is free to act on their free will and that preconceived notions (towards robots ?) end badly.

i didnt hate coraline by any means but im definetely disappointed but i legimately did love the iron giant

the remarkably inconsistent john huston

john huston is one of the most prolific directors of the 20th century. if you look at his notable films, it is littered with unforgettable classics - the asphalt jungle, maltese falcon, the dead, prizzi's honor, the african queen, treasure of sierra madre (i can go on but ill stop). on the other hand, he has also directed a lot of shit - annie, beat the devil, moby dick, the unforgiven, moulin rouge (1952), casino royale (1967) (again, ill stop but i can continue).

most of the time, watching a john huston is a total crapshot. are you going to get an under the volcano (meh) or fat city (yay!). NIGHT OF THE IGUANA falls squarely in the middle. starring richard burton (his usual hammy self), deborah kerr (her usual elegant and sophisticated self), and sue lyon (HOT!), this was a decent character study/drama that is typical of 60s contraversial film. there is a lot going on to shock the audiences of the day: homosexuality, accused pedophillia, and priests fallen from grace. so the result is definetely a still relevant tale of immorality and disappointment in humanity. though the shock has dampened a bit the film is still a decent watch. though the more richard burton i watch, the more i feel he is yelling to hide a suitable acting range.

this one has been languishing on my instant queue for about a year so im glad i finally had a chance to watch it. more important this is rare example of a good huston; not great or terrible. just good.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

a woman's face and nora prentiss: scaldering film noir of the 40s

i made up the word 'scaldering.' its an amalgam of smoldering and scalding.

that out of the way, i saw a couple 1940s film noirs recently. NORA PRENTISS and A WOMAN'S FACE. Both of them are ever so smoldering! in nora, the dame is ann sheridan and the other one, it is none other than joan crawford.

plot of nora prentiss: mild mannered doctor falls for mysterious singer, people end up dead
plot of woman's face: disfigured woman falls for doctor (or doctor's friend), gets hired as a nanny, people end up dead

i love noir. so much mystery and intrigue.

joan crawford was really not a very attractive woman but she was a hell of an actress and would have made a great transvestite. ann sheridan is awesome. detour!

both of the films i consider pretty much run of the mill 40s noir cinema. a bit dull and hammy at times but overall, enjoyable watches. there were a couple great scenes. in woman's face, there is a particularly harrowing scene involving a boy climbing around a moving coal mine ski lift sorta thing. and in nora, are a couple gratuitous musical numbers. i know how noirs will randomly throw in a song ever now and again; usually perfectly matching the plot! funny how that works out.

i think that is actually all im going to say. tired. writing mumblecore over and over again took all my blogjuice out of me.

::shutting down::

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

badhead: horror mumblecore

there has been mounting acclaim and praise over the genre affectionately known as mumblecore. some of the early examples of this curiously named genre are the puffy chair and old joy. its key tags are realist acting, emphasis on the average looking, honest scripts with ironic touches, and of course mumbley speaking. despite the heaps of praise initially bestowed on the above films, they never really caught on with audiences. and among my film geek friends no one really loves it and the appreciation of it seems to top off at some of tolerance to dislike.

BAGHEAD, by mark and jay duplass (the writers and directors of the puffy chair) was hailed as a crossover into mainstream cinema. as you probably guessed, it didnt exactly cross and the mumblecore revolution will have to wait till jonah hill stars in one such film (he is. dont worry).

the premise of baghead was excruiatingly simple like most mumblecore plots. 2 friends and the gifts they are interesting in, all struggling actors, go into the woods to write a movie. romantic entanglements get in the way but not before one of the girls has a dream about a man with a baghead on his head scaring everyone. subtle hijinks ensue and mumbley words are spoken and the movie ends.

like other mumblecore stuff, i didnt love it and i didnt hate it. it was on and then it was off. the last time a film genre tried to the bend the rules this much was the french new wave and maybe if that was just coming around, i would feel the same way. but its hard to deny the excitement and grandeur of breathless or last year at marienbad. those films were miles away from what we are used to. mumblecore just seems like indie cinema with worse acting and a looser plot.

i anxiously look forward to seeing what develops from this unique lil film movement but i dont its quite ready yet.

the last of my shilling for criterion for now

seduced and abandoned, fishing with john, lord of the flies, double suicide

another film canon i am actively working on is to see the entire criterion collection. this one is going to take a while. the problem is that criterion has a tendency of releasing discs with a lot of stuff and i need to watch all of it (john laurie commenting on fishing!? WHY NOT!). i am shameless lover of the criterion collection, eclipse, and janus films. in fact, im a total whore for them. i need to buy a shirt. since my netflix queue is ordered into adding bursts (a bunch of j horror, new releases, eric rohmer, etc) i had a crapload of random criterions arrive and here is quick round up ordered from favorite to least favorite:

plot: john laurie fishes around the world with celebrities (willem dafoe, jim jarmusch, dennis hopper, matt dillon, tom waits)
results: hilarity

this is basically watching a jim jarmusch film that wasnt written or directed by the man himself. instead it was all laurie who was an integral star of jarmusch's most celebrated works (stranger than paradise and down by law). this was a TV series that aired on PBS in the early 90s and still holds up as a funny, clever, and original anti-sports sporting show.

also, gotta love that theme song (fiiiiiiiiiiishiiiiiing wiiiiiiith joooooohn. fiiiiiiiiishing wiiiiiiiiith joooooohn, etc.)

im suprised i waited so long to watch this pietro germi italian comedy. i loved his previous film, divorce italian style and greatly admired it for its fellini-lite madcapness. like divorce, seduced was a madcap social satire. equal parts laugh out loud comedy and dry subtle wit, germi is really a great underappreciated director.

corpulent star saro urzi is perfect as a paranoid patriarch of an italian family obsessed with maintained their honor after their daughter agnese is knocked up by their other daughter's fiance. agnese is played with tragic fare by the beautiful stefania sandrelli who also starred in divorce italian style.

i dont really care for the works of mario monicelli perhaps because its too subtle but germi is very accessible and has stood up very well over time

peter brook did an admirable job of adapting this very disturbing novel onto the screen without a gloss or sheen that later hollywood adaptions had. using non professional actors and island shooting the film had a practical realism to it. the de-evolution into savages by the choir is elegantly stated and the death of piggy is adequately tragic.

the film seems short though. not much else to say about it.

i was really disappointed i found this film so boring. after digesting a bunch of imamura and oshima, i was really looking forward to this important film of japanese 60s cinema. stylically, it was admirable and i liked the direction but nothing else really jumped out at me.

and so ends this edition of shilling for criterion

ingmar bergman died almost 2 years ago...

...and im still waiting for more suprises from the master of art films. with only about 2/3 of his collection available on region 1 dvd, i know i have some more suprises ahead of me. perhaps i will eventually see from the from the life of marionettes, brink of life, or maybe face to face, the most major work of his i havent seen. however, i know the time will come where i have seen all of his films and there wont be any more completely undiscovered bergman to witness.

bergman started my obsession with film canons. imdb's top 250 was my renting bible and i was knocking off all the american classics like chinatown, the sting, and of course, citizen kane. after that, i realized that there were a bunch of foreign films i was vaguely familiar with that i should see. the seventh seal wasnt the first one i watched (that honor belonged to yojimbo) but after seeing it, i saw cinema in a different way. the film drops you straight into a surrealistic scene of a -too comfortable for sitting on a rocky beach- max von sydow with a chessboard, waiting expectedly. then death appears and the wheels of motion for the film are set. i didnt see it as the bleak depressing tale that many do. i looked at it as an analysis of the cycle of life. with death, there was life and a child is saved. there is a reason to fear death but it will come for all of us. there is an inevitability to it.

among the many iconic images in this film, my favorite is the look of ectasy and fear of inga gill (the deceased blacksmith's nameless) when death appears to take the sydow, bjornstrand, andersson, and co. away. afterwhich came the shot of the five of them dancing happily in the distance. as wonderful as the dance was, it was the look on gill's face that astounded me. it was perfect. it was beautiful. as i would come to learn, it was pure bergman.

i was devastatingly sad when he died because it meant there would be no more films. however, he was already retired, over the age of 80, and lived on a secluded estate in the faro islands so he wasnt going to come to the US nor would he make anything else. however, he was alive and for some reason, i more hope in cinema. his death marked the demise of the last of cinema's great 3, along with the already gone kurosawa and fellini. the problem is i dont see anyone to take their places and i dont think its possible to replace them or even succeed them.

for the two year anniversary of his death, i wanted to learn about bergman the man and what drove him. i have seen interviews and listened to all the DVD commentaries available but with the release of BERGMAN ISLAND, i saw another opportunity to learn about the director i admire so much. that was the first of three films i watched to prep this blog entry.

what i learned was that he was a driven and intense filmmaker whose principal concern was beauty and achieving his vision. he was not however, a good person in his private life. in fact, he was self centered, womanizing, a self admitted terrible father, and prone to fits of rage. somehow, this fit the vision i had of him even before i learned about him. to achieve what he did, i cant see how he could lived a normal well adjusted life. from bergman island, we learned the extent of which fanny and alexander was inspired by his childhood and truth about the dreamlike visual imagery of cries and whispers. in many ways, this was the first interview he gave as normal guy rather than a filmmaking discussing his films.

he made up a lot of what he said in interviews to make his stories sound more complicated than what they were. in the 70s, he claimed the 4 women in white in a red red room that began cries and whispers were 4 different versions of his mother. It was not. It was a vision he had and liked it. in fact, most of his films were ideas of his and given his international reputation, bergman received free reign on his films. he lamented this and was sorrowful about the lack of genuine criticism for his films. bergman never had a true critic he could trust and later in life, it bothered him greatly.

vilgot sjoman's INGMAR BERGMAN MAKES A MOVIE (featured on the bonus disc to Criterion's Faith trilogy) follow bergman through the entire production process of the silence. in the pre-production, sjoman follows bergman working out blocking, getting subtleties in the dialogue correct, and making ingrid thulin put on different costumes to get her character look right. for a bergman fan, this is the best way to watch him work. he looked focused and confident behind the camera and in the 70s he was at his creative peak. he yelled at the set people and appeared aloof in sjoman's interviews. he even stressed the importance of not listening, reading, or talking to critics. it was a fantastic comparison to the reserved old man on faro.

[on a side note, i didnt really care for the doc. i dont really care for sjoman's direction style and i didnt really like i am curious yellow (curious blue is on the q though).]

in his waning years, bergman the snooty filmmaker gave way to bergman, the man who made films. he was remarkable and self reflective and has a frankness about his past years that is unapologetic yet aware of his mistakes. throughout his life, it seemed bergman was happiest as a loner. in both interview sets, he makes the points of stressing the lonliness of life and predictably, god's silence, the theme of the silence, naturally. in bergman, he discusses the relaxation and joy of not talking to anyone for days on end.

The final and somewhat tangential exploration of bergman was a documentary on Sven Nykvist, Light Keeps Me Company. Nykvist was Bergman's director of photography/cinematographer for the bulk of his career and was key in creating the starkness of persona and the vivacity of fanny and alexander (at least the beginning. its stark again in the second half).

Like bergman, nykvist was a man prone to anger driven by vision and beauty. however, he was a man who valued family so much so that the death of his Ulla, put a dampener on his career. in the documentary, they say that he never fully recovered emotionally from her death. still, during those years, he managed to lens some spectacular looking films including crimes and misdemeanors, the unbearable lightness of being, and tarkovsky's amazing ofret (the sacrafice). they were good friends and one influenced the other though and while each of them were different people, they shared enough a similar eye toward film.

would there have been a bergman without a nykvist? probably, but his films wouldnt have looked so good.

through bergman's films, i learned that movies could be way more than entertainment. he taught me that a movie can transport you to a world of the inescapable beauty, intensity, sadness, and drama. i know there are some more adventures he and i are going to have together and im sure that when ive seen all his films, it will take me the rest of my life to find all the other hidden treasures of the amazing ingmar bergman.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

[rec] -- what a nice suprise!

im not a fan of the 'found footage' movie that was popularized by blair witch and blown up by cloverfield and quarantine. the latter of whcih was based on a spanish movie called [rec] which was released on DVD this week. directed by jaume balaguero (who did the attrociously written but well directed darkness).

i naturally expected nothing from a random foreign horror film but in the end, flesh eating zombies speaking in foreign languages lead to love. it was written in the bible and it still remains true to this day.

manuela velasco stars in the lead role and is adorable. she is profoundly cute and i dont even care that she was running scared for her life most of her time but the first 20 minutes when she wasnt covered in blood, she was totally hot.

there isnt really a lot of new stuff going on in this film but it was well done and a nice enjoyable/scary watch. and of course, there will be great zombie (the fast kind) gnawing on flesh awesomeness.

file under: why did i watch this?

its been a few days since my last blog and i wanted to post something. i am working on a retrospective piece of bergman for the 2 year anniversary of his death. i am going to discuss ingmar bergman makes a movie, bergman island, and sven nykvist: light keeps me company so basically, 3 docs related to his filmmaking. i am also working on a 'i am shilling for criterion piece' as part of my continuing quest to see the entire collection. also, im going to look at some recent early godard releases and pontificate away. BUT first,

The Happening. i watched it. i watched it a couple days ago. i started it at 1030 when i should have been sleeping but no, i stayed up and watched the fucking happening. from about 5 minutes in, i knew that not only would i dislike this movie but i would hate it. i felt embarassed for everyone involved: marky mark, mrs ben gibbard, and luigi from super mario bros: the movie (mark wahlberg, zoey deschanel, john leguizamo). no one had any convinction in their characters and seemed to have a paycheck on their mind which isnt a bad thing. the bad thing is virtually everything with this crappy crap of a film.

m night shamaylan, whats going on? you had me until lady at the water. i liked the village! you directorial style is pretty good and you created some tense moments in this but your villian was the wind!? a gust of wind!? WTF!!!!!!

yeah, the most tense moments of the film (supposedly) were the gusts of wind carrying a plant toxin that makes people want to kill themselves. um...yeah. this would have made an awesome farce a la lost skeleton of cadavra or the screaming forehead (yay larry blamaire!) but done absolutely straight, this film is total shite.

what else am i supposed to say? ooooh. the wind. spooky. the last time the wind was used as a character was in 1917 in the victor sjostrom/lillian gish film appropriately called the wind. but then again, it wasnt used to scare, it was used as a metaphorical device to trap mizz gish in her marriage. now THAT is a tangent. from m night to lillian gish all in a simple paragraph. that is the art of the blog right there peeps @mpathy on twitter for more silly goodness

Saturday, July 11, 2009

good film noir. so refreshing.

i love a good film noir. perhaps its because of the acting and the feel of the 40s (high pants fast talking etc). maybe its the sirens; gene tierney, ida lupino, or nina foch (yeah, she wasnt a star really but she is in the film in reviewing now)

MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS was recently shown on TCM as part of bob's picks; a collection of films specifically recommend by TCM legend and film historian robert osborne. before i go any further i want to talk about robert osborne and his delivery on his channel.

flow of movies on TCM

intro by osbourne

simple. effective.

if he REALLY loved the film, he will begin his outtro with a simple and succinct, 'great movie.' then he will say something sad and depressing about one of the stars, director, or the movie itself before carelessly segueing into the next movie theyre showing


judy holliday never got that big second chance that she was hoping for because she painfully died from breast cancer several years after the blastlisting...UP NEXT don knotts in the apple dumpling gang

come on bob, try to tie em together a little more. granted, he does occasionally pimp other similar films that TCM shows.

john wayne, john ford, and agnes moorehead all ended up dying from the cancer they developed as a result of shooting on this set...AND YOU CAN SEE all of their movies on TCM

back to review part.

right, my name is julia ross was directed by joseph h lewis, one of the more prominent film noir directors whose guncrazy is easily one of the greatest noirs ever made and one of the best films ever period. he was big on exploring psyche of his characters and does it well in movies like the big combo and the lady without a passport. not my name is julia ross though; that was just a simple and effective noir. girl gets suckered into being kidnapped by a creepy family and hijinks ensue. dame may whitty was in this! and she plays a villian!

this was about 65 minutes long and uses every minute of it effectively. not a second wasted! there are some great noir-ey twists and turns and whispers. all i can say is 'great movie.'

dame may whitty died soon after this film was made. we can only assume it was painful. UP NEXT on mise en meh, the cabbage patch kids movie.

kubrick: fuck yeah

in the last couple years when i went from casual film lover to obsessed cinephile, i decided to rewatch all of stanley kubrick's films. while he is not my personal favorite, i think he was probably the most technically proficient director of all time. not only was every one of his films a masterpiece but they were different from each other! its hard to believe that the same director who did spartacus did clockwork orange and dr. strangelove or barry lyndon. with each of his works, he explored different themes and shot his films to look entirely different. when he died, he had one last film up his sleeve, EYES WIDE SHUT.

i remember it got a really mixed reception when it was released and was generally seen as a disappointment critical and financially. eyes was not his best film but it was by no means a bad film. in fact, its an excellent film and very ahead of its time. while the themes of sexual frustration and unhappiness in marriage are by no means novel, kubrick put a new spin on it.

the orgy scene is definetely the stand out focal point of the film. it was shot almost in first person using long tracking shots. the music was the creepiest of creepy simple sparse piano accents and made the eroticism seem almost sterile! we are watching sex with naked hot beautiful models and somehow it wasnt sexy. it was ethereal, atmospheric and somehow off putting and scary.

so why was the film ignored at the time and why has its legacy sustained? perhaps its the kubrick name but i also think the film was an early sign of the age of want. today humanity wants everything right this second...all of the time. cruise and kidman want a wild sexual crazy life but they have the opportunity to do so they cant go through with it or get stopped. so their eyes were bigger than their libidos. much like the me generation, they want everything and when they get it, they are still somehow unimpressed.

maybe im grasping at straws but this how i read the film and whether im right or wrong, kubrick did have one masterpiece to give before he died. now if only speilberg didnt destroy AI or minority report.

sometimes i watch a lot of asian horror films

i get them all at once from netflix and have myself a grand old time with foreign horror. i dont know why i keep insisting on seeing them as i am always disappointed in the films. perhaps im trying to match the brilliance and terror of juon, ringu, tale of two sisters, or r-point but most of the time i end up sad and horny...for quality horror films. there are some gems (cello!) but most of the time, im pretty underwhelmed by the once mythic and now familiar creature known as asian horror. still, i keep renting and without the smooth supple belly of tartan asia extreme to keep me warm, i wander through the netflix lists hoping to find another infection (the movie...not the condition). i am going to go in order of least favorite to best of this round o crap.

note: from 2005 and not the waaaaaaaaaay superior 2007 version. the 2007 version is not a remake. in fact, each of them is based on a japanese urban legend. the most remarkable thing about the 2005 version is not the horror but not the steamy softcore sex. yes my film geek friends, this version of the film is a soft core porn. there are 6 soft core sex scenes shoved into the films 63 minute running time. there are no legitimate scary moments aside from the tongue in mouth close up action that the japanese love so much. netflix sold this as a pinku/horror but really its just silly no budget soft core

RED EYE (redu ai)

this sadly has nothing to do with the decent cillian murphy thriller from a few years ago. this has to do with a haunted red eye train. before you freak out, just remember that in other countries there are such things as red eye trains. go figure. anywho, this film might actually benefit from a remake. there was quite a bit of potential here but it was too bogged down in back story to keep consistent scares. that on the top of the sub par acting hampering the relative viewing enjoyment. the film is definitely terrifying in theory but the execution lacked. there was one very effective scene involving a small child wandering into fog that was superbly atmospheric. in fact, the lighting was also impressive but not too much to say other than that.

what we have is people freaking out and killing the ones they love in a brutal fashion. A+ for death scenes and an F for everything else. i like a little plot with my scares (but not too much. yeah, im hard to please)

yes i just reviewed a film called voices and now i am reviewing one called voice. they are different films with different plots. in fact, voices was in the afterdark horror fest collection from 2007 and this one was not.

anyway, voice the best of the lot and i only gave it 3 on netflix! the story involves a mysterious murder, an all girl high school and ghosts. of course there are characters with intertwining fates yadda yadda weve been there before. when it comes to asian all girl school scariness, the whispering corridors films grab me. also, much like red eye, there was too much backstory. granted, this is a movie that benefited from it but it was a bit confusing. i liked the general feel of the film and liked how there was a sympathetic ghost rather than a blood thirsty one. what really impresses me with asian horror is frequently the idea of the sad ghost. like sadako in the ring, the ghost is really just someone who wants to be heard and understood. when its done well, its results in a compelling story that is both tragic and scary. the ghost in the eye might be one of the more tragic characters in recent cinematic history. but unfortunately, in the case of voice, it was a bit heavy handed

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

hey look, its jean reno! and he's playing a french guy!

LE FEMME NIKITA has been languishing on my netflix instant watching q for about 8 months now and it kept getting passed over by "more in demand to me" films like honeydripper and the house bunny (review soon). after watching it today, i can only wonder why i waited so long. this flic was freakin' cool! way cooler than point of no return or the USA network series though peta wilson is way hotter than anne parillaud.

if you get beyond the 80s synth soundtrack, this is just as hip and relevant as any action movie released today. after all, isnt the cold blood killer genre a never ending source of cool looking shit? of course it is!

i liked the plot of it quite a bit. drug addled punk is arrested and pretended to be killed and then recruited a secret government killer. training montage NOT included though. sad. but other than that, a top notch actioner.

jean reno is in this as is a law with any interntional famous french film. he and his perennial bad ass self play 'the cleaner,' a character not unlike harvey keitel's the wolf in pulp fiction. also in this is instantly recognizable jeanne moreau. i go back and forth as to whether or not she is attractive. sometimes she is (les amants, the bride wore black, this). sometimes she isnt (virtually anything else especially time to leave ::shudder::)

im glad i finally got to see this and have something to compare the remakes to. i really would like besson to make more films. he is so over the top but it totally work for him. the fifth element was astoundingly bad and silly but it was still AWESOME!

next up on the long time on the instant watch q, bottleshock, night of the iguana, and eyes wide shut. misenmeh -- only the most relevant of film watching

the all-black cast: honeydripper (now) vs. carmen jones (then)

ive seen a lot of the classic hollywood 'ALL BLACK CAST' films. there was of course hallelujah! by king vidor, island in the sky by vincent minelli, and a few early paul robeson films. they are not very good and astoundingly cringe worthy when looking back at them as normal films. they are of course horifficly rascist but in context, i guess it wasnt so bad. still, the idea of of big lipped black people shucking and jiving near a plate of plate fried chicken whilst speaking the worst of ebonics is enough to make even incredibly un-PC people like myself wince in pain.

im not a scholar on african african cinema. in fact, my knowledge of the genre is highly limited and is mostly based on the hollywood experience or the few films charles burnett ive seen. at the same time, i know that when hollywood was making the sensationalized black films, the black community was making their own films for their own community to watch. not many survived, but they deal with real issues and have acting that is real and not based on stereotypes or perceptions by the white directors.

in the two films i am going to review today, HONEYDRIPPER by John Sayles and CARMEN JONES by Otto Preminger, both directors are white. Sayles has been doing films with afro-centric themes his entire career. passion fish, matewan, lone star all had strong themes of race and race relations and just plain ole human relationships. Preminger was a vet of the studio system ever since he emigrated over from nazi germany and was mostly looked at the as the poor man's hitchcock. anatomy of a murder and bunny lake is missing can both be seen as hitchcock lite with the former being a bonafide classic. other than that, he dabbled with religious epics (exodus), historical pieces (st joan), character development pieces (bonjour tristesse), and most notably and successfully film noir (where the sidewalk ends, angel face, whirlpool).

which one made the better all-black film?

well...technically preminger since honeydripper starred stacey keach as a rascist sheriff and mary steenburgen as a clueless white lady (talk about playing to type!) but for all intents and purposes, it was a predominantly black cast. ok, the answer is honeydripper for realsies.

both films take place roughly in the same time period but have dramatically different ways of looking at the black race. preminger's take is the same sort of tired 'smiley black people' shtick we have seen so many times before that. sayles stars danny glover, charles dutton, and yaya decosta (america's top model?) and got some truly outstanding performances out of everyone. seriously, yaya? she was fantastic! where is her oscar? take it away from stupid jennifer hudson and her crappy overemotive acting self...but i digress.

what i will say for carmen jones is that the music and the songs were outstanding. of course, it was based on bizet's opera carmen. dorothy dandrige, one of the first great black leading ladies has an amazing voice and it is was full on display. in fact, all the voices in the film were outstanding, its a shame the film was a bit crap.

honeydripper wasnt an exceptional film by any means but had a great story and as mentioned above was very well acted. sayles' style of direction is expansive meaning that he doesnt rely too heavily on closeups which at times is a bit distracting and takes one out of the game. still, the overall cinematography makes up for it.

when it comes to sayles though, matewan and esp lonestar were masterpieces.

so, the main difference between them is the difference between black hollywood of then and now. then it was exaggerated and relied completely on outdated stereotypes and now, it is obviously more subtle and um...real.

i guess we can thank charles burnett. for those who have never seen killer of sheep to sleep with anger, i highly suggest a rental. while youre at it check out larry peece's exceptional one potato two potato or cassavette's shadows and of course, pretty much all of sidney poitier's back catalog.

Monday, July 6, 2009

i watched twilight...the vampire one tonight

i didnt need to see beverly hill chihuahua to know that it was the film equivalent of the devil incarnate. i made fun of it before, during, and after its release. ive never seen it. i never will see it but it will continue to be a punchline as it is pretty close to cinematic monkey tennis (thanks alan partridge).

with TWILIGHT, its different somehow. i made fun of it throughout its release and continued to ridicule it mercilessly whenever my coworkers were gushing over it. yet it wasnt satisfying and somehow i needed to know what the object of my taunts was all about. i needed to see, no-understand twilight. my friendly coworker meghan brought it in for me and after a week of the cover featuring pouty staring emo stars robert pattinson and kristen stewart staring at me, i decided to watch it.

i strapped in and allowed myself to get immersed in the emo wonder. as much as i would like to say that this was the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME, i cannot. it was bad but ive seen worse. there are numerous plotholes, awful lines, and bad acting but it wasnt completely awful. in fact, i was downright entertained for about 25 minutes and surprisingly enjoyed the performance of peter facinelli who i normally hate with a kind of passion i reserve for hitler, p!nk, or anything with sandra bullock.

im not going to bother about the plot but i am going to talk about the things that stuck out with me the most as being nonsensical and stupid:

- bella's group of friends: they are introduced really quickly, not developed, and are completely unneeded. they do nothing to advance the plot and just waste time

- this shot: -- edward and bella playig piano together and it looks like a meatloaf video from the 80s. i winced

- the first hour which i will sum up as follows:
rpatz: ZOMG yer so hot i cant be near you
bella: i luv u immediatey
rpatz: im a vampire
bella: still luv u nomnomnom
rpatz: ::pouty stare::
bella: ::pouty stare::

- spider monkey. not gonna clarify this...if youve seen the movie, you know what im talking about

so what i did like?

THE ACTION! there was about 20 minutes of good ole vampire fighitn'
DR CULLEN! i thought he was a cool character

so, my main criticisms and things that pissed me off were with plot discontinuity and the its idiotic young stars. i actually thought the story was alright and i now plan on reading the book (after the kite runner, wolf at the table by augusten burroughs, persepolis, and a random book on silent russian cinema.)

on my twitter, ive had a nice consectutive streak of making fun of @rpatz. he is a dick. he is constantly complaining about his fans, stardom, appeal, and profile. ::boo hoo:: the world weeps for rpatz. stupid up cedric diggory and kristen stewart, who has turned into an absolutely wooden and horrible actor. what happened!? she owned one of my favorite moments in panic room

Meg: [on loud speaker] Get out of my house!
Sarah: Say Fuck!
Meg: [on loud speaker] FUCK!
Sarah: Mom! "Get the fuck out of my house"!
Meg: [on loud speaker] Get the FUCK out of my house!

thanks imdb!

there was chemistry between rpatz and kristew but it was nerdy and teenage but wasnt that the point?

im not the target audience for twilight. cinemaphiles who enjoy czech surrealist film and sigur ros arent the chosen demo for anything related to twilight. since i wasnt completely disgusted, i can understand the ardent fervor over the film and the culture. if i was a teenage girl maybe i would be into it. maybe if i was a girl, id be into it but for that matter, if i was a girl id also have breasts and never leave the house as a result. boobiez rokz.

its a good thing this blog is stream of conciousness because i cant consider erasing that statement. sOc bitches

this is actually an incredibly favorable review of twilight because i got about 15 minutes into high school musical 2 before i had to tap out. that was just way too out of my world ::shudder::the happiness. at least the faux morbidity and emo goth-ness of twilight harkened to my high school days.

anyway, twilight is of course not my vampire watching of choice. i am currently watching true blood (amazing!) and let the the right one in was one of my favorite movies of last year. those are more my demo.

ok, time to tweet about @rpatz!

Sunday, July 5, 2009

movies i saw over the weekend round up

sometimes, i see a movie and dont really react too much either way. the purpose of this blog isnt to review movies but to use a film as a springboard to talk abou things. its secondary purpose is a reminder to chart what movies ive seen and what i thought of them. i will return to the first tomorrow when i discuss twilight but for now, im just gonna quickly sum up my weekend watching

ive always liked bob hoskins and have always found helen mirren ridiculously hot and any opportunity to see both of them is a treat. this is hoskin's breakout role and he doesnt look exceptionally young. he, like spencer tracy and walter matthau, was born old looking and proceeded not to really age that much. anyway, good british gangster film with an especially performance from its leads

another helen mirren film though nigel hawthorne is what made this exceptionally interesting play on film work. i particularly watching the film from a historical perspective. my wife is a big fan of reading books involving things that happened in the past so she was impressed at its historical accuracy. hawthorne was fantastic and deserved his oscar nod but this did not need to included on the new york times top 1000 (ditto long goodbye as reviewed above)

you ever rent or DVR a movie and then slowly realize youve seen the movie before? yup. i totally saw this joseph cotton film noir. luckily, i enjoyed it quite a bit the first time i saw and was happy to watch it again. i forgot who costarred but he was exceptionally creepy. just click on the link and it was the guy who WASNT the great joseph cotton. like many b film noirs, the ending is cut wicked short so you have denoume, resolution, and conclusion is about 3 minutes.

another british film! i havent seen any ken russell but i heard he's pretty good. ive been meaning to see the devils (my fave hockey team, natch. NJ rokz) but havent been able to get a good torrent of it and since it will get released on DVD, its my only means. anywho, a bit dull but not a bad movie. well shot and well acted, the highlight of it is a hot full on nude wrestling match between alan bates and oliver reed. homoerotic to the max! also, i believe glenda jackson is a memeber of hte british government and she is naked too. so for everyone who wanted to see a member of the government (i.e. no one), this one is for you

this one i will talk about a little more and actually deserves an entry all on its own. i take that back, judy holliday deserves a blog entry on her own (illl rewatch adams rib and post it). this was a very interesting film that was told in flashback. it begins with a couple going through divorce proceedings (as played by holliday and hot new star aldo ray) telling their stories of misery to the counselor but through the flashback you can see that the experiences werent that miserable and they inside love each other very much. the juxtaposition of the angry current voiceovers and the visuals of the events as they happened told a very interesting story of a marriage. i actually think this one almost belongs on the new york times best of list (which it is included on but ill give them this one)

i do want to say a bit about judy holliday who i believe was one of the golden age of hollywood's saddest stories. she rocketed to fame in adam's rib and later won an oscar for born yesterday, an excellent film that she made after the marrying kind. she didnt make a lot of movies but the ones she was in were memorable. she perfected the blonde bimbo and i think was genuinely more talented than marilyn monroe. she had a sadness and charisma that monroe never managed to get. holliday was pretty and played dumb but she always made the viewer think that she was capable of more and always illicited sympathy.

anyway, after she born yesterday and a couple other films she was on a list of actors and questioned by the anti-american hearings at the government (mccarthyism). while she was not blacklisted from movies she was blacklisted from radio and TV which tainted her career for a while and just as she was getting back to her previous stardom she died from breast cancer several weeks before she was to turn 43.

holliday was a gifted oscar and tony award winning actresses whose career was unfairly cut short. in her major years from 1949-1960 she was nominated for either an oscar or golden globe for virtually all of her roles (only 10). i would love see a biopic made about her but im not sure the motivation is there.

ok, thats it for now. ill post my review and thoughts on twilight tomorrow

Saturday, July 4, 2009

the american sci fi mind fuck: history and future

MOON stars Sam Rockwell and was directed by Duncan Jones. The film is about an astronaut (rockwell) alone on the moon harvesting helium to curb the energy shortage on earth. he is assisted by a computer named gertie (voiced by kevin spacey). at the end of the three years on the moon base something strange happens. that is all i am going to say plotwise (which is actually more than i actually talk about in terms of plot). the movie is exquisitely done. jones did a fantastic job with a sparse and sterile set and a moon surface that evocatively expresses lonliness and isolation. the score was also magnificent and perfectly suited the film. sam rockwell continues to prove how absolutely underrated he is as an actor though the upcoming g-force probably puts a dent in that statement (g force is about guinea pigs that are pilots)

number of poo jokes in moon: 1
number of poo jokes in trailer for g-force: 90298340298340928340298325

when i was coming out of the theatre wanting to talk about it i was left with a hearty amount of wonder and amazement at the events of the film that transpired. im not going to spoil anything but your mind will be fucked.

that got me thinking of other films that have given my brain a good rogering and a few come to mind: most david lynch (inland empire esp), noriko's dinner table (brilliant japanese film), solyaris (the tarkovsky one which i think inspired moon to a certain extent at least stylistically), primer and the man from earth. i am going to talk a bit about the latter two or at least the example of their mindfucking.

both primer and the man from earth are baffling films that deal with complex philosophical and scientific ideas. both films involve time travel, question of being, and the question of self. on the other hand, both are low budget independent and for the most part, not very well acted but that doesnt matter. the scripts for each of them leave the viewer guessing at the end or at least very confused.

moon, like the two films do not tie everything into a neat little package which is one of the major problems with most people's perception of film. sometimes, questions arent such a bad thing. ambiguous endings bring many to an rage like state of anger. i remember some friends of mine were really upset at the end of no country for old men or even in bruges. they watched the movie waiting for a payoff that never came.

ive always that a film was about the journey rather than the ending. im not upset when people spoil movies for me by telling me the ending because that is just one piece of the puzzle...its a major a piece that tells you what the topic is but its fun putting the rest together.

in the spirit of that, i bring you the SPOILERS to moon, the man from earth, primer, and transformers: revenge of the fallen. they are written below in white text; just scroll over them to read the twists

moon: he meets himself discovers he is a clone and that clones have been running the moon base for years
the man from earth: the man is immortal and is (might be) jesus christ
primer: there are about 10 or 15 different aaron or abes that all went back in time and subsequently cloned themselves

transformers: shia labeouf is a cunt

like how i did that? put the funny one sort of covered and away frm the other spoilers so you can still enjoy the humor? im pretty kick ass.

Friday, July 3, 2009

science and film: fin

this is the theme i started my blog writing about a mere two weeks ago (i watch a lot of movies eh?). while the film RED BEARD is not necessarily about science it is about medicine and the human sprint to understand disease and help people. isnt that what science is? discovery and the truth? yeah i know its a stretch but go with me on this one.

akira kurosawa is one of my favorite directors and red beard is one of my favorite films of his so it is fair to say that this is one of my favorite films of all time. when i saw it was airing on TCM i knew i had to DVR it and watch it again and it is still a masterpiece of unparalleled excellence in my mind.

this it the final kurosawa/mifune collaboration and from watching the film you can kind of see it. the role is understated and an almost-mellow mifune takes a backseat to the film's main character yuzo kayama, who plays the young arrogant doctor. apparently, the lengthy shoot angered mifune who couldnt shave off his beard and work on other films. though the tension works as mifune's character really needed to be a cranky cantakerous doctor with set ways and a tough exterior. basically, red beard was the original house or cox from scrubs.

the plot is fairly: young arrogant is taught what it means to be a real doctor but the way the plot unfolds over the 3 hours is exquisitely done. i think i prefer the first half of the film in which kayama's yatusomoto arrives and resists the ways of red beard. the character development is so well done and flies by. in fact, the entire film flies by and does not feel like a 3 hour film. it just goes to show you that length is relative and with the right subject matter, no movie is ever long

though vastly different from kurosawa's samurai epics, it still bears the mark of the great director. his tales of humanity like ikiru (my favorite of his films) or dodeskaden (also amazing) like red beard have a hope and humanity that is so rare. the plot is never heavy handed or even too intense. it is perfect blend of heart and soul. i should really buy this DVD

criterion docs part 1

a few weeks ago i watched for all mankind. this was the first criterion doc ive watched. there arent many but they all seem interesting so i put a bunch of em on my netflix q and started. the first one i watched on this new endeavor was hearts and minds, a scathing indictment of the vietnam war made in the mid 70s.

yeah, it was good but it was a bit too slanted to be taken seriously. that was at least the first thought i had on the film and i really thought about it; it was supposed to be slanted, right? so, one can make the argument that was one of the first films to present a subject and really point in one director. the vietnam war is pretty unanimously looked at as a mistake and a horrible waste of american lives. and since it was made in the mid 70s there was a startling immediance to its message.

so obviously this sort of film is what michael moore makes. he is a director i never really liked not because i disagree with his politics (i actually agree with a bunch of em) but in the way he interprets a documentary. he makes subversive films that are designed to sway his viewers towards his opinions rather than present an issue and let the viewers decide.

hearts and minds is better and makes a more realistic and even subtler argument against the vietnam war. this is what guerilla filmmaking should be. peter davis. not necessarily michael more.

a short blog entry about killing

thats a kieslowski reference bitches!

two films to discuss in this one. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and The Honeymoon Killers. i think the link between is obvious (serial killers natch) and of course IMHO neither of them were very good. in fact, they both sucked...pretty hard.

Henry is a tale of a couple white trash serial killers and their innocent and unknowing sister/lover and Honeymoon is about a fat chick and a swarthy italian swindling people out of money and occasionally killing them.

Henry is a prime example of the poorly acted early 90s low budget independent film genre and Honeymoon is a prime example the poorly acted early 70s low budget independent film genre. and both films were directed by people who didnt really have much of a career afterwards though honeymoon had the distinct honor or NOT being scorsese's first feature length film. he was fired after spending too much time filming master shots (shots of the whole scene which are usually shot before close ups). of what could have been.

the early 90s and early 70s both marked returns to independent cinema. with cassavettes in the 70s and soderbergh/hartley in the 9s0, there was definetely a solid movement back to simpler character driven films. unfortunately, these were not the best of the genre

Thursday, July 2, 2009

when you dont like a movie youre supposed to like...

youve had that situation before. you are watching a movie that for all intents and purposes you should love and now only are you not enjoying you are hating it. you feel bad for liking something that normally you would go crazy over but for some reason, its just no happening. i guess that this is the joy with free will; you are free to like a diverse set of movies.

im not talking about broad stuff like baby mama or kung fu panda that for the most part everyone liked. im talking about a personal favorite genre that you love and devour everything in existence. maybe you love quirky love stories that interweaves suicide, familial issues, and ghosts (wristcutters?) or dark indie dramas that interweave suicide, familial issues, and (metaphorical) ghosts (in the bedroom?).

for me, i love sparse scandanavian drama. lars von trier? HELL YEAH! bergman! of FUCKING course?! mikael hafstrom? darn TOOTIN

in my continuing quest to see every film in the criterion collection, i rented INSOMNIA. not the al pacino/robin williams film but the original scandanavian one with stellan skaarsgard who i always enjoy the presence of. i had waited a while to rent it because i hated the remake. at the time i credited this to the presence of sell out pacino and the increasingly irritating robin williams. he still owes me an apology for what dreams may come.

anyway, i didnt like the original either! why? it was noir-ish. dark. intruiging. expertly editing well written directed. well acted. so...what was the problem?

i dont know.

but that is the mystery of cinema...why we can catch movies that are essentially identical and love one; hate the other. perhaps if there is a japanese samurai remake of it ill give it a shot

i also didnt like heat. dont know why. didnt care for it.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

this movie fucking rules!!!!!

that is the best way to describe the machine girl

will it win any oscars? no.
will it changes any lives? no.
is it 90 minutes of grindhouse gore, blood, and violence? a resounding yes.

undoubtedly inspired by tarantino who inspired by japanese pinku films and hong kong actioners, this is a full circle example of cinema hybrid cross polination.


::there are lots of limbs being hacked off and blood unrealistically spurting all over the place::


this might be one of the ridiculous films ive seen but i was thoroughly entertained. and for those who have asked me if i ever check my brain at the door for any films, i say yes--this one.

david lean is a boring director

there. i said it.

he has made some masterpieces: lawrence of arabia, in which we serve, brief encounter, great expectations, and bridge on the river kwai are the ones that come to mind. on the other hand, he has also made some good but boring films including the one i watched last night summertime with katherine hepburn in a role that is virtually identical to her character in the african queen; a gutsy independent, idontneedaman kinda-thing. it was watchable and at times very enjoyable but there is something ultimately unsatisfying about lean.

blithe spirit, hobson's choice, this happy breed, oliver twist are all good films and they are all very well done but they didnt really drag me in. it certainly werent the stories (noel coward and dickens are pretty worthy writers) or acting (guiness in olivier twist! laughton in hobson's!) so i reasoned it must be the direction.

i looked it up last night and he only directed 18 films and of those, ive seen about 12 of them and while only one of them was actually bad (we will get to that in a minute) the rest were merely good said in a non-chalant 'nothing to go crazy over' kinda way. aside from the 4 films i listed above, i wouldnt really recommend any of his other films nor would i tell people to steer clear.

that brings me to ryan's daughter, his biggest failure and an almost unwatchable self indulgent 3 hour plus "epic" without a center. though its nowhere near heavens gate, it tries to be grander than it is. maybe that is the legend of david lean; a director whose projects are grander than what he is capable of stylistically. of course, i subscribe pretty heavily to the cahier du cinema ideals of a director having a stamp visibly on all their films that make it their own (sorry william wyler and george cukor, your work is indistinguishable from each other)

more-a imamura

last night i watched the second film out of criterion's awesome new boxset, pigs pimps and battleships: the films of shohei imamura the insect woman and suprisingly, i didnt enjoy as much as i thought i would. that isnt to say it wasnt excellent film...whcih it it was.

the plot was fairly simple and linnear. a woman named tome is born into an adulterous relationship and despite her best efforts cannot rise herself out of the sexual and political dereliction she is born into. the opening shot of an insect painfully crawling up a hill is juxtaposed at the end as tome is climbing up a similar hill.

imamura is probably the enfant terrible of japanese film. his stuff was daring, socially relevant, and contraversial much like a godard or a resnais. what really dragged into the film wasnt the plot so much as the use of still frames with voice over narration and sparse music. he employed this tactic at key moments through the film which allow the viewer to enter it their own movements of the characters in between still shots.

apparently, this used to be on theyshootpicture's top 1000 which might have been a little overzealous but this is still definetely worth watching