Mr Pants Reviews

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

History will vindicate

[10/10 · 15 September 2004]

there has been a glut of zombie movies lately, so when this turned up I honestly didn't have high expectations. I've never seen "Spaced" so I'm not familiar with the actors/writers. So the movie was an incredible surprise for me. Incredibly enjoyable, with wit bubbling up in the places you'd least expect it.

One can describe this as a parody of both zombie and "british slacker" films, but i don't really view SOTD as a spoof seeing as how both genres are known for their self-satire. the genius is its bringing together the slacker and zombie models in one movie. it's incredibly funny but oddly poignant too, much like (the first) Dawn of the Dead.

Barton Fink (1991)

Throw it hard

[12 March 2003]

Forget what other idiots have said about this movie, this is one of the most economical and perfect films. if it seems overlong and boring to you, then you are most certainly a slackjaw awaiting the return of Steven Seagal to the silver screen. This movie is for anybody who has ever had the desire to create art and also had the presupposition that they had anything worth saying. This movie brilliantly not only answers the questions of how artist create, but also how fascist regimes get started, how the Holocaust happened, why we are not particularly wiser about it even now. If you are not bothered by this film, you are never going to have any effect on the planet. You may observe, but you are not inculpable.

Whiteboyz (1999)

Slick Rick in an Art Film??

[26 November 2002]

i can understand why the makers of this film would want to exaggerate the situation, but i didn't think it need to be set in Iowa. as previous users have mentioned, Iowa is not drug- and black-free, but its image is of wholesome, all-white nostalgia. i didn't really buy Danny Hoch's Flip as an Iowa native, he still sounds too Brooklyn. i think it would have been better if it taken place in Jersey, but i understand the director's desire to show just how far Flip stretches.

That said, i think it's a brilliant, if flawed, movie. it spends a bit too much time watching Flip do his misguided thing, before getting to the climax in Cabrini-Green. Hoch is great at affecting that 'what the hell is going on?' look, and tho this may sound weird, he doesn't overplay the character, except when he's in full blown hip hop mode. other than that his character is completely believable. he nails that character so well, the guy we've all known who has some idea in his head so large he can't hear anything else. Until he takes it too far.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Brain-Dead Love

[16 October 2002]

instead of this turning out to be a (good) PT Anderson movie that just so happens to star Adam Sandler, it's actually an 'Adam Sandler' movie that it just so happens was directed by PT Anderson. And it's not funny. there once was a time when i thought PT Anderson was the only young director around who had the potential to create a complex world similar to what Kubrick and especially Altman. But it is revealed in this movie more than ever before that while he has absorbed the lessons of Altman, he doesn't actually understand any of it. He's content to throw things at the screen and hope something sticks. People who enjoy this movie are suffering from 'stone soup' disorder: they see in it whatever they want to see. They think Sandler's performance is deep, that there is romance in this film, that the items that take up screen time and space are meaningful and useful. In reality, the film is a mishmash, an arthouse movie for people who never understood what the arthouse was for in the first place. there may be a film to be made about two ciphers who get together out of mutual desperation, but this ain't it.

Blue in the Face (1995)

Linden Boulevard, Represent, Represent!

[10/10 · 11 September 2002]

This is a great little set piece to celebrate the diversity and chaos that is, among many other things, my home. Brooklyn is the main character of this story and despite the film's limited scope (set mostly around a tobacco store near Windsor Terrace), it manages to really get at that feeling that makes Brooklyn the only place I wanna live. All the people here, whether they're bored by Brooklyn or fascinated by it, are connected by the genuinely weird way we manage to live together, despite our very prominent differences.

South (1919)

Getting marooned all in the name of British Valour

[8 January 2002]

A truly amazing film, and at least one good thing to come as a result of British self-importance. Film was still in its early years; leave it to the Brits to capitalize on it to record their abortive undertaking at the south pole. Still it is an admirable effort, and the photography is often startling, especially since the Milestone release. Thanks to the previous commentor for the bibliography, as I too had to wonder what became of the sled dogs, who seemed at least as dedicated as their human counterparts.

Ghost World (2001)

I want more dread for my $10

[27 July 2001]

I know I shouldn't get caught up in the whole 'book vs. film' ting, but I was sorta disappointed, in that the vision of the original comic is more or less abandoned here. It doesn't seem much like a 'ghost world' does it? except for poor Norman. In the comic, the whole tale has a pall over it, a feeling of disassociative dread. most characters walk around with that Clowesian blank stare. Even Al the waiter is to involved in this film!

Now, this could mean a couple of things. The director could have been attempting to show that this 'ghost world' is yes, just our everday life, etc., instead of showing things more from Enid and Becky's POV. They look upon the things we all accept and see it like Roddy Piper saw the aliens in "They Live". I wish the movie had more of that feeling. I felt like it couldn't decide how it wanted to proceed.

That said, I think Scarlett Johannson's performance is spot-on, whereas Thora Birch's doesn't seem quite right. Maybe it's the comic again, but Birch's Enid is not angry enough, not explosive enough, and darn it all, she's just a little too cute for the part. There's a line in both comic and film where Enid says something about how the guys always go for Becky and not her. In the comic, maybe so. But in the movie, come on!

Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001)

The musical is not dead after all

[10/10 · 23 July 2001]

This film (and its stage predecessor) do what few musicals have been able to accomplish: make itself hip without being smarmy or oversentimental. When you think about people you know who openly express their love of 'musical theatre', these are usually not your hippest friends. Most musicals come from the same well that brought us Rosie O'Donnel's brand of entertainment (it is not wholly ironic that Ms. O'Donnel makes an appearance in the film). Most recently, Baz Luhrmann brought us "Moulin Rouge" which tries so hard to be a hip musical it decides to distance itself from its own musical aspects. The inclusion of pop songs in 1900 french backdrop comes off as an attempt to capture the earnestness of musicals with none of the responsibility that should be attendant. The effect is not so much hipness as it is questions to whole notion of why Luhrmann bothered to make a musical at all, if he could not commit to its basic aspects.

Enter this version of "Hedwig", and the hollowness of "Moulin Rouge" becomes apparent. In this film, we have great songs with smart lyrics that unfold the narrative on several levels at once. They act as exposition, foreshadowing, transitions between segments, exclamation, etc. And they, of course, rock. Compare this to the fleeting novelty of having Ewan Macgregor in period costume sing Elton John's "Your Song" to Nicole Kidman. Sure it was cute for a minute, but who could be so cynical as to assume an audience would put up with that for an entire film? Well, maybe they did put up with it, but they shouldn't have.

I only hope more people see "Hedwig" to see what a movie musical can be. My only fear is that John Cameron Mitchell and Steven Trask won't continue to produce at this level for stage and screen.

Do the Right Thing (1989)

The Inkblot of the Class-System

[11 June 2001]

It's truly amazing to see the way people react to this film. It's like an accident scene, and when giving their account to the cops, each witness sees something different. Everybody has an opinion on what the movie means, what the characters represented. But you're all wrong.

But even I'm not right about it. And that's the point. Your reaction to this movie reveals more about you than it does the film. For instance, the people who describe Radio Raheem as a "thug" and "full of rage", where do you get that? Cuz I don't see that at all, I see a big kid with a big box listening to a song he likes. I don't agree with all his actions or especially his logic, but it seems to not be able to see his humanity is a sign that a viewer is already defensive. But that's just me.

Others have theories based on the way the shots are composed. While there are established techniques like they describe, they seem to be unable to see past the conventions and into the way Spike is messing with the form, messing with our ideas of 'good' and 'bad'. Again, just my reaction.

Some others seem to think that Spike is being one-sided and saying that sometimes 'doing the right thing' means throwing a garbage can through a window and burning down somebody's business. somehow i got the impression that this was NOT the right thing to do, that the irony of the title is that even those of us who consciously try to be morally pure have a lotta trouble doing it in complex real life.

Popeye (1980)

Hoopla!

[7 March 2001]

everybody can probably agree that what gives this movie it uneasy tone is the fact that Altman was never a comedic director. his instincts for film are beyond reproach but here it's not enough to have the characters and sets dressed up to comic surreality. the camera has got to be there, too, and it just isn't in many places. we watch the slapstick proceedings like we are watching the singer's breakdown from "Nashville". The result is a sort of disconcerting experience, to be sure, but not without its merits. Its tone reminds me a lot of "Neighbors", both films shot by directors with little comedy experience. imagine what audiences must have been thinking when both these films came out in the early 80s: "whoa, i just don't get this new brand of humor!" But despite (or possibly because of) the oddity of this film, I have always enjoyed it. Popeye's constant asides (inspired from the poorly animated early cartoons), and the incredibly detailed cast of characters work for me; i only wish they'd fleshed out more of the lesser figures. when the credits roll every character is named, but i doubt half of them get speaking lines in the movie.

Deliverance (1972)

The scene you think is disturbing is not the disturbing scene

[11 January 2001]

What people seem to be expecting in "Deliverance" is an exploitation film about Appalachians. They wanted a Roger Corman treatment of "rednecks" and "mountain men" and didn't get it. Even though it's been accused of such, this is no exploitation of the Mountain Man myth. It uses it, but does not believe in it.

It's the 4 businessmen who take the trip who participate in the proliferation of this stereotype. From a karmic standpoint, they bring it on themselves. Their attackers are 'bad', of course, but not representative of all people who live in rural poverty. In the end, the attack plays a very small part in what the movie is really about. It's about whether these 4 guys can hack it if they were removed from the confines of civilization. The conclusion is, no sir, they sure can't.

The banjo player seems to be foreshadowing not so much their imminent danger but rather the beauty and skill at work in this simple (even downright ugly) setting. Drew sort of gets it, but the other guys view the banjo player as a freak, worthy of their attention only because of his deformity and playing ability. If they had acknowledged the sheer humanity of the people they meet at the beginning, they might have known how to handle themselves later on. What's at stake in this film is always subtle, just below the surface. It's not a movie about rednecks screwin' city slickers. If you think it is, you will think this movie is pointless and stupid, and to quote the guy with the hat, "You don't know what you're talkin about."

Deconstructing Harry (1997)

If I tell you why I did it, do you promise not to nooj me?

[10/10 · 10 January 2001]

Woody Allen flips the Bird to all his self-described fans. He's been wanting to do this a long time. At least since "Stardust Memories," he's been directly dealing with the fact that he fears and often dislikes his own audience for their power to pigeonhole him. In SM, we got to see the audience depicted as bloated, bizarre, self-congratulatory goofballs, constantly asking for more "funny ones". In "Deconstructing Harry" Allen lambasts his core audience at every turn with his pre-emptive self-attacks. Is the film autobiographical? I'd say about as much as any heartfelt film is for its director. Was "Apocalypse Now" autobiographical for Coppolla? Damn straight!

I see a film like this as a challenge, something not for no-brainer consumption. If you were offended by this film, you should be. It's offensive and pretty thorough at it too. But it's also catharsis for Allen, who has lived much of his life half on and half off the screen. If you can bear to watch, it's amazing. If not, he'll tell ya he never wanted ya in the first place. A testament to the level of creativity that can be born from sheer defensivenes. I doubt he'll make another movie as vital.

I'm reminded of a line from "Barton Fink," voiced by WP Mayheu: "Breach my levee at your peril!"

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

The Fracturing of the American Consciousness

[10 January 2001]

I've only seen the 'long' version of this movie, and I barely get it. I can't imagine what sort of mess the 'short' version is. This movie is almost impossible to talk about. It has a bizarre atmosphere and doesn't make its points in anything resembling 'normal' movie logic. This is of course to its credit, as its effect is mind-boggling but also strangely moving.

This tale of Jewish gangsters growing up together in the Lower East Side is structured and paced in such a way that the viewer is almost constantly caught off guard. Even in the familiarity of the gangster motif, the nostalgic renderings of the early days of the gang, the film is light years from a movie like "The Godfather" which is very straightforward and decidedly concillitory. This film seems to be be illustrating a world that is without philosophy.

That, or its philosophy is rooted in a perversion of the American Dream. These guys have it all, they built themselves up through their own ingenuity to become successful, but their methods are ostensibly opposed to the accepted American Way. After nearly 4 hours, I still don't really know what to make of any of the characters, but that in itself seems to be the film's center of fascination, for me anyway.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

One film in him

[9/10 · 10 January 2001]

Herk Harvey made only one feature film, the rest were industrial training films, which, though I have not seen, I assume are not particularly compelling. But I'm glad he only made one feature, that he didn't keep spinning out horrible movies one after another, diluting his talent.

The genius of this movie is in its details. The speeded-up footage during that phantom dance scenes, the vacant look of Mary, the clever editing. As far as I'm concerned, Harvey could have spent $30,000 on the shot of his ghostly face in Mary's car window alone. It's that striking, it's that good. I applaud Harvey for attaching his name to only this film, it only adds to its mysteriousness and resonance.

Why don't more directors approach film from this angle? If Ed Wood had made only one movie, I bet it'd be pretty good.

Duck Soup (1933)

Join the Army and See the Navy

[10/10 · 10 January 2001]

I just wanted to mention that part of what makes this film so great is its use of not only vaudevillian-type comedy, but it also makes use of film concepts to further the humor. While much of the humor is stuff that could be achieved as easily if the Marx Bros were live on a stage, some humor is dependent on how it was shot and edited. Take for example the brief joke late in the film, when Groucho mentions that they need more soldiers as most have been killed. He says people are out recruiting new enlistees this very moment. The shot cuts quick to a shot of Harpo from the back, as he carries a sandwich-board that reads "Join the Army and SEE the Navy". this joke wouldn't work without the film editing and it's something I don't see much in comedy films of this period. The Marx Bros liked to push the envelope, and the film makes great use of as many types of comedy as possible.

Tubby the Tuba (1975)

An inspiring piece of work

[9 January 2001]

I don't care who knows it: I love this movie. There, I've said it.

And since there is no plot summary here yet ... Tubby is indeed a tuba, who longs to find a melody he can play. But nobody writes music for tubas to play, they're only supposed to do that oom-pah thing. But Tubby, despite feeling he should maintain his life station of background instrument, cannot contain his desire to play leads.

The story unfolds with a lot of interesting characters, some of them other instruments, some "tunes" which seem to be something like orphaned sirens with musical noted-shaped heads. Yet it all makes sense when you watch it.

At any rate, it's a well-made cartoon. Kids will enjoy it and I think it has a lot to say on the subject of independence and finding the best way to live your life. Hey, Dick Van Dyke wouldn't attach his name to any old thing, right?

The House of Mirth (2000)

'There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow'

[9 January 2001]

I admit, I have a hard time enjoying these Victorian dramas, even this one, set in 20th Century New York City, seemed like a hard row at first. Based on a novel written in the early part of the century, such a film must fight the very likely possibility that the material will seem stale. The story is, of course, not a new one. But it is Wharton's characters that come through to make this tale unique. And Davies' skill as a director that ultimately makes it work.

Consider, people from this era were trained to never reveal themselves. Their joy and despair is always telegraphed as serene calm, lest it ruin their social standing. Davies use of close-ups help bring the audience to a closer proximity with the characters, especially Lily Bart. We can see her face, study it. It is not perfect, though we can tell it once was, just a few year prior, probably. When we see her face share the frame with Lawrence Selden's, we feel their proximity, realize how the social structure would drive insane anybody whose brain dared to think beyond it. And so it goes.

So although I felt some elements, especially at the close of the film were a bit cliched, I could truly see what was at stake, and could feel the tragic system at work. Even Selden's final scene, the soul of filmic cliche, has a cathartic element that makes it rise above being just another period drama.

The Brave Little Toaster (1987)

Ah, to be young and still have an imagination

[9 January 2001]

When I was a little kid, my imagination was a dynamo of activity. My young nieces are just starting to grow out of that stage, which is sort of sad to me. Because never again will their minds be able to dwell within and without the fantasy world. This film captures that sort of mindset wonderfully. Of *course* the appliances get up and walk around as soon as we turn our backs. That's why we can never find anything!

Seems like a lot of people who have posted here have made one of two mistakes:

1) They have forgotten that children's minds have not yet been clobbered into creative submission like adults', or

2) The adults didn't watch the movie before plunking their kids down in front of the TV and going back to regrouting the tub.

While this is a fantasy about appliances, it is also a film about loyalty, companionship, and even fear. There are several disturbing scenes but I think many kids will find it intriguing more than scary. And if they do find it frightening, then it's a good way to discuss the things that scare them.

This film is mostly for kids, but I think it has plenty of stuff to keep the adults awake, especially "Rabbit Ears", the black & white TV guy (look closely at some of the pictures he pulls out of the file cabinet). This film is infinitely better than other Disney films like "The Little Mermaid" and that sort of claptrap.

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

We used to have a word for this: 'Bitchin'

[9 January 2001]

This really is a movie for junior-high school boys, isn't it? it has broad stereotypical representations, ridiculously complex backstory, and only the very slightest understandings of interactions between men and women. This is not to say it's a *bad* movie ... it's a GREAT BAD MOVIE!

The portrayal of Chinese/Chinese-Americans here is tempered quite a bit by Kurt Russell's overblown John Wayne performance. It seems to tell us, "if you think this is what the Chinese are really like, well then, this is how *Americans* look in the same light." It also helps that the American is clueless and ultimately is mostly a tag-along who utters macho comments of dubious wit along the way.

Its treatment of love is no less broad, with Jack Burton and Gracie Law's inexplicable attraction, that seems to be built up only so it can't be dropped (in true macho style) at the end. If you're not too PC to see through all this, it is absolutely hilarious.

The Aurora Encounter (1986)

We're all going to Hell

[7/10 · 9 January 2001]

I can't find much information about this one. Whoa. This movie features a kid who has progeria, the degenerative aging disease. Even though his body was small and (conveniently) alien-like, Mickey Hays was about 14 when this was made. The only thing that spares this incredibly slipshod film from being total exploitation of this poor kid's illness (in using him as the alien who visits an anachronism-laden Old west town), is the fact that Hays really appears to be enjoying himself. Who knows? Maybe it was his idea to capitalize on his terminal disease and portray an alien (he actually more closely resembles Max Schreck's Nosferatu in miniature).

I won't say I didn't enjoy this film to some degree. I can't say that I didn't laugh out loud many times during the "alien encounter" scenes, which were horribly paced and would lead a person unfamiliar with the disease to wonder "What the hell is wrong with that alien?" I even enjoyed Spanky McFarland's cameo as the governor (though I admit we were pretty much fast-forwarding to more alien scenes at this point). It is fascinating both as inept filmmaking as well as exploitive yet harmless artifact. On certain, divergent levels, I enjoyed this film. But it made me feel guilty.

It's billed as a Family picture, but parents will be at a loss to explain the black-clad-bad-guy's actions at the end, or the discomforting pace of the whole film. And this may be a spoiler: the film ends on kind of a downer. The moral of the film is, humans are bad news. I can't help thinking this applies not only to the story but to the filmmakers as well.

Escape from New York (1981)

Where's Roger Corman when you need him?

[9 January 2001]

Playing up American's Reagan-era paranoia, this film hit the collective unconscious by singling out New York, which at the time was not the fun tourist attraction it is today. Combining the average American's view of prison life, New York City, and criminal behavior was a true stroke of genius on Carpenter's part. Maybe that's why this film is sort of disappointing.

In many ways, it refuses to exploit the Manhattan prison and its prisoners to its Corman-esque limits. Besides the Crazies (who never seem all that crazy to me), most of the inmates act quite rationally and, dare I say, believably. If Corman had a whack at this, Ernest Borgnine's happy-go-lucky cab driver would be rotating on a spit in the first 20 minutes. How can John Carpenter come up with such an exploitive concept, and then not follow through in its execution?

It's always a subject of debate whether Snake Plissken is to be taken seriously. I think he works either way, but I'm partial to the camp end of the spectrum. The real problem here is, it seems, Carpenter took *himself* a little too seriously and thus results in a film that seems to pull its punches from the get-go.

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

Unsentimentality makes it the perfect werewolf film

[10/10 · 9 January 2001]

The problem with many horror movies is they feel the need to invest a lot of time telling the audience how we're supposed to feel about the characters the killer, the location. As movies like "Scream" further drove home a point the rest of us already knew, we don't need the help!

What makes AAWIL so perfect is its absolute refusal to go smarmy, even for laughs. It takes an unsentimental, almost clinical view of the proceedings and the audience is left to fend for itself. It reminds me a lot of a film like Kubrick "The Shining," although that film was dealing with less tangible material than the age-old myth of the lycanthrope.

Case in point, the first transformation scene, in which David has been sitting around all night, wondering why he isn't hungry. Then, in a split second, he's suddenly in agony, tearing at his clothes and helplessly screaming. Sure the effects are good, but i find this tonal attitude more integral to why this film works. The effects just help seal the deal.

Another commentator described this movie as "efficient" and I wholeheartedly agree. There is not a second wasted on languid exposition or unnecessary sympathy. We just watch what happens and the result is a film both wildly funny and genuinely creepy, something that not even Kubrick was able to achieve so effortlessly.

Detour (1945)

Ran out of cash and made the best cult film noir

[9 January 2001]

This story could be apocryphal, but in school I heard that the reason this film is only 67 minutes is that they ran out of money before they even finished principal photography. So it was edited until they could come up with a workable movie. This certainly explains the short running time, but I believe explains why this is such a great film. It is very concise. It is highly pessimistic/fatalistic. I don't know enough to know if the film ends the way it was envisioned. Maybe the original script had a "happy" ending. Okay, probably not, but "Detour"'s lack of closure is part of what makes it great and probably wouldn't be if they had a little more money. I'm glad they didn't.

Brainstorm (1983)

So that's where Strange Days got the idea

[27 December 2000]

Anybody notice certain similarities 'twixt this film and the movie "Strange Days"? In that movie they have perfected a memory-recording device that can be played back on small tapes. Is "Brainstorm" so forgotten that nobody else has made the connection?

"Strange Days" was heralded for its originality, but some of us know better. People who are addicted to the tapes in "Strange Days" are called "tapeheads". I'd like to ask John Cusack and Tim Robbins if they think *that's* original.

Mr. Sardonicus (1961)

Where's the "thumbs-up" ending?

[27 December 2000]

**GIMMICK SPOILER**

As most people interested in Castle's films know, this movie's gimmick was the "Punishment Poll" which ostensibly allowed audiences to determine the fate of the lead character. They could hold a card in either the "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" position and the projectionist would play the appropriate ending after a quick count by the ushers. In William Castle's biography, he claims that, to his knowledge, no audience ever voted for the "happy" ending.

So now that I've finally seen this film, what I wanna know is, where IS this lost ending? The video doesn't include it, and truly, watching the setup for the Punishment Poll seems to reveal that Castle never actually filmed a second ending. When William Castle appears onscreen to lead the voting he declares a consensus of "no mercy," then asks the projectionist to show that ending. So there's no chance an audience could have won a vote for the happy ending.

Sort of a fixed gimmick, but in the original showings, I imagine few people would notice, considering the amount of chaos that engendering the audience to participate would create. Anyway, I bring this up mostly because, well... I WANTED Mr. Sardonicus to be spared! Is that so wrong? He seemed like a basically decent guy who just had a hard time forgiving himself. He did some nasty stuff, but come on! Who among us hasn't dabbled in a bit o' the old leeching?