Voting
Quality
Age
 
Voting
Quality
Age

Сomments





I've seen several films over the past couple days, but this entry will be devoted solely to quotes from Bubba Ho-Tep. Enjoy:

"Don't make me use my stuff on ya, baby!"

"Never, never fuck with the king!"

"Eat the dog dick of Anubis, you ass-wipe!"

"Now this top line translates into, 'Pharoah gobbles donkey goobers,' and the bottom line, 'Cleopatra does the nasty.' "

"I felt my pecker flutter once, like a pidgeon having a heart attack."

"About the size of a peanut-butter and banana sandwich, man"

"I'll be damned if I let some foreign, graffiti writin', soul suckin', son of a bitch in an oversized cowboy hat and boots take my friend's souls and shit 'em down the visitors toilet!"

"Lets get decadent."

"TCB, baby."

I can't resist, here's some Army of Darkness:

"Shop smart, shop S-mart!"

"Well hello Mr. Fancypants. Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things: Jack and shit... and Jack just left town."

"Groovy."

"Gimme some sugar, baby."

"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."

"Just me, baby.....just me"


"Let's swap murders..." What a brilliant concept, eh? The stranger on the train thought so too. Too bad he doesn't realize that he's the only one who thinks so! Strangers on a Train works so well due to Alfred Hitchcock, a wonderfully crafted script, Alfred Hitchcock, and Alfred Hitchcock. His signature style doesn't seem to be present, but you'll know he's standing behind the camera either way. The music is not Herrman's, which is one downside of the film, but works overall. The performances from the entire cast are flawless. The merry-go-round scene is really nerve-wrecking. This is a must-see Hitchcock filled with gripping thrills and twists and turns all over the place.
Watched one movie (I think) yesterday and four today. As you can see, I didn't have much to do.

Gena Rowlands stars as Marion, a fifty-year-old writer who begins to question her marriage, life, and decisions after over-hearing the confessions of a patient who frequents the psychiatrist who lives next door. Much like Wild Strawberries, the examinations are sought through dreams, flashbacks, old acquaintacnes, family, and strangers. Rowlands is great as Marion and Mia Farrow is mysterious and inticing as the troubled patient whose problems unearth Marion's. The supporting cast, including Ian Holm, Gene Hackman, Blythe Danner, and John Houseman (loved him in this) are all terrific. Woody Allen's writing and direction are suprising and refreshing. It's really hard to believe he wrote and directed this.
4.5 out of 5, also with potential to reach five

EDIT: I was just reading Ebert's review of Another Woman and he also contrasted Another Woman with Wild Strawberries. I feel smart. :D
Comments pending.
The Good Seed: Lunatic psychopath meets sweet, earnest tennis star on a train. Psycho intrusively strikes up very personal convo with tennis star and then shockingly talks about wanting to have his father in killed in exchange for killing tennis star's faithless (bitch ho) wife. Tennis star does not take psycho's ramblings seriously...and pays for it when psycho murders his wife and begins stalking him, as well as threatening to frame him.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet: The acting is top notch. Robert Walker makes a superb sociopath. He is truly maddeningly menacing. You just want to bitch-slap him throughout the whole movie. Farley Granger (a man so handsome he looks as if he belongs in an Ambercrombie and Fitch catalog) is very good as well. He's quite the sympathetic romantic hero.

Some nice, artful "Hitchcockian" touches in this movie:

The way Bruno, framed against the ginormous capital steps...a mere ant...still maintains a menacing presence.The way Guy's wife is shown being murdered in the reflection of her glasses.The way, during the tennis match, Guy spies Bruno staring at him. He's sitting in the crowd. Everyone's head is moving to and fro, following the ball. But Bruno stares straight ahead. Chilling.If there be thorns: Good as it was, the movie had flaws.

The scenes leading up the climax were, I felt, a bit too drawn out. Shoulda been tighter IMO. I suppose Hitchcock took his time because he was trying to create tension...and he may have at that. The tennis match is maddeningThe climax at the merry-go-round is somewhat troubling. Can merry-go-rounds really go that fast? And, really, they're a foot and half off the ground. Would anyone get hurt if he or she fell off? It's like my husband quipped, "Ooh. Wouldn't want to jump off the merry-go-round--I might get a brush burn!"Stop and smell the roses: This is a well-acted, solid thriller, with a little humor and pathos thrown in. I give it 8 roses out of 10 (which is, for all intents and purposes a dozen. Very little baby's breath and no carnations in this bouquet!)
I guess I'll share my thoughts on Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train.

I suppose you would classify this film as a thriller though there are very few moments when tension or suspense are really built. Through the first two acts this film is rather by-the-numbers with a few nice Hitchcock-ian touches. I really didn't get into this film until the big tennis match scene which was marvelously crafted. Everything including and after this scene is filled with the amount of tension that I've come to suspect from a Hitchcock thriller. It was definitely a great finale but not enough to completely make up for a rather lackluster first two-thirds.

***/****


Strangers on a Train joins my growing list of essential Hitchcock, a masterfully suspenseful film that is equally disturbing, scary, and hilarious. Treading over two of director Alfred Hitchcock's favorite themes of the thin duality of good and evil within people and the ability for guilt to be transfered from the guilty to the innocent wronged man who must make the moral decision as to how to act upon his feelings. Made in 1951 this film set off arguably Hitch's golden period of stylistic films that would consistently cover these same themes in numerous inventive ways to lay out the obessions and technical mastery that Hitchcock had over his medium.

What happens when somebody sets in action a plan involving a partner who never agrees to participate in his half of the deed? Two strangers on a train bump into each and soon one, Bruno Anthony, babbles on about his love of murder, especially conceiving the perfect one. Taking advantage of his new friend's, tennis pro Guy Haines, situation he conceives of murdering Guy's wife if in exchange Guy will murder his pestering father. Unknowing of just how deep this dark obsession goes Guy shrugs off these absurd plans until he later learns out his wife has indeed been murdered and he's the main suspect considering he's the one with motive.

Robert Walker is frightenly creepy as a man who conceives switching murders with a man who happens to be the right man at the wrong time. Using visual imagery to suggest the "criss-cross" that the two characters we're constantly reminded of the duality of human nature, here represented by our hero and psychotic villian. He's offset by Farley Granger's reserved tennis pro who wishes to get divorced to marry his senator's daughter girlfriend. He knows that if he tells the police they'd never believe his fantastical story, but he could never actually commit his murder to get the stalking Bruno off his back, or could he? Can transfered guilt drive an innocent man to become his counter self?

A number of greatly conceived stylistic flourishes are quite memorable. In order to prove his innocence Guy must finish his tennis match quickly to get back to the murder scene before the murder does, but thngs certainly don't always go as planned. The murder sequence is so stylish and the finale on the merry-go-round so chilling that it's impossible not to admire the skill of the direcor. Hitchcock's tongue-in-cheek and dark humor is perfectly represented in the lover's younger sister, played by Hitch's daughter.
Hitchcock
Much to discuss, as I certainly haven't updated in a while. Anyways, here it goes:

"Crimes and Misdemeanors," a film I saw about two weeks ago, shares the spot with "Manhattan" as Woody's best film. It's more than just a story about human morals and decisions (in the vain of Bergman, I suppose), but it is also a genuine religious allegory that works on so many levels. Allen is supported by the perfect cast--including Martin Landau in a performance he should have won an Oscar for (although he did end up winning one in 1994 for "Ed Wood"), Alan Alda, Anjelica Huston, Mia Farrow, Sam Waterson (as a blind Rabbi) and the late Jerry Orbach. This is a masterwork in every sense of the word.

Another Woody film I saw recently is "Manhattan Murder Mystery," a light mystery-comedy starring Diane Keaton, Alda, Huston and the Woodster. It's not exactly an important movie, but it's entertaining and relaxed. There are great performances, though, and there's even a brief scene featuring a young Zach Braff as a preppy college student.

"Strangers on a Train" is considered one of Hitch's "little" masterpieces--not as well known as "Rear Window" or as complex as "Vertigo." It's very good, but I can't say that it had a profound affect on me. The various subtexts to the film (perversity, homosexuality, sociopaths) are interesting enough, but the film just doesn't feel tight. Granted, it's still quite good.

"Millions" is quite a stretch for the usually adult-oriented director Danny Boyle--it's a sentimental tale of two young lads who come across a great deal of cash purely by chance. The film is visually stunning and beautifully shot, but the real greatness comes from the film's two young leads. I can say, without a doubt, that "Millions" features the best child acting I have ever seen. The film deals with the morals and ethics of the two very different boys (the older is manipulative and greedy, the younger is spiritually receptive and idealistic), but somehow gets to strange in its third act. Overall, a very well done film and certainly the best of 2005 so far.

And finally, "The Incredibles," a film I never really got around to seeing in theatres last year, was the most fun I've had watching a movie in quite some time. There are enough raves about the film to supply some information, so I won't even start. I'll just say that Mr. Brad Bird has created an instant classic in this very deserving Oscar winner. A new personal favorite.

"Crimes": A, "Murder": B+, "Train": B, "Millions": A-, "Incredibles": A
This was my second time seeing this movie, and with that second viewing, it has become one of my more favorite Hitchcock movies. It is a story that deals with weakness crisscrossing (the actual word mentioned and eluded to numerous times) with evil and how that affects pretty much every character in this movie.

Robert Walker's portrayal of Bruno has to be the aspect of the film most worthy of mention. He is just plain creepy and unstable to the point of not knowing what he will do next. It's a genuine performance and one that actually crawls under the skin of the audience and remains throughout the film. One wonders when looking back on the film whether Bruno's run-in with Guy on the train is accidental at all. I believe it isn't.

There are some great sequences and shots within the film that may be overlooked. For instance, the opening sequence is very noteworthy, and I definitely overlooked it the first time I saw it. We see two men, no -- two pairs of shoes -- get out of their respective cars and walk into a train station and towards a train. The way in which it is filmed, the audience knows that these two pairs of feet belong to men that are, well, destined to meet one another. As they both sit down, Guy's foot knocks Bruno's as the camera finally raises from underneath the table: the audience meets both characters simultaneously as the characters meet one another. Brilliant.

Another great, and spooky, shot occurs during the murder scene. Bruno starts to strangle Guy's wife and as he does so, her eyeglasses fall off of her face. We are then shown the rest of the murder through her fallen eyeglasses in a distorted image. It is a very memorable and interesting shot within the movie.

Hitchcock handles this movie perfectly and keeps the pace and suspense at a constant throughout. This is definitely one of Hitchcock's stronger films and would be considered truly "Hitchcockian" in every respect. This is a movie that I would definitely recommend to moviegoers and Hitchcock fans alike and I would be very surprised to meet someone that didn't thoroughly enjoy this movie.