The Wrestler (2008)

3/18/09- Before I say what I had to say below (which I happened to have written a month ago) let me just go on the record in saying that this review is about as experimental as they come (in my world of reviews at least). It wasn't easy comparing a movie to a embrace between two people on common ground (a hug if you will) and to be quite honest with you-- I am not too happy with the review, but I am going to post it anyway. I just don't think I got the message across and I tried to be more "different" or "revolutionary" with my review techniques than reviews the film itself (it is in there somewhere I am sure of it) and I don't think I will try to complicate things like this ever again, but I can say I did have fun doing it and I feel that it is a pretty valid opinion, so read on.


Before I say anything allow me to say this; I liked this movie, I really did. I laughed and cheered and I suppose I felt a little emotional when I was directed to, but this movie, in no way, was mind blowing. Allow me to digress...

Having just finished watching this movie only a few hours ago, I am still in a state of confusion as to why this was such a big film (besides what the media blew it up to be). Sure it was the "come back" of Mickey Rourke and sure Darren Aronofsky did a really good job showing the harsh realities of drugs in Requiem for a Dream, but this movie can be summed up to the equivalence of a "hug" in the world of cinema. Allow me to further digress...

Take into consideration a situation in which you are going to see someone you haven't seen in a long time, you make it to their nice quaint looking flat on the west side of town, you walk up their "3-step stone patio complete with a hand rail" out front and knock on the door. Alright, the initial shock and anxiety everyone feels is over, you hear footsteps approach the solid oak door and you hear the door knob turn and you come face to face with your dear friends from years ago. They allow you to walk in, handshakes of mandatory nature take place, and then your dear friends fiance (who politely waited for the dust to settle) comes and hugs you. Okay, now that I have that whole situation set up, time to show you how this film is just like that, but a little less endearing.

The beginning of the film starts off good enough, much like a hug. There is that initial embrace that brings the two of you (person, film, whatever) together. You are locked in, committed to ride this ride out, and this isn't like hugging your sweaty uncle or anything, this is someone you haven't seen in a long time and neither of you sweat ungodly amounts. The embrace this movie displays is that of "he is human, not some immortal", he looks and sounds old, he is obviously not in the kind of wrestling he used to be in (or maybe he is....it is Jersey after all) and you get to empathize with him. Much like the hug displays that no one is above anyone, you both are just alike, even if it is for a moment.

Step one in the "The Wrestler is a hug" explanation- the initial embrace and showing that both parties are human and all is well.

Alright, so the hug has been committed to, no one smells bad and there is no uncomfortable feelings between anyone, so here come the fluctuations of tight squeezes and back rubbing (in little circles) and there might be a few moments of some teary eyes. To compare this to the film, the scenes of wrestling (and everything that comes before and after) are the best part of the film.
The embrace is still going on strong and now it is time to show how good friends you really are, this isn't hugging some complete stranger mind you. These scenes of wrestling and supermarkets fall in tandem with the scenes at the strip club (Cheeks or something dirty sounding name like that) the "being human and taking account for all of the problems that come with this fact" are still there, and it doesn't feel over done or out of place, everyone loves and respects someone, even if it is strippers and wrestlers.
There is little small talk while the squeezing takes place, y'know, "How are you doing?" and "How is the family?" so on, these questions (in the film) are about family. I know that this is suppose to show just how human these people are, but it just feels out of place and kind of expected and just not done good enough. The cardboard cut out known as Evan Rachel Wood is what I am talking about here people (this woman was horrible).

A shitty family life is automatic tears in some peoples eyes, but this is too much of an obvious step and it isn't even done well.

Spurts of excitement and the random questioning takes place for a moment, there to show a common bond between the two and just because it is common to ask these questions and nothing should be thought of it, much like in the film.

Step two- A few squeezes and back throughout, accompanied by random questions in the ear, some of which might be either answered perfectly or half-assed. There might be some teary eyes. Continue hugging.


Okay, so the hug is still sorta going on, much like this movie is. The embrace felt at the beginning is starting to sputter out and the back rubbing is gone and more of the questions. This is the downfall of the hug, much like our Wrestler here- Randy "The Ram" Robinson ( Robin Ramzinski to those who know, probably only his parents and landlord)- and the realization of the world around him. Let us say that you aren't as well off as your dear friends and these factors come center stage during this point. I am not saying everyone is a washed up wrestler or even an aging stripper, but everyone knows someone better than them.
These moments fluctuate much like the good feeling of the squeezing and rubbing of the second step of a hug. No one likes saying they are unemployed, their family life isn't necessarily the Brady Bunch and that girl you liked and you thought you had a thing for? Gone in a flash. These things will keep getting brought up at this moment, and The Wrestler likes to lay the "person with problems" down thick. This man has nothing to live for but the ring and it takes a few kicks in the balls (the equivalent to awkward questions here people, my logic isn't that hard) for him to realize this, but you still manage to put up with it and play along.

Step three- More questions and more self-realization that your life sucks, a lot.

Did I mention Evan Rachel Wood sucks in this movie? She really does.

Alright, so now that one of two people are uncomfortable, you manage to fall into the world of "small talk", these questions has spawned into full explanations of "why this?" and "how so?", and they aren't really answered the way anyone wants them to be. You should have known this was going to come, you can't be down and out forever and expect no one to ask about it or bring it up constantly, and it does no one any good, but what you take from this is the strength to rise from all of this and stand tall and prove everyone wrong. The two of you go your seperate ways and you sit by yourself and contemplate your life a little bit.

Step four- Break off from it, talk a bit, feel like shit and go on about your business, forever thinking what exactly the other person really feels about you. Hug has ended.


The road to redemption is a long one, and this movie runs out of steam somewhere along the road and ends in a flop of ambiguous emptiness. I hated the ending (not the last scene, but the ending of the last scene) and I really felt it wasn't what anyone would have expected ( I had a far more elaborate ending in my head, but I didn't make the film....) and I feel that if there is one place to really grab the audience it would be this time ( I know what the director was intending, but he failed to capitalize on it or anything in the film really).

Maybe I don't like seeing Mickey lose, maybe I hate Evan Rachel Wood, maybe I like the fact that it pretty much explains that wrestling is all a show (it isn't fake people, it falls into the category of "a play with punches") but hate the fact that humanity had to rear it's ugly head in such a way that I feel it was too fake and too human. It gives off at times a feeling of being a documentary (something I would have liked a lot more) and it would have been a damn good one, but the fact that it is a drama takes away from it a bit (too much drama done in a obvious and unconvincing way) and the fact that most of the dramatic elements were done in a shallow nature don't help it any.

This movie never makes it to redemption, it takes a jump off the top rope, and we are left to wonder if it makes the pin for the win or lands face first on the mat. I suppose this is the route that movie watchers like to take, but I personally am not too fond of an open ended conclusion. It is either one thing or another and to leave it up to the audience is putting too much faith in their ability to come to a justifiable end to it all.

Hēi Tài Yáng (Men Behind the Sun) (1988)

(Also known as Man Behind the Sun)

I was planning on making this review a question of the moral fabric that separates us from the wild animals in conjunction with the director's overall intentions behind making this film and how I actually see it.

Seeing this as the wrong way to go and not wanting to just bash this movie as propaganda or an exploitation of atrocious acts of man (because that is clearly an option I have) but it claims to be more than this. I myself don't see it.

The only thing going for this film in terms of not being something that...............


Alright, this movie is boring and I don't see what all the fuss is about. For someone who claims to not be lambasting the Japanese, director T.F. Mous (born Mou Tun Fei) does a good job portraying the Japanese as one of three things-- insane (laughing insane), drunk, or a blind follower.

Now, I don't deny the fact that the people behind Unit 731 were fucking crazy, but I don't think they went around laughing like some kind of homicidal nutcase (clearly they were) or dancing while disposing of body parts. These certain aspects are intended to invoke anger in the audience (clearly a tool of the propaganda film genre--something Mous has experience in) and the blood on the flag is practically the nail in the coffin, signifying the blood will forever tarnish the nation of Japan--thus contradicting the statement made in the beginning of the film "Friendships are friendships; history is history".

It would only be so if you wouldn't shove so much hate (albeit rightfully deserved) down the throats of everyone and not doing any justice. For a movie claiming to be an educational tool used to shed light on events that most people have never heard about, but to be quite honest with you I didn't learn a damn thing watching this movie until the credits began to roll and explained the aftermath--The Americans granted the man behind the whole thing (a Lieutenant General Shiro Ishii) full immunity from war crimes and made him hand his work over to them.

To be used in the Korean War....By Ishii himself.



Frankly, I cannot recommend anyone to watch this movie. I cannot truly understand why this movie is considered what it is (the wikipedia page for Unit 731 is more frightening than this movie). I really wish people would open their eyes and realize this movie is nothing more than blood and gore dancing behind facts and the loss of innocent lives.

There was more against the actual people (making them laugh and applaud like madmen while throwing ceramic pots in the air) than what they did to innocent people with them (shown briefly in an easily forgettable scene of gore and missing limbs). This is why this is not educational or informative, but rather exploitation and propaganda (and a pale example of it at that).

Displaying these people, not as stone cold as they were remembered to be but as some kind of laughing imbeciles is making them look almost like cartoon characters and not to be taken any more serious than "wow, that guy is fucking weird and look at him pull that ladies armpit hairs" instead of "wow, that guy is a stone cold killer and look at him with his granite face killing those people. That fucker has no heart". These people were not laughing as they killed people (well, this could be argued) and the only reason they are in this film is to easily invoke anger and hatred--much like propaganda is suppose to. Do you honestly think that the man who called people fucking pieces of wood was lauging as he did it?

If you wanted to make it educational and have people learn then perhaps you should have done it like everyone else--a fucking documentary. I always think hearing it from people that were there is far more daunting than having someone recreate it all.

The director always makes it a point in his interviews to bring up the time he showed the film to a college class in Tokyo where no one believed Japan would do something like this and that it was all made up, but just to have actual people from Unit 731 stand up and tell them that it really did happen. Do you see what happened there? People with actual experience standing and talking about the crimes they committed. This my friends is how you get a point across, you shove actual facts and first hand experiences in their faces and not some rallying cry to the people who have been wronged.

This movie is suppose to shock and disgust and I really do feel that it is using the actual facts as some kind of facade to hide behind. It isn't doing the thousands of people who died any justice, but rather using their deaths as some kind of......well exploitation actually. This film is exploiting the loss of life in order to instill this hate for another country and it will kill actual animals and show an actual autopsy of a little boy to get the message through to the people--whatever the hell that is.

I really went into watching this hoping to get some kind of understanding as to why it happened and what exactly they did, but all I got was a romp through the shit fields and the only thing this film invoked from me is a true hatred for everyone behind this movie.

Fuck this stupid film. If you really want to learn about such a tragic time in history then do not watch this piece of crap (or the four hour long Philosophy of a Knife--something I almost did) and pick up a book, read for Christ's sake, and I honestly mean this. Don't watch this and think you have a firm grasp on what happened all those years ago. These events are something that just can't be recreated and have it match.

This falls into the same rickety boat as the Holocaust in that I believe they can't be done any justice in cinema and even making a movie on it is clearly exploiting the loss of life in order to make money or "prove some point" and it just isn't right, and to have this shitty film in my concious for the rest of my days and to have it being passed off as educational is a slap in the face.


I could have easily said I hated it and I thought it was a shitty exploitation/propaganda piece of refuse and I feel sorry for the people that enjoy this movie because I know why they do, and those little bits of blood and violence should bring shame to everyone who claims this movie displays and merits any kind of educational or thought provoking understanding. This movie is a blatant and diplorable exploitation of those who lost their lives in order to craft some kind of current of pride in the hearts of the nation that was treated like lumber. I cannont commend this movie in any way, I thought it was tasteless and brought about a sense of pure disgust--a feeling I have never felt before--but not for the people behind the act, but rather the people who are using the act in such a way that brings about all the wrong emotions.

Fucking garbage and a waste of my time. Please don't make it a waste of yours and go read about Unit 731 and use that as your basis for trying to understand just what happened.

Tokyo Gore Police (2008)

(My third attempt in trying to review this movie)


Over the course of my life I have seen many many things, I have seen just about everything happen to a human body and I have sat through countless "gore" films, but I can honestly say nothing, and I mean nothing, is as outrageously violent and over-the-top as Yoshiro Nishimura's Tokyo Gore Police.

This movie succeeds where most uber-violent films fail in that this movie isn't trying to be something it is not. Most "underground" or "gore" films these days are trying to play of glorifying violence as some kind of art form, when really all it is is some fetishistic lust for seeing life destroyed in the most obscene (read: trying way too hard at making it real looking) way possible.

They usually take this rout or the even shittier rout the Saw films have decided to take and that is using violence and death as some sort of tool to teach people just how important life is. Don't get me wrong, it is a noble cause, but I just don't see someone having a giant machine strapped to their head or some elaborate Rube Goldberg-esque monstrosity is the right way to explain the need to sustain life.

Where this film separates itself from the rest of the competition (I use this term very lightly) is that it knows exactly what it is trying to be--fucking batshit insane. This movie does not value life or lessons or even a plot that truly matters, but where it lacks in moral messages it makes up for being the most outlandish use of violence I have ever seen. A woman with acidic breast milk, a man with an elephant size penis cannon, another woman who gets her lower torso shot off and grows some kind of alligator mouth to replace the legs she lost, oh, and a pissing human chair...Seriously, I can't make this shit up.

I am not joking when I tell you some man has a huge cannon in place of his member (which was bitten off by the nipple missing alligator leg woman. Oh yea, she has no nipples, forgot to mention that part) and I know it sounds like something that just couldn't be real, but I assure you, there are these things in this film (take that life lesson!) and it doesn't shy away from showing some blood.

This brings me to my next point. There is more blood in this movie than in any other film ever made. There is more of it in the first four minutes than anywhere else in cinema today. Hell, there is more of it in the wrist cutting scene in the beginning that there is in an actual human body. It is that bloody, and the thing about it is that it isn't trying to be realistic with the bloodshed. It has every single injury shooting out gallons and gallons of the stuff and the director makes it a point to cover the floor (and the screen) as many times as he can.

It really does make my head hurt trying to review this one. It is so far out there that I am afraid if I try to analyze it too much (which no one ever should do) that it might turn some off to seeing it. This movie is something that I highly enjoyed watching. It isn't the greatest film ever, but it sure as hell isn't the worst film I have seen (beats the piss out of most American films of the same genre, and I don't even pay attention to what they shovel out anymore) and I think that is what the director had in mind.

For what it is (just a plain ol' exhibition and glorification of violence) it sure does a good job at keeping the blood flowing and me interested. I like being able to laugh at someone getting their head cut off, not expecting to believe it is real (believe me, it pales in comparison to the real thing).

Alright.....I can't do it anymore, this movie is one even I can't even review without doing it some kind of injustice. You either hate it or love it, there is no middle ground in Tokyo Gore Police. I could go on and tell you the leading lady Eihi Shiina is from Takashi Miike's Audition (another film everyone should see by the way) or that this is a remake of a independent film the director made named Anatomia Extinction.

I could even go on to tell you the actual story that weaves itself in and out of the film--Tokyo is in shambles due to a mad scientist know as "Key Man" who puts keys into people turning them into things called "Engineers" and all hell takes a shit when the bad ass police force gets involved in stopping them and there is a lot of blood and shit you would only see in the notebook of the weird ass kid in the back of the class. Blah blah blah.




Seriously, a woman grows an alligator mouth for legs. If this isn't a sign that this film needs to be watched then I don't know what would suffice as a reason.

How about a picture:







Sure as shit beats the pissing human chair or the snail lady......

Watch it.

Hercules in New York (1970)

Do you see that picture up there? Do you see how awesome this movie looks? It seems to be that Arnold really is Hercules and that is actual light emitting from his massive medical text book sized hands. His pecs glistening in some kind of holy light, and his hair perfectly parted, as if carved out of granite itself.

Well, it is all a lie, this movie is a Herculean piece of shit, and I am going to tell you why. It actually pains me to have to talk about this movie. There are some movies that are described as "so bad it's funny" and I can understand that statement being made in some cases, but to even try and pin that on this movie would be doing it too much justice. This movie happens to fall in the dreaded "so bad it's painful" catagory, bad doesn't begin to tell the tale that this monstrosity weaves.

The first thing I noticed when watching this movie, the excitement pinning my eyelids so far into my head I couldn't blink (this has been one of those movies I have wanted to see for about a decade now and just never got a chance to, and it being Arnold's first actual film is reason enough to want to see it), but one the opening credits started I didn't see Arnold's name. Where is it? Did they not put him in? What the hell is going on? Wait a Goddamn minute..You mean to tell me Arnold "Strong" is Arnold Schwarzenegger, The Arnold Schwarzenegger lambasted his own name for some kind of ironic play on both comedian cast member Arnold Stang's name and the size of his human bus body? Could they not afford his entire name or something? Well, this was only a minor set back, something that would look like a mere mess up, because once he opened his mouth I heard the most foulest sound I have ever heard in my time on this planet:

........This would have been the first video ever posted on my blog, and it would have been something amazing. The sad thing is that every video I happen to find on YouTube used Arnold's actual voice and not the dubbed version of the film I watched (which is the original mind you), and what makes this sad is that I am probably the only person who has had to sit through this shitty version of the film since the early 70's. In order to sum up what the overdub sounded like I want you to picture a robotic Arnold (in this case, him portraying the Terminator would suffice), alright now give him an impeccable American accent (lets say from somewhere that doesn't really have an accent, like California), okay now I need you to picture him speaking as if he had a stick shoved far into his ass. That is pretty much the only way I can sum up how this sounded without just saying "it sounded like shit". I wish I could convey to you how wide my eyes were when Arnold first opened his mouth ( I was hoping to hear some thick Austrian and then have him rip Zues's head off) and I heard some guy who is pretty much the exact polar opposite of what Arnold actually sounds like (some Californian robot with a stick up it's ass). I was reluctant to turn it off right then and there, but I gave it the benifit of the doubt, the biggest doubt ever known to man.

The acting, well, to put it as frank as possible, I have seen better acting in gas pedal porn fetish films. It was just cardboard characters and Arnie's pulsating pecs (seriously, everytime he takes his shirt off he poses like it is Mr. Universe all over again).

I can't completely shoot this film down though. Despite it being the something I wouldn't put pass the C.I.A. to use in it's colorful practices or something Charles Manson would consider "full of substantial mentionings of artistic quality", it did offer one of the worst scenes ever acted out in front of a camera. How to come out and say this....

Arnold beats the Hundred Acre Woods out of some brown bear (I mean he beats the living shit out of this bear, bare handedly) and then is commended for fighting (probably killing) this bear in the paper the next day.

This movie is shit, and there is no way around it. This movie is a pain to sit through (something I submit myself to frequently) and you will probably need a cold shower afterwards, and maybe some sleep.

For the love of everything good on this planet ( Greek Gods to the woodland creatures rightfully included) don't watch this movie.

Don't watch it. Do not watch this movie ever, ever, not even for laughs. Take heed of what I say to you.

For the really curious (or masochists alike) though;

If you are going to watch any part of this, watch him beat the bear up. It is seriously the only redeeming part of the movie (forget the chariot scene or the javilin scene or the movie theatre scene or the taxi scene or the dock fight scene (actually....watch this fight too))

If the Greeks only knew that this shit was going to happen.....

Welcome to Death Row (2001)

Forget what you think you know about Death Row Records, Tupac, even N.W.A. This is the definitive documentary (It could be the only one actually) about the notorious West Coast record company, the people that made it what it was, and the people that tore it down.

One thing that I really appreiciate about this documentary is that it is told by those that were actually there, not a bunch of "experts" that spent years looking at pictures and reading documents. This is a documentary about a certain era in music done by the people that created the myths and lived the life; Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog to lesser known figures such as criminal investor David "Harry-O" Higgins and co-owner of the label Jerry Heller amongst many others.

From the rise of Suge Knight from being more than bodyguard for Bobby Brown to having Vanilla Ice peer over the balcony, to where he would be landing if he didn'y pay up ownership and royalties of "Ice Ice Baby" among other songs (actually told by Rip Van Winkle himself), To the dissapation of N.W.A. and the crafting of classics such as The Chronic and Doggystyle (and all the controversy that came with these albums), The East Coast-West Coast fued, and finally the untimely death of one of the most influential people to ever pick up a microphone; Tupac.

The rise of Death Row Records is truly a tragic tale, and it is told by the people that were there and it is all there, there are no bars hold and no pages left unturned.

A must see for any music aficionado or curious fan alike. This is everything that one would need to know about a time in music when the musicians made the rules and enforced them in anyway they wanted.

A "Wild West" tale just a much as it is a documentary, but to be more frank, a true chronicalling of a prosperous, but dark, time in the history of music.

Nuit Et Brouillard (Night and Fog) (1955)

"Anyone interested in civics must see Night and Fog and Salo."

- Jean-Claude Biette

Upon hearing this bold statement made by the French director on a documentary about the making of Salo I decided, without any concern of civics, see what this other movie was all about. The simple fact it was being mentioned with something like Salo had to account for something (we are talking about the most controversial film ever) and this was either a feather in its hat or a nail in its coffin, in my book at least.

Needless to say, I have seen the film, and clocking in at only 31 minutes long, it is both bold and controversial in its own right (Bulldozers plowing piles of bodies into holes in preperation for burial and such atrocities). Having seen many things on the Holocaust, from either side of the equation - the oppressor or the oppressed - this happens to be the only one that blends the two into something that rests on a different kind of pedestal. It does not damn the Nazi party for what they did or even offer an outright reason to feel and sympathy for the victims (although one will already do these things reguardless of any overtly given reason to), what it does is show the impact that such a monsterous thing has left, like an unfading scar on the face of society.

This is what seperates this from most documentaries about the Holocaust, in that it is showing it to you as if you were to go there today and see the fences, walk through the gates, and stand in a place where thousands never returned from. While doing this it does cut to actual footage of the camps in several different occurances, from the loading of the trains and the fear in these peoples eyes as they are unloaded like cattle to their untimely death at the hands of the Nazis (some of which I have never seen before, like the men drinking soup).

None of this is overdone to the point of making the realization of responsiblity for done actions anymore obvious than it already is, as I've said, this is a study of both sides of the spectrum, an overall showing of what happened all those years ago and what it left for all of us that weren't behind the barbed wire.

Truly a masterpiece of a documentary about events that will then, now, and forever be remembered.

Brick (2005)

First of all, if you have not seen this movie, shame on you. I have been a fan of this movie ever since I saw it a few years ago at a close friend of mines house (on a whim actually). Needless to say I was blown away by how clean and original the overall production was. I actually managed to pick it up for three dollars a few days ago (probably the greatest deal I have ever found) and it still holds onto every strand of amazement it entangled me in almost three years ago.

The thing that seperates this film from everything else that I saw that year is how smart of a movie this is. For one, the American noir film has truly been a neglected genre in the last couple decades (a hit every couple of years or so) and it is always good seeing a fresh take on it. For those who are clueless as to what "noir" is then perhaps you should take this time to watch a few of the hardboiled classic films (the old Bogart pictures are a good place to start). They usually involve some kind of murder and some kind of detective investigating and there is always a femme fatale. How this movie approaches this style of film is by having the entire script ripped right from a classic detective movie and submerges it in the world of a contemporary California high school with a hearty helping of the drug culture (but done in a way that almost makes it glamorous).

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (of 3rd Rock from the Sun fame) stars and is practically made for this role. The entire cast suffers from "rather perfect casting" syndrome, and this is something that you will never find in a major motion picture. It is almost sickening how well everyone does portraying a classic type of character in modern times.

Being a noir film, it has a certain way of setting up every shot. There has to be a clear distinction between light and dark, with the use of shadows playing almost as a character themselves. These distinct attributes don't really contrast well in a film with color as they do in a black in white world, but Brick manages to stay true to the world of film noir and yet adding a feeling of being set in modern times (fancy shots and special effects are what set this movie in the present age). I wouldn't say the shots are beautiful as they are stark, precise and show only what you are suppose to see (playing on the power of shadows and low angles).

Being original is what makes this film a true gem, it isn't some big Hollywood blowout or filled with A-class actors who don't put as much emotion into it for what they are getting paid. It knows what it is and it isn't trying to be something far superior. To be honest, it is far better (to me at least) that the neo-noir films being produced for millions of dollars. It is as gritty and dark as noir is suppose to be and it manages to do this with the bare essentials and it will keep you guessing till the very end (a true noir rule indeed). The story is true to what it sets out to do and there is no beating around the bush with unecessary character arcs or pointless plot holes. It may not shine as bright as some big budget films, but I can gurantee the luster will retain longer than most films twice as huge and four times as confusing.

Like I said, I picked this up for three dollars a few days ago (still in its original factory seal and everything) and that is the only bad thing about this movie, is that it has been banished to the discount dollar bin at the local discount store. Do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie for such an abysmal price (good for me, but also a disgrace to a fine piece of art, seeing it cost less than a fast food meal) pick it up. With several well deserved accolades under its belt, watching this film will shine a whole new light on the genre great America was once known for.

El Topo (The Mole) (1970)

Now, a late holiday gift for everyone.

Alejandro Jodorowsky's El Topo.

This is my favorite film, this is probably the greatest film ever made, and it is more than likely this is perfection at its greatest. Nothing has, or ever will come to what this movie has done for world of cinema (at least in my eyes).

With this being said, I will try to sum up this movie into something worth reading.

Alejandro Jodorowsky, as you may have read about in my review of his mind-skewing epic "The Holy Mountain" is probably the most pretentious man to ever grace the film industry. Everything he shows you has multiple meanings, therefore creating something that can be viewed on more than one level (at least a thousand by my count). Every scene is a piece of art, the foreground, midground, and even the background are all parts conducted masterfully by his vision.

This movie however was not his trip to finding enlightenment (as was The Holy Mountain), but his showing of the power of life, death, love, hate, and showing how everything will eventually pass through all of these stages in life. No one is fully good nor fully bad, and Jordorowsky displays this brilliantly (Superman is a pervert in his eyes).

The symbolism is a lot more subtle in this movie, but this does not mean that everything is not representing something or another (from his relationship with his son, his hate for his father and two amputee's dressed like John Wayne), and this is what seperates Jordorowsky from all other directors. His attention to detail and true eye for finding beauty in everything (I mean everything) is why he is the greatest, because he is not afraid to show things (and people) who normally wouldn't get the praise or screentime he gives them (Passolini did this also, much more on the negative side of the social spectrum).

From the first shot of the horse riding through the desert to the final scene is a beautiful showing of a fall from grace and the redimption one can truly find in the end (like I said before, he shows that no one is truly good or truly bad, and, oddly enough, that everyone must realize that they have both a female and a male side).

Another one of the things that I respect him for is that he uses normal people instead of actors (everything from himself in the lead role to his son he has never seen. He even has a woman who took 500 tabs of acid and was triping the entire time of shooting). Once again, he uses people that normally wouldn't (at the time) be in a film, and this adds a whole different spectrum to his films, because most of the time these people are playing themselves (no one is acting gay or under the influence, they actually have those qualities). This is something that has died out in most of the film industry in these times (everyone claims to be an aspiring actor) and it is a true shame. Reality is what everyone is trying to produce and it can't happen if there are people pretending to be something their not.

Moving on to what you hear during this visual barrage;

One of Jordorowsky's claims is that the soundtrack (this being all of the audio in the film, from the music to the dialouge) is another level of art and it should be altered and changed. Nothing should be left normal and more often than not it is about as far from normal as you can get. You have a woman sounding like a young man and the sound of goats turned to 11 (if this joke does not land, i'm sorry for you) and this is just another reason why he is in a whole different league than everyone else.

Besides the film itself, I can't recommend the commentary more. Having him explain everything that is being seen just adds even more luster to his already blinding films (I do mean watch all of his films a few times and then watch it with the commentary track on).

This review is certainly not enough to muster up even a smidgen of what this movie is and what kind of impact it brings to the table. If you watch any movie that I review do yourself a favor and pick this one up and dedicate a few hours to soaking in what a true genius in every sense of the word has to offer.

The Alphabet (1968)

Please forgive me for not putting a still from this little four minutes of pure insanity (I wouldn't want to look at it ever time I signed on, it would scare the shit out of me). Allow me to explain my reasoning behind why this freaks film me out more than anything I have ever seen (and only being four minutes long and having this effect is rather impressive).

David Lynch (the man whos picture I decided to op for, a little less creepy, but not by much) is someone who I've known about for years, but never really paid any attention to (I was in my ignorant foreign film stage and wasn't going to watch anything from America in fear that it would burn my eyes out), and to be honest, as scary as he is, I regret not checking him out earlier.

But, they also say "ignorance is bliss" and that is an equally defendable side of this review. For the record, I don't think I have been this scared (or unsettled/disturbed, I don't really get scared) in a long time. I don't know if it is my fear of little girls or the alphabet (or both), but let me warn you about what you are about to get yourself into if deciding to watch this.

The girl in this film is the creepiest I have ever seen (forget what you think you know about creepy little girls, Lynch was the father of creepy girls) and that is what is unsettling about the whole thing. I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about it

Because quite frankly, I don't like to. I don't like her. I'm sure she is a sweet girl in real life, but in this she is the illigitimate love child from the drunken orgy the girls from The Exorcist, The Ring, The Grudge, and just about every horror film the Japanese have ever made (and their sad American brethren). There was mud and no one knows who stuck what where, but the aftermath of it all is this chick.

The whole idea of this story stemmed from a nightmare his wife's niece (who I believe is the little girl in the film, but i'm not going to research it any, if it is important to you then by all means you have the power) had, where she was saying the alphabet in some kind of sick and demented (described as tormented) way.

If this does not tell you what the hell this is going to be about, then allow me to elaborate (but only for a minute), and please note that this is purely from memory (as I will never watch this ever again, ever), so if what I say doesn't sell it, then by all means go watch it on YouTube.

There is the alphabet being said by some creepy girl, along with some weird surreal animation of letters and what not flowing out of the body (through the neck) of some guy then it ends with the creepiest fucking child to ever walk the planet (it actually makes my eyes water thinking about it) reciting the alphabet while parading around a dark room on a white sheet in a bunch of stop-motion shots (I could have done without her getting up close to the camera) and then her tossing and turning in bed.

Just fucking weird, unsettling, disturbing, whatever the hell you want to call it. The dark end of the surreal spectrum pretty much sums up most (if not all) of Lynch's work.

This was the film that brought Lynch some minimal recognition and was the start (although one film came before this one, something about six guys getting sick six times...what the fuck?) to his very sucessful (i.e. creepy as hell) film career.

As I stated before, it is on YouTube, and only being four minutes long, so if you want to ruin your night (and the amount of hours of sleep you get) then by all means check it out (along with everything else he has made, truly a master at the craft).

This is just the start of the Lynch reviews mind you...

The Silent CIty (2006)

I'm currently taking a few days to go back and write about all the short films I have seen over the years and had nowhere to express how I felt about them. This gem was found on accident (I don't recall what I was looking for, but I do remember this was bashed for being a fake whatever it was)

Set in a dystopian future (obviously in a city of some sorts) on a war torn planet (not sure if it is Earth or not, who really knows) where apparently on the Irish are still alive. Cillian Murphy (of Batman Begins The Edge of Love fame), Don Wycherley (Batchelors Walk),and Garvan Mcgrath star in this film. That is really all I can say about the cast, as it is just them three and some skeletons and some mysterious fast moving entity of sorts. The amount of reality shown in the few minutes is amazing, it is just what war is, dirty. Come to think of it, dirt might be another character, a kind of enviorment that reflects the people that live within it. It is short and to the point, just how it should be. Things happen and that is that, no beating around the bush with uneeded character developement. This also might be a method to his madness, showing how anonymous the face of war truly is.

Academy Award nominated director Ruairi Robinson pretty much was at the helm of everything (even the visual effects) and really shows true strength in the struggling world of modern cinema (be on the lookout for his Hollywood major motion picture debut with a live action version of Akira (I won't get into my opinions on this), and i'm dissappointed that this is not a feature length film as it would have been a great movie (something I can't really say about many short films). This is actually the reason he really broke out into the whole Hollywood scene (meaning he has an agent now) and it can only get better from here for him.

This also means things can only get better for you. Another independent genius has scored the ultimate gig. Be sure to keep an eye on him.

You can find this on Youtube, and again it is something to watch when you have some downtime.

Golgotha (2007)

I had been on a binge of short films a while back, and I remembered that Carlos Dengler (the bass player for the band Interpol) broke out onto the scene with Golgotha. Written and scored by the musician and photographed, edited, and directed by Daniel Ryan (who has gained some noteriety in the Chicago film scene lately), it beautifully displays the aspects of life that most of us take for granted and it's truly an emotion driven film. The stark contrasts between poverty and luxury are riveting, and the silent majesty of the cathederal (something, no matter social class, can find sanctuary in) is pefectly complimented by Dengler's triumphant score.

This little film has a big heart, and one can look at it in any number of ways. Does it mean that we have forgotten who sacrificed themselves for us (and still are), and does it matter to the cocktail downing party crowds that seemingly turn a blind eye to the real world? Or is it simply saying that it truly is religion that divides us? Whatever it is, i'm sure it's there somewhere.

If you've got some downtime in your day you can find this on YouTube, and I haven't heard anyone complain about something free, so do yourself a favor and watch it.

Gigli (2003)

If there was a movie that could single handidly destroy a large amount of classic genres, it would be this horrible piece of history that im sure a lot of people pay a blind eye to. This (as well as a partial request from someone) is the only reason I have watched this movie again (seriously no one should ever have to experience anything from this movie once, but twice...eh) No one should ever hear it's haunting name, let along watch the damn thing. This is probably the worst modern movie I have ever seen. Let me break it down into a vast cake baking contest I thought about last night. A cool Summer day on the country side....

Our head chef (baker, im not sure what he would be called) Martin Brest, who was actually an acclaimed direct..baker before today (Beverly Hill's Cop, Scent of a Woman, Meet Joe Black), but like most people in his area of work he wanted to be innovative (or he was apparently tired of being good at what he was being paid to do). He decided to do something a little different for todays competition, he decided to hire a brand new crew of helpers for this ( a couple of washed up has-beens and something called a "Bennifer" amongst others). Brest was going to go all the way with this, he has got some big named actors and a couple that is the eye of all media attention in those days. The only problem is when he wasn't looking someone switched all his chocolate out for shit, and he apparently has a bad nose.

First on the list (seriously the list is long) is the foundation of every cake, the humble list of ingredients (the script here people) used to ensure the rest of the cake will taste better than everyone else's and thus winning several awards. Brest stopped at the Devil's Food Store before the competition and picked up a few things that would help him win all the awards simultaneously and forever crown him the master of the cake (movie) world. The cashier should have warned him he was just buying different colors of the same stinky shit. The sript tries to blend all of these different genres of film (gangster flims, the buddy picture, a romantic comedy, the endearing tear-jerker and some weird rendition of a Three Musketeers) with it's quirky speeches that no one would ever say in real life. By the time these people get through with there "Triumph of the Will" dictorial reapings, no one is paying attention and quite frankly no one really knows why the hell someone would say that stupid shit. If you want something done right, cut out the fucking words and just do it. This is only the tip of this porta-potti iceberg.

Brest gets back to where he will be baking this cake and lays all of what he just bought out on the table. He entourage crowds behind him to see what they will use to win this little competition, and apparently they are all deaf, blind and dumb because they dont realize the train wreck that lay before them. One over-zealous cook backs away from the table with a smile, he can feel it, this is his moment...

This poor souls name is Ben Affleck, and he has had a somewhat moderate success in this world (he has been hit and miss his entire career), but he shows the world that he is the greatest baker (not the main baker, but the...whatever it is called) in this world or the next. Now, I understand the confusion here (if you aren't confused yet, congrats), "wait, isn't this movie horrible?" you say to yourselves, and yes it is probably the worst movie made in the last 10,000 years, but the only reason im giving Affleck such commendation is only because no one can act that much like a douchebag and not laugh in every scene. Affleck is amazing at keeping his composure despite knowing that this is making him look like the biggest ass on the face of the planet, and he puts his soul into it. Fact-Affleck cannot (CANNOT) be someone with a certain amount of "higher power"(in this case, some weird mafia affiliation) Fact-Affleck cannot (CANNOT) be a bad ass, he just isn't cut out for it, he is better off getting emotional over some lesbian (who isn't his wife (at the time)). Fact-Affleck's character is the father of all douchbags across the globe, he is the soul providor of all of their actions and ways of living, and he did this without anyone seeing him act in this movie. To sum it up, Affleck was not made for this part and it is quite sad to see him call himself a "gangstas' gangster true mack daddy pimp" or whatever the fuck it was. Brest does not realize this and he keeps crafting his ultimate shit storm.

The woman clung to Affleck as he begins mixing the flour with the eggs and butter(all made of shit by the way) is someone who I actually enjoy in a movie or two (The Cell (we will get to soon) and when she played Selena (the singer)), but for some reason she can't seem to stop holding onto Afflecks arm and plus she is dropping all the other shit into the wrong bowl and fucking up everything else as well, just burning the frosting (ive never been to a bake off, so im sure these are the only things left to do). She also suffers from being just a laughable character. She is some lesbian hitman or some shit who has a certain fondness for Thanksgiving (I will not ruin this for you, and the fact that you will never watch this movie will leave this little comment a mystery). She is both caring and cold, but bad at both on levels previously unknown to the world. Just a very unbelievable character in a cluster fuck of a world. Still burning the cake pan and the frosting, she smiles as she looks at her wedding ring. Insert the bells of tragedy here.

The young man sitting under the table yelling at the top of his lungs is Justin Bartha and he has every right to hide because he is an utter shame at what he does in this film. I guess I have to commend him for playing someone with a challenging life, but the sole fact that it is in this movie makes it an ignorant mocking of people with problems. Just bad taste is what it is, its not endearing when he has Affleck read ingredients to him or the fact he wants to go to "The Baywatch" its just salt in an open wound, and boy does it sting.

We look around Brest's cooking area and we see two old farts in the corner seeing who has the more badass DeNiro impression (he could not be there as he was preparing for the shitstorm Godsend). Al Pacino and Christopher Walker were the key ingredients in the crew of cooks and helpers that were destined to bring the blue ribbon home. The only problem is that both of these actors became irrelevant in the 90's (unless you think Scarface is amazing or you just can't get enough of Walken and his thing for a cow bell), but because they were somebodies at sometime Brest thinks that just having them in the movie (or baking the cake) he will score good numbers at the boxoffice (or judge's table). Im pretty sure i don't have to explain these two, as everyone knows they need to just retire with a little, if any, glory still left in those wrinkled skin bags of theirs. Bleh.

Everything else is just bad, bad, bad, bad. Im not going to waste anymore time here.

Brest is sweating as he carries his cake to the table to be evaluated by the sharp-eyed panel of judges. It's awfulness is dripping off of the platter it sits on and thus killing the green grass it touches as it lands. There is a brown aura that lingers around the 45 foot tall pile of hell-spawned refuse, but this doesn't stop Brest. He plops it onto the long table and the cake folds under its own horrible exsistence and seven of the 45 layers explode sending a thick brown sludge into the faces of the judges, burning them alive (there were flames and everything) and winning him absoluteley nothing, no ribbon, no nothing. Although someone does stop him and tells him that he has created the worst thing he has ever seen. Brest doesn't believe it, he turns to his crew as he knew they would never abaddon him in these times. His booth is empty, even the ghosts that dwell in ghosts towns and such aren't even there. They have all gone back to their homes to live with what they have done to the world, as it could not be taken back now. Brest is distraught and will never bake again (never direct again). Close curtains. Thank God.

Vormittagsspuk (Ghosts Before Breakfast) (1928)

This little short stop motion film (where an object is moved small amounts between frames, thus appearing to be moving on its own) is a creepy little movie. The thing is, the ghost are not the creepy part, its the group of four guys who seem to come in contact with spirits before their bowl of oatmeal, or in this case a cup of coffee.

To pretty much answer the question "how does a lunatic think?", well this movie is as close to answering that question. Involving flying hats that land perfectly on the tops of bushes (and eachother) and really creepy guys looking everywhere with deathly blank stares, seeming to have lost their hats (and sanitys) to some mischievous celestial beings (who are expert revolver stackers). Seriously, they could have been wax figures for all I know, they were that weird looking. Then there is a scene where a figure of a man is standing behind a target and another man is trying to shoot him, but suddenly the first guy's head starts spinning around. Then cue ghost gun stacking and spinning cutscene. Yea, pretty darn weird.


This actually has some of the more disturbing (not really for these times, but I thought they were a little bit freaky) scenes ive seen in some early work like this. The "beard rubbing scene" is probably the creepiest thing (the one guy who starts twisting his mustache..eh) and then the guy with the horrid (I mean hoorrid) teeth rocking his head back and forth while two guys bash eachother bare handedly.

These German guys were probably the greatest filmmakers of the 20's (even on into the early thirties, before the American noir movement) and Hans Richter's little film really shows how odd some of their material really was.

Maybe it was a good thing the Nazi's destroyed the sound version of the film, I cant imagine who could bare that experience.


Also, i dont quite understand why the guy with the hat on his head was looking for a hat as well, but maybe he was just helping the other weirdos out.




Furthermore, I just found a copy with music (not sure if it is the real deal, will look into it) and lets just say, its exactly what you would expect to be playing at some serial rapists barber shop.

Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom) (1975)

I first learned of a film that depicted the most horrendous acts of mankind with a artistic nonchalantness my final year in school. I could not believe that something so crazy had actually been produced, and i needed to see it. I purchased it soon after learning about its raw emotion and a well defined lack of concern, ended up being a bad bootleg, lost it (couldnt complain here really), but then this pox of a film was reissued by Criterion a few months ago, so i decided to pick up an actual copy of it, and i've seen a lot of things in my time, but this definetley takes the cake of just being the most deplorable piece of simulated hatred i have ever seen.

Killed just days before Salò's offical release, Pier Paolo Pasolini takes a story that is already saturated with things that aren't something that anyone should be proud of acting out (let alone write about it) and adds an all too familiar current day tone. A film so attrocious that the screenwriter has yet to see the movie he helped craft, and the multiple countries banning this film along the years only adds to the power of this social outcry.


On to the actual film. This is a downward spiral from beginning to end, there are no breaks in the constant skew of humanity. There is no pause or time to catch your breath, this is a constant barrage on everything we, as civilized people, hold sacred. The idea of seeing the majority of the movie from far in the distance was done on purpose. Pasolini wanted there to be thread of empathy for the actors on scree, he wanted us to all see what was happening as if we were there ourselves. There is no room to mourn or try and get an understanding of what is going on, this is the lowest of the low and Pasolini want all to know this.

To furthermore add to the unique quality of this film, the actors were kept in the dark about what was to be shot the next day until minutes before shooting actually began, so most of the reactions (and the young girl vomitting in the circle of shit) are real, these young people do not know what they stepped into and it is clearly showing in the faces. They are essentially degrading themselves in the name of art, and it is some of the strongest commitment i have ever seen in a movie.


This film offer no hope for redimption, you are not able to feel sorry for anyone involved in this film and you can't help but fail at trying to seperate yourself from the men commiting such acts, as you are just another pair of voyuristic eyes watching. The only redeeming quality this film has going for it is that it does in fact end eventually, but not as the credits roll, this film will resonate with you for days to come, never really leaving you no matter how much you try.

Shichinin No Samurai (Seven Samurai) (1954)

Now, despite what I may proclaim haphazardly about El Topo being as close to spiritual enlightenment as anything I have ever seen in this world or the next, know that it is only because I do believe that Alejandro is a God amongst mortal men.

In reality, Akira Kurosawa's MONUMENTAL film "The Seven Samurai" is, and forever will be, the greatest film produced by any mortal man (see? see?). Yes, i do believe that Kurosawa has the ever-so-keen "eye of the beholder" perceptions of the world around him, and he pulls out all the stops in the 3 hour plus statue of celluloid perfection to bring you a movie that will forever burn brightly, no matter how dense the shit storm is, and my friends, it is pretty fucking thick.

When i describe a film as "whole", what I mean is that every shot, from one side of the screen to the other, something is happening, as a true piece of art is suppose to present to the audience.

In every shot of this film, from one corner to the opposite, and even from one depth to the next, action is taking place, people are talking or doing something, or a horizon shot of a band of horse-clad bandits rides across the hills is taking place, and the fact of the matter is--you can see the entire group of bandits in the shot.

Perception is Kurosawa's middle name. He is the almighty mighty knowing Holy Meca of a man in the realm of perception. He knows the true art of every depth of vision and he makes them a true piece of the film, not something that lays empty in every shot. 3-D would be a good way to describe how "The Seven Samurai" looks. Don't view every shot as a flat image, but as a cube, there is action happening from 12 inches in front of the camera to 20 feet from it. There is so much going on in every shot that im curious to how he does it without making it a cluddered mess to look at, and it is obvious he is just that good at what he does.

On to my favorite part of this film, its lead actor (and my favorite), Toshiro Mifune. He is the most entertaining actor I have ever seen (the only thing to even come close to him would be Daniel Day-Lewis or...well Daniel Day-Lewis pretty much is it) and much live the way Kurosawa directs, Mifune acts. He is a very deeply intrisic man who one moment can be jumping off the ground excited to hunched down and snarling. He is intimidating, cruel, disillusioned, but also endearing, proud and commanding. A force that has certainly resonated a certain perfection in it's own right.

Everything about this movie has been crafted from the finest the world has to offer, from the actors to the action, the Director of Photography (a genius in his own right, more on him later im sure) to the horse wrangler and from the mud and the artificial rain, this movie has everything anyone will ever need in reality, but for everything else there is always El Topo.

Lot in Sodom (1933)

One of the few unspoken wonders of the silent era in film was that you could do just about anything in real life (a teacher, doctor, or even the cashier at the local drug store), but if you wanted to make a movie, you could and someone would consider you a genius.

Personally, im not one for stories from the Bible (just not as interesting as some might think), but when you have the word "sodom" thrown in there, one begins to think things are going to get bumpy (as interesting as it gets).

Sodomy sells people, and a little bit of homosexuality never hurt anyone, and salt, American lives on salt.


This (like most Biblical films) was done very well, a quality of work one would expect from a man with a medical degree (see? you could be anyone). It stuck to the story and didn't try and get all pretentious and outlandish like those haughty Europeans across the pond. This was the throwing of the gauntlet. This was proof that we know what the hell we are doing, even if no one else does.

On to the film,
The human furiousity depicted in this movie is insane. You really get a grasp of the energy and pure exhiliration of what went on in this little city of pure human indulgance.

The "experimentation" used in this movie is comprised of dissolves and images transfixed on top of other images (often a mirror image or the same shot flipped and ran along with the original. This is what seperates this movie from others in the same genre. Sodom was a place of pure debauchery and one can see it in the presentation. Even if you have no knowledge of this story (I have very little, but then again Wikipedia is always just a click away) this movie is just a good example of the type of Avant-Garde or Experimental film us Americans were bringing to the world (the 1930's, as you know, were the years of the German filmaker, and quite frankly some of the best films ever were made in this decade).

Another reason this movie scores high is that it was a complete turn from what Hollywood was shelling out at the time. The 30's in America were the years of early noir and crime dramas, and this was somewhere out in the left field (along with very few others, at least here in the states) of it all, and to be honest, this was really one of the forefathers of Avant-Garde in America, and brought about the birth of "alternative filmaking" and the postwar influx of art in every medium.
The basis of the story might turn some away (both the non religious and those afraid of clogged arteries ), but i can't recommend this movie more. It is always a pleasure to see the actualy beginnings of a movement. The best part of it all is that you can find it for free online (Public Domain here people), so at the end of it all you don't really lose out on anything.

Plus, whats more fun than seeing someone turn into a giant pile of salt?

Blacksmith Scene (1893)

Only clocking in at 36 seconds or so, this is one of the first actual uses of film as a medium for displaying an action or story (Dickson Greeting is actually known as the first film ever, just made seven years earlier), so this was pretty amazing for the time. Now though, its just thirty odd seconds of three men drinking and banging on some metal.

More of a test of equipment than actually telling a story of some sort, this little piece of cinematic history is just interesting to watch and see where filmaking all started.

Seriously, they are drinking beer and banging metal, it doesn't get any realer than that.

The Thief of Bagdad (1924)

Only a few films have been made around the whole "flying carpet and magic rope" genre, and to be quite honest i think that is a good thing, as not to dilude an amazing world that is brilliantly portrayed in one of the finest pieces of Fantasy film i have seen in a while.

Douglas Fairbanks, the "The King of Hollywood" at one time, is AMAZING in this film as the Thief (although not the only thief). He plays the arrogant almost..."douchebaggish"....theif who through plowing his daily toll out of more civilized folk finds himself on a much grander scale adventure than stealing money from snobby townsfolk. This involves daring swordfights and deadly monsters, but all set to the silent hue of filmmaking, which i think is some of the finest film in the world.

Douglas Fairbanks. His silent film skills are mesmerizing, and the way he plays off his surroundings as nonchalantly as he does is incredible and he has a feeling of deep involvement in the characters that he plays. He knows he is telling a story and he wants to please adult and child alike, and through his acting he captivates the hearts of many, and very successfully mind you.

Besides great acting this movie also had really good (for the time) special effects. The magic rope actually had me taking a double-take a few times, it was that realistic. The quick cuts are done almost subtlely enough to make you think nothing was changed in the shot. No children were harmed in this movie (to my knowledge) so don't go thinking that now.

As with most silent films, the rest of the cast has to play off the figurehead of the film, and the cast of The Thief of Bagdad adds to the wonder of the entire scope of the film perfectly, both inhancing its wonder and dream like view and making this film more memorable.

These visual effects, along with Fairbanks and an amazing (although a bit cliched nowadays) story and this is what child's dreams are made of. This is the stuff of wonders and amazement. Fantasy is defined with this movie, not simply taken and contourted somehow, this is the definition of what fantasy is.

Much like Aladdin is to our decade, this was to the children of the 20's, and it hasn't lost any of its strength eighty years down the road. The lusterous glory of Arabian times still sows wonders in the heads of millions, and it isn't showing any signs of slowing down.

Symphonie diagonale (1924)

Ah, the land of Public Domain. a place where you can find true gems and hidden treasures, or really bad movies that are no surprise to have had their copyright run out. This little movie is, for lack of a better way to put it, not for everyone. There is no plot, sound,color, or anything but stark images on a black screen for an extended period of time. This images can be interpreted anyway you want (i thought they represented the beating of a heart, but that is just me) and it is done so abstractly that the list is infinite.

You wont find this film on DVD so look for it online (again, Public Domains are a good thing here) and there is no reason whatsoever that you would want to watch this movie other than the fact you can say you have seen it and further alienate yourself from your peers. With this being said, there is no reason not watch this movie, but most will feel that the seven minutes it takes you to watch this will forever be wasted. Just a little piece of Abstract pie that takes you back to when the whole idea of making movies was still a fresh idea in culture and the results were generally endless.

There is no real way to defend this little film, or even condemn it for that matter. It is simply a showing of one of the forefathers of Abstract/Avant-Garde film genre, and to be quite honest, it is one of the better presentations of said subject.It is abstract enough without totally confusing the viewer, but deep enough to envoke artistic thought on what is actually being protrayed.

Most "Avant-Garde" claiming movies out there are pieces of pretentious rubble that aren't worth your time (I might actually get to some of them soon enough), but this has just the right balance of imagery and lack of anything else that earns itself a proper place in the niche of Abstract film.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

As i skimmed my DVD collection today i noticed a ungodly blemish of a film on the bottom shelf. Imported from Australia and only watched once by my eyes is a movie not quite accepted for what it is but relished for everything it isn't. I bring you Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust, and friends this isn't going to be pretty.

Although not my favorite controversial Italian film ever (Salo by far is the greatest) but still a good piece of explotation cinema that blends actual movie style filming (which in my opinion was the downfall of an otherwise believeable "mockumentary, but more on this later) with guerilla-esque documentary style shooting (which gets pretty grisly). It tells the tale of a group of amatuer filmaker's as they set off for a wild excursion in the jungle "Heart of Darkness" style, but if you decided to break every rule there is. They just don't make them like this anymore, and I will try and sum up the whole thing without ruining it for you.

First of all, the violence in this movie is unlike anything you have ever seen or will ever see again in this life or the next. Not for the faint of heart or the ever so common animal lover, seriously, if you love animals to any extent other than considering them a pet than this movie is not for you, and I mean it. Real animals get slaughtered in the name of art and it gets pretty grisly (the turtle scene is by far the gastliest thing i have ever seen and this is only for the sake of the animal lovers i had to sit and watch this with. I wasn't effected much other than quenching my curiosity of what it looks like under a turtle's shell) and Deodato doesn't stop there and he adds a few rape scenes, a primitive abortion, an impalement, more blood, oh and some good ol' cannibalism. Did i mention a baby pig gets shot in the head? Yeah, there is some of that too. A monkey getting the top of it's head chopped off you ask? This movie delivers that in spades. The only aspect that seperates this from all those quasi-horror films or the current heap of gore filled cannon fodder they are passing as films these days is that the majority of this is real, yes REAL. I wont disclaim what is and what isnt (all the animal scenes are real mind you), but im sure this wont stop you from googling it anyway.

The only reason this movie isnt as good as it could have been is the beginning is shot like a movie and it decimates the overall momentum that this movie is suppose to have. If they just showed you the tapes they found on the decrepit carcasses of the camera man and his fellow friends then this would have been a monumental film in a genre that had already hit it's high point a few years before (Salo again) but they had to make it a movie and add in some cheesy 80's era acting that a few slides of text or even a narrator could have taken care of. Even in the wake of all this bad acting the movie still raised every red flag from here to Nantucket and back again. A few court cases and proof that everything was fabricated (not the animals dying though, sorry.) and what was left was a monsterous movement in the freedom that filmaking can garner to someone with a clear vision of what he wants and who he wants to upset.

Clearly im praising this movie to some extent and I do recommend this to anyone who likes to see something a bit different (read: unlike anything you will ever see). Not a good "family flick" or something you watch with the signifigant other, your mother, or anyone for that matter. This movie is to be watched alone with the drapes pulled down and behind locked doors, and for good reason.

I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)

I was curious, and had I been a cat when I watched this movie I would not be sitting here telling you about it. This is, Ladies and Gentlemen, my first semi-negative review.

Much like America was changing in the 60's the same could be said for the Swedes in Vilgot Sjöman controversial "I Am Curious" series (the other part being "I Am Curious (Blue)). "I Am Curious (Yellow)" is a romp through the streets of Sweden in a decade that seemed to effect the entire world.

This movie is hard to catagorize, as it doesn't use traditional methods of Hollywood filming. In some instances it looks like its going to be a rugged documentary tackling social traditions such as a class system and civil strife (guest appearance by Martin Luther King jr.), but then quickly changes into an even more rugged voyeuristic home movie (sex on a bridge, sex in a tree, sex just about anywhere really) and every now and then there will be little game show esque interjections that only add to the confusion.

This is going to be a rather short review, as im not really a fan of this movie (i have yet to put the blue version in my dvd player for a fear i might fall asleep). I commend it for its lack of structure and unique way of filming, but only to an extent. The movie is all over the place and its hard to really keep track of the plot (is there really one?) and the characters were hard to keep track of (im not sure if it was because they were all Swedish or what), but I understand that this is only because we are following a young lady, Lena Nyman (portraying herself actually) as she finds herself in the ever changing world around her and the shooting matches her tenacity. What it really boils down to is that the movie was made for that generation of people and doesn't have much vaule to anyone else who trys to understand its meaning.

I can only recommend this film for anyone who is trying to broaden their movie horizons (as I am) because the casual viewer (don't think it will be fun to watch this movie and don't try and make a "curious" pun) will quickly be turned away from the complicated premise and lack of anything American besides MLK Jr. This is a Swedish film for the Swedish people, and even most of them won't get what the hell is going on.

Remember, curiosity isnt always a good thing.

The Holy Mountain (1973)

Alejandro Jodorowsky, father of the midnight cinema movement of the 70's and in my opinion one of the greatest directors ever to grace the world with their vision. He takes a complete 180 degree turn from the fundamentals of surrealism (where nothing really means anything, its just crass action) and crafts a story where everything is a symbol for somthing (seriously, a hippo representing Jesus and feces being turned into gold, as i've said before I cannot make this stuff up) and it makes the otherwise standard story (an adventure story about a group of people that would make Tolkien roll around in his grave) and pumps it full of Astrology, Tarot symbols, Mysticism, Metaphysical mentionings, drugs (not so much portrayed in the movie rather than having people actually on drugs while filming was taking place), Zen, Sufi, Yoga, I Ching and most importantly the strive for Enlightenment.

Jodorowsky, a man who to some is a genius and to others completeley insane and I think he settles comfortably riding the fine line between the two. He meshes all of these different religious and mystical ideals all at once that one would think this much symbolism in a movie would clutter and make it not worthwhile, but the thing that he does best is that he knows when too much is too much and the fact of the matter is there is never enough symbolism in any shot. Every scene in this movie is filled to the brim with actual meaning other than the action being portrayed on screen. This might turn some people off to his work because thinking deeply isn't something they like doing when watching a movie (they want all the visuals with no underlying meaning), but this is also where this movie hits pay dirt. The fact that at face vaule this is just some kinda weird movie that should only be shown in a dark and dank theatre and viewed through only the thickest clouds of marijuana smoke, but because of this setback it has people coming back and back into its warm embrace because people want to know what it all means (thus finding enlightenment in themselves, to an extent) and they will watch it twenty times just to soak it all in (the commentary also works well, as Jodorowsky will explain just about everything you would need to know about this movie and then some).

The story, as I said before, is a simple adventure from one place to another and it doesn't start off this way and it sure as hell doesn't end this way either. I wont ruin it, but the ending will have you either scratching your head or jumping out the window. Jodorowsky takes the art of character development to all time highs as he has everyone representing a different planet in our Solar System (again symbolism all over the place, and oddly, a woman with no belly button) and each having a different industry they represent (coffin-esque hotel arrangements to child armies, and it even takes you to a wall of severed male organs sitting quaintly inside glass jars).

This takes the first half of the movie to get through (the longest character development section I have ever seen), but what happens when you bring them all together along with a thief, a mystic of sorts (Jodorowsky himself) and his tattoo laden female sidekick?

Well the actual story for one, but a look at the power that Jodorowsky has as a director. The man takes you through a drug filled training sequence that is actually the real deal (talk about method acting) and he is so pretentious that he flips the entire script at the end (no one saw it coming) and claims that you dont have to open your mouth to speak or act for that matter (like I said, the fine line between insanity and genius).

The crew of actors' actual lives are just about as crazy as the characters they portray and for being on drugs most of the time they are wonderful to watch (actually I think that is why they were so good), but this is hardly what the viewer is paying attention too, so I won't get into this too much, and quite frankly there isn't that much "acting" going on, its a pretty real film and although it may be a labeled as a movie, these people are experiencing this in actuality and thus making their characters far more real (sometimes to a point where you can't believe it is real).

All of Jodorowsky's films will be hard to actually review because of their depth and the cliche facet of "you gotta see it for yourself to believe it". I could spent numerous hours tearing apart every morsel of this movie and break down the symbolism into mere numeric equations, but that would ruin the journey for you. I will disclaim this though, The Holy Mountain is not a movie you watch once and forget about it, no, this movie will stay with you and leave your mouth gapping and you fingers constantly pinching your arms to see if it all was just a weird dream.

This film will require the most free mind to watch and enjoy, don't go into this movie expecting sheer insanity, but rather go with the flow and take the joy as it comes to you and I promise you wont be dissapointed.

Un Chien Andalou (An Andalusian Dog) (1929)

The word "structure" does not apply to "Un Chien Andalou", Luis Buñuel's first attempt at making Surrealism a household ideal, and with the help of Surrealism savant Salvador Dalí (the man who painted the melting clocks) he is able to show you what 17 minutes of pure free form thought (or insanity, depends on how you look at it) looks like. There is no plot whatsoever and one would be a fool to try and surmise an idea of what exactly is going on. This the exact opposite of what this movie entends to do (we aren't talking about symbolism at every turn here, in fact there is nothing in this movie that means anything other than what you see at face vaule).

From the close-up slicing of a womans eye (if this does not tell you what kind of ride your in for then there is no helping you) to the dragging of dead and decomposing donkeys stuffed inside two pianos (i'm not making this stuff up, I swear) and all the confusing twists, turns, ups and downs in between, this movie will take you somewhere you had no idea exsisted and shows that it takes nothing but a clear sense that you are in control and can use that power to make a monumental film.

There is no dialogue spoken in this film and all the acting have the low frame rate quality of earlier films that adds a dreamy touch to the overall production and keeping the idea of of there is no clear idea deeply dug into the viewers mind.

The soundtrack is just as varied as the visuals is lays behind. One moment it is upbeat (akin to a ballroom party of the European flavor) then the violins drone into a settling soundscape then into daunting highs but never abandonning it's sweet serinty. I dont think i've ever seen a woman get run over and not hear some dramatic music to match the action being shown on the screen (it was the most pleasant hit and run i've ever seen).

Being the mouthpieces of Surrealism at the time, Buñuel and Dalí had no intentions to please the crowds (seriously, these guys were crazy and they knew it) but rather to provoke thought and show that anyone can pretty much do anything they want in the name of art.

If you are a fan of the Avant-Garde movement of the twentys or just want to see what having no artistic constraints whatsoever looks like then you should check this little slice of Heaven out.