Strange Days.

Review #2494: Strange Days.

Cast: 

Ralph Fiennes (Lenny Nero), Angela Bassett (Lornette "Mace" Mason), Juliette Lewis (Faith Justin), Tom Sizemore (Max Peltier), Michael Wincott (Philo Gant), Vincent D'Onofrio (Burton Steckler), Glenn Plummer (Jeriko One), Brigitte Bako (Iris), Richard Edson (Tick), William Fichtner (Dwayne Engelman), and Josef Sommer (Palmer Strickland) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel)

Review: 

"Well, I don’t see Strange Days as a pure action genre piece. I think of it as a character-driven piece. It’s got a tremendous amount of dialogue and story—at one point we thought of it as science fiction as if written by David Mamet. The pauses in Strange Days are motivated more by story and character than by the need to linger on the mise-en-scène. That’s not to say we don’t fill every frame; your eye wanders outward to this complex environment that the principal characters don’t bother to acknowledge. They take it for granted that there’s an ad hoc revolution taking place, a civil war."

Inadvertently, I stumbled onto this movie when looking around for further movies involving Kathryn Bigelow. This was her fifth film as a director that just happened to be in between Point Break (1991) and The Weight of Water (2000). It came around after years of script development from James Cameron, who first envisioned it in 1985 and apparently wrote it mind for Bigelow (incidentally, they were once married) to direct it. They then collaborated on working the elements that interested them into the film, with Bigelow striving for grit while Cameron strove for the romance that resulted in a treatment. The treatment was then worked by Jay Cocks into a script that happened to get developed around the time of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots (incidentally, Bigelow was involved with the city cleanup). Cameron was more involved with the effects than being on set as a producer (he noted he visited the set just twice as a co-producer), particularly with wondering how the opening scene would look like in showing someone being part of a robbery that sees them swarmed by cops to see one run up a staircase and then have a jump from a ledge that had special cameras and rigs for it. This film and True Lies (1994) were part of a deal between 20th Century Fox. Set in the then future year of 1999 on December 30 and December 31, the movie was released in October of 1995 and somehow flopped with audiences, making less than half of its $42 million budget*, but there is a slight cult audience for the film.

  

Okay, so here's one: an electronic device (SQUID: Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) that lets you experience recorded memories and physical sensations of other people that happens to have little discs for storage (older film lovers might remember that interfacing oneself to record their sensations on tape for others to experience came a bit earlier with Brainstorm [1983], although that dealt with the military trying to get their hands on it). Memories were meant to fade, particularly when doomsday or redemption is on the line. This is a fascinating film that is hard to really piece down as belonging to any one genre, mainly because it makes the mark for sci-fi thriller just as much as it does belong to the noir genre, complete with plenty to astound the audience with beyond its violence. Sure, maybe we aren't all looking upon the world with VR headsets, but our fascination with technology is a strange one when you consider where "parasocial" has evolved to in the last couple of years with how now we can see any type of "living" to stream on a phone you can hold in your hand. People probably are isolated now more than ever, particularly in what we "see" and "feel", and there is something amusing in parts for what the film shows in how people use and don't use SQUID, specifically with the lead two characters. Fiennes (cast in the wake of being nominated for an Academy Award for Schindler's List instead of Andy Garcia) makes for a fascinating conman, one who is particularly vulnerable and fascinating because of how he eventually lands up in the quest to do the hardest thing one might think of: learning to let the past go and actually move forward. There's more to life than being a two-bit pathetic person, and he makes it a curious one to actually emphasize with. Of course, it is Bassett who provides the key moral center of the film, one who is just as handy in asserting herself (such as with a fist) as she is someone clearly desiring to see someone actually make a leap forward with her (as one does with arguably the biggest hero of the film). Sizemore and Lewis might seem outmatched within the confines of basically being in a noir (right down to the latter singing like a femme fatale might do), but I liked both of them in what they provide in their odd duck qualities that think people can be used up just like a beverage to eventually see go by the wayside. The 145-minute runtime leads to plenty of buildup for what type of world would have such a device go around even if someone might use it on a person dying of sexual assault, for example (also disturbing is a scene showing someone going brain dead from amplified signals). Sure, it might hit a ray of hope for its climax that may only work best as if one was watching a fable close itself down, but there is something to be had about a movie that seems to want to remind us to actually get real beyond being looped in playback. As a whole, Strange Days is a curious film in its desire to show the weird world of voyeurism within the confines of a dystopian future that may very well seem a bit familiar to those viewing the world with their eyes and ears nowadays. It deserved better than where it landed in 1995 and should be looked at by all the curious ones out there for its dazzling execution.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

See you in 2026.

*In comparison, in its first full week (it was limited on the first week) of release, the movie was beaten out by newcomers such as Jade and the Scarlet Letter to go along with the popular movie of the week again with Seven. And yeah, Get Shorty was the week after that.

Stranger Than Paradise.

Review #1472: Stranger Than Paradise.

Cast:
John Lurie (Willie), Eszter Balint (Eva), Richard Edson (Eddie), Cecillia Stark (Aunt Lotte), Danny Rosen (Billy), Rammellzee (Man With Money), and Tom DiCillo (Airline Agent) Written and Directed by Jim Jarmusch.

Review: 
"I have no desire to make films for any kind of specific audience. What I want to do is make films that... tell stories, but somehow in an new way, not in a predictable form, not in the usual manipulative way that films seem to on their audiences."

Regardless of how a film turns out, it generally to be a good idea to try and reach as many distinct voices of film as possible, and this can prove especially true for certain directors. For independent cinema, it certainly never hurts to think about Jim Jarmusch as a key figure for his transgressive work as a director who focuses on mood with characters in minimalist tone rather than narrative structure, having done fifteen feature films in four decades with a described goal to "approximate real time for the audience", who had shifted his focus from literature and music to film. There were a few inspirations that led Jarmusch on the way to inspiration in film, with the first film he has a vivid memory of being Thunder Road (1958). Key figures included people such as the director Nicholas Ray, who Jarmusch became a teaching assistant for while at the New York University Tisch School of the Arts. He would be a crewman on Ray's last film (a collaboration with Wim Wenders) with Lightning Over Water (1980), a documentary about Ray's last years. In the same year of its release, he directed his first film in Permanent Vacation (which had a premiere but no theatrical release), which was done just after leaving the Tisch School. The film is comprised of single-shot scenes (for which Jarmusch edited along with Melody London) that was done a budget of $125,000, arising from a short subject film that he had done in 1982 that was originally 30 minutes long (having being granted leftover film stock from Wim Winders).

One can certainly appreciate the time and effort made in doing a film with a distinct style that dares to be something different. This is a film of the arthouse, one with a jazz singer, a violinist and a drummer to comprise a main trio (with Lurie being the only one having acted before and composing the music). If one wants to sit through somethign different for 89 minutes, all power to you. However, I simply just could not find myself liking this film, a supposed absurdist comedy that drives one numb to the point of exhaustion of how middling it is. If one takes films as escapism, this might be an example of one that makes you never want to leave home again, where presenting location shots of New York, Cleveland, and Florida all muddles together as one for others to be bored with (personally, only the middle one of those three sounds like it could turn out fine). It may very well prove a divine experience in boredom, and while one might say that is the point, that doesn't make it something I actually enjoy. I can respect Jarmusch for sticking to what he believes in when it comes to fierce independence that eschews the Hollywood system while having resemblance to types of world cinema, for which one could likely use as a way to recommend it to others. But it felt dull average to me, where the resistance to sleep nearly fell under itself in watching folks that are only barely interesting when not bored like hipsters (which I loathe at times). Balint proves to be the favorite, one wrapped with charm as a curiosity of circumstance for a film that mumbles about and about. Honestly, this is a frustrating film to think about because of how hard it is to really crack open and do proper justice in talking about it without just saying I didn't like it (it's a road movie of sorts with worse luck for its characters than I ever had on the road with incidentally just about as much as reaching humor as a growing hipster). The best thing I can say is that common sense rules the day for attempting to check this film out: if you are into what Jarmusch is selling with his style of filmmaking, then you will find something worth a curiosity as opposed to my general understanding of disappointment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Do the Right Thing.

Review #1255: Do the Right Thing.

Cast: 
Spike Lee (Mookie), Danny Aiello (Sal), Ossie Davis (Da Mayor), Ruby Dee (Mother Sister), Giancarlo Esposito (Buggin' Out), Bill Nunn (Radio Raheem), John Turturro (Pino), Richard Edson (Vito), Roger Guenveur Smith (Smiley), Rosie Perez (Tina), Joie Lee (Jade), Steve White (Ahmad), Martin Lawrence (Cee), Leonard L. Thomas (Punchy), Christa Rivers (Ella), Robin Harris (Sweet Dick Willie), Paul Benjamin (ML), Frankie Faison (Coconut Sid), Samuel L. Jackson (Mister Señor Love Daddy) Produced, Written and Directed by Spike Lee.

Review: 
When it comes to great movies, there is generally a sense early on its duration where you know this is going to be more than just a good experience of entertainment. For me, the turning point was probably a short sequence involving Aiello and Turturro's characters involving the latter wanting the former to close down his pizzeria and do something else with his life as opposed to serving the neighborhood any longer than has been the case for 25 years. You have had a look into these people's lives over the course of the film up to now (all of which over the course of one day, naturally), so seeing how a conversation can have some certain preconceived notions seem to bubble even further than what has already happened on screen. One lives on his pride for the people that grew up on his pizza while the other feels nothing but loathing resentment, where being accosted by a guy selling pictures on the street means being rude and loud to their face. This is such a vibrant film, one that grasps for what it wants to say about intercity life and the people that accompany it with their respective type of personalities and preconceptions. For what its worth, the film is still relevant three decades after its release now more than ever, seeming in step in terms of its execution of direction from Lee to bring these characters to life alongside a story that clicks without a hitch from start to finish. Aiello is the best of a group with plenty of useful castmates to go around, showing plenty of surly ruggedness one could expect for such an interesting character however one interprets him and his actions. Davis shines just as well, having a mix of humor and dignity with his key role whenever necessary, whether when on screen talking about doing the right thing or something else. Turturro and Edson certainly play the brotherly sided coin with a fair edge, where their differences stand clear alongside brotherly ties without having a safe closure. Nunn plays the key in making his time count, compelling with a boom box as company.

Whether the character is involved with an amusing moment or something more serious, each actor do their part to make it stick with conviction, whether it is the corner-men of Harris-Benjamin-Faison and their cracks through the day or the time spent at the pizzeria and the people working (and mostly talking) on food for the neighborhood, with the two hour run-time slipping by without much struggle. When the film shifts itself from a mix of comedy and drama to a sudden turning point, it hits with a devastating punch - whether one knows anything about what happens in the film or not before viewing, it makes a key point on the nature of prejudice and what makes for the right thing when the moment needs it. In addition to all of this is wonderful cinematographry from Earnest Dickerson, who does well with making the look of the film seem readily consistent to take place over a day with good lighting (in general, it is quite an achievement to make a film in a few weeks on location) and also good music from Bill Lee. It keeps the pedals rolling without betraying its efforts for its conclusion, keeping a roaring spirit that progresses beyond the final reel. On the whole, this is a thoughtful and entertaining film that pulls quite a punch with forming an interesting world come alive and show the layers beneath the quirks, for which one can still learn from now. It is worth a viewing, preferably with a crowd.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Super Mario Bros.

Review #736: Super Mario Bros.

Cast
Bob Hoskins (Mario), John Leguizamo (Luigi), Dennis Hopper (King Koopa), Samantha Mathis (Princess Daisy), Fisher Stevens (Iggy), Richard Edson (Spike), Fiona Shaw (Lena), and Mojo Nixon (Toad) Directed by Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel.

Review
Since today's the 30th anniversary of the release of Super Mario Bros, I decided to review the movie based off the video game. Before talking about this movie, let me talk a little about Super Mario. Let's be honest: The plot of the original game is simple: A plumber named Mario tries to rescue a princess from Bowser (also known as Koopa). To make a movie out of it, you have to have more plot. Whatever Super Mario game you played first (Mine was Super Mario Bros 3 on the NES, which my dad bought at a sale five years ago), Mario's legacy is one that can never be stopped, and it is has crossed over into the realm of television, cereals, anime, comics, and of course, this movie.

Yep, this one. The one from the same people that worked on Max Headroom (never heard of it)...which has had a reputation. Not just from people, but from the actors themselves. Dennis Hopper described this film as a nightmare that went over budget. Bob Hoskins said it was not only the worst job he ever did, he also said it was both his biggest disappointment and the one thing he'd change about his past. Leguizamo said in his own memoir that he and Hoskins got drunk constantly while filiming this. It's strange that Mario and Luigi's last names are both Mario (I guess that explains the Mario Bros. part)...but that's not the least of the movie's problems. The main problem is that the movie really doesn't have much of a focus to it in terms of tone. Is it supposed to be a comedy? Light hearted family flick? Adventure? Sci-fi? Dark fantasy? What is it? The lack of consistency with the tone clouds a movie that is already pretty strange. I do kinda like the idea of an alternate dimension for the Mario Bros, but it's still not done very well because it just flies by too quick to make an impact. The acting is certainly...notable. Hopper looks like he doesn't care. Now whether that means that he doesn't care about the movie or his performance in it is the question. Hoskins and Leguizamo evidently did not enjoy their experience in the movie, and it shows. Pretty much every actor is just there to say lines...though Stevens & Edson provide occasional moments of mild enjoyment

Let's talk about some of the video game stuff briefly, because I know at least something about video games. I wonder if the Princess is named Daisy because of Super Mario Land (released four years earlier) or because being known as Princess Toadstool (The name she was referred to as in the US prior to 1993) would be too weird. The Goombas are an okay effect, though them being taller than the Mario Bros doesn't make too much sense, given that in the game they are the easiest to kill. I find it very strange that Toad is now a guitar playing rebel...but then again Toad wasn't exactly endearing in the video games to begin with. Yoshi...is there for about 20 seconds. Apparently Yoshi was an animatronic effect controlled by cables and radios. It's not a bad effect, but he's only there briefly.  Koopa (also known as Bowser) is now evidently half-human, half-lizard. Nuff said. Remember Big Bertha? That fish from the third game? Big Bertha is now a big woman. The Bob-omb at least resembles the one from the game, and is probably the only thing in this movie that is loyal, sadly enough.

The movie's effects are hit and miss. The design of the city is okay, but you could honestly confuse it for any movies with a  The portal effects look more like soup and the Goombas have a certain washed out pale look to them. The movie ends on a cliffhanger...that will never be resolved. Super Mario Bros was a flop at the box office, and rightfully so. It's a movie that tries to cover too many bases to focus and please everyone while managing to be a tangled mess with no clear focus. It's sad how it seems no one who made this had fun making this, but at least it's not unwatchable. It's not a terrible movie, it's just isn't any good either. I did find it interesting that there's actually a comic strip dedicated as a "sequel" to this film, so at least something came out of this. Ultimately, this a movie that lags alongside other weird 90's movies, though not the good kind. Happy 30th, Mario. You deserved better than this.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.