The Grouchy Editor »

12Nov

Antichrist

Posted in Books, Movies, TV & Web, Movies | Leave a comment

Let’s take a little trip, shall we? Let’s go back to the Garden of Eden. While we’re there, maybe we can answer a few nagging questions. Was Eve really a villain? Are women more responsible than men for “original sin”? And is life a matter of rational thought creating order … or does chaos reign?

Lars von Trier’s thought-provoking Antichrist has been attacked as a misogynistic film, but I didn’t get that impression. In Trier’s hellish view of our time here on Earth, we are all of us pretty much screwed. Here is an exchange between a wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband (Willem Dafoe):

She: “If human nature is evil, then that goes as well for the nature of —“

He: “Of the women.”

She: “— the nature of all the sisters.”

Critics have seized on Trier’s storyline in which the wife, traumatized over the accidental death of the couple’s only child, gradually becomes an Eve apparently designed by the devil, leading to some graphically violent outbursts against her husband. But prior to that, I had to wonder who was torturing whom — if your husband, a therapist, deals with his own grief by treating you like a psychological experiment in a Petri dish (“No therapist can know as much about you as I do,” he tells her), might not you snap, as well? They say there’s nothing worse than losing a child. After watching Antichrist, it seems there might be one thing worse: marriage to a jerk who sidesteps his own problems by analyzing your every move and thought.

All of this sounds like dreary stuff, and it is. There are a few graphic scenes, but nothing that fans of, say, Hostel haven’t seen before. Trier has turned potentially off-putting material into an engrossing, visually dazzling, study of the nature of, well, nature. Grade: A-

Director: Lars von Trier Cast: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg Release: 2009

Watch Trailers (click here)

10Nov

Welcome to the Rileys

Posted in Books, Movies, TV & Web, Guilty Pleasures | Leave a comment

I know what you must be thinking.

You are thinking, “But this film hasn’t been released yet; how can anyone review it, much less give it a 100 percent rating?” In answer to that, let me just mention two words: Kristen Stewart.

Although it’s true that I have yet to see the film, I am told that Ms. Stewart gives a powerful performance. Says one critic of the film, “We can almost forget the weight of Kristen Stewart dragging it down with every hair flip and tug.”

Reading between the lines of that review, it’s clear to me that this critic is referring to Stewart’s unique ability to create heavy, serious drama out of what might have been a lightweight movie.

Back in the third grade, when I was a tyke of nine years, I developed a crush on a girl named Patty Guggenheimer. Patty was new to our school, and quite unpopular. One day, sitting in Mrs. Spolum’s class, I inadvertently filled my pants.

Most of my classmates noticed the noxious smell and, in their ignorance, began to whisper about poor Patty. In my shame and cowardice, I allowed this false impression to continue. Poor Patty, my schoolboy crush, took the blame, and I am heartsick about that to this day.

But I must admit, there was a pre-pubertal excitement in all of this, as I sat there at my wooden desk, my heart filled with pining for Patty and my pants filled with poop.

Over the years, I grew to miss that exciting sensation. Then one day not long ago, as I watched a Kristen Stewart movie (you guessed it) – it happened again.

I initially became paranoid; was it just me who was thus affected by Kristen Stewart’s performance? I checked around, conferring with friends here at rottentomatoes. To my immense relief, I learned that both Hollywood and SB, whose opinions I value, experienced similar, stomach-tingling sensations whenever they viewed a Kristen Stewart performance.

And so, in conclusion, let me make a bold prediction. Come the spring and Oscar time, the name Kristen Stewart will be announced as Best Actress in a motion picture, that picture being Welcome to the Rileys. Kristen’s pert, cherry-tipped breasts will no doubt be awarded an honorary Oscar (she plays a stripper). And when she climbs the stairs to the podium, every man, woman and child in the Hollywood auditorium will fill his or her pants in excitement.

There will not be a dry ass in the house.

Watch Trailers and Clips (click here)

(Note: I originally posted this “review” at rottentomatoes.com in October 2010)

10Nov

The Tin Drum

Posted in Books, Books, Movies, TV & Web | 1 Comment

by Gunter Grass

Over the past 15 years, I’ve read about 460 books, and all of them – fiction and nonfiction, short and long, classic and trendy – had one thing in common: I began on the first page, and I finished reading on the last page. Not so with The Tin Drum. I had to put this book aside after reading 52 pages. I simply could not stand author Gunter Grass’ style.

Last year, a good friend of mine died, and after his death I learned that this 1959 German novel was a favorite of his. I was aware of the book’s impressive pedigree: An Oscar-winning film adaptation was released in 1979, Grass was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize and, according to the new translation’s afterword, “It remains the most important work of German literature since the Second World War.” I was prepared to love the book.

I detested it. To me, Grass’s prose screams out, “I am a writer – look at me write!” Drum’s “groundbreaking” style (switching from third-person to first-person, magical realism – god, how I hate magical realism) and its cutesy characters … all of it seems like undisciplined Vonnegut. It is tedious reading, and self-indulgent writing. I really wanted to finish The Tin Drum but, like the book’s hero, the minuscule Oskar Matzerath, I’ve learned that life is simply too short.

08Nov

Night of the Demons

Posted in Books, Movies, TV & Web, Movies | Leave a comment

1988’s Night of the Demons was a true guilty pleasure. It was a horror flick that never took itself seriously, but made sure to include all of the genre’s required ingredients – boobs, butts, blood, and boos (not necessarily in that order). The acting sucked, the production values were cheesy, and the script was apparently concocted by Cub Scouts at a late-night campfire … but who cared?

Director Adam Gierasch’s remake gets some of this stuff right. The story is still silly, the babes are on board, and the demons are suitably gruesome. But other things are seriously out of whack. The acting is superior in the new film – which is probably a mistake. Part of the charm of the original was third-rate actors spouting third-rate dialogue. Gierasch’s screenplay is corny enough, but these actors – like the movie itself – take themselves way too seriously.

As for the boobs and butts, well, where are they? There’s a lot of teasing in Demons, but apparently political correctness rules the day over female flesh. Gierasch includes a quick kiss between two of the male stars, but gratuitous female nudity – which is never “gratuitous” in this kind of flick – is in short supply.

This is how Gierasch explains it on the DVD: “I don’t feel like you can get away with as much stuff now as you could back then [in 1988]. The audience is a lot more sophisticated.” That’s the wrong attitude; it was the lack of sophistication that made the first film so much fun.

Star Edward Furlong, looking and sounding like someone who’s smoked, drugged, and drank way too much for a 30-year-old, says this of the remake: “Lotta eye candy. You got tits and blood – can’t really fail.” Wanna bet? Grade: C-

Director: Adam Gierasch Cast: Edward Furlong, Monica Keena, Shannon Elizabeth, John F. Beach, Bobbi Sue Luther, Diora Baird, Linnea Quigley Release: 2010

Watch Trailers (click here)

08Nov

Free Flick of the Week: “In Cold Blood”

Posted in Free Flicks | 1 Comment

There have been some horrific home invasions in the news lately, but this kind of thing is, unfortunately, nothing new. In 1959, four members of the Clutter family were slaughtered in their rural Kansas home by two drifters. Seven years later, Truman Capote turned the tragedy into a bestselling book, which a year after that became this Richard Brooks-directed film. Forty years after that, In Cold Blood star Robert Blake was acquitted of the murder of his wife. Satisfy your morbid curiosity about the Clutters (and Blake) by clicking here. (You might have to verify your age, but you are old enough, aren’t you?)

06Nov

The Weekly Review: October 31 – November 6

Posted in Weekly Reviews | 1 Comment

.

From a news report:

“127 Hours has gotten audiences fainting, vomiting and worse in numbers unseen since The Exorcist — and the movie has not even hit theaters yet. A report in The Sun claimed that ‘horrified film fans threw up and fainted at the premiere of Slumdog Millionaire director Danny Boyle’s shocking new movie,’ which closed the London Film Festival last week. ‘Boyle looked on as paramedics treated fans struggling to cope with gruesome scenes.’ And the person sitting near Daily Mail reviewer Chris Tookey ‘left just after the most gruesome bit and never came back,’ apparently rebuking ‘the most harrowing bone-breaking and amputation scene in the history of cinema.’”

Who are these wimps? It’s a frickin’ movie, people! Does someone also wipe your arse for you?

*****

Zach Galifianakis: Everywhere I turn, I am seeing stories about this bearded John Belushi wannabe. Galifianakis first came to public awareness in The Hangover, a movie in which he displays exactly one emotion — a glower — and for which he was heralded as some kind of comic genius. He is now starring with Robert Downey, Jr. in Due Date, an uninspired comedy getting trashed by the nation’s critics. Here is what Roger Ebert says about Galifianakis in Due Date:

This guy also made the news for — wait for it! — pretending to smoke a joint on Bill Maher’s HBO show. And he again made news by reportedly wielding his immense Star Power by whining to director Todd Phillips that he could not work with disgraced actor Mel Gibson in the upcoming The Hangover Part II. I am baffled, bamboozled, and befuddled by this guy’s sudden emergence as a Hollywood player. It makes no sense.

*****

Stop It!

I watch too much cable news. I know this, because I no longer pay attention to the actual news and am instead transfixed by the anchors and their annoying physical quirks. Recently, I shared my irritation with entertainment reporter Kim Serafin, who is a living bobble-head doll. I was also freaked out by Fox anchor Harris Faulkner’s enormous eyeballs. I am now adding two more anchor pet peeves to my growing list.

I was watching The Larry King Show. Larry was off-camera as the show prepared to go to a commercial break. Suddenly, on the audio track, there came a wet, clicking sound — a slurpy, gnashing, glop! The sound was familiar to me: It was Larry running his tongue over his dentures.

CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin is a fox, no doubt about it, but she has the alarming habit of continually darting her eyes off to her right. I can’t watch her for more than a few minutes without witnessing this odd phenomenon. It appears as though someone just off-camera suddenly popped off a fart, catching poor Brooke off her guard.

03Nov

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Posted in Books, Books, Movies, TV & Web | 2 Comments

by Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens’s book isn’t so much a refutation of god as it is a full-throttle slam on religion. As a condemnation of man-made worship, the book is relentless – and persuasive. But as a treatise on whether or not god exists? Hitchens has no better arguments than anyone else. As he puts it himself, “Those who believe that the existence of conscience is a proof of a godly design are advancing an argument that simply cannot be disproved because there is no evidence for or against it.”

For all of his damning evidence against religion’s role in human history, I am still left with one overriding question: Has the good done by religion balanced out the evil done by religion, or is the ledger as one-sided as Hitchens would have us believe?

01Nov

Free Flick of the Week: “Quiz Show”

Posted in Free Flicks | Leave a comment

Twenty years ago, an American movie star knew his or her place: in front of the camera. But thanks to a few adventurous thespians, we now have Clint Eastwood and Ben Affleck and lord-knows-who-else playing “auteur.” Robert Redford was one of the pioneer actors to make the move to directing. Quiz Show’s “scandal” – cheating on a 1950s TV game show – seems kind of quaint today, but Redford’s 1994 film is anything but. Watch it for free by clicking here.

30Oct

The Weekly Review: October 24 – 30

Posted in Weekly Reviews | 2 Comments

There is something to be said for having low credibility. Cases in point: Jerry Springer and Dick Morris. I watch a lot of cable news, too much really, and it gets old listening to the same talking heads as they blather on about this or that. But Springer and Morris, both of whom are considered jokes by a lot of people, understand that they have little to lose by speaking their minds — and they do so, most entertainingly.

*****

Quote of the Week: “There’s a four-letter word in there.” — Fox anchor Megyn Kelly issuing a viewer “warning” before showing a clip of Joy Behar calling Republican candidate Sharron Angle a “bitch” (count the letters).

*****

I can’t be the only one who finds this bedbug infestation in New York City hilarious.

*****

Job I Want: Cameraman for CBS’ Survivor. This week, the boys showed off their cinematographic skills by focusing on contestant Brenda Lowe (above and below).

29Oct

Triumph of the Will (1935)

Posted in Books, Movies, TV & Web, Oldies | Leave a comment

.

Several years ago, I decided it was high time that I read Adolf Hitler’s manifesto, Mein Kampf. This is what I wrote in my review of the book: “You can call him [Hitler] a megalomaniacal monster, but he was nothing if not shrewd and determined. In Mein Kampf, he exhibits a keen understanding of propaganda, psychology, mass manipulation, class warfare … and the basest human instincts.” Much of Hitler’s prose, I recall thinking, seemed rather reasonable. Of course, that was his special talent: If you want millions to follow you, you can’t come off as a raving lunatic; you have to appeal to people’s sense of injustice in rational terms.

Hitler also knew how to select a good biographer. Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl’s infamous documentary featuring the Fuhrer at a 1934 political rally in Nuremberg, captures the mood and fervor of a nation falling under Hitler’s spell. This movie doesn’t excuse the Nazi movement – but it goes a long way toward explaining it.

Riefenstahl’s challenge as a filmmaker was daunting: how to take footage of endless crowd scenes (parades, rallies, speeches) – all of it glorifying Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party – and make it compelling for nearly two hours. Despite her documentary’s stellar reputation as groundbreaking cinema, I think Riefenstahl was only partly successful. The camera angles (very high, very low, often dramatic), the editing (juxtaposing Hitler with smiling children – there are lots of smiling children in this film), and other filmic devices are indeed impressive. But a speech is a speech, and a parade is a parade. The political rants grow tedious, and the parades become repetitive.

But for the most part, Riefenstahl was as talented behind a camera as Hitler was in front of one. As the film progresses, the crowds grow larger, Hitler grows more prominent, and the sense that something big is coming is palpable.

Just as in Mein Kampf, the Fuhrer appears calm and reasonable throughout much of the documentary. Until, that is, the last ten minutes of the film and his final speech. It is only then, when Hitler begins to rant about race and “best blood,” that his eyes take on a crazed glint, and his voice begins to quake. Grade: A-

Director: Leni Riefenstahl Release: 1935

Watch the Film (click here)

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31