One of those films that ultimately found its feet on dvd, The Fifth Element had the misfortune to come out in the same year as Titanic, thereby causing it to sink without a trace.
Not that it's an easy film to find an audience for. The film is stylish, cool to look at, but not in a fanboy eye candy manner. The cast is large and strong. Some great Gary Oldman scene-chewing, Bruce Willis in a restrained few-worded man-of-action mode, and a host of "Hey, don't I know that guy from somewhere" character actors. Chris Tucker is admittedly as loud and obnoxious as ever, but he's not on screen for most of the film, and his shtick kind of works here.
There is action and adventure, slick fast-paced filmmaking, and a fun story with a bit of depth to it. Often overlooked, but well worth a viewing.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Bigger Stronger Faster
Nominally about the use of steroids, this documentary ends up addressing far larger ideas.
The personal focus here comes from the filmmaker's attention to his own story and that of his two brothers. All three had dreams of becoming the next Stallone or Hulk Hogan. His brothers went the steroid route; filmmaker Chris Bell did not.
Bell's boldest move in the film is to present the argument for steroids and allow steroid supporters to address the commonly-held, but largely unsupported, views of steroid's dangers. In doing so, he highlights a larger and deeper conflict, because even as Bell presents these arguments, the person who remains unconvinced is Bell himself.
And so the film moves on to the question of why steroids "just seem really wrong." What is it in our culture that embraces some enhancements and demonizes others? What does it say about us that so many of our heroes "cheated" to achieve the success for which we admire them?
Bell is particularly hard on Arnold Schwarznegger and his message of "work hard, eat your vegetables, say your prayers, and in America, you can become anything," noting repeatedly that Arnold's entire career is based on success that he achieved through using steroids.
Ultimately Bell portrays steroid use not as a problem, but as a symptom of something sad and difficult in the American character, the drive to do whatever it takes to get the dream, even if that means potential self-destruction. And Bell's brothers underline that, because they are ultimately sad figures who take all those steps, and still end up ordinary men far short of any sort of greatness or success. Saddest of all is his older brother, who appears to be throwing away the quieter success of a solid father, husband and provider in vain pursuit of a glory that he believes is his destiny, but which he will clearly never achieve.
Ultimately this far-ranging documentary (as the film proceeds, Bell's "gets" for interviews are increasingly impressive and varied) is funny, sad, thought-provoking, and as much about the American dream and celebrity as it is about steroids. Highly recommended.
The personal focus here comes from the filmmaker's attention to his own story and that of his two brothers. All three had dreams of becoming the next Stallone or Hulk Hogan. His brothers went the steroid route; filmmaker Chris Bell did not.
Bell's boldest move in the film is to present the argument for steroids and allow steroid supporters to address the commonly-held, but largely unsupported, views of steroid's dangers. In doing so, he highlights a larger and deeper conflict, because even as Bell presents these arguments, the person who remains unconvinced is Bell himself.
And so the film moves on to the question of why steroids "just seem really wrong." What is it in our culture that embraces some enhancements and demonizes others? What does it say about us that so many of our heroes "cheated" to achieve the success for which we admire them?
Bell is particularly hard on Arnold Schwarznegger and his message of "work hard, eat your vegetables, say your prayers, and in America, you can become anything," noting repeatedly that Arnold's entire career is based on success that he achieved through using steroids.
Ultimately Bell portrays steroid use not as a problem, but as a symptom of something sad and difficult in the American character, the drive to do whatever it takes to get the dream, even if that means potential self-destruction. And Bell's brothers underline that, because they are ultimately sad figures who take all those steps, and still end up ordinary men far short of any sort of greatness or success. Saddest of all is his older brother, who appears to be throwing away the quieter success of a solid father, husband and provider in vain pursuit of a glory that he believes is his destiny, but which he will clearly never achieve.
Ultimately this far-ranging documentary (as the film proceeds, Bell's "gets" for interviews are increasingly impressive and varied) is funny, sad, thought-provoking, and as much about the American dream and celebrity as it is about steroids. Highly recommended.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Saturday Night Fever
If you think you know why you don't want to actually see this little filmic icon, let me explain to you why you're wrong.
Here's the thing. An awful lot of what you think you know about the seventies is not exactly correct. If the sex-drugs-rock sixties were a retread of the sex-gin-jazz twenties, then the seventies were an echo of the thirties.
The seventies are remembered, if at all (and no, That Seventies Show, doesn't count-- Happy Days does a better job of recreating the fifties, for God's sake), they're remembered as a happy romanticized cheesefest. But the seventies were deeply conflicted-- hoping for that happy polyester world on the one hand, and suspecting and fearing something darker and uglier at the same time.
Saturday Night Fever is completely in touch with that. If you think you know what the film is going to be like because you know the bright chirpy soundtrack, you're wrong. Things about the film that you don't expect:
This is a film that really earns its R rating. Travolta and his friends are not nice people. They are rough and nasty and not in a stylized Hollywood cute way. They treat women like crap, and not in a cute Apatow warm-fuzzy-misogyny way; the film includes at least two rape scenes and some brutal use of the C-word.
These are characters who love the disco floor because it is the only bright and pleasant thing in their dark, sad lives.
This is not a chirpy movie. Eight Mile is a brighter, more pleasant film. For modern audiences who are used to stylized comfortable language and ugliness, some of this is a bit discomforting. Which is part of the point. It made Travolta a star not just because he dances the hell out of it, and certainly not because he's just playing Vinnie Barbarino (because he's not, at all), but because he manages to give charm and charisma to a character who is really not a nice guy.
It's not a popcorn movie, a date movie, or a piece of light-weight fantasy. It's a reminder that disco dancing started out as an urban phenom (just starting to die as this movie hit and convinced a bunch of rich white suburban kids that they'd like to dress up and act badass, too, at least a little). This is a largely serious film about a character trapped in poverty, a dysfunctional family, and a life so bad it even makes a priest give up. Well, and there's some serious dancing, too.
Gritty, tough, and very much an artifact of its times. Not cheesy plastic. Actually worth a couple of hours of your time.
Here's the thing. An awful lot of what you think you know about the seventies is not exactly correct. If the sex-drugs-rock sixties were a retread of the sex-gin-jazz twenties, then the seventies were an echo of the thirties.
The seventies are remembered, if at all (and no, That Seventies Show, doesn't count-- Happy Days does a better job of recreating the fifties, for God's sake), they're remembered as a happy romanticized cheesefest. But the seventies were deeply conflicted-- hoping for that happy polyester world on the one hand, and suspecting and fearing something darker and uglier at the same time.
Saturday Night Fever is completely in touch with that. If you think you know what the film is going to be like because you know the bright chirpy soundtrack, you're wrong. Things about the film that you don't expect:
This is a film that really earns its R rating. Travolta and his friends are not nice people. They are rough and nasty and not in a stylized Hollywood cute way. They treat women like crap, and not in a cute Apatow warm-fuzzy-misogyny way; the film includes at least two rape scenes and some brutal use of the C-word.
These are characters who love the disco floor because it is the only bright and pleasant thing in their dark, sad lives.
This is not a chirpy movie. Eight Mile is a brighter, more pleasant film. For modern audiences who are used to stylized comfortable language and ugliness, some of this is a bit discomforting. Which is part of the point. It made Travolta a star not just because he dances the hell out of it, and certainly not because he's just playing Vinnie Barbarino (because he's not, at all), but because he manages to give charm and charisma to a character who is really not a nice guy.
It's not a popcorn movie, a date movie, or a piece of light-weight fantasy. It's a reminder that disco dancing started out as an urban phenom (just starting to die as this movie hit and convinced a bunch of rich white suburban kids that they'd like to dress up and act badass, too, at least a little). This is a largely serious film about a character trapped in poverty, a dysfunctional family, and a life so bad it even makes a priest give up. Well, and there's some serious dancing, too.
Gritty, tough, and very much an artifact of its times. Not cheesy plastic. Actually worth a couple of hours of your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)