Lullaby by Chuck Palahniuk (March 24 - March 26)

Lullaby marks my first venture into the dark twisted world of Chuck Palahniuk who has taken on cult status over the last 10 years or so providing his readers with effervescent bizzare fables usually with strong social commentary (which is where the comparisons to Vonnegut come in) and a crude sense of humor. The plot in this book is as strange as they come taking on elements of the fantasmic involving a children's book of poems that when read outloud or even thought of has the power to kill anyone instantly. The protagonist is a journalist reporter investigating crib deaths who ends up forming a relationship with a real estate agent who sells haunted houses. Along with her secretary and boyfriend who are well versed in wiccan religion, they all set off on a road trip across America to trackdown these books of poems to destroy them. With such an interesting premise, Palahniuk spends too much time on nihilistic rants of contemporary society from mass media brainwashing to the apocalypse rather than the actual story. That isn't to say the story is shoved aside entirely for the sake of self-conscious ramblings. It just feels slightly rushed and only starts to get interesting once the climax arrives. This is a quick read that was thoroughly entertaining and although it didn't really leave much of an impression I'd still recommend it as an excellent piece of edgy post-modern literature that tackles some controversial subject matter in a cynical imaginative way.

[***]

New DVD Purchases

and

Picked both of these up for a 2/$20 at HMV. I have seen the Woody Allen film several times and it remains one of his best from the 90's. Buffalo '66 was a complete blind-purchase and I have never seen anything by Gallo before. It has Christinni Ricci so that was enough to give it the benefit of the doubt. How would you rate these two?

#90: Fresh (Yakin, 1994)

Part coming of age story and uncompromising social commentary regarding disenchanted youth growing up in the Bronx, Boaz Yakin’s Fresh eschews the cliché ridden faux-sentimentality of life in the ghetto – first and foremost opting to tell a compelling story with characters that don’t fall into the trap of stereotypes whilst providing a powerful message on the importance of family and the social injustices of impoverished communities. Yakin stresses the personal and political change necessary to put an end to the bloodshed and immoral atrocities rampant in these downtrodden places where government institutions are scarcely provided. Above all else, education is the key to positive change.

What stands out in a film like this that deals with subject matter that has been covered time and time again is that the characters come across as real people with complex emotions and depth. Even the murderers and thugs aren’t just mere cardboard cut-outs of familiar gangster-type associations; the way they communicate or react to certain situations reveals much about their personalities. Take Esteban (Giancarlo Esposito) for instance who is a big-time drug dealer that our 12 year old protagonist Michael (Sean Nelson) or Fresh as he is more commonly referred to works for as a drug pusher in the streets of Harlem. Esteban is a family man and not the familiar strung-out mean-spirited criminal that only cares about money even though he is driven by greed and prone to intimidating bursts of rage as complications surface in the drug-trade. He holds loyalty and truthfulness in high esteem and even goes out of his way to treat Fresh like his own son. Esteban may not be the most decent man to be around but he is a man of principles and it’s refreshing to see a crime-lord with some semblance of humanity. Another refreshing aspect is that Yakin doesn’t pigeonhole his characters as “good” or “bad”. The streets are a war zone where drugs, violence and prostitution are rampant. The struggle for survival in such a hostile environment plagues these people especially Fresh who wants nothing more than to save enough money and escape the hustling street life before it’s too late. With minimal government support, these poor souls are left with very few options to make an honest living and continually get roped into this dangerous lifestyle so who are we to judge? The youth is the most vulnerable to corruption and Yakin emphatically points out that education is something that needs to be reinforced in these young children who are falling victim to this perilous lifestyle since they don’t know any better. Until the government decides to put forth the effort to intervene this is a problem that is not going to be resolved anytime soon.

In what is probably the most overlooked child performance of the 90’s or possibly ever, Sean Nelson is spellbinding in the title role and carries the entire film. The emotional range and his ability to portray Fresh as an smart kid that is exceedingly clever without coming off as too precocious is nothing short of masterful. It is a shame that Sean Nelson’s career never really took off after this film and if the heart-wrenching final scene is any indication, this young man showed incredible talent at such a young age. Fresh may be young but living in these conditions has forced him to grow up quickly even though he is still just a kid at heart. The awkwardness of his school-yard crush showcases Nelson at the top of his game; completely in control of his character by switching from his normal rigid imperviousness to a kid unsure of how to approach the situation. The film wears its heart on its sleeve and relies on Nelson’s genuine performance in order to effectively portray its themes and ideas. Fresh has to maintain a firm assertiveness so as to not show weakness because of the sordid work that he does even though deep inside he is terrified and filled with anguish. His relationship with his alcoholic father (Samuel L. Jackson), a skilled chess player who spends most of his time in the park drinking from a brown paper-bag and playing the game is the emotional core of the film. Chess is a game of strategy and during these visits, Fresh’s father offers him advice on the game but looking closer at the dialogue, it soon becomes clear that these are valuable life lessons that he is giving his son. The chess lessons also help to influence the way Fresh cunningly decides to outsmart his opponents which of course are the drug-dealers he sells dope for. The way he goes about doing this is incredibly suspenseful that is intricately thought out making the plot exhilarating to watch unfold. Even though the film can be grueling to watch at times because of how unflinching the violence is depicted, the raw authenticity of the script, perfect pacing, and wonderfully drawn characters makes it difficult to turn away. This film is leaps and bounds ahead of all those other films dealing with similar subject matter because it actually has something positive to say and goes about doing so in a thought-provoking and intelligent manner.

#24 Female Performance: Renee Zellwegger

Renee Zellwegger

as

Bridget Jones

in

Bridget Jones's Diary

Here is where I more than likely lose most of you who have been following my list. Similar to Miranda July, Zellwegger seems like an obscure pick among the A-list power-house performances and her current ranking position may seem questionable but she really is deserving of such adoration. She brings to life one of the most relatable female characters I have ever come across in cinema with humor, sharp wit, gentle warmth and a social awkwardness that makes her completely adorable. Single, plump, pushing 40 and desperate to find a man, Bridget Jones isn’t your typical bombshell beauty typically found in these kind of romantic comedies. It’s refreshing to have a female heroine who is relatably flawed and yet completely sexy by her intellectualism and personality rather than plain looks. Zellwegger was born for this role and immerses herself completely in the role (she even packed on a lot of extra weight for it), brings a level of genuine earnestness to her character that just rings true. Bridget would be the kind of girl I could see myself falling in love with.

The New Layout: Yay or Nay?

For those few who actually read my blog, you may notice that it looks a little different. A sort of spur of the moment decision, I've gone with a whole new different layout and color scheme that is a little less oppressive than my original template which was a hard on the eyes. So, do you like my new look or should I abandon it?

Oh, and I also bought three films this afternoon:

- La Vie En Rose: After Marion Cotillard pulled a major upset at the Academy awards by winning best actress I just had to see for myself if her performance was worthy of such adoration.

- Once: I'm hoping that a re-watch will convince me that my initial vitriolic response towards it was all wrong.

- Sunshine: One of my favorites of 2007. I just had to own it.

Splitting Deathly Hallows

It's semi-old news but it goes without question that this is one of the biggest stories to break in the Harry Potter universe. Let's face it: With the completion and successful release of Book seven last year, Potter related news has been slow or otherwise painfully banal. The construction of a Potter theme park? Bah, who cares. At long last, we have something fans can get excited about. WB released an official statement on March 12 confirming that movie seven would indeed be split into two parts after rumors began surfacing months ago. This creates an interesting dilemma for the most successful franchise of all time since the bar has been set considerably higher for them to finally do the books justice and if it is not pulled of successfully it could mean disaster. The producer David Heyman was quoted as saying in the LA Times that "I swear to you it was born out of purely creative reasons," Heyman said during an interview in a converted airplane factory outside London that has been home base to all of the "Potter" productions. "Unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book. You can remove scenes of Ron playing quidditch from the fifth book, and you can remove Hermione and S.P.E.W. [Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare] and those subplots . . . but with the seventh, that can't be done."

That may be all fine and dandy Mr. Heyman although it's diffcult for me to fully embrace this decision since it does feel like a marketing strategy to milk the franchise for everything it's worth since there will be no more Potter films after this one. Why wasn't the decision to split Goblet of Fire or Order of the Phoenix ever followed through? The latter is the longest book in the series and yet you decided to make it the shortest film in the series by massively excluding various plot lines/characters that are integral to the story. That sure makes a whole lot of sense.

My two cents is that right from the get-go, Warner Brothers should have gone the Lord of the Rings route by releasing both the theatrical version (with a slightly longer running times that don't rush the story) and an extended version. That way there would be less pressure once Deathly Hallows is released and everyone wins. It would help to satisfy the hardcore Harry Potter fans and for those who haven't read the books but go to see the movies will at least have a more thorough understanding of what is going on. The main problem with these films is that they focus on time constraints rather than the actual story. Now, WB realizes that this past mistake is going to bite them in the arse because of how the previous six books build up towards Deathly Hallows and since they decided it would be wise to overlook the importance of Rowling's story, they now have to fill in the missing gaps. They could rise up the challange and manage to pull it off except this creates another problem: Where do you make the split and retain continuity without alienating the audience? It is interesting to note that both parts will be released six months apart. During this time will Part 1 be released on DVD to get people excited to go and see Part 2? If not, excitement will dwindle and there is the possibility that many will lose interest. WB may have good intentions to finally do the books justice but splitting it into two parts puts the narrative in jeopardy. Wouldn't it make more sense to release a three and a half hour movie instead without a disruption of the story-telling act structure. There could even be an intermission. Presumably, the first part will lack a satisfying climax unless they come up with some ingenious way of leaving a cliff-hanger because of the way the book is structured. The first half deals with Harry's learning of the Horcruxes which means that it will more than likely be many scenes of exposition. The second part involves Harry taking action and the climactic battle at Hogwarts. There lies the dilemma. How are they going to pull it off successfully without hurting the narrative? I suppose we are going to have to wait and see. Any thoughts on this?

Honorable Mention #2: Ghostbusters (Reitman, 1984)

Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis looking a lot slimmer as the Ghostbusters.

“We've been going about this all wrong, this Mr. Stay Puft's okay, he's a sailor, he's in New York, we get this guy laid we won't have any trouble.”

Here we have what I consider to be one of the best comedies to come out of the 1980’s. With a great cast including Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis, there is non-stop laughs sprinkled with thrills. It may just be the nostalgia factor, but this was one of the defining films of my childhood and I find myself enjoying it even more so today. Before Ghostbusters was released as a motion-picture, there was the hit cartoon show that I remember getting up extra early to watch and the cool action-figures. According to my parents, this was the first film that we owned on VHS and apparently, I would watch it on a regular basis. I clearly remember getting frightened during some of the sequences especially the beginning with the ghost in the library. Even today, this scene still manages to make me jump as the three professors investigate a disturbance in the lower level of the facility. As a kid, I was mainly interested in the action and the ion blasters that the Ghostbusters use to capture the ghosts. Not to mention, the film also scared the hell out of me even though it is more of a comedy. Plenty of the humor, jokes and underlying social themes flew right over my head when I was younger but now I can appreciate it more.

The comedic premise has always interested to me. Three University science professors start up their own business of catching ghosts, ghouls, monsters and other supernatural beings that just happen to be terrorizing New York City. Unfortunately for them, demons from another world have no entered the realm of Earth and are launching an assault on the Big Apple. Who can forget that mischief making green ghost named Slimer, or the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man? The collectible figurine of the latter still rests on my shelf to this day. With New Yorkers in a state of panic, who will they turn to for help? Well, as the catchy theme song goes, “Who, you gonna call? Ghost Busters!”

The special effects seem a bit dated but it is all campy fun. The script is sharp and funny providing lots of memorable dialogue. It takes on a rather sarcastic tone and works perfectly to Bill Murray’s advantage since he specializes in dry humor. For instance, one of the funniest lines in the entire film is delivered by Murray: “It’s official. This man has no dick.” His performance Venkman is also one of the best roles of his career. The film is obviously a collaboration of great actors but it’s really Bill Murray who is the star here. Sigourney Weaver plays his love interest and even though many would disagree with me, I don’t think she has ever looked sexier than in her role here as Dana Barrett, the woman whom the evil forces have an interest in. Special mention also needs to go to Rick Moranis who provides a belly full of laughs as the neurotic little dweeb who is infatuated with Weaver’s character. His encounter with the scary-looking demon dog is hilarious and even though it is a small role, it is probably his best performances. Let’s be realistic here, his career has been rather shaky and he tends to star in mediocre or just downright terrible films (The Flintstones, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, etc). This is one performance he should be remembered for alongside Darth Helmet in Mel Brook’s Spaceballs.

If you are looking for a great comedy, action, or thrills and chills, you can’t go wrong with this film. This is big-blockbuster entertainment at its best. Mixing elements of horror, action and humor with a vast array of comedic talent, Ghost Busters is a blast and a definite 80’s classic.

(This review was written on January 3rd, 2004)

#91: Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999)

Another cut-and-paste review.