The stories are true!
It’s a great poster, right? It gives you the tone, but reveals very little of the plot.
So, what does it tell you? Well, clearly this movie is set in a museum, the Chicago Natural History Museum to be exact. What else? Something has been brought back that shouldn’t have been brought back…some sort of Relic. Alright, I’ll stop dictating what you already know.
What’s interesting about this film is how I stumbled upon it. Usually movies get to me through the internet, advertisements, or word of mouth. In this case, fate led me to it. I’ll explain:
Many years ago, around about 1998 or so, I was hanging out with a childhood friend of mine. As a kid I was fascinated by horror films, mostly because I wasn’t able to watch them. They terrified me but, as with everything in life, the most dangerous things are also the most attractive. Age restrictions, however, were my nemesis and I sought out every potentially scary movie I could in a myriad of deceptive ways. Now I watch horror movies religiously and even want to embark on a career making them. Let that be a lesson to everyone; suppress it completely – and it’ll only resurface later in life tenfold.
Anyway, so my friend tells me about this really really scary movie that really really scared him and that he thinks i should really really see. It’s called The Relic.
Alright, I’m intrigued. He describes it as an obscenely gory and devilishly frightening creature film with a terrifying monster at the heart of it. Since I’m no older than ten, my immature response is of course “What does it look like?”. He attempts to describe it, but fails miserable, mentioning something about “loads of claws and teeth and stuff!”. Thank’s dude, you really are a poet. Regardless, I vow that one day I shall gaze upon its glory!
Fast forward a couple of years, probably around about 2000 or 2001, and I’m aimlessly walking around a second-hand book sale at my school. The local library was getting rid of boxes upon boxes of unwanted literature, selling it all for a cheap-ass price. I’m flicking through this genre-heap of abandoned paper, when suddenly my finger lands on…
“Relic! That’s what he said it was called, right? And the monster, is that it?”
“I think it is! Wow, it looks like a weird dinosaur-human-monkey thing. Nothing like what my friend described at all…but then again it wasn’t exactly the best eye witness account.”
So I take it to the counter and ask how much it costs. “25 Kroner”, the guy says. By the way, I’m from Norway, so our currency looks like this:
I need 25 of these suckers to buy the book. I search through my pockets and find…50 Kroner! I know, you were all expecting the perfect amount to make it all “magical”, right? Sorry, but hey…I could afford the book, so I bought it! As I read it, the plot revealed itself to be thus:
“A homicide detective and an anthropologist try to destroy a South American lizard-like god, who’s on a people eating rampage in a Chicago museum.”
– IMDB
A people – eating – rampage! How great is that? I loved it. It’s impeccably well written and wonderfully descriptive, but does it describe the creature in any sort of detail? No! So the picture on the front cover is clearly some random artist’s rendition. It therefore doesn’t give me a clue as to what the creature in the movie is like. I need to just…see it!
Another 2 or 3 years go by. One day my mother and I are looking through the nearest rental store for some movies to rent and BAM! …
There it is. I mean there it fucking is!
Finally after so many years I’m going to not only see this movie, but also get a definitive look at the monster. Just out of interest, who designed it? Oh, it’s only…
The man behind almost every fantastic practical makeup and robotic effect ever! Which doesn’t exactly dampen my spirits. So…I watched it…
The Relic (1997) trailer
Amazing. It’s everything I could have hoped for and more. No, I’m not going to describe the monster for you. You have to watch it yourself. I urge you to grab a copy anywhere you can and let me know what you think. Sorry about the long story, but hopefully it helps you appreciate my feelings about this one.
Rant Over!
Art is long, life is short
Do you want to see a 16 minute and 30 second uninterrupted shot of two people talking in a room? Do you want to see Michael Fassbender withering away and becoming a skeleton? Do you want to see faeces smeared all over the wall?
Well, then you’re in luck. Hunger is here!
Ok no, Hunger actually came out in 2008 and it just took me this long to actually see it. I also don’t hate it like that intro might make you think, but the film does have some overly artistic moments. Let’s start with the plot:
“Irish republican Bobby Sands leads the inmates of a Northern Irish prison in a hunger strike.”
– IMDB
That Irish republican is played by none other than the ‘everywhere-these-days’ Michael Fassbender. I’m going to say something controversial right now, but I wasn’t actually as impressed by Michael Fassbender here as I usually am. His dialogue scenes, the few that there are, seem very rehearsed and school-playish. Over the top reactions and perfectly timed interruptions make for a very wooden performance. That being said, whenever he is performing action instead of dialogue, he’s spot on. As most of the movie is non-verbal, it ends up not becoming a very big issue.
The movie is directed by Steve McQueen, who later went on to direct Shame. McQueen has a very interesting background. He came out of visual arts, which can sometimes be a tricky transition. People who paint or write poetry, for example, often end up making very pretentious films that consist largely of symbolic imagery rather than coherent storytelling. This is not the case here. McQueen understands how to make a movie both metaphorical in nature as well as graspable to a regular audience.
It’s actually more than that. The film manages very successfully to get into the characters head simply by using the cinematic tools available. There is one scene that hit me very hard, where Fassbender is writhing in his bed. As he is lumbered by painful convulsions, the camera sways back and forth and the music peaks and random intervals. This use of movement and sound manages to truly get across the feeling of what it’s like to have these kinds of recurring attacks. Anyone who has simply laid in bed with a strong stomach virus will know the feeling.
The other interesting aspect of Hunger is the decision to follow different characters. You might think that a movie centred around one person would follow that one person to the bitter end, but no. Instead, it frequently deviates, often following the story of various prison guards before returning to the inmates. This shift in narrative helps to convey the idea that these people are all pawns, caught up in policy that is set by external government bodies. It’s a very tragic realisation, and adds to the uselessness of the whole situation.
That’s the good stuff, now for the bad stuff. I felt there were certain very pretentious moments that I could have lived without. I mentioned the 16 and a half minute shot. Yeah…there’s a single take of two people talking for 16 and a half minutes. Here’s the thing; the rule is generally that a scene is never meant to last more than roughly 2 minutes. Any longer than that and the audience will start to get bored. The pacing will drag and people will begin to question the necessity of the dialogue. Not only that, but if your film features over 16 minutes of dialogue in one scene, it’s usually an indication that you’re not getting straight to the point. That’s exactly how I felt about this bit of the movie, it doesn’t get to the point. There’s a lot of chit chat that I didn’t care about, and it takes them a solid 8 minutes to start talking about Fassbenders intentions and motivations. When the shot finally changed I was so relieved, and not in a good way…a very bad way. A friend of mine expressed admiration at this scene, because of the extreme lack of dialogue up to that point. I can understand that argument, but to me it’s just clunky script design which holds no respect for the audience. People need to understand what’s going on, and be interested in it. If you waste their time with 8 minutes of “Ey”, “Ey”, “How are ya?” “Not bad, you?” “Not bad, where you coming from today?” “Oh, you know…”
No. Just no. Get to the point, that’s all I can say.
So, in the end I think Hunger is a good film, if a bit up its own ass at times. I don’t think it’s as good as Shame, and the two are fairly similar in tone and atmosphere.
Hunger (2008) trailer
Rant Over!
A match made in the heavens
I talked a bit about this film in the previous post, and I sort of mentioned it once before that as well, so this will probably sound like a rehash. I’m sorry about that. Although, it’s true that some movies just can’t be recommended enough.
If you’ve seen it, or you’re sick of hearing me harp on about it, or both, then by all means skip this one. But for those of you out there who don’t even know what I’m talking about, just give me five minutes of your time.
Starman is a science-fiction drama. How often do you see those anymore? They were all the rage in the 80’s, but they are few and far between these days. The premise is a good one:
“An alien takes the form of a young widow’s husband and asks her to drive him from Wisconsin to Arizona. The government tries to stop them.”
– IMDB
You can tell exactly where the plot’s going just from the tagline alone. There’s no pretending that this film has a lot of surprises, but it does have a lot of well played emotional moments. In short, the film works.
It’s important to take note of the title. Starman? Yeah, so what?
Well it’s not just Starman, it’s John Carpenter’s Starman. Just like John Carpenter’s The Fog, John Carpenter’s Halloween, John Carpenter’s Escape From New York, and John Carpenter’s The Thing. That’s right, after directing a series of horror movies and B-grade action adventure films, Carpenter decided he would try his hand at drama. You wouldn’t expect much from such a typecast director, but he really pulled it off.
I’m shocked too Jeff, we all are.
I talked a bit before about how good Karen Allen’s performance is in this. So, I’ll only re-mention that it’s understated and everyone should pay attention to it.
Jeff Bridges is also undeniably charismatic. His bizarre concept of an alien immitating a human being may at first be awkward to watch, but you soon ease into it. In fact, the alien has a very charming way of speaking which softens as the movie progresses, becoming more and more human.
The special effects are very 80’s, there’s no getting around that, but if you can ignore the cheesy composite shots you’ll undoubtedly fall in love with the entire thing. Starman is one of those great movies that men and women will both like. It mixes two genres in a seamless effort. John Carpenter, aside from The Thing and Halloween, this is surely the best thing you’ve ever made. You, sir, deserve a hug if nothing else.
Starman (1984) trailer
Everyone should see this film. Hell, everyone should own it.
Rant Over!
Recommending the unrecommended
Now listen all you cinemarant devotees…yes, that means both of you. Actually no, now it’s just one of you.
I hear you saying to yourself “my god! Cinemarant has provided me with so much. I have reviews, recommendations, lists, more reviews, more recommendations, and then even more lists. What more could I possibly need?”. Well, I’ve decided to spice up your plate yet some more. I’m not adding a new section to the site, but rather a subsection. The Recommendations section will now be split into two categories: Films and Actors. I’m thinking of adding a Director’s subsection aswell, but we’ll see how that plays out.
Alright, so in the”Films” subsection, it’s pretty straight forward. I recommend films that I think you should all see.
However, in the “Actors” subsection I will be recommending actors who I think you should look into and hopefully appreciate. These will most likely be obscure names, but not necessarily. The main point is to open your eyes and introduce you to some of the people who have contributed a lot to film, often without getting a lot of recognition for it. These people most likely do not have a Bieber-fever fan group following them, hence their names go unrecognised and/or unacknowledged.
There, got it? Sweet. So now, let’s kick off with a woman I love to love:
Aww, she’s so sparkly. I totally didn’t add those lens flares in photoshop, she just looks like that.
Alright, so for those of you who don’t recognise Karen, she was kind of a big deal in the 80’s. Well, maybe not a big deal, but that’s certainly when her career peaked. You can look up her entire resume on IMDB yourself, but let me just say that I most fondly remember her from:
Karen only played a supporting role in this movie, but so did everyone else. It’s an ensemble cast, to which she adds an lot. With so much craziness going on on screen, it’s important to have a sweet, smiley, grounding figure in the group. Who better than Karen Allen to help bring this troop of bizarro characters down to earth and give us something more substantial to believe in? That’s not to say that she’s free of all wackyness herself.
Who can’t enjoy this movie? I mean, really. It’s the original Indiana Jones, and Allen luckily scored a part in it. It gave her a huge boost in her career, and she deserved it. She gave such incredible life, feistiness, beauty, and loveable purity to the character of Marion Ravenwood. She was the perfect romantic counterpart to Harrison Ford.
Starman is Karen Allen’s brightest shining achievement. It’s a gorgeous film with a warm heart and it places her centre stage. The movie rests largely, or even entirely, on the believability and like-ability of her character. She plays a woman who’s husband has just died. An alien arrives at her front porch and takes on his appearance, with intentions of finding a way back to its home planet. Sound ridiculous? Meh, why not? It’s actually very comparable to E. T., except obviously without the same type of creature effects. It’s also not aimed as much for children, but still works fantastically as a film the whole family can watch. And in this one… Karen Allen’s performance will make you cry.
I’m not as big-a-fan of Bill Murray as everyone else seems to be, but I do think he can be funny. However, a lot of his films often aren’t, well…not to me at least. Scrooged is different. Scrooged is funny, and it’s sweet.
Why is it so sweet? You guessed it; Karen Allen! Ok, no, there are more reasons than just her. For starters it’s an 80’s adaptation of A Christmas Carol, which is of course a classic. Also it has Bobcat Goldthwait in a fairly big role, something you don’t see a lot outside of the Police Academy movies. But of course, Karen Allen steals the show for every minute that she’s on screen. At this point she was most likely being typecast because of her pale “un-corruptable-looking” eyes, but that would only last until…
That photo essentially tells you everything you need to know. A mass murderer is killed and then has his consciousness transferred into a computer network, thus allowing him to continue his killing spree! Wait…what?
You mean that wasn’t obvious? I thought a picture was supposed to be worth a thousand words, and that was only twenty-two. Anyways, it’s your typical haunted-Microsoft movie. Cause, you know, they’re a dime a dozen. It’s full of crappy early 90’s CGI, in tandem with late 80’s practical pyrotechnics. Oh, Karen Allen’s in it too, by the way.
A small part, Karen doesn’t have a lot of lines and she isn’t a very important character. Still, her big puppy dog eyes help you to feel sorry for her as she tries to keep her sailing-boat upright. That’s not a euphemism, she really is trying to keep her boat from flipping over in a storm.
How good was Karen as Marion Ravenwood in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark? So good that they brought her back for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The first Indiana Jones film in 19 years, there was a lot of hype about it. Unfortunately it got slammed by a lot of critics and audience members. Many many people hated it to the core.
Well, I loved it. I loved having Indy back, I loved having the adventures back, I loved having that popcorn-80’s feeling back, and I loved having Karen Allen back. It was the perfect tribute to the cast that started it all, and I thank Steven Spielberg endlessly for going in that direction.
So now, I recommend that you go out and purchase something with Karen Allen in it. hopefully it’ll be one of the films listed above, as they’re the ones I think are the best, but anything will do. We should all try to support great artists wherever possible, and Karen Allen certainly qualifies.
Rant Over!
Cinema Rant 