Killer of Sheep

Director: Charles Burnett

Writer: Charles Burnett

Summary: Stan (Henry Sanders) must balance providing for his family with the emotional toll of his job in a slaughterhouse.

Killer of Sheep is a tricky film to watch and an even trickier film to review. On the one hand, it provides an intimate and (seemingly) authentic look at daily life in an urban, African American ghetto in the mid 1970s. As a middleclass white Canadian who came of age in the 1990s, that is not a slice of life I am particularly familiar with. Few filmmakers, before or since, have tackled this subject and as a result Killer of Sheep has immense cultural value.

But on the other hand, from a technical standpoint the film is somewhat lacking. And from an entertainment standpoint it is even more lacking. Of course, that raises the question of whether or not a movie trying to honestly depict life in a ghetto needs to be conventionally entertaining, but I will discuss more about that later. For now I want to discuss some of the technical limitations of the movie.

This movie cost less than $10,000 to make (adjusted for inflation, about $40,000 in today’s dollars). That is beyond low budget and well into the microbudget range of filmmaking. In fact, from what I have read, Killer of Sheep is actually Charles Burnett’s thesis film at UCLA. Given this information, we shouldn’t be too hard on the film, from a technical standpoint, but there are still some aspects that make it a difficult viewing experience. My biggest complaint has to be the sound design. There were times when two characters would be having a conversation and I could barely hear the dialogue and then, randomly, some of the lines would come through with what felt like thunderous volume. The overall effect was that I often found it difficult to concentrate and follow exactly what was going on. Visually, the film is fairly rudimentary, but I don’t really consider this to be a problem as it suits the nature of the film and gives it an almost documentary feel, similar to films like The Battle of Algiers. I found the scenes of the children playing in the dirt of abandoned lots particularly moving as it seemed like the camera crew just stumbled upon them and filmed them roughhousing and playing make-believe with whatever detritus they came across.

Because it is such an intimate look at one man’s life the entire film really rests on the back of the characters and the actors playing them, and this is where the movie excels. The characters are all believable and it is easy to empathize with Stan’s struggles to bring in money for his family, his pride, and the grind of going to work at an abattoir every day. There are a few interesting scenes where a couple guys who appear to be old friends of his want him to help them out in their illegal affairs (I think – these were some of the worst scenes for sound). Being an honest, hardworking man, he turns them down, but what I found most interesting was that these characters dressed and behaved the most like what you would expect in the blaxploitation films that were so prevalent at the time. Granted, they were very toned down compared to something like Shaft or Superfly, but it helped ground the movie in an area adjacent to the cartoonish world we are familiar with in film.

Now all of that about the cultural importance of this movie is great, but when it comes down to it, I just did not find the movie that entertaining – there just wasn’t any drama. I’m not saying that it should have had gunfights or car chases, but the movie is designed almost as a series of glimpses into the life of the neighbourhood, as seen through Stan’s eyes. This results in a film that has the much lauded cultural interest, but no real narrative to captivate the viewer and carry them through Stan’s world. There was no real climax, or even character growth, the story just kind of ends with his life continuing on as normal. And maybe that is an accurate reflection of reality, but it is not good storytelling and what is filmmaking if not storytelling? I don’t think that writing a movie with drama necessarily means that you have to sacrifice authenticity. Look at City of God. That is a fantastic story set in the slums of Rio and it grabs the viewer and holds them right to the very end while still giving an accurate view of life in those slums. Granted, that movie does have gunfights and chases because they are appropriate to the setting, but in Postales you have the story of a child who lives in the slums of Cuzco, Peru and makes a living by selling postcards. This is contrasted with his older brother who makes a living sleeping with tourists and then robbing them. Meanwhile, the family is being forced out of their shack so that an American can build a new hotel. This is a great example of a quiet, character based narrative that still gives an authentic view of a side of life we don’t usually think about when brushing off the little kids trying to sell us knickknacks while we gawk at their sacred sites.

Personally, I think that Killer of Sheep persists today only because so few movies have been made that have a really honest portrayal of something so important to North American history. If someone had come along and made a gripping tale that was also an authentic portrayal of the impoverished black community in the ‘70s Killer of Sheep would have been lost to the ages with little fuss. But that was not the case, and this is the record we have. So with that, I will recommend Killer of Sheep on a historical/cultural basis, but if you are looking for something more entertaining you will have to look somewhere else.

B-

Four Rooms

Directors: Allison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino


Writers: Allison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino


Summary: Left alone on New Year’s Eve, a bellhop (Tim Roth) must watch over the entire hotel including a coven of witches, a couple caught in a psycho-sexual drama, a pair of misbehaving children and a drunken celebrity entourage.



I thought I was going to like Four Rooms more than I actually did.  The idea of creating an anthology with four writer/directors sounds like a good one, but in practice I just felt it made for a pretty inconsistent movie.  Unfortunately, the movie starts off with the weakest of the four chapters.  Although it had some good moments, the tale of the witches’ coven trying to resurrect a powerful witch fell flat for me.  In some ways I guess it was a good decision to start the movie off with the witch story.  After all, Four Rooms was released the year after Pulp Fiction and a few months after Desperado.  Combined with the fact that it also stars both Tim Roth and Antonio Banderas and you are going to have a lot of people expecting it to be a violent crime thriller with a comedic streak.  However, as soon as The Missing Ingredient starts you know that you are in for something completely different.  The first thing you’ll notice is that Roth has more in common with Jerry Lewis than Mr. Orange.  At first I did not really like the slapstickiness of Four Rooms, but I actually found Roth’s performance, in particular, started to grow on me about halfway through the second chapter (The Wrong Man).  It actually makes me wonder if I’d have appreciated The Missing Ingredient more if I’d had more reasonable expectations for what the movie is supposed to be.  None of that changes the fact that neither of the first two chapters hold a candle to The Misbehavers (Rodriguez) or The Man from Hollywood (Tarantino).

Somewhat surprisingly, I think my favourite segment actually was The Misbehavers, if only for Antonio Banderas in what has turned into one of my favourite of his performances.  In fact, the entire sequence hints at the aptitude for children’s entertainment that Rodriguez would later show with Spy Kids. Of course, that is not to say his chapter is at all appropriate for children, but I think it has the best balance of slapstick darker, more violent humour that many viewers would be hoping for.

The Man from Hollywood is another great segment, benefitting from Tarantino’s witty and face-paced dialogue and his ability to draw out a scene, building the tension before a sudden outburst of violence.  By this point in the night the Bellhop is at the end of his rope, growing a bit of a spine and, resultantly, toning down the Jerry Lewis aspects of his character.  You’d think, given my feelings at the beginning of the film, that I would be glad of this, but surprisingly I was actually a little disappointed – I had grown to like the awkward and neurotic Bellhop.  Although The Misbehavers is the most balanced of the chapters, I think The Man from Hollywood works really well as a conclusion, almost acting as a summary of the thesis of the movie (in as much as it has one).  Through the dialogue, Tarantino actually elaborates on his appreciation of Jerry Lewis, while the plot mirrors a Hitchcock episode.  There is no mistaking, at any point, that you are watching Tarantino’s segment – his signature is all over everything – but he also manages to lay out the goals of the entire project, wrapping it all up with a nice blood red bow.

All in all I’d say that Four Rooms is worth a watch if readily available, but unless you just have to see all of Tarantino’s or Rodriguez’ movies there is no need to go out of your way to see it.

C+

Rubber

Director: Quentin Dupieux

Writer: Quentin Dupieux

Summary: A discarded tire mysteriously gains telekinetic powers and goes on a killing spree.  And then things get weird.

I don’t even know where to begin.  I’m not even really sure whether to recommend this movie – it really depends on you.  I thoroughly enjoyed it, as did Roz, but at the end some dude stood up and was just livid that he had watched such a terrible movie.  I’ve seen a lot of people talk about their dislike of a movie after a screening but I think this is the first time I’ve seen somebody actually appear angry.  And looking on the internet it appears that it is not an uncommon response.  But neither is mine and Roz’ response.  So there you go.  I think the one word of advice that I can give without spoilers is that if you are someone who likes “So bad they’re good” movies but not “artsy” movies you may not like it, as it is definitely one of the latter.  Kind of.  It’s not all heavy handed symbolism and religious imagery, but it is neither intentionally nor unintentionally poorly made either.  In fact, the writing is quite sharp, the directing skilled, and the cinematography is beautiful.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
Rubber is a commentary on the artificiality of storytelling, especially in the film medium, and sets out its thesis in the first few minutes of the movie (well, that’s what I got out of it at any rate).  Essentially, the idea seems to be that all plots are contrived and everything in a movie really just happens because the writer decides that that is what will happen, so why not create a movie where everything happens for no reason beyond the fact that the writer thought of it.  This is a neat idea on its own, but rather than just making a weird and random movie (which is how the trailer makes it look), Dupieux goes out of his way to deconstruct everything about the act of watching a movie, even going so far as to include characters who are watching the events of the movie we are watching and act as a commentary from and about the audience.  Some characters in the movie are aware that they are actors playing characters, while most are firmly committed to their role and have no idea that they are not really cops or motel managers.  As far as I can tell, what this all boils down to is that suspension of disbelief is all that matters.  Anything can happen in a movie because it will be real to the characters as long as there is an audience to watch them.  This can even be taken as a self-reflexive commentary on art films: as long as you have an audience you can do whatever you want, but if you push them so far that the audience disappears, what is the point of even making your movie?  Rubber definitely rides that line, but I think Roz and I will both agree that we are glad this movie got made and it was certainly worth our time.

A

originally posted July 12, 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

The Room

Summary: Tommy Wiseau makes sweet love to his ego (and his girlfriend’s navel) as Johnny, the man who is loved by, yet somehow betrayed by, everybody.

Don’t watch The Room by yourself.  It’s bad.  Like, really bad.  But not cheesy, like Plan 9 From Outer Space, where it is poorly made but has such ridiculous sci-fi/horror elements that you can enjoy it alone in the dark.  The Room must be viewed with other people.   No single human being could survive the crushing weight of Tommy Wiseau’s vast, misguided ego.  I don’t even want to describe the movie much because it really just has to be experienced to be believed.
And the best way to experience the movie (and the way in which Roz and I got our first taste of this, whatever this is) is to view it in a theatre with a bunch of people who have seen it before and have come prepared with costumes, footballs, waterbottles and spoons.  Although it is not too old, The Room is already starting to develop a cult following similar to that of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  This actually makes it a pretty fun era in which to see the movie, because although the rituals exist, they are clearly still developing, giving more of a sense of spontaneity to the proceedings than there is with RHPS.
The thing is, while it is certainly the best way to see the movie, I’m not sure this is the best atmosphere to see the movie for the first time.  It is not like you are going to miss any vital plot developments (there aren’t any) but some of the acting is just so bad that you have to hear it for yourself and that is not always possible with the crowd shouting out lines along with the movie.  Personally, I kind of wish I had seen it first with a small group of friends.  Either way you will have a great time, just for the love of god don’t watch The Room alone.

F (for "fun")

originally posted Apr. 15, 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Sucker Punch

I’m starting to think that I should impose some sort of budgetary limit to the movies I review for The C Word.  This is the second movie in a row that has some pretty serious cash behind it - $85 million may not be on the level of Rango, but damn, that is a lot of money.  That is almost 3 times the amount it cost to make District 9 and I didn’t even review that!  But I can justify this, I swear!  After all, is it really the budget that makes a cult movie? No.  It is the lack of interest from the general population that marks a potential cult movie, and Sucker Punch has that in spades!  Therefore, it has a right to be here.  So there.

Anyone who has seen the trailer for Sucker Punch is aware that it is pretty much random collection of things geek love blowing each other up for 110 minutes or so.  The question then becomes: is that actually interesting for a full 110 minutes?  And the answer?  Kind of.  I think I can best summarise by saying that I want to like it more than I actually did.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS!!!!

The first question to ask yourself is: Did you like Zack Snyder’s other movies?  If you had even the vaguest feelings that they were not substantial enough you are probably in trouble.  Zack Snyder is often criticized for being all style and no substance, and while I do not think that is necessarily true for his other movies, it is most definitely the case for Sucker Punch (and 300, if anything that movie is even more hollow).  Fortunately for me, I like Snyder’s style enough that Sucker Punch was still worthwhile.
It is hard to define exactly what Sucker Punch is trying to be.  The plot is very similar to Brazil and Pan’s Labyrinth, although in terms of execution it kept making me think of Scott Pilgrim Versus The World.  The structure of both movies is clearly inspired by video games, but Scott Pilgrim does a much better job of turning level based gameplay in to a cohesive narrative structure.  I think that is actually Sucker Punch’s biggest problem: the fantasy bits (levels) are really cool, but there is nothing compelling that links them together.  The actual story, and even the “real-life” goals being represented by the fantasy sequences, are a just so pedestrian that it can be hard to let yourself get carried away by the movie.  I mean, sure it is cool to watch scantily clad girls fighting steam-punk Nazi zombies, but the entire time you are still aware that all that is really happening is one girl photocopies a map while another dances.  The fact that the fantasy sequences are so fucking awesome ends up just emphasizing how lame the “real” events are.
Sucker Punch aims high, setting out to take the viewer on a fantastical journey through the subconscious, exploring what it truly means to be free, but it doesn’t quite get there.  If you want an insightful reflection on those themes go watch Brazil and Pan’s Labyrinth.   All three movies end up at a similar place, but only one gives you half-naked babes fighting orcs and dragons in a WWII bomber.  Take your pick.

C

originally posted Mar. 31 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Rango

Summary: A lonely, sheltered chameleon is accidently dumped in the Mojave desert. Insert classic Western plot here.

Ok, Rango is not the sort of thing that I usually review here in The C Word, but it is also not the movie you see in its advertisements.  Inspired more by Sergio Leone and Quentin Tarantino than Brad Bird and John Lasseter, Rango is the closest thing to a cult animated movie you will ever see from a major studio.  It is actually surprising that it ever got greenlit at all, let alone with a $135 million budget.  And we should all thank our lucky stars that it did because it looks fucking amazing.  The textures are phenomenal (although maybe not quite as detailed as the feathers in Legend of the Guardians – which you should also check out, since you probably haven’t) and there were times when I could have believed the scenery was real.
Alright, so the visuals are stunning, but it’s still just a kid’s movie, right? Not quite.  There are many pratfalls and other visual jokes that will keep the kiddies entertained, but a lot of the movie is surprisingly adult, as instanced by the opening narration that contains the line “the night was moist with anticipation”.  Chances are the kids won’t get that, but it is certainly not something you’ll find in Toy Story.  But unexpectedly dirty jokes are not enough to get me to review a big budget animated family movie in a spot reserved for cult movies.  No, I’m reviewing it because it was written for movie geeks and I don’t want anyone to miss it.  If you are reading this and it is still in theatres, stop right now and get your ass to the nearest cinema.  If, as is more likely the case, it is already out for rent, skip the rental store and go buy the bluray.
Almost every shot in the movie, every sound cue in this movie, is an homage to something.  And not just classic Westerns, there are scenes that jump from Apocalypse Now to Star Wars to WWII films.  The more you know about movies the more you will get out of this, which is not to say that those who are not as fluent in cinema history will not enjoy it.  Even if you haven’t seen all the movies referenced, you will probably know the clichés it is playing with.
And this leads to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at Rango.  Some people claim that the plot is too derivative (*cough* Chinatown *cough, cough*) and detracts from the rest of the film.  While I agree that there is nothing in the plot that we haven’t seen before, I think that is intentional.  The filmmakers are taking the tropes of Westerns (and let’s face it, there are like three plots for all Westerns), and using this familiarity to build a new experience.  The clichés are essentially a cinematic shorthand used to guide the character through his arc.  All Rango knows of the west is what he has learned through movies and so these things colour his vision and cause him to do the things he does and the audience’s familiarity with these conventions keep them right there with him.  But whatever, the most important thing is that this movie is crazy fun.  I loved it.  Go check it out and decide for yourself.

A+

originally posted Mar. 24, 2011

www.squirrelsofdoom.com

Christmas On Mars

Summary: Uh... it is Christmas Eve on a recently established Mars colony and it seems like a baby is going to be born and a guy is trying to arrange a Christmas pageant and then an alien arrives and then it gets weird.

In the spirit of trying to get back in the website-updating-groove I have decided to write a review of this movie.  Let me start by saying that if you are planning on seeing it, don’t see it alone.  Some movies are so crazy they are fun to watch no matter what and some push beyond that to a point where they really need to be a shared experience.  This is one of those.

Spoilers! (if this movie can really be said to have spoilers.....)

I really wanted to like this movie.  I mean, it is billed as “A Fantastical Film Freakout Featuring The Flaming Lips”, so how could it be bad, right?  Well, it turns out it can.  To be fair, I can’t actually bring myself to call it “bad” – it was still entertaining, it just wasn’t what I wanted it to be.  Is it fair for me to fault a movie for not being the movie I wanted it to be?  Probably not, but I can’t help doing it at least a little.  So with that in mind, here is what I have to say.
Before the movie began I was under the impression that it was going to be something like a musical: new Flaming Lips songs strung together by some sort of plot riffing on 1950s B sci-fi movies.  And that sounds awesome!  What it was, however, was just the 1950s sci-fi part, but with lot of prosthetic vaginas (if you’ve been to a Flaming Lips concert you’re probably not surprised).  The Flaming Lips did indeed do the music for it, but it was really just a normal score with a tendency towards feedback and ambient noise.  And although the movie was pretty crazy (vagina headed marching band?) it was a little boring.  Not a whole lot happens and the plot, so to speak, makes no sense whatsoever.  Most of the entertainment value of this movie will come from sitting around, stunned, with your friends afterwards and talking about what the hell it was that you just watched.
All in all, Christmas on Mars is not bad – the DIY aesthetic and production values are fun, and the absurdity of the plot and characters  is entertaining – but it could have been so much more.  But then again, it is a movie written, directed and acted almost entirely by a band, so how much can you really expect?

C+

originally posted Dec. 13, 2010

www.squirrelsofdoom.com