The Devil and Daniel Webster
I can't type this title without having to think about it's Webster or Johnston. It'd be much less confusing if more knew it by its alternate title, All That Money Can Buy (of course, the documentary might then be called All That Daniel Johnston Can Buy). This film has been parodied countless times, most notably by The Simpsons (isn't that the case with all popular culture?):
A man sells his soul to the devil for seven years of luck and wealth. When the devil comes to collect, the man wants to reneg on the deal and gets Daniel Webster, a skilled speaker to fight on his behalf. The film is basically a courtroom drama played out in a barn. Walter Huston is amazing as Mr. Scratch (the bad guys get to have all the fun) and Bernard Hermann won an Oscar for the score before he started his most famous work with Alfred Hitchcock. The film was edited by Robert Wise, so between Hermann and Wise, it was like a mini Citizen Kane reunion.
In the Mouth of Madness
What is it with evil forces and New Hampshire? I didn't care much for In the Mouth of Madness the first time I saw it. It was OK, but not John Carpenter's best. Then, not long ago, some friends picked it to watch and I loved the crap out of it. In fact, I recommended to a friend who'd felt the same way to rewatch it and he had the same experience as me. I don't know what we missed the first time around, but it's creepy and unsettling and off-the-walls. I like watching Sam Neill in borderline crazy mode (even in Event Horizon, which I don't particularly care for). Sutter Cane is a fantastic name for a horror novelist. Just the sound of it conjures images of some reclusive, dark, tormented soul. It fits in perfectly with the excellence of the other films in Carpenter's "Apocalypse Trilogy," The Thing and Prince of Darkness. It saddens me that this, like most of Carpenter's films, are confined to cult status and more people don't experience them.
Ok, that tag line sucks.
Lolita
Lolita isn't my favorite Kubrick film and I've never read the book, so I can't say how it stands up to that (though more and more, I'm less concerned with how faithful a movie is to its source than I am that it gets the spirit of the source right). My biggest problem is that Lolita loses its momentum the minute Lolita and Humbert start road tripping it (the film runs 152 minutes which is WAY too long for the subject matter). Until that point, everything is great. Shelley Winters is batshit crazy the way she always is, but it's perfect for the role and James Mason makes for a great pedophile. But Peter Sellers steals the movie. Every scene he's in is alive with humor and tension. Claire Quilty is a great counterpoint to Humbert. Funny, suave, confident. The role was smartly expanded for the film (seriously, you can't waste someone as great as Sellers who seems to be training for his multi-part performance in Dr. Strangelove with this role).
That's the first time I've seen this trailer and it's amazing!
The Rules of Attraction
I was reluctant to see The Rules of Attraction when it was initially released. Call it "van der Beek-lash." I hated both Dawson's Creek and Varsity Blues and thought him quite the smarmy douchebag. When I finally caught up with the film, I was pleased to see that not only is it more of an ensemble piece, but he's not at all unappealing in it (as a person, not a character, if that makes sense). The film is darkly comic and features one of the most intense suicides I've ever seen on film. Seriously, the scene made me woozy. Also, regarding the character that commits suicide, I'm pretty sure a device used in the film that shows her at various parties and whatnot around campus was used in a Tiny Toons episode where Buster and Babs were competing to see who could get in more pictures in the yearbook. The device is the reveal of the winner at the end of the episode (I wonder what the crossover of Rules of Attraction and Tiny Toon Adventures enthusiasts is that will understand what I'm referencing).
What About Bob?
I saw this in the theater with my mom and I felt like for the longest time I was the only person in the world who liked it. What About Bob? is directed by Frank Oz, which I'd forgotten, but makes me intensely happy because I want to love anything made by people involved with the Muppets (which, sadly, isn't possible). I still think variations on "baby steps" to myself, especially when doing something mildly challenging. Bill Murray and Richard Dreyfuss make a great pair, watching one become more comfortable and overcoming his neuroses while the other descends into madness. I'm particularly a fan of entertainment that features one person with a view of someone that isn't matched by anyone in the community. It works for comedy, drama, thrillers... well, everything! It's kind of sad that Murray seems to mostly play pseudo-comic, understated depressives these days, but I guess his '90s run of playing happy-go-lucky goofballs didn't get the critical plaudits he's getting now. I just miss this particular Bill Murray (see also: The Man Who Knew Too Little).
And, with some minor tweaking, it could've been this:
In the Mouth of Madness--I don't remember digging this one too much, except for the part when the monsters chase Sam Neill, which was awesome. Maybe it'll improve on second viewing for me as well.
ReplyDeleteLolita--a lot to be said about this movie, but I agree that it sort of loses steam toward the end. I think there's a disconnect between Peter Sellers' character and the rest of the movie...he's phenomenal, but it felt like he belonged in a different movie.
And that trailer is one of the best I've seen. They really played off the taboo reputation of the novel really well.
What About Bob?--being a big Richard Dreyfuss fan, I enjoyed this movie almost automatically. And watching Murray and Dreyfuss interact is definitely a lot of fun.
I need to see The Devil and Daniel Webster.
You should check out In the Mouth of Madness again. I was totally engrossed the whole time. And tell me what you think about it.
ReplyDelete