Archive for It stinks

Julien Donkey Boy (1999)

Ten minutes in and i knew i wouldn’t be enjoying or even liking this film.

No narrative arc (as the film critics like to say) to it. Incomprehensible mostly. Unintelligible manic distracting discomforting energy to it.

That’s the delusional reality schizophrenics live in is saying Harmony Korine. I’m getting you right into this donkey boys mad head. Give you the crazy cut up world from his whacked out perspective. Feel his discomfort as yours, inhabit your repulsion as his, gouge out this film worlds eyes with your antagonism (see, i’m getting into Korine’s head too!)

Apparently Korine has a mad schizo uncle this film is supposed to be doing homage to. Ewen Bremner is totally convincing; he doesn’t even seem to be impersonating or mimicking – ala Dustin Hoffman – mad man mannerisms; he is that man, he is that mad.

The film adheres to Dogme aesthetics: handheld video camera, no artificial light, no superfluous props,  no manipulated musical emotionality, no narrative arc (Lol), no pleasure-seeking cheap thrills. And yet mega post-production editing has gone into it. It’s like they had thousands of hours of digi vid to cut and shape -  and then gone mad to make it’s production seem unglossed up, wilfully unsmooth, provocatively unbeautiful: cus in crazy psycho-land, ugliness equals truth, grotesquerie authenticity.

At first i was, if not enjoying, at least admiring the aspiration to make the film formally challenging – to appropriately stylistically match how difficult the subjective material is. But before long it got tiresome. Very tiresome. Stop melanging it through opaque filters. Stop slow-moing! Stop jagging the edges! Stop jarring my senses. Stop jiggling my eyeballs. Stop fracturing the narrative! Stop all this self-conscious technique! Start making sense! Keep the camera still for christ-sake. Lets just watch something simple without all this manic fiddling and farting about contriving to make it all look so maddeningly mad, strangely estranging, complicatedly complex.

Korine grosses out on whacked out weirdnesses. Ewen donkey-boy Bremner is saying “He (Hitler) ate my mothers titties“; he’s stamping on the head of a turtle; he’s reading out a repetitious poem “Midnight chaos, noon chaos, eternity chaos etc” which papa Werner Herzog hates, and tells him is “too artsy-fartsy. I like the real stuff” (intended in-joke irony here i think) Herzog is hopelessly miscast; just because he’s reputedly a maverick bonkers film-director doesn’t mean he can act batty or bonkers; he’s made to do and say bonkers things: drink cough syrup out of a shoe; humiliate his grown-ups  kids; lie on the bed with a stupid fucking gas mask on his head distractedly smoking a fag listening to bluegrass.

God this film got tiresome!

And there was more whacked out weirdo weirdness: a masturbating nun; a black rapping albino and an armless drummer; Herzog wanting his wrestler wannabe son to put on his dead wife’s summer dress; bowling with retards; a hapless-looking magician regurgitating lit ciggies. Why? Don’t ask why. Wanting to know why is too normal. There is no why can explain this crazy fucked up ugly mad world. That’s why.

I just can’t take it any longer” says Herzog about an hour in.

Neither could i

Dir: Harmony Korine, USA

3/10

With a name like “Harmony Korine” i suppose you’re doomed to be an unusual somebody special sort of guy. In the DVD interview he says: “We’re at the end of 100 years of cinema where film should be getting more complex – instead it’s going the other way; films are so simple now” I can kind of agree with that. But there’s complex which aspires to something eventually clarifying, essentially  lucid. And there’s the chaotic confusing self-conscious complex that this mad mess of a film is.

And anyway Harmony, you look too young (and too sweet) to be making perplexing, complexing, films. You need to grow up a bit son.

Leave a Comment

Kitchen Stories (2003)

Disappointingly, this is a period drama set in the 1950’s. Therefore its probably going to be wilfully winsome.

The quirks of quirky Norwegian males and all that. Males without females. Maybe males that prefer males to females (is what gradually dawned on me)

So we have the lonesome solitary habits of the pipe-smoking Norwegian male to do a time and motion study of for the next hour and a half. Circa 1956. Observation without interaction – no talking allowed. Ha ha.

It’s meaning to be laconic with that mood of melancholic Scandinavian deadpan humour. But Kuarismaki it isn’t. And “interessant” it isn’t.

Possibly one of the oddest films i’ve seen in the last year – and possibly the dullest.

Quirksome or maybe tiresome.

Dir: Bent Hamer, Norway

3/10

Leave a Comment

Sympathy for the devil (1968)

One of those freebies the weekend broadsheets give away (Times gave this)

Doubting if there was going to be much in this film for me (there wasn’t)

The world’s most bombastic English rock group meets the world’s most pretentious French film director – to produce what? – a socio-political document of the 60’s zeitgeist? The Stones haven’t anything politically pertinent to say now – and they didn’t then either.

They come out of this as perfectly decent chaps; sat on stools, working hard, seeming sensibly sane and sanitised. Not a swear word in sight. Charlie Watts looks bored stiff (mind you he always does) Keith Richard is being a cheeky groovy dude. Jagger is running the show.

They all seem so wimpishly thin. And white.

Godard inserts agit-prop vignettes that now seem tamely stage-managed rather than urgently dramatic. Somebody who looks suspiciously like Mickey Most is hiding behind big red sunglasses reading from the Commie Manifesto (?) in a quaint 60’s sex shop.

None of it is making any sense. Abstract mumbo-jumbo. It’s not meant to be funny, it’s meant to be making serious political points about black revolution, female liberation etc – but it’s ridiculous.

A load of old Godards (as usual)

Might have helped if i’d liked the song too

Dir: Jean-Luc Godard, England/France

3/10

Leave a Comment

Kikujiro (1999)

I didn’t buy into this film at all. In fact it got increasingly irritating.

Mainly cus Takeshi Kitano – the director – overacts the lead role of Kikujiro; his pratfalling joker-cum-loser wannabe small-time gangster “antics” come across as clumsily flat-footedly attention-seeking. You don’t warm to the guy as a charmingly clownish buffoon (the persona Kitano was trying to affect ) – you just want him to stop being such an idiotic show off. And wise up. Or grow up.

Anyway, the story is: he befriends a cute kid and they go on a road trip together to look for, find – but essentially not find – their moms.

The kid does passable cute ok, mostly by bowing his head and looking down alot with a vacantly sad mute face. It’s blatantly manipulative; Kitano wants the little boy lost thing going on cus he wants the audience to identify, and sympathize, with how forlornly orphan-like the kid – but also he – is. “We’re both lost little boys” seems to be the message. Both lost our mommies.

It’s exploitatively self-pitying this film. In a shamelessly Hollywood kind of way (even the soundtrack “theme” has a Disney feel to it)  I was thinking: this isn’t a Japanese film – it’s American slushy sentimental pap. Wants me to suck on it’s cutely contrived sweetness till I’m, well – doing a snotty little cry into the sleeve of my shirt.

I didn’t wipe away any tears. But i did feel very snotty. With scorn.

Dir: Takeshi “Beat” Kitano, Japan

3/10

Leave a Comment

Western (1997)

Feeling an urge to watch the French films I’ve got stock-piled on video.

So as to not have to watch (most of) them again.

And this is one I won’t be watching again.

Before long it was difficult to sustain genuine interest, I’d lost patience and sympathy, was rapidly hitting the fast-forward button.

Primarily because it’s a road-trip movie about 2 hapless guys – and one of them, Nino, is totally unappealing.

I didn’t want him to find the the love, the girl, the shag (take your pick, they all moreorless amounted to the same thing) he so desperately, and pathetically, wanted. I wanted to go warn all women in the North of France to avoid the slimy little squirt.

Ok, Serge Lopez his road-trip sidekick was kocher. Well, to begin with. And then he started getting as ridiculous as snakey Nino. Their matey “escapades” together were neither funny or credible.

There was only one line of dialogue that rose above the risible: “Sometimes you can tell the truth more easily with lies” (Think about it – one of those real-life contradictions that does actually make sense)

Otherwise, this film is instantly forgettable. And binnable.

Dir: Manuel Poirier, France

2/10

Leave a Comment

Exterminating Angel (1962)

Ten minutes into this film i knew it was gonna be a stupefying bore.

What did i expect? A posh dinner party for stiff bourgeois toffs.

Odd things are happening“. They can’t leave the room. Watching them you have to suffer in apathy with them. And try to make sense from the nonsense it’s all trying to mean.

They’re joined by a flock of sheep, a little brown bear, a hand that scuttles across the floor minus it’s body. You get fragmented bits off subconscious poking in irrational dreams. “This is all so absurd”

The toffs get on one another’s nerves. They get on my nerves. I’ve soon become chronically disengaged.

I’m fast forwarding thro the last 40 minutes to get it quickly over with. Got to stop the boil on my irritation itching.

This is the worst film I’ve seen since i started this blog.

I bet Bunuel had a fat arse.

Dir: Luis Bunuel, Spain

1/10

Leave a Comment

Skin of Man, Heart of Beast (1999)

Great title. And that’s about it.

One thing i’ve noticed is: the more memorable the title of a film, book, drama is the duller it usually is.

This wasn’t dull exactly. Just awful.

Lots of slapping, shouting, and punching going on.

Brother Frankie punches long lost brother Coco in the mush. Then kisses him. Bruvver Coco punches mother in head, knocks her clean out. While big bruv Frankie is out “making women bleed”. Then Coco punches his childhood sweetheart in the head. Then he nuts her to make sure. Then he kills her. Then younger brother Alex gets his pistol out and shoots Coco.

Coco’s last words to younger bruv are, “All that counts… (pause) …is love“… The cheek! Two seconds later, it’s Bam!, Bam!, Bam!, you’re dead mate (or bruv)

A family where all the bruvs have devils in them. The Beastly Hearts of devils in their blood. Probably their dad’s blood.

It’s great watching films on vids and dvd’s. Cus you can stop or fast forward thro what you’re not liking, not willing, to watch.

I fast forwarded a lot thro this.

If i’d seen it at the cinema I’d have got up – about half an hour in – and walked out.

Dir: Helene Angel, France

2/10

Leave a Comment

Breathless (1960)

Jean-Paul Belmondo with fag permanently clamped in gob.

Now i know why there’s so much smoking in films. This films fault.

And apparently it also started the French New Wave too, and is very influential and very significant.

Probably to aspiring film directors it is, and nerdy pseudy film students.

But 50 years on it seems hopelessly dated.

I tried to imagine what it might have been like to watch this back in 1960 as an idealistic 20 year old. Whether it would have impressed me with it’s cool detachment, it’s anarchic spirit, it’s obsessive narcissistic self-absorption. Maybe it would.

Maybe I’d be wanting to walk around with a fedora hat on and a fag on and a fuck you attitude on – being a bit of a wannabe cool-dude gangster. Wanting to put my pecker in pretty Parisian girls so bad. Aching them for it. Being a bit of a bad lad cus they like it. Spinning enigmatic talk like:

Why are you unhappy?” (she says) …. “Because I’m unhappy” (I say)…. “Thats silly” (she says) (It is. But I’m being a clever dick)….

I could say, “It’s life; burglars burgle, murderers murder, lovers love”… (that would get their knickers off)….

I could poke my cock out, being enigmatically epigramatically existential: “I want to be immortal – then die” (I’d be in then)

I wouldn’t bother to love the girls. Altho i would bother them with love, and talking about it all the time, being a right pest.

And then do the post-coital comedown: “When we talked, I talked about me, you talked about you, when we should have talked about each other”.

That would piss them off. But they wouldn’t care. Cus they wouldn’t be loving me as much as i hadn’t been loving them. Cus we’d both be too self-preoccupied in only loving ourselves.

And still that fag would dangle. I’d be puffing my smoke and ash all over them.

“Why you looking at me?” I’d say. “Because I’m looking at you” they’d say (getting their own back)

The jazz xylophone would tinkle annoyingly away. I’d stick my shades back on. (So as not to listen to it)

“I’m sick of it all. I’m tired” I’d say, “I want to sleep”. I’d give her my gun to shoot me in the back. “Why are you going to shoot me” I’d say. “Because I’m going to shoot you” she’d say. (“Because you’re a scumbag” is what she’d really be thinking)

“You’re a scumbag” I’d say. She’d have her Mona Lisa smile on. I’d Bogart her back with an existential grin. Time to go to sleep. One last puff….

She’s shot me. Thank God.

Is this a “Forever film”? No. Without the historical context, and the cooing of the critics- you’d want to skip this film. I promise you, you wouldn’t want to watch it.

I’d been putting it off. But finally felt obliged to, dutifully having to pay homage to the “Godfather of the Avant-Garde”. Cus Godard’s one of the “Greats” right?.

Only, i don’t think I’ll be wanting to watch too many more of Jean-Lucs films in a hurry.

They’re enough to make me wanna commit slow suicide – go smoke myself to death.

Dir: Jean-Luc Godard, France

3/10

Comments (1)

InterMission (2003)

The first scene has Colin Farrell smacking a girl cashier in the gob.

I thought: “Oh no, here we go again – yet more violent vicious abuse towards women”

And sure enough, there is more violent vicious abuse. But it’s not only towards women. It’s towards everybody: men on men (Farrell gets his trousers pissed on in a urinal), on animals, on cars etc.

And it’s all got a thick-mick Oirish twang put on it. (I’m getting more and more averse to Irish twang to be honest) Bilious “fucks” and “cunts” spew down the gutter of every sentence.

I stopped watching after 20 minutes. Got to give myself a break from all this nasty boorish ugliness.

Decontaminate my psyche of too much poisonous cynicism.

I need a film to re-enchant my soul. And charm my spirit.

So don’t know if I’ll be going back to this.

@

A week later i did go back. Gave it a go for another 20 minutes – then gave up.

One of the characters (a violent foul-mouthed cop) is described as “Hard and nasty. We need softer, softer, softer”.

There was no softer about this film. Nothing sympathetic going on. Hard  and harder, nasty and nastier. And unfunny. And stupid. And Irish.

Dir: John Crowley, Ireland

2/10

Leave a Comment

The American Friend (1977)

What a pile of pants this film is.

About half way thro (an hour in) i gave up on it and started hitting fast forward to get it over with.

It starts off obtuse. Slides into convoluted. Becomes preposterous. And eventually disintegrates into ridiculous.

This film is evidence that Wim Wenders hasn’t only been making rubbish films for the last 20 years. He was doing it in 1977 too, when supposedly, he was the darling of the German New Wave in Cinema.

Even Bruno Ganz’s soft warm face couldn’t compel my sympathy.

I’m not quite so susceptible to being conned by obscure pretension as I used to be.

Whatever was lodged up Wim Wenders backside when he made this film he can keep it there.

Cus he ain’t inserting it up mine.

I feel a bit annoyed (for some reason)

Dir: Wim Wenders, Germany

2/10

Comments (1)

Older Posts »