"Dark Star" DVD Review (2.5/5) - Jeremiah

Well, my first official Three Geek Marathon is coming to a close. This post will conclude my “Director Of The Month” series. My only regret is that my choice of movies, and shortcomings as a reviewer, have caused us to go out with a whimper instead of the much-anticipated bang. I hope you've enjoyed this little series. I hope to do it again in future months. If you've enjoyed it drop us a line or just comment on the blog. For you see, in addition to my conductive hearing loss, I was also tragically born without psychic powers. Sarcasm aside, without further ado I give you my mediocre best.

John Carpenter's "Dark Star" isn't necessarily a bad movie; it's just not a good one either. I spent most of the film with my head cocked to one side and my mouth slightly agape in awe and confusion as to what I was watching.

It took me a few minutes to realize that it was a parody. It's played so straight that if you're not careful you would mistake it for a really low budget sci-fi movie. Oh it is one, don't get me wrong, but the deal breaker is that they know it. Most of the comedy comes from the realistic way the characters are portrayed.

These are not the brave, intrepid explorers of Gene Roddenberry's universe. These are guys who are bored, have hankering to blow up a planet and will not flinch at whining, telling a superior to shut up or yelling at alien lifeforms to leave them the hell alone. In fact, one of the characters is not really authorized to even be an astronaut. He's an fuel maintenance worker who, through darkly bizarre circumstances, ended up on the voyage by mistake. The monologue which he gives to describe how he happened to arrive there, followed by footage of his past personal journal logues, are one of the few reasons that this film got as high of a rating as it did.

"Dark Star" has some good ideas, they just, for whatever reason, never really had the chance to voice themselves. It has moments, as I've said before, it's just that they weren't good enough to justify my recommending this movie to you.

As far as Carpenter movies go, this is one of his worst. I feel I should be really harsh -- trash it, mock the poor acting and cheesy special effects -- and yet I can't. He tried, god bless him, he tried. That's why I love the man. With all his movies he at least tries. Sure he fails; he's not a demi-God. But at least he puts forth the attempt. Even in the beginning he was scoring, editing, co-writing and co-directing his works. If anything, he's guilty of overreaching, which is actually quite laudable, in my opinion.

So, in spite of being torn between recommending this movie or not, I'm afraid I'm going to have to lean towards not. It's not terrible, but unfortunately it's also not good enough for you to spend the 83 minutes it requires of you. Carpenter fans only, and even those people should take caution.

2.5 out of 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

Read More......

"Starman" DVD Review (3.5/5) - Jeremiah

Yes, it's an “E.T.” rip off. No, it's not as great as “E.T.” It is, however, one of my favorite John Carpenter movies. It's a very atypical Carpenter film, though: it has an actual budget, it's low on the campiness and the cast is full of solid performers. It was written by somebody else, and (gasp) the music was scored by another person as well. Hell, it's the only Carpenter film to have an Oscar nomination -- Jeff Bridges for Best Actor.

All that aside, it still feels like Carpenter. While he's not the film's composer, it still has a synthesizer track. And it still sounds like a Carpenter plot, even though he did not write it. It's filled with beautiful, almost western-like shots, which is very much Carpenter.

The alien (Jeff Bridges) crash lands in Wisconsin after being shot down by the military. He lands near a cabin inhabited by the gorgeous Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen). He uses a strand of her recently deceased husband's hair to copy his appearance. Jenny is understandably disturbed by this thing in her house, this thing that looks like her husband, yet isn't. Long story short, they go a road trip to Arizona, all the while being chased by the military and a lone scientist, Mark Shirman (Charles Martin Smith), who hope to get there first.

Along the way, we get treated to something fascinating. Rather than make this a typical “Alien phone home” movie, Carpenter goes another direction. It's a road trip movie which evolves into a love story. Carpenter's deft hand is only part of the reason. The real saving grace is Bridges and Allen.

Their performance and chemistry is mesmerizing. Allen seems to be honestly genuine, which is rare to see in these types of movies. Her evolution of fright, to confusion, to uncomfortable acceptance, to compassion, and finally leading to all-out love is a joy to behold. Yet, it's Bridges that practically steals the show. His physicality is, simply put, brilliant. The way he moves, as if he is unaccustomed to all the joint, nerves, and muscle reflexes of humans is astonishing. He talks, almost as if there's a delay between the thought and the speech. The way he gradually eases into being human, while never fully getting a handle on all the simple motor functions is well worth the Oscar nod he received.

Carpenter wisely chooses to let the story unfold in the foreground, while the majestic landscapes in the background struggle to steal every scene. Sure, at times the film gets a little schmaltzy, but that's okay. It's a refreshing attempt at the Sci-fi genre, plus it furthers itself from the phrase, “E.T. Clone”.

Personally it's one of my favorites, even though it lacks the Carpenter staples. Maybe that's why I love it so. It was a bold attempt to try something different. Or maybe I should say try the same thing in a different way. Either way, it's a sweet movie with a wonderful underlying musical score and some gorgeous cinematography. Bridges will astound you and Karen Allen will remind you just how good she was never given the chance to be.

3.5 out of 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Read More......

"John Carpenter's They Live" DVD Review (3.5/5) - Jeremiah

Aliens have arrived on Planet Earth and disguised themselves as members of the Upper Class. The only way to see them, the subliminal messages they put out through advertising -- television et al. -- and their flying robots... are with pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses. It's helpful to start saying that out loud, so you realize what you're dealing with.

Buried deep within all this absurdity, there lies, barely breathing, a message. “The Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer. Well no more! Eat hot molten lead, Alien SCUM!” It takes the movie about half an hour before it devolves into the classic Carpenter movie. But this doesn't take away from it; it's still hella-enjoyable.

How can you hate the movie with the first-class line: “I've come to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum!” The line is one thing by itself, but it's Roddy Piper's oddly syncopated delivery that immortalizes it.

On top of that, it has one of the best fight scenes ever. It's a bare knuckle fist fight between Nada (Piper) and Frank (Keith David), in an attempt to get Frank to put on the sunglasses. The fight lasts something like ten minutes. At first it's cool, then funny, then the longer it goes on the more entrancing it becomes. It's a scene where testosterone is wholly unleashed upon the screen. Never before have two men fought so hard, for so long, for so little. I mean, just put on the damn glasses.

Of course, the scene is a metaphor for how Nada only wantsFrank to wake up from his dream and see the truth... with a bitchin' body slam in the middle of it.

The glasses allow the wearer to see beyond the bombardment of subliminal messages in advertising. When Piper puts on the glasses, the screen goes to black and white. This effect is both cheap and really effective. All the billboards, and magazines say things like “Obey,” “Submit,” “Marry and Reproduce,” “Sleep.” My personal favorite was when he looked at a hand full of money with the glasses, and you see blank strips of paper that say, “This Is Your God”.

The aliens look just like you and me, until you put the glasses on, then they look like something of a medical book. They have watches that allow them to communicate with one another, and also allows them to teleport -- of course, they're Rolexes. One of the shortcomings of the movie, is that it never fully elaborates on where the Aliens came from. How do they look like us? Are they like chameleons? Are they a parasite of some sort? The movie glosses over this to get to the action. Which is mainly Piper and David hurtling one liners at people they are about to mow down in hail of shotgun shrapnel.

The idea is really cool, and sadly more relevant today than it was in 1988. Of all his movies that have been re-made, none of them cry out to be more so than “They Live.” In a society that has raised a non-entity such as Paris Hilton to it's highest echelon of celebrity, we are in desperate need of a wake up call. Our consumerism and our resilient belief that those who have more are better than us is even more outrageous than it was during the Regan era.

"They Live" is rapidly becoming one of my favorite Carpenter movies. Even his usual synthesizer music is almost non-existent. Oh it's there, let's not kid ourselves, but he decides to throw in some harmonica, giving the whole musical score a bluesy feel. It sets the mood to a pitch-perfect degree. His camera work, as per Carpenter, is taught and lax at the same time. Just watch the infamous fight scene; it's filmed and edited extremely well. You can give it all the crap you want about how it's so over the top manly it makes you wanna puke. But you can not deny the precision of the pacing of that scene.

This movie surprised me. I went in hoping I was going to be able to rip it a new one and, true to form, Carpenter won me over. He always does. The man is a bastard like that.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Read More......

Director of the Month: John Carpenter -Jeremiah

What makes a director good, or even great? What defines a master of the cinematic craft?

There's no real answer. Different things work for different directors. What makes Kurosawa great, isn't what makes Wilder great. Herzog is different from Spielberg.

Every once and a while, I'll take a month and spotlight a director. For that month I'll only review movies by that director.

So the question you must be asking yourself now is, “Who's it going to be this month?”

In this first month, I'll be pleasing two masters: myself and, my fellow Three Geek member, Kloiber. He's been grumbling about how we've only been reviewing good movies. I don't see that as a vice really, but I understand where he's coming from.

The inaugural Director of the Month is John Carpenter.

I love Carpenter. He's on my Top 10 Favorites, but he's done some stinkers as well. “Ghosts of Mars” anyone? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

I love John Carpenter because, no matter what film it is, you can always tell that he's trying. He may be failing a lot, but you can just feel him trying. The man at least deserves an A+ for effort.

Carpenter is often cited for his success in merging science fiction with horror. I would like to add one more genre, one that he often mixes in along with science fiction and horror; that is the western. Look at “Escape From New York” or “Assault on Precinct 13”; the western element is so imposing that one wonders how this aspect of Carpenter's film-making is so often omitted.

He also exhibits a quirky obsession with stories where a small band of strangers are flung together in a remote location to do battle with an abrupt evil (Note: It may also be a group of friends, instead of the “strangers” scenario). But the constant plot staple is the group of people in an isolated area doing battle with evil, both unexpected and unseen.

Though he's one of my favorite directors, if you take any Carpenter movie and apply more than a grain of logic, the movie crumbles. That's part of the allure though. What fantastically ludicrous situation involving some random roving band of misfits will he come up with next!?

Technically, he's great. His minimalist style is reminiscent of Ford's or Hawks'. At times he channels Hitchcock. It's those damn actors that trip him up every time. He does wonders behind the camera, with lights and mood, and does a whiz-bang job in the editing room. But he cannot get a great performance out of an inexperienced actor or actress to save his life. They have to be established, or at least used to working with him to really turn in a good performance: Kurt Russell, Donald Pleasence, Wilford Brimley, Harry Dean Stanton (choirs of Angels sing), Jamie Lee Curtis, Jeff Bridges, Adrienne Barbeau (again with the angels), and so on.

If they're new, or the type of actor that needs help or some coaching of some type, then they're... well not bad, but Carpenter bad. They're charmingly bad. You watch them, and you kind of go, “Awww....you're so bad.” But Carpenter is also a master of statistics: nine times out of ten, you forgive them and just go with the flow.

That's his real genius: his ability to make you forget. He could probably find better actors, but instead he makes you savor what he chose. I'm positive it's some kind of weird, hammy, voodoo magic.

In addition to writing, directing and producing, he is also a musical composer. Carpenter seems enthralled by that ever fickle siren known as the “Casio keyboard.” His strange obsession with electronic overtures is another part of his charm. True, he misses more times than he hits, but when he hits we get simple masterpieces such as the theme from “Halloween.” His music is often very simple, yet, when done right, eerily effective.

Carpenter has a phenomenal talent for working on a shoestring budget. In fact, this is one of the few things that sets Carpenter apart from his peers. More than likely, he works so well with so little because of his minimalist style. His wonderfully conservative economy of shots, lean story elements and subtext-free dialogue.

To contradict his love of minimalism is his undying affliction with “the name-title” syndrome. I find it to be a cute little eccentricity. It's not just “The Fog,” it's “John Carpenter's The Fog.” It's his little nod to the old days. Or, some people might say, that's him being courteous and giving you a warning. But those people are called bastards.

He is considered by many to be a hack. I disagree. He can be great; most of the times he's good. Always interesting in some form or another. His overlooked “Prince of Darkness,” while not perfect (or really all that good) has one of the most unique plots in recent history. If he fails to deliver -- well, sometimes... that's Carpenter. That's part of the fun with him. It's like a crap shoot, “Is Carpenter going to suck tonight?” Who knows? Hell, he probably doesn't even know.

He seems to be surprisingly down to earth. Oddly accessible to fans, he can always be found doing a Q&A at some convention or other. His love for the cinema is matched only by his love for his audience.

Speaking of which, a Carpenter fan is liable to be an interesting conversation partner. They range from the “I love him, but he's done some real garbage” to the “Carpenter! He is my MASTER! I serve him and only him!” The last one you obviously want to be wary of... unless you're into that kind of thing. Whatever, I'm not judging.

In short, this month is going to be quite the adventure. I'll be watching some of his lesser-known works, as well as his most popular. A nice little mixture, I hope. The kick off movie will be, “Assault on Precinct 13”.

So... you ready to take the Carpenter gamble with me?


Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

Read More......