Peter Jackson made the studios billions with his Lord of the Rings trilogy. They were a critical and financial success. His mastery of both directing and of managing costs puts him in a truly unique place in the movie biz. He can do whatever project he wants and people will fund it simply because he is involved.

There is another artist with a similar cachet, JK Rowlings.

And after suffering through King Kong, I am struck by a certain similarity between the two.

No one wants to edit JK Rowlings’ books.

No one wants to touch Peter Jackson’s art.

Unfortunately, in both cases, the art suffers.

The story of King Kong is well known, and Peter Jackson never strays. All he does is add technology, superior acting, better camera work and a lot more time to a story that could be said in less.

And much like kong, we’re frustrated that that was all he did.

One curious observation, in his Lord of the Rings saga, the end of the third film seemed to drag on forever. I was convinced this is a reflection of the material, not the director. King Kong seemed to linger on forever, both the film and the ape, before the end. So much so that the impact of the end was dissipated in anticipation of getting out of the theater

Naomi Watts as the woman in distress was very good. Anthony Serkis continues to be the best actor to not appear in the flesh.  Adrien Brody was convincing in his role as tormented play-write.

The actor who impressed me was Jack Black. Originally, I thought he was incapable of playing a dramatic role. And for a while his character Carl Denham appears to be the comic relief, but towards the end he manages to steal the show. Which given that that’s when the ape rampages through the city, should tell you something.

In the Soviet Union there was a very specific kind of subversive movie that was popular. The movie appeared to the censors to applaud the status-quo while at the same time skewering it to someone who could read between the lines.

The Lords of War is exactly that kind of movie. On the face of it, the movie is about Yuri Orlov, played by Nicholas Cage, a disaffected bored young American who stumbles on the gun trade as a way to make money. The story follows the expected arc. Yuri discovers the gun trade. Yuri becomes successful in the gun trade. Yuri gets the babe and fortune and a little bit of fame. Babe convinces Yuri that the gun trade is evil. Yuri abandons the gun trade. Yuri tries to go for one more score that goes hopelessly awry. Yuri loses everything.

Except The Lords of War is not that film. What the film really is about is how the world sat and watched while guns were rapidly distrbuted throughout the thirld war after the collapse of the Soviet Union. How those guns were used by maniacs like the imaginary Andre Baptiste Sr., leader of Liberia, to fund their bloody wars.

We think that the movie’s purpose is teach us to hate the gun merchant because he is evil.

And Yuri understands that we think he is evil. When Jack Valentine, the Interpol Agent who has been pursuing Yuri finally has him arrested, they have the following exchange:

Yuri Orlov: Enjoy it.
Jack Valentine: What?
Yuri Orlov: This. Tell me I’m everything you despise. That I’m the personification of evil. That I’m what- responsible for the breakdown of the fabric of society and world order. I’m a one-man genocide. Say everything you want to say to me now. Because you don’t have long.

So we do. We the audience, outraged by Yuri and his actions call him all those horrible things. And we think that that’s the point of the film, that there is a scourge, the gun runner, and if we got rid of him the world would be a better place. We eagerly wait to find out what number we can dial to help the heroic Jack Valentines of the world.

And Yuri understands that too. But he turns to Jack and to the audience and says:

Yuri Orlov: The reason I’ll be released is the same reason you think I’ll be convicted. I *do* rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of *your* enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss–the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year–sometimes it’s embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can’t be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I’m a necessary evil.

And then we realize that, the gun merchant is not evil. The gun merchant is merely a middle man between the gun manufacturer, the gun owner and the victim. He is what makes them possible.

At that point we understand the subversiveness of the opening sequence and of the true purpose of the film. The opening sequence begins with Yuri, transitions to a factory that manufactures AK-47’s and ends with a bullet in a child’s brain. The point is that we’re all to blame. It’s not just the killer, and it’s not just the middleman but it’s also the guy building the guns. And that we can not escape our own moral responsibilities by blaming the problem on them.

Wayne’s World is the dress rehersal for Mike Meyrs great success, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.

Don’t bother with the rehersal just see the full production.

All of the essential elements of the Austin Powers films is here. The absurd plot, the bizarre comedic skits, the over-the-top sex, the disgusting humor and the spoof of different film genres.

Unfortunately, in this film, Meyrs is somewhat restrained from the over-the-top approach he took later on in his career and as a result the film is fundamentally less funny.

I won’t bother with the plot, because that’s besides the point.

When Hairspary the Musical erupted on the national stage winning every award in site, it resurected my interest in the John Waters film of the same name.

The film has all of the attributes of a John Waters film, including Devine, the cheap as sin acting and sets, the over-the-top directing and the absurd cinematic moments. It’s unclear from following the movie what I am supposed to get out of it.

It’s clearly not a documentary on 1960’s history.  It’s clearly not a comment on modern race relations.
The film is more like a trip down John Waters’ memory about the events of that time.

It attempts to explore the issues of race in the 1960’s using Waters’ wacky style.
Is it worth watching?

Hard to say. The low budget shines through all of the time. But there is a certain Jetson’s like feel to watching the 60’s through Waters’ eyes. Much like the Jetson’s project the 1950’s into the 21st century, Hairspray projects our imaginings of the period onto the period.
Devine is wonderful.

Ricki Lake is funny as Tracy Turnblad.
Jerry Stiller is great.

It’s one of the more watchable of Waters’ films. Not a mainstream selection.

In 1994, Quentin Tarantino introduced the notion of the two sophisticated criminals bantering about the state of the world. This was an interesting way to turn a traditional concept, the dumb criminal, on it’s head.

Crash, the 2005 Oscar Winner, is a film about racism that opens the same way Pulp Fiction and Natural Born Killers opened. With two criminals commenting on the state of the world. That initial opening raises your hope that you are about to see something really good. The Oscar tag makes you feel even more excited, and then the film falls apart. The morality play takes over, and the story withers and dies.
The intent of Crash is to teach us that in our little racist world no one is an angel and no one is a saint. Every single character in the film is either a victim of racism or commits an act of racism within a single 36 hour time period.

To make the film seem more than an after school special we have odd co-incidences, great actors, and some adult themes. But the predictability of the film is irritating.

Of course, when daddy gives up his invulnerable bullet vest to his daughter, the daughter will try and save him from a bullet.

Of course the good white cop is going to stereotype a black man and do something terrible, like bury his body in a ravine.

Of course the good black man is going to try and recover his manhood by acting out some gangsta fantasy.

Of course the good black cop is going to sell out a bad white cop to save his criminal brother.

Etc…

You can watch this Oscar Winner or you can watch South Park. South Park’s commentary on racism is far more biting and insightful.

Silly mindless fun.

Some critics saw the trailer, and the first half of the film and thought that the film was trying to be profound. They assumed it was going to be a deep film that explored the issues of mortality, slavery, technology etc.

It was not.

In some sense that was a shame. There were a lot of potential in the plot and the initial setup.

But that would miss the point. Because I had 2:30 hours worth of fun. And Scarlett Johnson was very hot.

spoilers

To summarize: the film opens in this futuristic world at some indeterminate point in the future. The individuals in this future world have wierd names like Lincoln Six Echo and look like the characters from THX-1138.

The people are trapped in a sealed environment because the outside world is contaminated due to an environmental disaster except for one place called The Island. Every so often people win a lottery that lets them leave the sealed environment and go to the Island.

Very quickly we figure out that something is wrong. The Earth’s environment is not poisoned. There are people dressed in black watching the whole world behind the scenes using secret cameras making snide remarks.

Soon we discover that the people in this world are clones produced from some bio-material whose tissue is being harvested to extend the lives of their master copies. The Island doesn’t exist. The winners of the lottery are being harvested.

At that point the film switches gear and becomes a high tech chase through the world as two clones escape. The high speed chase borrows heavily from the best films like the Matrix and Face-Off.

The film ends with a scene straight out of Logan’s Run where all of the clones stand outside of their strange prison and realize that there is a big world that they can now inhabit.

This will be reasonably quick. Studio 54 is a film about the club in the late 70’s that elevated debauchery and exclusivity to a new level.

The wierdest part of the movie is the actors who are in it. Mike Meyers as Steve Rubell playing a somewhat serious role as the decadent club owner. Neve Cambell the debutante TV soap star trying to break into the mainstream any which way she can. Watching them gives you a wierd shit moment.

There are better movies that cover this time period. My personal preference remains The Last Days of Disco.

Studio 54 tries to explore the fascination America and the world had with Studio 54. The claim is that Rubell allowed the pretty little people to hang with the rich and famous. So everyone wanted to be in. They wanted to be part of the club that let them for a brief night be one of the special people. It wasn’t an exclusive club, it was a club that anyone could go to if they were hot enough.

But do we really need an entire 2 hours to explore that theme? The movie itself has obvious moments that make one groan. The love interest, the death, the speach, the “you are irrelevant young man, I made you” moment, the father rejecting the son’s lifestyle etc…

You could skip this movie entirely. Although watching Mike Myers ask Breckin Meyer for a blowjob is both funny and repulsive at the same time.

Wikipedia.org has information on this topic…