Straw Dogs: A Review

There's violent cinema, and then there's a Peckinpah movie. You see, the difference between today's violent cinema and Sam Peckipah is all in the mind, where most violent movies just splatter red dye mixed with corn syrup across everything for two hours, Peckinpah takes a different road... a full frontal assault of your mind, one of his most famous cases of this is the 1969 western classic The Wild Bunch, a movie that took westerns, and all cinema for that matter, to a whole new level. But it wasn't until 2 years later that Peckinpah really upped the anti, taking a step beyond blood squibs on Ernest Brognine's chest to show a rape of a woman, that turns mid way into consensual sex, in one of the most controversial movies of recent decades: Straw Dogs (1971).

The plot starts out in a pretty mundane way, newly wed couple moves to a small town, shenanigans ensue, not sounding like a real groundbreaking movie, does it? WRONG! The way the story unfolds shows a tortured underbelly to small towns not seen in any other movie (well, maybe Hot Fuzz). But as a microcosm of the whole town there is an even more central conflict, that of David and Amy (Susan George). Amy and David clash pretty much from the opening credits. And the camera work reflects that, Peckinpah shoots even the most mundane marital conversations like the filmed the train robbery of The Wild Bunch, quick shots and cuts, wide trailing shots, muted colors, all leading to the growing struggles around David, segueing into the themes of masculinity later covered.

And here I shall run my train of thought down the rails laid down by Joshua Clover in the booklet inside the DVD case I rented, Peckinpah makes his first trip away from westerns, but this movie is really not a western in setting only. The character types are all there David Sumner, Played by the ever great Dustin Hoffman, fulfills the classic western role of new guy forced to the gun. Consider Ransom Stoddard in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. A presumably weak man arrives in town in harassed by the local toughs, long story short he turns to a gun and defeats them, after unlocking a previously unseen facet of his personality, in the case of Stoddard it's courage, in the case of Sumner it's rage and brutality. Next is the cause of all woe, as told from the Western genre's perspective: The woman, who entices both sides into violence, culminating in the hero having to rescue her. Then there a the thugs who are desperately clinging to the old violent days before the hero rode to town and "corrupted" it.

But of course Peckinpah can't leave these motifs alone. In his own genius way, Peckinpah twists and corrupts the Western Hero into a bitter man who has hints of pedophilia tendencies, the woman becomes not a dame in distress but a villain in her own right, and the thugs are more brutal than anything Leone or Ford could have dreamed of. And that is where the movie gains it's strength: subliminally telling the audience their heroes are flawed, criticizing and satirizing a different genre with out even uttering the word "Partner."

As I touched on earlier, Hoffman is amazing, blending the personality of Ratso Rizzo with the demeanor of Benjamin Braddock, but worse than either of them. Boiling beneath his sweater is a killer, a subtle comment on the violent nature of man, and Hoffman is able to portray this better than just about anyone.

Also of note is Hoffman's opposite, Susan George. It's not an easy task to go two hours with Hoffman and hold your own. But George, succeeds, providing a balance of equal unlike ability to Hoffman's amoral mathematician. neither character is really like able, but when compared with the rest of the cities rogues gallery Hoffman and George instantly gain like ability points. George is stunning, subtle, passionate, but simple: Truly a great performance.

All in all this is one of the most violent and (dare I say) disturbing movies I've seen. It's not disturbing like the "torture porn" horror genre, but it's believability makes it terrifying. The acting is all top notch, the directing superb, and the script assaults your mind and leaves you hanging like a cat in a closet.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)

Bob & Carol & Dr. Brooklyn & Alice

The last few weeks I've been trying to watch generally praised movies, most of them have been serious drama's about man be it failings (Citizen Kane), The strength of the human spirit (Mr. Smith goes to Washington), and the power of memory and the abstract term "The Truth" (Rashomon, not reviewed). So, to change the pace just a tad, I decided to watch a movie also about man, but this time about how they... um... fornicate, hence my film selection for tonight Bob & Carol &Ted & Alice (1969).

Citizen Kane, it's not, but the movie has something that Kane lacked... laughs a whole lot of laughs, admittedly Kane was not about laughs it was about holding a mirror to the life of William Randolph Hearst. Although you might not think of a movie about couples cheating on their respective spouses as humorous. Even by today's the standards the plot is really inventive: Two middle aged couples, one ventures out to a "retreat" and returns... changed. By that I mean sexually free, and what better way to be sexually free than with a couple you know? Bob and Carol (the retreat/returning couple) begin a crusade to get Ted and Alice into the bedroom for shenanigans most foul.

The movie handles the subject matter of affairs and the sexual revolution both maturely and immaturely, the former with the high level of humor and dry wit, and immaturely because... well, they just have free sex. There are moments of drama, and moments of comedy, perfectly blended into a black comedy of tremendous charm and... sex appeal (mainly Natalie Wood).

It's not often I say it in these reviews, but the score is so perfect. Quincy Jones provides a soul tot he movie with his beautifully conducted porn music smooth jazz. It's not a make or break deal, but it does help tremendously to set the mood.

But, all the above is worthless if the four people in the bed had porn quality acting to match the porn quality jazz. Luckily, the movie has three strong performances... for those keeping track at home there are four main characters. Elliot Gould was great: quirky, nerdy, down right like able. He portrays Ted as just the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, he'd be fun but he wouldn't be too much, match that with the chemistry between himself and Dyan Cannon (Alice) their relationship isn't perfect like most comedy marriages, but they really try and because they really love each other they are willing to try anything. Also strong is Natalie Wood, who as I mentioned earlier, is damn sexy in this movie. She balances out nerdy couple Ted and Alice perfectly, by playing a character that would fit in perfectly on Wysteria Lane. (DISCLAIMER: I only watched that show the times I did because of Eva Longoria-Parker).

Which brings me to Robert Culp.

I don't know how to say this without sounding like a nit picker... oh why not. Culp is the weak link because of his physical demeanor and mannerisms. Yeah, that's what brings this movie down, stuff Culp had no control over. Now, dear reader, let me explain. The character of Bob is supposed to be cool, he's a film director, rich, married to a hot woman, he does recreational drugs (not advocating but going into the archetype of 'cool' people in cinema...), he's even seen wearing leather jackets and (at the time) hip clothing and speaking in the parlance of the times. That having been said... Robert Culp is not that guy. To describe his square peg in a cool hole: Imagine if Cyclops got some fake claws and tried to convince everyone he was the best at what he does, but what he does isn't very nice. Nobody would fall for it because that's just not who Cyclops is, the same situation plays itself out here, a tragically unhip guy trying to be the coolest guy in the room... he fails.

Other than that, the movie is pretty solid with a nice (used loosely) story, coupled with great acting, cool music, and nice camerawork. Although not the funniest or most touching movie, it's still better than the drivel that gets released nowadays.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)

Comic Book Wednesday Part 3: The Rest

And last but not least is my "The Rest" section which consists of my second favorite series newest installment.

THE BOYS #47
Words by: Garth Ennis
Art by: Russ Braun

First off let me say that this issue has the best cover of any series for the entire year. The brilliant TDKR parody made me laugh my ass off when I saw that it was coming about a month or two ago and when I actually got it in my hands I beamed from ear to ear. Thankfully the interior is just as good. Coming off of one of the best issues of the series, The Boys couldn't help but take a slight down turn, and it is a down turn, from #46. This issue focuses mainly on two arc: Butcher talking to MM and a new woman learning how to deal with The Seven. There are a few hints as to what Homelander is planning, but still it's a mystery for all involved... except him, of course. Also of note in this issue is the scene with Black Noir and the Noir Plane, shown to be going rogue, Noir kills his instructor and just walks away, which (for some reason or another) upsets The Homelander who quickly goes to follow him, but their meeting is not seen. This arc has the makings of something great, so I say stay tuned.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this issue (9.5/10)

Comic Book Wednesday Part 2: Marvel

So Marvel didn't provide me with too much more than DC, but thank the comic Gods because both of the Marvel issues were decent to pretty good.

NAMOR: THE FIRST MUTANT #3
Words by: Stuart Moore
Art by Ariel Olivetti w/ Fernando Blanco

To be frank, this was probably the worst of the three issues. I'm not saying it's bad, but relatively it's not great. The art is still strong, but the problem is that the issue starts a little slow, and by that I mean the first few pages are devoted to some back story and exposition that sets up the latter parts of the issue, but it still kind of bogs it down a bit. Overall it's not a bad issue, with some cool action and I'm still digging the Aqueos, but like I said the action is all in the second half and the plot is almost all in the first, pacing slows down this issue, but it's still got a nice jog going.

Dr. Brooklyn says: AT LEAST READ this issue (7/10)

WOLVERINE #3
Words b: Jason Aaron
Art by: Renato Guedes

What could be more bad ass than Wolverine inspiring a rebellion in Hell? Oh yeah, when the Saint of Killers served Satan a lead dinner. Which brings me to my complaint of not just this issue, but of the series thus far. There's really nothing being done here (except Wolverine's body haunting his loved ones) that wasn't done better in The Saint of Killers mini.  Aaron is one of my favorite writers at the moment, and the series is strong, I just can't help but make comparisons and in those match ups this series loses. Don't get me wrong this was a good issue, I particularly enjoyed how the story remained in hell for most the issue giving Wolverine and Old Scratch a few really intense showdowns, including when Logan spat on Satan; I also am impressed by Guedes work, visceral and gritty his art captures hell pretty well I think. So in conclusion, good issue/arc just not the greatest "guy in hell" story.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this issue (8/10)

And there's what Marvel offered me this week... not a lot, but both were worth the read

Comic Book Wednesday Part 1:DC

So I don't know about y'all, but my Comic Book Wednesday this week was terribly lame. I only got four total titles... well, some back issues were bought as well, but here I am to review the few issues I bought, and I'll start with DC

BRIGHTEST DAY # 13
Words by: Geoff Johns and Peter Tomasi
Art by: Ivan Reis

So... how come when the issue focuses on Hawkman and Hawkgirl they get the whole bloody issue? I mean, Martian Manhunter and Aquaman split most of their issues, but the Hawks get cover to bloody cover... which is horrible reading if you hate the hawk people, and if the story is lame. And that's what we have with this issue, a lame plot involving the Hawks being tortured to open a gate for Hawkgirl's mother to go invade Zammarron. Like I said, the story line is convoluted, and if you don't like the characters (like me) the issue lacks any real punch, especially when you consider that it does absolutely nothing to further the brightest day plot line, something that can be overlooked in tie-ins but not the main series.

Dr. Brooklyn says: PASS on this issue (4/10)

So that's all I read from DC this week, I kind of regret that with how badly BD stunk.

Dr. Brooklyn goes to Washington

I didn't review it, but a few weeks back I watched All The King's Men (1941) in which a humble small town dreamer turns into a backstabbing Politician... a tad redundant, I know. For decades that movie has been seen as the true face of politics, hearkening back to the old quote "Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely." But, with the elections of last Tuesday (for any Americans reading this) the American public went out and struck down Republicans and Democrats in a manner showing they are tired of the tried and true descent to corruption usually found in politics, and instead said they want men and women like... Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) from the movie which will be reviewed here Mr. Smith goes to Washington (1939).

The movie is surprisingly relevant, with the press being called out for half truths, politicians lying and making back room deals, and the Congressmen forgetting that they were elected by the people to serve the people. And with today's political climate, this movie speaks as loudly now as it does then. There's discussion of over-complicated bills, and the people that write them. As an American this movie speaks to me because it both criticizes and reminds me of all our Legislative branch can be.

Warning: The next paragraph has some political opinions in it, which may be offensive to some readers, proceed at your own choice, or jump to the paragraph after ti for a return to straight up reviewing.

Also, at the risk of alienating some readers, this movie seems like it was advocating The Tea Party before the Tea Party was even a fever dream. Stewart's Smith is the quintessential Tea Partier, a patriotic, Jefferson quoting man who truly believes every word of praise he spouts about the glories of the constitution and believes everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be defended.

The Sidney Buchman screenplay is stunning, painting the career politicians as the ruthless men (at the time they were all men) who care more about lining their pockets and getting under the table favors than serving their constituents. But Buchman also shows Smith as a naive man at first, quickly developing into a politician in his own right, but the kind that Americans want: honest hardworking men who think of their people back home before they think of themselves.

Also of note is Jimmy Stewart, the only man I've ever seen in cinema who could play this role. Stewart made a career for playing folksy down to earth guys (See George Bailey, Ransom Stoddard, Tom Jeffords, etc.) but here he takes it to a new level, in probably his best performance that I've seen him give. His ability to play a "Joe Six-Pack" is unparalleled and his ability to make the audience fall for his characters in each movie is unrivaled as well, the man was truly one of, if not the, greatest American actor.

All that being said, I can see how some people wouldn't like this movie, mainly political insiders and pro-big-government people, especially with the way Buchman and Capra present all the senators except Smith. I personally feel that the reasoning would be the fact that the man in the mirror is sometimes the ugliest person you'll ever see.

Perhaps the greatest political movie of all time, with a high running for greatest American film, Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a beautiful movie with a tight script, great acting, and a truly great look at smoke filled back rooms of Washington.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)


 

Citizen Kane: A review

Some movies are above the standard label of "movie." Yes, even the truly great works like Casablanca (1942) and The Godfather (1972) are at their hearts merely movie pictures, but they are also so much more. Truly, movies such as these have earned their own spots on Movie Olympus where they will be worshipped by the cult of cinephiles for decades to come. Yet if these movies are Hades and Poseidon, there is still a vacancy for the spot of chief Olympian: Zeus... well, any good film buff can tell you what the Zeus of cinema is: Citizen Kane (1941)

I think that objectively the opening seconds of Citizen Kane (1941) may be the most iconic scene in film history, the extreme close up on Kane's lips, the slow whisper mixed with subtle death rattle and the utterance of the first great movie "twist/mystery": "Rosebud."

From there we get a beautiful news reel that relates some of the big events of Charles Foster Kane's life, and Welles dives head first into the plot... and talk about a plot. The movie is mainly flashbacks with a framing device of a group of journalists trying to uncover the meaning of Kane's dying word.

The script is tight as a snare drum. From the very beginning Rosebud is in our face, but Welles hides it under snow, pressed against a man's chest, etc. And despite moving at a rapid pace, the dialogue is sharper than most motion pictures I've ever taken in, and yet it all seems so... not a movie. As bizarre and abnormal as it sounds this movie seems to transcend it's status to become more than a movie, but a slice of culture itself. I know I'm just gushing right now, worse than Chris Matthews the first time he heard Obama speak, but I think anybody who has seen this movie will understand.

Beyond the script, which I truly believe ranks amongst the finest of all time, the direction and Camerawork is riveting. Welles was truly ahead of the curve when it came to converging angles, pans, really everything he does here is among the finest that those techniques have been used, making it hard to believe that Citizen Kane is turning 70 next year. The shots are fresh and bold, exciting and daring. I don't really know if there's anything I can insult.

But scripts and direction are useless unless there are quality actors reading said script and follow said directions and... this movie cornered the market on quality performances. Everyone from Welles as Kane right down to Guy standing on the corner #3 the acting is better than a good chunk of all other movies. But Welles Kane steals this movie, so egotistical, so driven, so charming, and so slimy that you can't help but loather him and respect him. You cheer for him during his rise, but you also smile at his fall. A truly balanced and incredible performance in every sense of the word.

I could prattle on and on like a school girl about this film and it's greatness for multiple posts, but dear readers I won't. I will wrap it up with the following recommendation and all the praise I can heap on this movie. If you haven't seen this movie, rush out and watch it, if you have seen it... watch it again, it'll be worth it.

Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)