The Elephant Man

Sample titles for this blog post, which were scrapped because I couldn't decide on just one:

The Elephant Man: David Lynch, without all the nonsense

or

The Elephant Man: The *real* Best Picture of 1980 (or at least better than the consensus top film)

or

The Elephant Man: Why, again, isn't this considered an all-time great by outfits like AFI?

Yes, friends, this stylized account of the life of Joseph Merrick (mistakenly known as John Merrick) is that good.

(Cinema Scope with the pic)

What's brilliant about The Elephant Man -- the story of a deformed former circus sideshow (John Hurt) who takes up residence in a London hospital thanks to a curious doctor (Anthony Hopkins) and becomes something of a high-society curiosity -- is its breadth of style and substance.

It's got director Lynch's impeccable craft -- e.g. that mid-film dream sequence -- but ditches his typical nonsensical storyline for a thoughtful tale told at a measured pace. It's equally bright and dark, showing the best of humanity and the worst -- and all those moral gray areas, too. And when the film reaches its almost inevitable conclusion, it is simultaneously happy and sad, bringing about the urge to cry ... for some reason, although it's hard to peg exactly why.

Heartbreaking? Heartwarming? Try both. Or how about this: It's heart-tugging -- easily one of the most emotionally affecting films out there.

So why, again, does this one get so often shafted in the annals of film history?

They Live to be campy

Classic John Carpenter* ...

*And no, not this John Carpenter.

(Found on the review blog Reality Break)

There's really not much to say that hasn't been said in praise of Carpenter's wrestler-starring ("Rowdy" Roddy Piper, a Canadian who for some reason wore a Scottish kilt in the ring) sci-fi/political satire about how the world is being taken over by in-disguise aliens ... who are delivering subliminal messages that are decipherable only to the trained eye (the trained eye, of course, being covered by special sunglasses). In fact, I've already said it myself.

But I'll say it again: Really, the film is just ridiculous.

Yeah, ridiculously awesome.

Most fans will point to the "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass" line -- and for good reason.

I prefer the best hand-to-hand fight scene I've ever witnessed (NSFW). Oh, and the ending is great. And let's not forget the fate of the character played by George "Buck" Flower, one of the most memorable bit players you'll ever see.

Bonus bit: If you've got a few minutes, read the short story upon which They Live is based -- "Eight O'Clock in the Morning," by Ray Nelson. It is absolutely nothing like the movie.

Ugh.

From Variety ...

Universal Pictures will remake the 1983 David Cronenberg-directed thriller "Videodrome," with Ehren Kruger set to write the script and produce with partner Daniel Bobker.

The producers tracked down the rights to Canadian distribution vet Rene Malo, who will be exec producer. Universal distributed the original and had first refusal on a remake, and the studio snapped up the opportunity.

The original "Videodrome" starred James Woods as the head of Civic TV Channel 83, who makes his station relevant by programming "Videodrome," a series that depicts torture and murder that transfixes viewers.

The new picture will modernize the concept, infuse it with the possibilities of nano-technology and blow it up into a large-scale sci-fi action thriller.

Oh, goody. A "large-scale, sci-fi action thriller," written by the guy who did The Ring Two and this year's Transformers movie. Yeah, that's just what I had in mind when I pictured the remake of one of the greatest oddball mind trips of all time.

Ah, well. I'll just sit back and watch the following (oddly NSFW) scene, then the rest of the movie, then again and again, because it's that good (and weird)*.

*Oh, and don't forget about the ending -- itself among the strangest and most memorable.

Raging Bull is overrated.

*Note: I wrote this a while back and held off on posting it, but with EW.com's release of the 25 Best Biopics Ever -- and subsequent placing of this film at No. 1 -- I couldn't stop myself.

(Pic found at this site)

JOEY: Psst. You know we got everybody fooled, right?
JAKE: Whatchutalkin' 'bout we got everybody fooled?
JOEY: Ya know, how everyone thinks we're in this all-time great movie?

Yeah, that's right. Raging Bull -- a.k.a. the American Film Institute's fourth-best movie ever made, a.k.a. one of Time's 100 greatest, a.k.a. the No. 6 movie in the Sight & Sound Directors' Top Ten, a.k.a that top-ranked biopic, etc., etc. -- ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Now, there's a saying about Shakespeare that he has to be overrated because he can't possibly underrated -- and that kind of applies here. Seriously, Google "raging bull" and overrated and read the comment under the link with "DVD Talk Forum."

(Waiting ...)

Ouch.

Yeah, so treading on Raging Bull is trampling sacred ground.

But that doesn't mean we're dubbing Martin Scorsese's legendary film "bad." Its craft -- especially the editing of those boxing scenes -- is, of course, impeccable. Robert De Niro's performance as enraged boxer Jake LaMotta ... well, I wouldn't be the first to say it's very, very good. Joe Pesci (as LaMotta's long-suffering brother) and Cathy Moriarty (LaMotta's long-suffering wife) are fine, too.

Still ... exceptional filmmaking/acting don't make for an exceptional film. There's the little issue of story, and Raging Bull's goes something like this:

-LaMotta starts out an a-hole.

-He surrounds himself with a-holes.

-He becomes a successful boxer ... but an even bigger a-hole.

-His a-holeness catches up with him, so he ends up a fat, outcast a-hole.

Now, it's a character study, meaning plot is secondary. Fine. But character studies need arcs to make them compelling*. Not every protagonist must be a saint, or even likable. But there's gotta be something there, some sort of conflict -- and endlessly running around saying "Did you [bleep] my wife?" doesn't count.

*Even the dull Capote had a considerable character arc.

That's what keeps Raging Bull from reaching the heights of another character-driven Scorsese flick, Taxi Driver. Neither features lovable protagonists, but Travis Bickle's slip into insanity is far more gripping, IMO, than the simple tale of a jerk staying a jerk.

Conspiracy (movie) theories

Everyone loves a good list*. Thankfully, our friends over at Rotten Tomatoes -- in anticipation of the new something-is-up-with-the-government flick (and probable yawner) State of Play; trailer here, if you must -- recently revealed one:

*As opposed to a bad list, like this one.

The 25 best conspiracy movies ever.

A note, before we break it down: The list is formula-based (percentage of critics who approve, average rating, etc.), so it's not decided by a committee. Therefore, films like JFK -- easily among the best -- missed out, because they didn't get unanimous raves*.

*The ones who didn't like Oliver Stone's masterpiece probably were in on the whole thing!

Thoughts ...

-Glad they recognized Blow Out (#24), a forgotten part of the John Travolta arsenal. An idea: Let's just think about this 1981 flick -- in which a B-movie sound designer stumbles upon a plot against a Presidential candidate -- when this nonsense comes out later in '09.

-Hot Fuzz (#20) is the only comedy on the list. What, did the plan to overthrow San Marcos' new leader not count?




-Seeing Minority Report (#19) on here just makes me angry. It still is the worst case of ending FAIL I can remember. What a way to blow an incredible setup.




-Finally caught The Bourne Ultimatum (#15) the other day, and it was pretty good. Can't say the same about Gone Baby Gone (#13), which had some strong moments and a confounding moral question at its center ... but overall felt a little hackneyed.

-Between Touch of Evil (#14) and Manchurian Candidate (#6), I'll take the one that was directed by the Wilt Chamberlain of filmmaking.




-L.A. Confidential (#4) is a little bit overrated. No Way Out (#8) is not.

-Speaking of overrated, I can't quite get the unconditional love for North by Northwest (#2). It has some great moments and a helluva score, but its plot registers high on the Convoluted Scale.

-Chinatown is No. 1, and no dispute with that. But two others are right up there: The Insider (#11) and The Conversation (#7) -- which just might be Francis Ford Coppola's best*.

*Yes, better than that overrated mob movie he made.




Omissions (other than Woody Allen's aforementioned Latin American satire, of course):

-JFK: Duh.

-The Alien series: It's not just a rabid, acid-blooded killer they're fighting ...

-The Usual Suspects: Or was it a conspiracy?

-The Parallax View: Like The Conversation, pure 1970s minimalism. Wow.



Huh? Exactly ...

Alien(s)3

My cable package keeps showing me these movies. Can't argue with that.


First, let's forget Alien: Resurrection ever happened. In fact, I might call Dr. Howard Mierzwiak just to get that junk removed from my brain.

And those AVP movies? In the word of Bill Lumbergh: Yeah ...

This is how The Film Official's Alien rankings stack up:

1. Alien

2. Alien3

3. Aliens

Yeah, you read that right. Alien3 > Aliens.

Sure, sure, in some circles, the James Cameron-helmed 1986 sequel is considered better than Ridley Scott's 1979 original -- part of that "which sequels are better than the original?" debate that often involves the first two Godfather and Terminator movies, too*.

*Although, strangely, Caddyshack II never seems to work its way into that discussion.

Aliens even has a healthy contingent of irrational fanboys and fangirls, intent on destroying everything that dare go up against their precious movie.

Well, bring it on.

First, though, let's say that the original is clearly the best -- a Hall of Famer for sure. It's bleak. Quiet. Almost slow -- just to maximize the dread. You don't really like the characters -- a seven-person crew of some towing spaceship -- but it's not as if you completely hate them. They don't have weapons or, it seems, any hope of surviving when that unmistakable alien finally shows up on their ship.

It's the kind of film where you can know everything --and I mean everything -- that happens before seeing it (that's how it worked for me), and yet it's still wholly terrifying. Even the infamous chest-bursting scene* is intense and surprising, no matter how many times you see it. And come on -- Alien even has a lovable cat as one of the good guys.

*No, not this one.

But now for the real alien-fight: Sequel No. 1 vs. Sequel No. 2.

What I can say about Aliens (which, strangely, received copious Oscar nominations despite being a sci-fi actioner) is this: It's a nice, mostly exciting shoot-em-up. It's certainly not bad -- definitely entertaining, with some intense scenes and nice effects for 1986. Sigourney Weaver does a fine job as our hero, Ripley. But that's about it. The script tells you exactly which characters will live and which will die. And gee -- Paul Reiser's character ends up being a bad guy all along? That's so obvious, I didn't even tag it with SPOILER ALERT.

Alien3, meanwhile, is all about atmosphere. The David Fincher effect -- this was the Se7en/Zodiac/Fight Club director's feature debut -- helps it rise above what is a somewhat simple script, even though Fincher (supposedly) dealt with considerable issues while filming.

That's not to say the story is bad. After escaping the Aliens situation, Ripley finds herself on an all-male penal planet, and one of those alien things is with her again. There's not too much action -- like in the original, the prisoners have no weapons -- so the film relies mostly on mood. Although the final chase-ish scene is chaotic, that's the point. Love the ending, too.

Now, for one, final, spoiler-filled note:

In Aliens, two of the characters who (quite predictably) don't get killed off are Hicks (Terminator star Michael Biehn) and, of course, the Cute Kid (also known as Newt, played by Carrie Henn). At the beginning of Alien3, we find that these two have died in some sort of incident.

Some -- it's even said that Cameron himself used these words -- called this decision "a slap in the face." And that sentiment is understandable. After all, Hicks and Newt were quite likable*.

*That's why they didn't die in Aliens ... duh!

So if you share that feeling, here's what you do. Go back to your Aliens DVD and make like me with Alien: Resurrection -- as in, pretend it never existed. Then, leave those of us in the vast, vast minority to enjoy Alien3 for what it is -- a dark, bleak, brooding film that gives you that sweetly sick feeling while you watch it.

You know, like the original.

Scanners

Wayne's World fans might remember this:


The Scanners referred to (at the 0:40 mark) is a 1981 movie by twisteed Canadian genius David Cronenberg. Although he's become a little more mainstream lately (Eastern Promises and A History of Violence), his early filmography might be the strangest collection of above-ground films. Seriously, name a director who did stranger things than:

-Videodrome: My personal favorite from Cronenberg -- this is about a local-access TV producer (James Woods) who gets his hands on a videotape with mind-control powers. In it, Woods' character sexually stimulates a TV. It looks as weird as it sounds.

-The Fly: Haven't seen it, but Jeff Goldblum becomes half-man, half-fly after a teleportation mishap.

-Crash: No, not the Best Picture winner (ugh) from a couple of years ago. This deals with people who are aroused by car crashes. Like, literally aroused.

-eXistenZ: Is it a video game? Real life? A mix of the two? And why is there a gun made out of animal bones?

-Spider: It's like Oedipus Rex, only set in London, with the main character (Ralph Fiennes) also happening to be pretty much insane.

-Naked Lunch: Based on a book; about a guy (Peter Weller) who gets hooked on insecticide and sees giant cockroaches.

And...

-Scanners: Which is most famous for that scene mentioned in Wayne's World. And it's not hard to see why. Seriously, a guy's head explodes. If you want, click here to see it (it's not as graphic as, say, Hostel, but it's still not even remotely safe for work).

Honestly, there's a reason that's scene is about all the movie is remembered for. It features mostly low-level acting (although bad guy Michael Ironside went on to have quite the TV/film career playing odd and/or tough characters -- he was even the bad guy in Free Willy). The story, about people with telepathic powers trying to take over the world (and yes, they can make people's heads explode with their minds), is slightly nonsensical and pushed forward through long bits of expository dialogue that would be boring to read, let alone hear from (mostly) human characters. The ending isn't really as surprising/satisfying as it wants to be (unlike the aforementioned Videodrome, which came out just two years after Scanners but was vastly superior).

Still, this one remains memorable, for a couple of reasons. One -- yes, that head-explosion scene. If you're squeamish, you don't want to see it. But if you can take it, it's really remarkable and almost unparalleled, still. Incredibly well-done, especially for the early 1980s.

Then there's a duel much later, between Ironside's bad guy and the main character (Stephen Lack -- and there's a really easy acting joke to be made about his last name). That showdown, quite simply, is gross -- and awesome (watch it here, if you dare). Film after film pits the good guy against the bad guy in a final EPIC BATTLE FOR ALL THE WORLD. Usually it involves some lame hand-to-hand combat or a gun battle. Not this one. It doesn't get much better, or more original, than in Scanners.

Another note: The score. It's mostly electronic, like much 1980s movie music. But in a film like this -- futuristic, scientific, telepathic -- it works perfectly (unlike in, say, The Killing Fields). Even more interesting -- it's one of the first compositions by Howard Shore, the guy who went on to win three Oscars with the Lord of the Rings franchise.