The Frequencies have been delayed...

Sorry for the delay on posting, for those of you who follow my site. My internet has been a nightmare but it's back up finally and I intend on making a few posts this week. My 70's theme got delayed due to the reliability of the wonderful internet so I'll probably extend my 70's theme and make more posts about the wonderful decade of film alongside with other plans I have. My next post will be the Top 10 best villains in film. Expect it up within the next 48 hours. OUT!

The pen is truly mightier than the sword...

The film noir genre is probably the most substantial genre in film history. It's able to be re-written, re-told, re-imagined, and re-made over and over and it has a history of success. All you need are characters that you truly care about in joining this journey of intrigue, deception, and danger. A noir can be created out of just about any kind of subject matter. No matter how frivolous and trivial the object of the story may be, a noir can be successful with the right writer. How can you tell if you have a good noir on your hands? Well we've already established the need for a great central character, but why not two characters? Who said it can only involve one person? The character should also be someone you're truly interested in. Do you want to know why the detective in the dilapidated office at the end of the block is some how the only person right for the job? Do you want to know why the character is alone, depressed, haggard? Maybe you wanna know why he/she is so good at their job? A great character introduction in the noir department is important, after all this is the person you are following for the duration of the film and is basically your tour guide through the environments you will be entering. The next important puzzle piece in a film noir is a question, that is to say; Who did it? Why are they doing it? Who's behind this? Being a murder, a criminal case, a charge of conspiracy, and even cases of real estate fraud can be a subject that upon first listen can seem boring, but it's the way the web is woven that truly gives the story it's luster and beauty. You know the noir is a failure if you already know the conclusion 15 minutes into the film. A truly good noir unravels with the utmost precision in small layers at a time to keep the viewer guessing and anticipating what will happen next. To make a good noir film, you must have a filmmaker that understands a good noir film, after all these films were the back bone of cinema in the 40's, 50's, and 60's...so why should the 70's and even the films of today be any different? Alfred Hitchcock set the bar when it comes to making a good and successful noir, some people understood it and some people didn't. What Hitchcock always did however, was eventually surprise you in it's conclusion and that's truly what makes a good noir. Films like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Vertigo, and Third Man are all good examples of a noir that truly works it's impact and the magic unfolds before your very eyes in a contemporary setting. With that being said, for my next entry in the 70's cinema month on the frequencies blog; Noir in the 70's.

CHINATOWN - ROMAN POLANSKI - 1974

Robert Towne wrote this masterful screenplay about a private eye named Jake Gittes uncovering more than he expected in what is considered to be one of the greatest noir film entries of all time. Our story centers around Gittes (Jack Nicholson) who is hired by a woman named Mrs. Mulwray, who suspects her husband of cheating. Mr. Mulwray is one of the city's most powerful; involved in the development of the city's water management supply. Gittes completes what he is hired to do, however spying on Mr. Mulwray only opens a pandora's box of municipal corruption, deceit, and murder. Set in the 1930's era of Los Angeles, Chinatown was the brainchild of Robert Towne after declining to work on F Scott's Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. The screenplay was originally 180 pages long; which in reality would mean the film would've been quite lengthy since a page is supposed to equal a minute's worth of screen time. The abridged script eventually made it's way to the lap of director Roman Polanski who was reluctant to return to the United States to shoot again since his wife was murdered by the Manson Family. Polanski finally agrees and Jack Nicholson takes the role of Jake Gittes and noir history is made. Chinatown, aside from most film noirs, was exciting and different at the time because of one major person involved. Roman Polanski created this film in such a manner that makes the audience directly involved in Gittes journey of solving the case and that's what makes the film so special. Polanski shot and paced the film in a manner where the audience was learning of all Gittes clues and leads at the exact same time he is; to keep the audience guessing. Eventually Chinatown became a huge success and was eventually followed up in 1990 with Nicholson starring and directing. The Two Jakes wasn't quite as impressive as Chinatown and shot the possibility of what I understand were Towne's intentions of turning the Gittes mysteries into a trilogy. In 1975, Chinatown swept the oscars in nearly every category from Best Actor, Actress, Director, Picture, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Costume Design, etc....only to take home one that evening for Best Original Screenplay for Robert Towne. A staple in hollywood history, mystery, and noir...Chinatown with it's complex story and characters juxtaposed to it's simple and nearly no effects laden execution, makes the film one that people now can even understand why it's reverred as one of the best noirs ever to be seen on the big screen.



THE CONVERSATION - FRANCAIS FORD COPPOLA - 1974


Paranoia and suspicion are the elephants in the room in most noir films, but not like in Coppola's 1974 classic The Conversation. Gene Hackman plays Harry Caul, an audio surveillance specialist hired to spy on the conversation of a couple in a crowded town square on suspicion of foul play to the person who originally hired Caul. Caul is a very strange character that somehow finds his way into our interests more so because of his actions and his secretive demeanor. Hackman delivers a performance that's one of the strongest of his career next to his portrayal of the hard boiled narcotics detective Popeye Doyle in the French Connection. Caul's reluctance of trusting anyone from his longtime partner; wonderfully played by John Cazale (The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon) to his girlfriend; Teri Garr only adds to the question of "why?". As the film progresses, Harry Caul has a reason to believe that the audio tapes he's ordered to deliver are dangerous to the people he was surveilling. The persistence of "the director"'s assistant; played by Harrison Ford, in retrieving the tapes only raises his suspicion that something is definitely not safe. Francais Ford Coppola had originally written this film in the mid-60s when he was beginning his film career and always found it hard to get it to the screen. It was only after the success of the Godfather, was when he was able to make just about any film he wanted. Ultimately, the film went on to be nominated and well received by both the academy and audiences as well. The film's paranoid undertones and audio surveillance scenes were always compared to the similar situation that happened with President Nixon in the Watergate Scandal, which could've been a contributing factor to the film's success and intrigue. None the less, The Conversation is another entry in the extraordinary repertoire of 70's cinema, and is a different take on the noir genre entirely. The Conversation is in my personal favorites of the director's films and according to many people who've spoken with Coppola; it's one of his as well.



ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN - ALAN J. PAKULA - 1976


I've always said that when it came to the films of Dustin Hoffman, from the start of his career in the Graduate in the late 60's to 1980, everything he did was absolute gold. From Straw Dogs, Kramer vs. Kramer, Marathon Man, John and Mary, and Papillon his ability to do just about any character made him one of the most special actors this generation has come to know and love. All The President's Men is another entry in this man's illustrious career. All The President's Men is an adapted screenplay based on a novel by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein about their investigation of the Watergate Scandal while employed by the Washington Post. There isn't much to explain past what I've mentioned because this is a pillar in american history. June 19th, 1972, 5 men were arrested for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex. It was said that Nixon from the beginning was involved and news made it to the Washington Post where Woodward and Bernstein were working. The film follows their dedication and persistence to uncovering as much information as they possibly could with every possible wave ahead of them, professionally and personally. Woodward also includes in the book; which also becomes part of them film, close accounts with the person who brought the Watergate investigation to it's knees with a person named "Deep Throat". The film's fantastic and exciting journey for the search of any and all evidence of this break in is considered by many to be one of the most exciting noir films in history. A completely different take on the whole noir film genre as a whole since the detectives are reporters and what they are investigating is something that really happened. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman's chemistry is undeniable from the second they meet on screen together. The film eventually went to be nominated in nearly every category possible including Best Picture. Armed with a great behind the scenes crew and a wonderful supporting cast alongside Hoffman and Redford; which included Jason Robards, Martin Balsam, Hal Holbrook, and Ned Beatty. All The President's Men is an exciting look at the process of investigation and with no gunplay, action, car chases...proves that sometimes the pen can truly be mightier than the sword.

The Antihero lives in the 70's.

Continuing my theme this month of 70's films, I've decided to dive more into the term "antihero". What is an antihero? A good guy? A bad guy doing good things? A good guy doing bad things maybe? Lots of people will have their own definition. Harry Callahan could care less though. The reason why? Is because he is the ultimate antihero, one with a police badge. Clint Eastwood created one of the most iconic characters in film history with his portrayal of hard boiled San Francisco Inspector Harry Callahan. This film was exactly what everyone needed at the time of it's release, a man who wouldn't take it anymore, doing things his own way, and actually being commended for it!?! Directed by Don Siegel of Invasion of the Body Snatchers fame, this gritty police drama gave a new perspective to police films for it's visceral portrayal of violence and character study of someone who could come off as a loose cannon in the eyes of some, but is ultimately a hero in his own respect. On the trail of a sniper named "Scorpio" who continues to antagonize the police by sending them letters of a ransom demand or he will shoot people at random. Controversial at the time, the film was widely praised and also protested being that the Scorpio killer was also similar to the "Zodiac Killer" who was doing almost the same thing in San Francisco at that time. What sets this film apart from the rest is the fact that we see the urban setting usher in a new era of action films. The Wild Bunch in 1969 was a way of saying the "western" is almost dead and we needed something new. Dirty Harry is the answer, a western set in contemporary times with a hero who still "Shoots first and asks questions later" A pillar in 70's film history and a character that resonates to this day in the form of others such as Officer Alex Murphy of Robocop, John McClane in Die Hard, and even Bruce Wayne in the Batman series. Continuing with a franchise that went nearly 20 years strong, Harry Callahan will always be considered to be the first policeman to get things done. On that note, I leave you with my favorite quote from the film courtesy of IMDB.com

Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.
[walks out of the room]



After the success of Harry Callahan and the continuing anger of incidents such as Watergate, Vietnam, Kent State University shooting, etc...the creative forces continued to grow more angry by the second when things took so long to see concluded and we felt helpless. Here comes the next antihero of the 1970's to the rescue, Paul Kersey. So many people were offered the role of the architect who didn't want to sit around waiting for the justice to take care of his problems. Everyone was considered, Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, even blue eyes himself Frank Sinatra! Ultimately, the producers decided on an up and coming star in his own right and with his own style. Charles Bronson! Known to some as Harmonica of Once Upon a Time in the West, and Danny Velinski aka "The Tunnel King" in the star studded "The Great Escape". It was Death Wish that catapulted Bronson to a status above many others for creating a character people really cared about. Paul Kersey is a successful architect and a bleeding heart liberal whose life is destroyed after his wife and daughter are attacked by punks posing as grocery boys. His wife eventually succumbs to the events while his daughter is left catatonic. Paul first spends his time playing ball with the legal system and giving them all info they ask for in order to solve the case. Eventually, he becomes another statistic of the crime ratio and no justice is served. His liberal outlook on life is then changed by his contempt for the legal system, criminal underworld, and life in general. Receiving a pistol as a gift on a business trip, Kersey then becomes walking bait on the streets of New York City murdering anyone who tries to hurt him. The effect is felt city-wide as criminal activity drops and the morale of the average citizen rises. Will the police stop him or commend him for doing the job they really can't do? Released in 1974, Death Wish was a hit with critics and audiences alike and spawned many sequels. It brings about the idea of what if justice was done in the hands of others? Does the legal system sometimes protect the guilty as much as it does the innocent? or does the balance somehow fall out of balance for those in the other spectrum? The film is powerful in rejuvenating a sense of hope that sometimes gets lost when we fall victim to things out of our control, yet also raises many questions from a moral stand point. The sequels somehow along the way get lost in it's absurdity though denying the power the original has is impossible. Kersey unlike Harry Callahan, was the everyman standing up to the scum that surrounded him. People flocked to this character in droves because of it's general appeal. Who needs a badge when all you need is a gun? The character to this day still ushers in the same effect and power as we've already seen in the 2007 remake "The Brave One" with Jodie Foster, and a remake to be made and released in 2009. No matter how many times the story is re-told, it will never be the same as it was fueled by the times, frustration, anger, and glimmer of hope this "antihero" brought to the screen. I give you Paul Kersey.

Sam Kreutzer: I'll bet muggings are down, and they're afraid to tell us.
Paul Kersey: There's only one way to find out. Take a walk on Columbus Avenue tonight

Clip of Death Wish (1974)


Clip from Dirty Harry (1971)

The 70's remembered...

"I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me."

Says the character of Marlon Brando's Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. I've said it before and I always say to all that ask my opinion on film. The 70's were indeed the greatest time for cinema. It was a different time then and a much more dangerous time in the world of mainstream cinema. Big budget hollywood epics were beginning to get tired and drawn out, costing too much money, and not making the revenue it was originally known to do. Films like Ben Hur, Lawrence Of Arabia, El Cid, Gone With The Wind...were and are classics in their own right, but people were looking for something new around this time.


Our nation's most unpopular war is now reaching about 4 years old, 1970 is a fresh decade with a new leader, new values, and new filmmakers on the rise. The unpopularity of the war, the rise of the free thinking hippies, rock n roll becoming as dangerous than ever, and people are becoming absolutely fed up with the system, were just some of the many fuels that were added to the creative fire that made this decade shine in area of arts and film. Gas prices go up, businesses are going down, a war like vietnam is costing the country more than it can afford...just like now! Just like the hollywood system producing sequels that cost next to nothing to make; like Saw 5 and produce a revenue of 3 times or more of it's cost...the only difference between cinema now and then is the fact that we aren't mad anymore. The hollywood system found a way to find people that weren't afraid to speak their minds and create incredible stories, metaphorical, literal, whatever that may be, to basically show people who were bright enough to understand what the country's actions are doing to it's regular citizens. Sidney Lumet, Martin Scorcese, Peter Bogdonovich, Francais Ford Coppola, George Romero...I could continue forever...but these people are the ones that truly revitalized the hollywood system from near death and creative drought. So I've decided to spend some time this month only on making nothing but posts of films of the 1970's that affected everyone and myself included.



DOG DAY AFTERNOON - SIDNEY LUMET - 1975

Al Pacino plays a man at the end of his rope named Sonny Wortzik. Sonny was what you would call the everyman of the 1970's. Too poor to afford a university, drafted in Vietnam, and a closeted gay homosexual. Based on a true story, this character was turned into an overnight hero when he decides he's not going to take it anymore and rob a bank in New York City. The money was meant to help pay for his boyfriend's sex change and it was supposed to be a simple "in and out" job. The film's simple set up became something more special as the film develops. We learn of Sonny's indignation in life with his emotions, experiences, and relationships with other people and begin to cheer a man who is originally introduced to be a criminal...but then becomes the person who eventually becomes the star of lots of influential 70's films to come, The Antihero.
As a hostage stand off begins, Sonny and his dim-witted friend Sal; brilliantly played by fellow Godfather co-star John Cazale, develop friendships with the hostages, and become heros who have decided to lash out at the establishment that has ousted them in the first place. Unforgettable and really moving, Dog Day Afternoon is Pacino's best work in my opinion and one of the best films of the 1970's...if not the best.



TAXI DRIVER - MARTIN SCORCESE - 1976

Like Al Pacino, Robert De Niro was a rising star in the 70's film circuit also riding the waves of the success of the Godfather franchise by the time he became the title role of Scorcese's dark psychological portrait of a man breaking down. De Niro plays Travis Bickle, a vietnam veteran who applys for a taxi driver position to deal with his insomnia. A man of strong moral values though little to no patience at all, the more time he spends driving the streets of New York City, the more disgusted he becomes. "Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." The character becomes a monster slowly as he obsesses over a young prostitute, plots to possibly assassinate an up and coming political figure, and stews in his own rage, disgust, and sadly...his loneliness. A product of what society had continually offered him, we watch the slow and mental breakdown of a commended officer of the armed forces who can't cope with what he's become...a nobody. Paul Scharader's fantastic screenplay deals with how our country treated the vets who fought in an unpopular war and who they eventually became nothing here upon return. A metaphor for the entire decade in general, this film resonates decades later and continues to impact people on a personal basis because of it's visceral depiction of violence and mental anguish that at one time or another everyone goes through. Here's one man's way of dealing with those pressures...I give you Travis Bickle.

Early Oscar Predictions???

It's no surprise that people have already been talking about the oscars so early before the end of this year. I think last year's oscars was very exciting for quite a few reasons. Not since the 70's or even the 60's; when films like Dog Day Afternoon, The Deer Hunter, Midnight Cowboy, and The Godfather were being nominated, have film buffs like myself been excited to see who wins what. Last year was a flat out victory for the film buff(s) that crave more out of movies and saw my personal 2 favorites of last year get nominated at the minimum of 3 awards each! There Will Be Blood & No Country For Old Men swept the oscars and gave the Coens their much deserved Best Picture award and of course it seems every time Day-Lewis makes a wide released picture he comes in to pick up his award because there isn't another actor in our generation quite like him. Last year, I I felt like I was at a sporting event, with beer in my hand and anticipating to see who wins, and cheering my hopes like I was cheering my home team.

I have seen my fair share of films this year in the theater and there are a few films I definitely thought were going to be great shoe-ins for the oscars but turned out to be not so great in the long run. A disappointment for me was definitely Body Of Lies by Ridley Scott. The combination of William Monahan (The Departed's widely recognized screenwriter) and Ridley Scott (American Gangster, Gladiator, Alien). The story followed an agent working in the frontlines of the middle east in the war on "terror" with a commanding performance by Dicaprio. As well as a great performance as a CIA bigwig by Crowe. The performances were there and the direction seemed promising but the main problem seemed to be the film lacked a great push towards the end. It had it's twist and turns but in the end turned out to be as simple as Berg's "The Kingdom". My personal opinion I thought the film seemed a little rushed and could've benefited from a stronger screenplay in some areas and maybe shouldn't have come out so quickly. I mean think about it, most 90 minute production features tend to take around 30 to 40 days of principal photography and then you have a few months of post production, editing, re shoots (if there are any), promotion, etc...This film seemed to me like it came out too quickly as if it were a product of the studio because they expected it to be a sure fire hit with just the cast and crew names behind it. Unfortunately, it didn't do too well in the box-office and it's already been forgotten. Shame, because I enjoyed the film but definitely didn't find it to be in the field the oscar(s) are looking for.

I could go on and on about most of the films that have come out this year but when it really boils down to it, I get to the main topic of discussion. The Dark Knight, should it be nominated? Yes. Will it be nominated? Why not?! The film was a cinematic achievement in crossing the line for audiences that are comic fans and movie fans. The film was more than a comic film. It's power and elegance made the film become the 2nd highest grossing film in history; behind Titanic. Certain people complain saying Ledger's performance was just hype because he passed away prior to the film release. My response to that is "did you see the same film we did!?!". It's safe to say that when you were watching the film, you anticipated the appearance of his character because of the tension and excitement he constantly brought to the screen. His screen performance of the joker is worthy of receiving the prestigious honor that not since Network in 76 with Peter Finch has been accomplished; and that is getting the posthumous award for his acting from the academy. Another reason why a lot of people doubt this film being recognized by the academy is the fact that it's a comic book film and that it's too dark.



Keep in mind, it's not a far stretch for this film to be recognized. Peter Jackson won best director and Lord of the Rings won Best Picture and Terminator 2 has been recognized when it was released as well. It's not a far stretch for a crime saga with unconventional characters being recognized this time around. Also, how can the film be too dark? No Country for Old Men; last year's winner was about as dark as it can get with it's allegories about fate. Bardem reels in a much deserved award for playing a vacant psychopath; not far from Ledger's performance if you think about it. I say, let it happen and why not? I see the Dark Knight being recognized for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor.

Now, normally I don't make oscar predictions on movies I have yet to see, because trailers can indeed be deceiving can't they? I mean early predictions for Cormac McCarthy's next film adaptation "The Road" has been getting oscar predictions but as of now, the film is being pushed back due to a disastrous test screening and may not be out in time for the oscars. The Soloist which is another film garnering pre viewing oscar praise has also been pushed back. W. was recently released to mixed reviews but with the performances being recognized none the less. Josh Brolin literally nailed it as our current President George W Bush. His supporting cast was also phenomenal; with the exception of Newton's torturous performance as Condelezza Rice. Wright was fantastic as Gen. Colin Powell, Scott Glenn as Rumsfeld, and Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. I wouldn't be surprised if any of them get recognized this year.



We are close to the end of the line and the end of the year. Judging from previews alone though, what else do we have to look forward to? Sean Penn as Harvey Milk in Gus Van Sant's "Milk"? Maybe Craig will impress the academy so much that Quantum of Solace could be the first Bond film in history to receive awards past the sound effects, song, and visual dept? The big winner I personally see is David Fincher's adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The trailers alone scream that 2008 is Pitt's official year for the best actor award. I see the film personally, being recognized in most catorgories if not all; including Best Picture, Best Director (which Fincher rightfully deserves after being shamefully ignored last year with Zodiac), Best Actor, Best Visual Effects, and we shall see what else? maybe Swinton can do it again and reel in another Best Supporting Actress award? I certainly hope so. Another film to keep in mind is Wall-E which I wouldn't be surprised of it's recognition, Pixar is a studio that is very much revered in the eyes of the academy. Of course, wishful thinking over here...but I'd like to see In Bruges be recognized as well...fantastic little film that no one got to see. At least a screenplay award or something? We shall see. Till then, that is all. Sorry I took so long to write another entry. I'm typically not very good at keeping up with things like this.

Sean Penn as historical politician and gay rights activist; Harvey Milk.


Brad Pitt aging backwards in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Funny Games (2008)

"The rules are simple, pick a family...and make them play" Says the tagline of the film upon it's release earlier this year. Funny Games is a shot for shot remake of an Austrian film by the same director; Micheal Haneke. Upon it's original release in 1997, the idea behind the film was a simple statement about violence. Why do we love it so much? Why are we so entertained by it? Why does it bring movie patrons to the theaters in droves, to watch other people suffer for our amusement? We simply don't know. Funny Games writer/director Michael Haneke doesn't seem to understand it either, but he's well aware of our society's love for "sex and violence" and that's what inspired him to make this film. To make you feel upset, uncomfortable, and by the end of the film's running time...asking yourself "why did I stay till the end of this?" It's original release in Austria and most of Europe garnered applause and praise tantamount to it's protest and hatred all the same. Haneke however was hoping for such a response from both sides of the spectrum and felt his job was done. So why the remake 10 years or so later? Simply put, maybe the audience's fascination with sex & violence needs to be taught a lesson in seeking out such entertainment. For years we've marveled at the screen at the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy of Dirty Harry, watched in horror as Dustin Hoffman is terrorized in Straw Dogs, and to come up a little more to the modern times of watching robots take out the US Army by the hundreds in Transformers. Haneke figured that an english spoken version with actors we admire at the helm is the best way to reach the desensitized audience that we have become.



Our film begins with George, Anna, and George Jr in a picturesque scenery drive through the countryside on their way to their vacation house. Smiles, loving conversations, guessing games of music among the parents within the first few minutes of the credits make you think this is going to be a nice film (What other way to describe it?) Then you're bludgeoned by the surprise of obnoxious and frantic grind music that makes you wonder "what the hell?" Upon arrival, they greet their distant relatives; and neighbors and tell them they are excited for a golf match tomorrow. Their relatives don't seem their usual selves and George and Anna notice too. "who do you suppose those two were with them?"



Haneke uses a subtle pacing that allows to you get to know your characters for the little time they have to be themselves before the true horror begins. They are a happy family, Dad and Son love boating, Mom is in the kitchen making steaks and making plans for visitors. Not the visitors that we expect. We are greeted by Peter and Paul, or so they call themselves. Seem like genuinely good kids, well dressed, well spoken, well mannered, well planned in their intentions. A simple "stop & go" visit to borrow some eggs is what sets off a chain reaction of violence and murder. The two youngsters take the family hostage and give them a scenario that they are betting the family won't live past tomorrow morning. Haneke takes you on a journey through this film with a style that is almost similar to Gus Van Sant's films like Elephant and Last Days.

Generally, remakes in my opinion are often something frowned upon, because let's face it; why would you fix something that isn't really broke in the first place? It's very rare that I come across certain remakes that stand out over the original in certain ways. This film doesn't entirely replace the general excitement and shock value of seeing the original Austrian film some 10 years ago...This film does however bring out some of the strongest performance I've seen of our actors involved this time around. Tim Roth (Reservoir Dogs, Youth Without Youth, Pulp Fiction) and Naomi Watts (Mulholland Dr, King Kong, The Ring) truly convince us of seeing the face of terror when the film unravels the plans that Peter and Paul have for them. The screams feel real, the tears look real, the terror feels close to home. Even Devon Gearhart delivers a performance that most kids wouldn't be able to understand in approaching, let alone executing. The strongest points of this film however lie in our two antagonists (or protagonists depending on how you view this film) Peter and Paul or Tom and Jerry or Beavis and Butthead...the two call each other so many names that you tend to wonder who they even are. Michael Pitt (The Dreamers, Last Days, Bully) and Brady Corbet (Mysterious Skin, Thirteen, 24) bring performances that are truly recognizable. The two have a chemistry with one another that can throw you off from time to time and make you forget you're watching these two young men torture a family for no reason.



Funny Games more than anything, is simply a critical look at violence. What sets this film aside from most torture films like Hostel, is the simple fact that Haneke isn't glorifying violence in any way possible. As a matter of fact, this film isn't meant to be viewed as entertainment. This film's intention is really to make the audience feel like part of the "crime", as Paul constantly addresses the screen and speaks to the audience asking "who's side are you on?" and his winks and smiles towards our audience are just one of the many ways the two antogonists try to connect with the audience; adding a different layer of discomfort that we aren't used to in watching films like this. Haneke always considered this film to be more of an American style look at violence than European; He's even said that in interviews. Though the film itself doesn't glorify violence the way Americans do, this remake is simply a cathartic view of depression in a different setting. With the intent and message behind the film stripped away, there isn't much else left. Story? Lack there of really, however maybe it's the simple set up and the idea of the message that makes the film as memorable and uncomfortable today as it was 10 years ago.

4/5

Try and keep up right?

So this is hopefully going to be a regular thing. I'll try to update about once a week or so. This blog is dedicated to my love of movies. Hopefully I'll be able to introduce to you some movies you might not have expected to be so great, or even heard of for that matter. 

Problem is I'm my own worst critic and I've already erased and retyped this opening blog entry about 30 times. I'm running on no sleep, lots of alcohol in my bloodstream, and some bad japanese food court teriyaki. I'll have my first review up soon. To all the people who read my entries on my other website before, thanks again for the emails...I hope this blog will be worth it.