Rated 10/10Cool dancing and a seminal soundtrack covers a multitude of sins it seems.
Strange now, to think that I've being watching this over and over since a wee wee-er, mostly on the strength of it being a "Disco" movie and cultural phenomenon, when the substance of the plot and script have become ever more "yikes" the conscious I have become of it as I grew older, and began to realise what a hard hitting, hard bitten, uncompromising movie it really is.
The dancing and music is only there to serve as plot device really, to tell the tale of Tony Manero, a young guy stuck in crumby part of town with cruelly indifferent parents, and among scuzzy friends in menial dead end job, with no possibility of a real future of any kind, and his role of king of the dance-floor is the only thing he has to make himself feel something other than ordinary, like the rest, which his incredible talent in this regard allows.
But while everyone is trying to live up to their own individual delusions, and conceits of themselves, each created as a mechanism for themselves in order to blind themselves to their actual realities, Tony alone begins to feel the hollowness of it all and starts to question both himself, and the character he has created of, and for himself.
There's gang violence, domestic abuse, racism, homophobia, misogyny, tragedy, trauma rape... and gang rape.
So not really for kids, you'd have to say.
Many though, will come to this due to the reputation of the music, and the dancing and cultural significance, only to discover a movie that Scorsese himself would say: "Damn, that's a bit strong!"
But strip away the these last, window dressing elements, and you still have a masterpiece.
First things first... what a stupid title for a movie!
...In fact, that's the main reason why I haven't seen this until now, having dismissed it out of hand at time of release. because it seemed to speak of the kind of moronic doomsday sensaitonalism that is the usual preserve of the like of Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, and most other directors since.
But it's not.
This is actually a very powerful piece of film-making, brilliantly shot, with incredible imagery, excellent performances, and all set to a wonderfully evocative score.
And it's a horror movie... a proper horror movie.
It's not an "action adventure" type deal the marketing would have you believe... It is unremittingly bleak, unrelentingly grim, tense, and anxiety inducing.
It is an "historical" movie from Mad Mel Gibson, who seems to enjoy self-flagellating in public, by means of his movies, in order to satisfy whatever masochistic urges and impulses move the man.
(Probably some kind of original sin based guilt, but it's best not to speculate)
...But you know, loopy he may well be, but damn, the guy is a superior film-maker- and no mistake!
And he gets away with the "historical" license here by virtue of the fact that the Central and South American civilizations in question, such as the Maya, Inca, Olmec and Aztec related cultures are shrouded in mystery to this day, and there being no real History relative to other civilizations means his interpretation is as good as any can suggest.
In this case, a brutal, ritual sacrificing Wicker Man-esque-with-meaner-faces-and-poorer-manners culture invades a small village of peaceful tribes-people, gathers them up, and journeys back to their evil pyramids of doom in order to sacrifice them to the Sun (pretence for keeping the big-wigs in power, and the desperate, maniacal plebs in order in desperate times).
But among them is one guy who just ain't having it...
During the homestead invasion, he deposits pregnant wife and son in a well-like chasm to hide them, but, alas, are stuck there and effectively condemned unless he can break free and get back to rescue them.
The first hour and some, is this grim, horrific trudge to the threatened land, and the nightmarish fate that awaits him and his people, where heads most definitely do roll! (Crikey!), and the last twenty minutes or so is more of a genuine breathless action thriller as matters are brought to a head... or hopefully not.
Did I say this was bleak?... or grim, even?... well it ain't pleasant for the most part, but it is, despite being shot through with Christian allegory (suggested barely enough to be forgivable, and not get in the way of the story being told), visceral, and heart-pounding.
Like Apocalypse now crossed with 1917 and The Mission.
I saw this at the time of release, and remember being unimpressed by it, as it seemed a little hokey and cartoony for my taste... like Tombstone, it was a little too bombastic and "Hollywood" in all most negative, stereotypical senses...mainly, it felt like a confluence of two prime elements: One, as vehicle to exploit the rising star of Sharon Stone (Just drop her in there, and it'll sell tickets!), and two, to do so in such a manner as to cash in on the western revival / reappraisal that the magnificent: Unforgiven occasioned...
(Tombstone, in particular, felt like a ham-fisted cash in, although it is not without it's redeeming qualities, such as Val Kilmer's performance as Doc Holiday)
...But I just didn't feel this was anything other than lightweight, throwaway rubbish.
That is, until I just re-watched it, having found the DVD in a charity shop, and thought: "I'll give it another go, I suppose".
The thing is, thanks to the intervening years, I can now re-evaluate it based on what it is, not what I that it wasn't, which I just didn't get at the time...
...For this is, in stylistic terms, pure Comic Book / Graphic Novel stuff, of the kind that you might associate with the likes of Robert Rodriguez: Very stylised, with bold, wildly exaggerated cartoon-like characters, and a pure comic book rendering.
And it works.
The tale of a gun-fighting contest held in an oppressed town, dominated by archetype of evil overlord, played to perfection, as usual, by Gene Hackman, in an amplified, exaggerated version of his "Liitle Bill" character from Unforgiven itself (no coincidence this casting, for this reason I think), and featuring a lot of playing to both established types, and types to come by past and future stars of the time: Russell Crowe as a once outlaw turn repentant priest, and therefore reluctant gunfighter (at least elements of his Gladiator character to come), Lance Henriksen as a slimy, weaselly snake man, evil gunfighter, Keith David (just being awesome as usual), and a young and becoming Leonardo DiCaprio as an obnoxious, overly confident gunslinger.
And all wrapped up in one key fact, that explains a lot of what this is, and what it presaged:
Directed by Sam Raimi.
In fact, his quirky, darkly humorous style from the likes of Evil Dead, and Darkman, expressed on a big ol' budget here is probably what got him the Spiderman job, as it perfectly illustrates, and predicts, his handling of the Comic Book style, and sets the stamp of how to do that kind of movie for years and decades to come.
And lastly, it would be remiss of me not to mention Sharon Stone, who gives a much more rounded performance than I remembered, adn carries the whole affair pretty strongly, even among such heavyweight company.
So this kinetic, Crash! Bang! Pow! comic book western, laced with notes of nuance, is all in all, a pretty great piece of Saturday night movie popcorn fare.
(With all this bombast and melodrama, this would be a pretty awesome one to see back in the cinema!)
>Note: Is it me, or does the score for this movie, great though it is, sound like a straight rip-off of Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark's: Maid Of Orleans?<
This one is a more intimate, warm experience than the other two movies in the trilogy, and has a more... magical (perhaps) feel to it.
At times, it feels like it could be a prototype Amelie, though minus the whimsy, and surrealist element.
Valentine, a somewhat lonely fashion model, strung along by a boyfriend via phone calls, accidentally hits a dog in her car one night, and takes it to the owner's address, where she discovers a somewhat bitter, cynical and disconsolate older man, an ex-judge, who is using his scanning gear to eavesdrop on the neighbour's phone conversations, and hear the tangled tangled nature of their lives. She, being somewhat more idealistic, and morally straight, is disgusted at this, and takes him to task about it, and something about this quality in her seems to spark something in this old judge, perhaps a hope for himself of some kind, and so, through lengthy moral discussions, they begin to forge an unlikely friendship, and bond.
The lives of these other neighbours are most explicitly portrayed in one of the parallel story threads by one young guy, prospective boyfriend of one of the neighbours, and coincidentally, a neighbour of, and yet stranger to Valentine, who's fortunes mirror the life and times of the old judge.
There is a magical / mystical quality to the story being told, but it's not heavy handed, or explicit... but it is overtly expressed in the final scene.
Quite a captivating movie, which rounds out the trilogy nicely... I still think Blue is the bona-fide masterpiece of the set, and this one is the next best, but all three make for surely one of the great trilogies of modern cinema.
>One final note: If you get these on physical media, don't get the Artificial Eye releases that I watched, the audio on these discs is mostly horrific!<
...As this has a more deadpan, straight-faced, blackly comic, acidic tone, which is not as sparse and economical (or poetic) as the predecessor: Three Colours: Blue, and is a quite quirky, and protracted tale of revenge, of sorts.
The delightfully named: Karol Karol, a Polish man, and burgeoning star of the international hairdressing world, is divorced in the opening scene by his beautiful French wife, Dominique, because he is unable to consummate their marriage, and so takes him for everything he's got, leaving him destitute on the streets of Paris. He can't even get home to Poland, having lost his passport.
Thankfully, while busking in the tube station one day, a fellow Pole takes pity on him and promises to help him get home, by smuggling him on a flight in his large travelling case... so long as he, in turn, helps him kill himself.
From there, Karol plays all the angles and builds himself up in almost Vito Corleone style to position of some power and wealth, all in order to exact a very insidious and subtle form of revenge on Dominique... But does he still love her, after all?
It's kind of a Gilliam-esque, Monty Python / Fish Called Wanda farce, but played straight, and less wacky, but certainly absurd... but for all that, it's a pretty good film.
Three Colours Blue is still light-years better than this, but the contrast in tone and style works well, as a kind of darkly comic- relief to that more earnest tale.
>The reason I got all three Three colours movies before watching any of them, was I'd heard they needed to be watched in order, because elements from each may appear in the others - in the case of the first two, Blue and White, I don't think you need to especially, nor even the last: Red, but certainly the ending of Red only makes sense if you've seen these two first<
Given the apparent premise, I was expecting this to be a little more unconventional than it was, but sadly not. In my mind it promised to hit the heights of say, Wall-E, or something more artistic and daring, and a lot of the time I felt it was leaning that way, but in the end, it opted for a more conventional emotionally themed story, that the whole family could enjoy in a more traditional sense.
It is, in essence, Dances With Robots, as the mis-deposited robot lands in the wilderness, and has to get to grips with the harshness of nature, which, to their credit, the film-makers do not shy away from showing the blackly comic realities of a dog-eat-dog world (within the bounds of a child-friendly-ish scope), and there's plenty in here, humour wise, of the kind that is specifically aimed at adults, and will go largely over a child's head, but not so much that it's unsuitable for children...
In fact, it's often very funny, and chucklesome I found, as the robot find's itself saddled with the responsibility of raising a chick / Gosling after it accidentally squishes it's parents, all while trying to keep a fox, and others from eating it.
The central theme of the story is clearly about the responsibilities, frustrations, and trials of parenthood - there not being a clear program or pattern of logic to work to, and it is quite astute in it's observations.
Very sentimental, perhaps a little too much so in the end, but fun, amusing, and a good watch nevertheless.
I've been meaning to see this trilogy for some time, and finally came across Three Colours Red last year, but got frustrated waiting for the other two to turn up, so got them from Amazoon.
This one is a lot shorter than I thought it would be, at only an hour and a half, but sparse, minimal, even glacial look and feel allows the runtime to easily accommodate the slower pace without feeling rushed.
This is a perfect study in grief and trauma, and the general melancholy than comes of it, as Juliette Binoche's: Julie, having lost her famous composer husband and daughter in a car crash in the opening scene, is numb, and somewhat bewildered, as she then tires to break from anything to do with her old life, but in seeking to "get lost" and hide away, discovers other things about her late husband that accord a little too well with things about her herself, in a way that may lace her melancholy and grief with guilt, and cause her to reflect and re-evaluate the whole of her life.
This is pure cinematic story telling at it's best.
The combination of stunning cinematography, equally stunning score, and Binoche's brilliant minimal acting (her face alone does most of the heavy lifting!) around sparse, but essential dialogue do the telling, without having to tell you explicitly what's happening - some things are just presented to you as facts, without offering exposition, other things are suggested, and all in a way that allows the viewer to perfectly understand what's going on.
Meditative, delicate, sublime, melancholic, beautiful... and very, very... blue!