Rated 9/10A movie with a bad reputation, for all the wrong reasons.
One I've been meaning to see for some years, mainly to see what all the fuss was about. General, common cultural consciousness will hold this in a place of infamy due to proclaimed obscenity, and lately, a controversy over one of it's most infamous scenes, and the making of that scene. And while I find myself on that side of the fence where if I know something icky has happened on the set during the making of it, it colours my view of the movie as a whole, in this case, and quite in spite of myself, I come out the other side if this convinced it's a masterpiece.. as a movie, and as a piece of storytelling.
The story of a lost man who's wife has recently committed suicide, for reasons he can't understand, leaving him broken, confused, and kind of in freefall, meeting a much younger woman / girl in a flat, as she is looking for a place, and setting in motion almost instantly a questionable, and purely sexual relationship is, it seems, now that I have seen it, wholly misinterpreted, and the reputation it has for "obscene" scenes wildly over-exaggerated.
Admittedly, the opening scene of their meeting and first sexual encounter would surely be considered rape, as would the scene with the butter stick (I'll say nay more on that!), as well as the scene when she sticks her fingers up Brando's ass, but as with the shower scene in Psycho, it's more about what we know is going on, than what it actually shows...
(The girl is frequently nude, but only ,mostly from the waist up, and you only get the brief glimpse of Brando's flabby ass, but not in any sexual context)
In fact, the movie is deeper than that, and the sexual element is only a cipher for deeper meanings, concerning loss and tragedy, the broken-ness and desolation of a person when their world falls apart. A refuge, you might say, when nothing seems to matter any more.
It seems a bit shonky and third rate at the beginning, camera-work, directing, the whole shebang, but thoroughly engrossing as it goes along, and not for those sexual reasons.
The last half hour or so are positively brilliant, as, after a key scene where Brando visits, and has a stunning monologue at the bedside of the corpse of his dead wife, as she lies in state (Tom Cruise's best performance in Magnolia is a straight lift of this scene) , the tone suddenly lifts, like he's got something off his shoulders, and it becomes quite a charismatic affair, full of life and zest, even optimism...
...For him, at least.
And having raised you up in such a way, it abruptly drops you emotionally down a metaphorical elevator shaft right at the end.
Seriously, I don't think a creeping grin has dropped so suddenly from my face in any movie.
breathtakingly tragic.
You can feel the influence of this movie in many modern movies, like Blue Is The Warmest Colour, and one scene is shot where (Now) Elliot Page's dream architect does that thing with the mirrors under the viaduct in Inception (I bet Nolan just wanted to film there because of the aesthetic from this).
So if you can get over the reputation and disturbing elements of the movie's production, you have a brilliant move here.
Rated 6/10MGM tries to do Disney, and misses the mark, somewhat.
Fans of James Herbert's novels will acknowledge this, while not being his greatest novel, does hold a place of deep affection in their hearts... as it is, not his usual horror fare, but more of a poetically tragic tale of a man who, once he dies after a tragic car accident, is resurrected as a puppy, born to a stray, and form there, haunted by memories of his former life as a man, tries to find his way back to his human family.
Already you can see this is a little too heavy for what the DVD cover here suggests.
That seems to present the idea of a more: "Turner and Hooch", or "Beethoven" style "Awww!"-fest. And I think that was what MGM was aiming for: That those kinds of movies were killing it at the box office at the time, tuned in superficially to this novel, as "being in the ballpark" of that kind of story, and so went with it. But while it may be among the more earnest, even tragically sentimental of Herbert's work, it really isn't Disney material, and a little strong and odd for kids.
I made the mistake of watching with headphones on, so all I could see in my head while the voice overs for the real dog's thought dialogue was the image of Samuel L. Jackson in a booth, with fag on the go and a glass of whiskey while he phoned in this afternoon's work for a fat paycheck / paycheque (as you will)... That really breaks the illusion.
(Still better than a modern CGI talking dog effect though... at least it's honest!)
It does engage you more in the last twenty minutes or so though, and is, on occasion there, touching... but that's due to James Herbert's story, rather than the mis-matched Disney style movie presentation, which even that, could not entirely dispel.
I would therefore encourage people to give the movie a miss perhaps - or go into it with no expectations at least - and instead, read the book... It's pretty lo-key great.
Rated 3/10This is a deeply weird and and unpleasant movie.
It aims for the kind of black humour that War of the Roses had, but it's aim is wildly off. Imagine The Farelly brothers trying to do a Tarantino movie, and creating only a mess.
Greatest of respect to John Goodman (Legend), but I do not need the thought of him lusting after Liv Tyler in my head, let alone having sex with her... And that's basically what this movie is: Three guys scraping their knuckles after Liv Tyler, while she plays them to get what she wants, but she is essentially exploited for her sexuality at this time, and fetish-ising her, and dressing her up in various sexual fantasy wardrobe choices for horny teens.
Now this would be ok, if the movie was at all funny, but it isn't.
It produced only two mild chuckles from me, which isn't enough to forgive the movie's trying too hard, but failing too hard awfulness.
The only good things in this movie are Michael Douglas's "hair" (a wonder to behold!), and Reba McEntire... Everything else is a cringe-fest.
Finally plucked up the courage to watch this, thinking, since time of release, that it was absurd and hokey in concept... a bit of mock-worthy fluff.
I never imagined that what I was actually in for was a positively Tolkienian 2hrs, 45 mins of funerial, languid, bordering on the morbid, depression, and all n David Fincher's signature murky tones, minimalist direction and glacial pacing.
...I mean, it's actually a better story than I had expected, and better handled than the cringe fest I thought awaited me, but with all those previously mentioned factors at play, it just exhausts the viewer, so that by the end, I found myself drooping, and thinking: "Dude, I don't really care how this ends now, so long as it does end... at some point... soon!"
Subsequent research reveals something I didn't know about the story: That it was based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald... I repeat: short story, of some only 45 pages long.
How on earth do you spin out a 45 page short story to heading toward three hours of movie?
And this tale of a man who ages in reverse, set against the fable like device of a clock that was built to run backwards by a man in grief at the loss of his son to war certainly does have an appealing notion at it's heart, and which should have made for a more engaging, and crucially, compelling tale. It actually feels like one of those short stories great novelists write from time to time, where they get a cute notion in their heads, and so jot it down... for fun.
I think what's happened here then, is whoever made this happen had too long to think about that notion, and all it's extensive implications, and spun the yarn out way too long.
Another odd thing, is when a particular director makes a movie not in his accustomed style, or of a different kind of genre, it often begins to look like another director's work slightly. Here: it has a faint whiff of Wes Anderson or the kind of magical fable telling of Guillermo del Toro, but alas, these allusions wilt under the weight of it's Finchery.
(Also, in this sense, Martin Scorcese's: Hugo, sprang to mind, except that is quite enjoyable)
So if you fillet this movie, and look at the bones of it, it's like Forest Gump minus the joy, emotional impact, fun, engaging quality, or entertainment value... and it should have been handed to a Zemeckis or a del Toro to make a better movie.
Drab, soul crushing, depressing... and ultimately disappointing, in that it could have been such a magical movie if someone else had done it... with a shorter runtime!
Rated 7/10A fairly decent slice of sci-fi action spectacular hocum, typical of it's age, and among the better movies of JCVD's, that holds up better than most among his filmography.