penfever Reviews

Groupies (1970)

Grotesque

[4/10 · 19 March 2011]

This film is an un-put-downable train wreck of 1970s excess. Tragic inclusions include a young homosexual teenager, abused, bleeding and out of his gourd, being relentlessly mocked by those around him, a woman who makes it her business to preserve plaster trophies of the male member, and two young girls in a hypersexualized bit of exhibitionism for the benefit of the camera and anyone else who happens to be around.

Up there with the G.G. Allin documentary for the title of 'most disturbing slice of human existence'. It deserves to be seen (in my opinion), because people deserve to know that these types of people were (and are) out there. Great documentaries shed light in dark places. And the attitude of these people toward their lives and each other can certainly be described as dark.

21 (2008)

Dull, Dumb, Disappointing

[3/10 · 9 April 2008]

I won't touch on the fact that an Asian is being played by Jim Sturgess.

I won't touch on Spacey's offhand comment that there's no way women could handle high-stakes gambling.

I won't explore the ramifications of the UTTER lack of chemistry between Sturgess and Bosworth. I will, however, quote Bosworth herself, saying that they both had to get dead drunk before their half-minute romantic exchange.

But I will say that montages are not an acceptable substitute for storytelling, nerds don't argue about "rounding errors" when they mathematically rate girls' attractiveness, and movies that purport to be based on true stories should NEVER mangle the facts the way 21 does.

Figures in a Landscape (1970)

A Rare Classic

[7/10 · 9 April 2008]

Inspired by the minimalist theater-driven film-making of the period, Figures in a Landscape is much more interesting than its competition (Tomorrow, Losey's own "The Servant). Why? Because of the helicopter, of course!

Robert Shaw, always inspired, is here particularly so, all but frothing at the mouth as he drags his weary carcass over the mountains, from nowhere, to nowhere, until the endless desert itself seems more and more like a stage for their mad performance.

An inversion of the often static fare of the period that still displays serious acting chops. Recommended.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant

[10/10 · 5 February 2006]

How good is this movie? You do not have words for how good this movie is. No, no, you do not. However, for your benefit I will run down a brief list of what makes this movie kick 59,042 @sses.

1. SINATRA DOES KARATE!!! - Everyone who sees this for the first time winces. It's surprisingly intense. But also, somehow hilarious.

2. SHAMEFULLY RACIST!!! - I mean, not for nothing, but "Smiling like Fu Manchu"? "Ching Chong Chow or whatever your name is?" Still, this does an amazing job of putting the film in historical context, which is what it's all about. Plus one of the best characters in the film is the Manchurian 'trainer'.

3. 360 DEGREE SHOT!!! - And then the set changes! How do they do it?! Watch and marvel!

4. FREUDIAN PSYCHOLOGY!!! - You thought it was dead. You thought it was debunked. Well, not in Hollywood, baby! Hypnotism, subconscious and unconscious minds, and of course, obsessive hatred of one's mother and its psychological implications.

5. AWESOME DOCUMENTARY STYLE!!! - This film's photographic style is super! Watch the scene where John Iselin first confronts the senator. Tell me that's not AWESOME! Oh, right, you can't, because if you did I would KARATE-CHOP you Sinatra style! Tiger paw, Frank.

6. SINATRA ONLY DOES ONE TAKE!!! - So everything is out of focus and crazy! So very cool!

7. ANGELA LANSBURY!!! - INCEEEEEEEEEEEST!

8. THE SCORE!!! - David Amram writes a simply great classical/modern score for this film, which you can't stop humming in all its atonal glory.

In conclusion. this film is FREAKIN AWESOME! Get a copy! Or five! Send John Frankenheimer a thank-you letter!