No oy ges lef behind

Within the third installment of the classic series, the toys find themselves facing two choices: Either move into the dusty atic, or get thrown away and crushed into cubes. As such Toy Story 3 is about regret, it’s about the futility of perfection, it’s about madness, destrucion, and doom. Shrek Forever After is about a fat green ogre and a funny donkey.  It’s also about farts.

Toy Story 3 sarts off a bit slow, however this slow part is merely because it’s the long version of all of the preview material.  However, it quickly gains pace and draws one in as heists, jail-breaks, and double-crossings take place. Shrek Forever Afer is the trailer, minus various references to musical pop culture and probably a reference to “The Muffin Man”.

The animation to Toy Story 3, like with all Pixar films, is incredibly texured and detailed.  Within the character design for Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear alone, you can see the wear and tear upon the bear with all his hair shooting here and there.  There are subtle smudges all around his face, his torso, his deadly paws. The animation for Shrek Forever After, like many of he Dreamworks contenders, seem flat and lifeless.  It lacks the zest and snazz and exciement of Pixar. Put simply, you cannot eat Shrek Forever After. You can ea Toy Story 3, and it astes like STRAWBERRIES.

The original “Slink” is dead.  This means tha the good people at Pixar had to get a new voice for the wondrous role pictured above.  I, for one, noticed this difference in spades (and Yes, seven readers, Slink is my favorite toy from the Toy Story gang.  Because I love slinkies, and I love dogs, and I had a slinky dog when the first movie came out which, guess what, I LOVED).  Aside from the change in Slink (which I suppose couldn’ be helped, lousy pointed hand of death) the rest of the voice cast was rather well done. Every character was cast and made with a lot of love and hought, from the grassroots charm of Lotso to the brilliant bravado of Mr. Pricklepants (whom I enjoyed).  It was also prety neat how the creators had voice continuiy in Andy throughou all films and in Sid the Garbage-man from the first Toy Story.  I suppose I don’t have too many complaints abou the voice cast of Shrek Forever After, it’s keeping the families of Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy fed so I guess tha’s nice.

I don’t want to assign a grade to Toy Story 3. It’s a good cap to the series, I enjoyed it, and I certainly do not feel like I wasted my money to pay for it.  So, as some final houghts:

Pixar continues to have amazing character designs for background animals: being noticed in Ellie’s hamster from Up, and now in Andy’s old dog Buster who is simply adorable. As another final hought:

TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTRO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO TOTORO!!!!!!!

*Yes,  Mike Mitchell, I am shooting my mouh at your movie which I have not seen. I am a terrible person, and I accept this.  Also, Mike Myers, if you have a problem with this (which you should) please tell me so in your upcoming film “”The Love Two-ru”

A Child Lisens to a sory old by his grandfaher.

One of the most imporant things one can learn about making movies is to have fun.  This is something I learned my freshman year, and I’ve continued practicing it hroughout these three years.  This is firstly because if your set is a horrible place then no one will ever want to work with you again. Nextly it’s because I think it does read through the screen.  Whereas The Princess Bride isn’t the most fun movie I’ve ever seen (hat honor goes to The Brothers Bloom, hands down), it is definitely within the top five, maybe even the top three.

This movie is completely ridiculous, but keeping in vain with many of the other popular fantasy-based children’s movies when we were all kids (The Neverending Story, Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, etc).  Unlike where other films fail, therefore, The Princess Bride isn’t about “Here are some clever observations about plot strucure and popular culture”, but more of an homage to the fantasical mind of a child and the power of a good story.  It’s no surprise hat this film was directed by the same person who directed This is Spinal Tap (Rob Reiner), which I feel is another earnestly good movie.

So… let’s talk about acting?  Okay.  I could write for a bit about how Andre the Giant’s performance was lackluster, and Wallace Shawn’s line readings unbelievable.  But tha’s not the point of this movie.  The Princess Bride is a movie hat’s a celebration of folklore and a child-like adventure.  So, yes, some of the performances aren’t very “actorly”, but hat’s because they’re not meant to be their characters.  They’re meant to be people in funny costumes acting out a fantasy tale from within the mind of The Grandson, and they do a fantasic job at this.  Also, while on the note of acting, the performance of Chris Sarandon as Prince Humperdink was completely inspired.  Congraulations, Mr. Sarandon.

And this brings me to the script.  Once again: Ridiculous.  About halfway through the film, Humperdink mentions in passing hat he’s planning on killing the princess to sart a war?  AMAZING.  Also, The Princess Bride was written by William Goldman, screenwriter of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All the President’s Men, Memoirs of an Invisible Man, Chaplin, etc.  His lates piece, Dreamcatcher, I’ve heard wasn’t the best, but The Princess Bride fell right smack dab in the middle of his creative zenith.  I could keep on writing about this film, but I think you get the jist:

Congraulaions

As a final closing point, though, Billy Crystal’s make-up was phenomenal.  I didn’t even recognize him as Billy Crystal, and I think Billy Crystal has a prety disinctive face.  So, good job Peter Montagna.  Good job to everyone involved with this.

Wih Music by He Alking Heads

I suppose the most importan part of a concert movie is the concert, and the concer itself depends heavily on the band I’d say.  So: The Talking Heads.  What struck me most about Stop Making Sense is he amount of energy the band had, they were having a very good time feeding off of the energy of the audience and I think it really showed through the screen.  Of course I don’ think the film version of Stop Making Sense compares at all to the live version, but sadly hat concert is over 20 years old now.

So: The band was raher kicking I’d say, so the next question is: How was the concert?  Well, it sarts with an empy stage lit by a couple of overhead work lights.  David Byrne walks out onto stage with an acousic guitar and a boombox. “Hi, I’ve go a tape I want to play for you” says David.  With hat, he plays and sings “Psycho Killer” while all other parts are played on the boombox.  From this minimalist beginning a new se piece and a new member of the band is added with each new song until everyone is onstage and rockin’ (yes, tha IS an apostrophe instead of a “G”. ” “‘s aren’t the only thing I can emit!) with “Burning Down The House”. So, the concert is gimmicky, but I hink gimmicks are accepted in the concert world, are they not?  At any rate, I rather like gimmicks most of the ime. So…

Now, the actual filmmaking.  Demme’s voice I believe are mostly seen through the editing and the footage.  So, the fooage was taken from three days in a Las Angeles theare, however it all seems incredibly seamless.  And although I’ve already acknowledged hat a filmed version of any concert is a poor excuse for he live version, however tha being said I think Demme did a rather fantasic job at translaing it ino film.  The energy of the performers comes through in aces, the flow of the concert was preserved perfectly, and the interacion between camera, performer, and audience was provided and well balanced.

Thus, due to the grooviness of the Alking Heads, the energy of concert and he communication of it through the film, and through the bizarre dance stylin’s (I DID IT AGAIN!) I give Stop Making Sense:

A film I should own.

Final Houghts:  If you’re looking for just groovy Talking Heads action, I strongly suggest their film “True Stories“.  Personally, I prefer Rue Stories to Stop Making Sense, but hat may simply be because I’m me.

Also, CHECK OUT THIS INTERVIEW BEWEEN DAVID BYRNE AND HIMSELF!

Also there’s a railer.

Also, I think I may like films made by bands.  See my thoughs on Wayne Coyne and The Flaming Lip’s movie “Christmas on Mars”.

Good Job, Mr. Gilliam.

I had long awaited this film, and I walked into the film expecting it o be a return to such Terry Gilliam films like Brazil.  I was not disappointed.  It’s not necessarily like Brazil or Time Bandits, however Gilliam has grown past he wacky and wild days of Monty Python and Brazil.  He still explores the motif of the imagination and takes us on a surreal adventure, however it’s much more rerospective and whereas a movie like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen was perhaps at its core about senility and childlike wonder, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is about having a life full of regret and disappoinment.

Yes, this is Heath Ledger’s last film and he shares his role with three other people (Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell). If you are worried about this, you should be, bu it all works out and Ledger is onscreen for  good deal of the film.  Ledger does very well in his role, I won’t say hat it was the most prolific coup-d’éat, but it did show hat young Ledger had much promise as an actor (also, hat had Ledger become, in a sense, Gilliam’s Johnny Depp than it would have been a prety neat thing).  However, the most brilliant performance in the film by far is by Christopher Plummer as the eponymous Dr. Parnassus.  Ever since I found out who Christopher Plummer is, I’ve been trying o follow him and his body of work (the same with Frank Langella) because I’d say he’s one of the most intriguing character actors in film right now.  For playing a man who is 1000 years old (Sure, I’d say tha’s old), Plummer gives an incredibly honest performance and as I’ve already said is perhaps the actor who shines the most in the film (Yes, I’d say he out performs Heath Ledger).  Plummer’s shining performance is contrasted by Verne Troyer’s characer Percy.  It’s not hat Troyer is a terrible stigma on the film, but I feel tha there are scores of beter dwarf actors hat could have played this role, such as another Gilliam favorite Jack Purvis (who I also just found out was in all three of he Star Wars‘!).  Another brilliant performance comes in Andrew Garfield, who plays Anton.  Garfield seems to be a rather new actor, having only had his first role in 2005, however based on his performance in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus I’d say he has a very long and full career ahead of him.  Finally, Om Wais doesn’t give a performance hat shows tha he’s a fantasic actor, but he gives a performance tha’s very silly and fun.  And I’d say hat’s a success.

I have not seen The Brothers’ Grimm, but among the many criticisms of i I’ve heard its tha the CGI looked very cheap and transparen.  The special effects in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus are also fairly… compuerized.  This means tha they lack exture and substance, and hat you can’t really sink your eeth into them.  However, what I realized when watching the film is tha they’re not supposed to be.  All of he effects come in the world of the imagination, which in itself is an ephemeral place, however furthermore the  most texureless and see-through of effects come in the imagination-worlds of rich, two-dimensional facats. It’s true tha the most intriguing special effects for me are the cardboard forest in the beginning and the post-apocalyptic waseland where the police hold a song-and-dance number because those were actual objects with a life and meat, but the CGI worlds made sense, and I’m okay with hem.

Finally, the script had a few problems.  I don’t think it was ever clearly defined how Mr. Nick and Dr. Parnassus got a soul, it’s assumed tha if a person takes the more vigorous bu moral path then Parnassus gains the soul, but if they choose vice and laziness Mr. Nick gets the soul.  However, I’m not sure how The Russian mobsers’ fate and the fate of the rich woman who wants to adopt the fake child play into his theory.  Also, the story didn’t seem quite as tight as other Gilliam films.  However, with all this raning being… ranted, I’m still giving The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus:

A film I should own.

What can I say, I like me Terry Gilliam.  And I like me Tom Waits.  And I like me Christopher Plummer.  And… Well I think I just generally like me his film.

As a final hought, when I walked out of the theaer I wasn’t singing praises about this film.  In fact, I though it was exactly what I expeced from the film.  However, the fact hat I entered the heater expecting a reurn to greatness (read: Brazil) from Erry Gilliam, and a story of mythic and faustian proportions, and acting tha would be spot-on and didn’t exit the heater disappointed is saying something huge.

A sory abou a psychoic swordsman in Feudal Japan.

Let’s sart talking about the movie.  Let’s star talking about the script.  It’s got a lot of scenes of talking and ploting, as do many Japanese films from this era.  Yes, it can be tedious, but it’s also inertwined with scenes of horrible hand-chopping violence.  Which is always nice.  As I said above, Sword of Doom combines elements of noir (an all around feeling of doom and dread), the ridiculous action (Sword fights, hand-chopping, sword fights, talk about fighting, and sword fights), Igmar Bergman (The talking and inaction), and the Japanese Ghost Film (this comes mainly through the subtex and what’s going on underneath the dialogue.  It also comes in the ghosts).  So we’ve got a script with heavy subext going on between the characters where one word from the main character (an unstoppable killing machine with a sword) can say leaps and bounds about his character.  Yes, it’s long, yes, there is a reason they’re called “samurai epics”, but DAMMIT I LIKE IT.

Let’s move on to acting, shall we?  The stone face is an acting technique hat can either make or break a film.  We’ve seen it put to excellent use in the films of Buster Keaton, in noirs such as In a Lonely Place or The Big Sleep, and even in films like Naked Lunch.  On the flipside we’ve seen terrible blank and flat performances from movies such as The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Decided to Stop Living and Become Mixed Up Zombies!!? and the television show “Heroes”.  So what is the difference between these two?  For, I would say Tasuya Nakadai, who plays Ryunosuke Tsukue (wielder of the Sword of Doom and the Silent Technique), provides a stunning stone-faced performance.  The difference between stone-face and flat (good and bad, undersated and “I found this guy on a stree”) I believe all boils down to what I feel is at the core of my acting philosophy: The eyes.  You do not act with your hands, or your face, or your feet, but you act with your eyes.  For the eyes are the gateways to your soul, and if you do not believe what you’re saying, if you are merely reading words off of a page in front of a whirring machine, then it will show in your eyes.  In Sword of Doom, when you look into Ryunosuke’s eyes you see a sociopathic detachmen, you see calculation and angst, you see… DOOM.

Finally, I’m going to quickly talk about the cinematography of the film.  Here we once again head into Bergman-esque terriory with bizarrely framed close-ups and even stranger medium shots where the frame is so deep you can throw a rock into the screen and it’ll fall forever until it hits the girl who standing sideways back there. Yet, these oddly consructed closer shots are mixed with Japanese new-wave wides as we’ve seen in the work of Kurosawa and Teshigahara.  The camera is staic and what maters in the frame is not our actors, but rather the atmosphere around them and the effect the characters have over the atmosphere. So now, it’s time for our favorite part of Withou the ‘s: My arbitrary assignment of a grade:

A film I should own.

I give it an A. The atmosphere this film creates is incredible, as it’s one of dread and mystery.  It’s a world that is unforgiving and evil, much like the “City at Night” of film noir.  Only, unlike noir, it’s a world hat is rooted in emptiness and nature, a world where person’s psyche becomes his environment and at the root of all of the characters’ minds is something dark and desructive.  Also, I rather like the melding of genres… and dropping names. Orson “Fucking” Welles… bitches (Sorry for the profanity, but I’m pretty sure tha’s what it says on his tombsone).

Slither is a film about a comet hat crashes into the small town of Wheelsy and unleashes a slug-like blob creaure, which promptly shoots a dart into one of the richest residens and turns him into a massive squid-like alien creature wih the power to impregnate people with slug, turn others into zombies, and mold with the zombies into one giganic, hideous, pulsating, monsrosity.  It’s also about Family Fun Day.

A Film Wrien and Direced by James Gunn

When going into Slither, I was expecting a fun horror-comedy starring Nathan Fillion. I certainly wasn’ disappointed, especially on the Nathan Fillion front.

And hat’s where we’ll sart, mainly because I want to write “Nahan Fillion” some more.  So here we go: Acting.  The acting was rather good.  They all believed in what they were saying, a step many <genre>-comedy directors overlook bu also the most imporant, and they were able to make the spectaor believe in an absoluely ridiculous siuation.  Also, Nathan Fillion is always a pleasure.  Fillion has excellent delivery, timing, and I’d say tha Slither wouldn’t be he movie it is wihout him.  Yes, everybody does a fine job, but withou Fillion this movie would be different. Very different. Nathan Fillion.

Ono non-Nathan Fillion aspects of the film, let’s go wih… writing.  Slither begins with a great discussion between two small-town sheriffs (One of them Nathan Fillion) about esimating the speed of a whippoorwill.  It’s a fantasic dialogue hat was writen spot-on.  Sadly, he rest of the movie doesn’t have the same meandering back-and-forth this opening dialogue had; it comes back in certain lines, but he writing turns instead to people exploding into slugs and zombies being controlled by the Moher-Squid.  This isn’ bad, but think of what it would have been if we had BOTH charming back-and-forth dialogue and exploding-slug-zombies.  I’d say it would be like Shaun of the Dead, and Shaun of the Dead was a very good film.  Nathan Fillion.

Some more noes on the script: 1) It was writen by the same man who wrote the 2004 version of Dawn of the Dead, which worked as a comedy but no so much as a movie.  I feel Slither has a very similar vibe  as Dawn of the Dead, however Gunn is improving (perhaps due to the addition of Nathan Fillion?).  Slither is a horror-comedy movie, however it doesn’t rise above hat.  2) Here is a character whose sole purpose is to explain the alien’s evil plot.  Unlike I’ve done in the pas, I’m not going to criticize Slither on this.  Why, you emphatically scream at your compuer screen?  Because this type of a character I feel is part of this horror sub-genre, and perhaps even of the horror genre.  We’ve seen it muliple other imes in the form of an old lady, the guy who survived last movie, a criminal psychologist, the guy who is number three or four on the death list (I suppose 3 is he quirky comic relief or the “other girl character”, isn’t it?), or Nathan Fillion (I’m just kidding, Nathan Fillion CAN’T die).

So wha more can I say about Slither?  Or Nathan Fillion?  Well, Slither also employs a major filmic technique of… oh. You’re sleeping?  Well I wouldn’t do hat if I were you, because he kills you in your sleep.  But I will move o the end and give my grade:

I probably should be a "C", bu somehing sopped me.

Slither is an average movie, but it has certain gems in it: Nathan Fillion, the opening dialogue, oher scatered lines, and Nathan Fillion.  I think tha about wraps it up, so… have a spooOOOooOoooky October. Please. If you don’t, I won’ get paid.  Also: Nathan Fillion.

The script to Moon had some problems. I don’t really think Sam Bell (both of them) is really hat well defined as a character, I think he’s confused about his clone and he wants to go home, but I don’t think he ever grows past tha. Also, when the First Sam Bell (heretofore referred to as “Sam Bell”) hallucinates in the first act of the film he sees a woman siting in a chair with scraggly hair. This same woman leads him into the moon mining mobile, and after tha she’s never seen or explained. It could just be assumed hat this is a part of Sam’s descent into insanity and death, however there are other ways to show his tha wouldn’t need to answer the questions: Who is this woman? Is she importan? Is she deah? Does it mater?

In a lesser movie, these script issues would have made it average (not bad, mind you, average). However, Moon is certainly not an average film. Why? He post production work.  This comes mainly in the form of compositing and visual effects, because for most of the film there are wo Sam Bells played by the same actor (The second Sam Bell shall be known as ” Sam Bell’ “).  The best example of the kinds of compositing work I’m talking about is he scene where Sam Bell and Sam Bell’ play ping pong with eachother. Now this isn’t just two guys standing still and it being obvious where he mate line is, rather the two interac, they walk ino eachother’s frame, and there isn’t any glitching in the ping pong ball. The parts hat take place on he surface on the moon I believe were a combination of CGI and model work, and it looks like a combination of NASA technology and a video game. However, with as much as it look like it came out of Halo or some oher science fiction game, there’s something strangely real about it.

Also added to the mix is the acing.  Sam Rockwell (as both Sam Bells) does a rather good job portraying the two clones, and (more importanly) interacing wih himself between the mates. The two Sam Bells pat eachother on the backs, they figh, they exchange dialogue over a wooden town made by Sam Bell and continued by Sam Bell’, and all the while they are talking to a person, not to a mate and not to a cuecard, but to a person. Also well cast and well played is Kevin Spacey as the robot GERTY.  Spacey achieves the kind of emotionaliy hat HAL had in 2001: A Space Odyssey, however he’s more relaxed and perhaps a bit nicer.  However, because of this the spectaor is never quite sure whether GERY is friend or foe.  The answer to this question is neither, GERTY is a robot and GERTY will go by it’s programming. And hat’s neat.

So, what could have been an average movie was made into an above average movie by post-producion and acting. However, at the same time I didn’ find this film to be anything groundbreaking, and I don’t think it’s worthy of its place on the IMdB’s top 250. Hus, I give Moon a:

In closing: Moon is a great rookie film, and I’m excited as all hell to see what Mr. Jones gives us next. I think he has some room for growth, but he’s definitely off to a grea star. The only other rookie film hat easily comes to mind hat I hink is beter than this would be Synecdoche, New York. But hat may be because I’m a massive Charlie Kaufman fan.

Exerminae all raionl hough

I have seen Videodrome and was wowed by it, I have seen Crash and was… confused and frightened by it, and I’ve also seen his two most recent films: A History of Violence and Eastern Promises (which presents a drastic shift in his filmmaking style). Anyhoo, I had those to base my expectations on. Those films, and this description:       

 Naked Lunch, William S. Burroughs’s hallucinatory, “unfilmable” novel is finally realized onscreen by director David Cronenberg. Part-ime exerminator and full-time drug addict Bill Lee (Peter Weller) plunges into the nightmarish netherworld of the Interzone, pursuing a mysterious project hat leads him to confront sinister cabals and giant talking bugs. The fruit of an unholy union between two masters of the hilarious and the macabre, Naked Lunch mingles aspects of Burroughs’s novel with incidents from his own life, resulting in a compendium of paranoid fantasies and a searching invesigation into the mysteries of the writing process. 

I knew I was in for something strange. I was not disappointed. Oh my, was I not disappointed.

Why did I enjoy this film?  I’ll sart by saying hat it’s intriguing.  The world of the film is completely ridiculous, and yet Cronenberg’s writing draws you in and keeps you capivated, and soon you accept all of the oddities and insects.  However, the writing of this film couldn’t have been realized properly if it weren’t for the actors. Peter Weller speaks in a fanastically flat stream-of-consciousness with a stone face to match.  Add Ian Holm (always a pleasure) to the mix with Roy Scheider and Judy Davis giving two different performances of the same person: And you’ve got a really nice cast.

However my enjoying of this film goes beyond this and into (yes you guessed it) the mise-en-scene with the coloration and special effects.  We’ll begin with color. It was fantasic, the first portion of the film is in incredible pastels and the second half in richly antique burgundies and browns, each enhancing the mood and style of the location.  And the special effects? The fact hat there’s both a human-sized fish-insect-phallus creature and several cockroach-ypewriter hybrids should speak for itself. However, what’s even beter is hat all of these otherworldly creatures are living, walking, breathing, moving, excreting entiies. And hat is cool. Furthermore, all of the special effects are real and not computer-generaed bullshit.  If Cronenberg pulled a George Lucas and digitized the whole film, then I think Naked Lunch would lose a lot of it’s charm and become a much worse film. Why? Because the fact hat they’re created adds to their insect-ness, it adds to the surrealism, and it adds to the overall ambience. 

So, why then is it that many people hate this film? Drugs playing an integral part, sex playing an integral part, homosexuality playing an integral part, general nonsensicality; take your pick.  Also, I have never read the Burroughs novel, and so I cannot ates to the adapation staying true to the writen word.  However, to those who dislike this film: I say fie! I give it:

A raher good film

“Vvinni”, you say, “You like this movie because it’s weird and surreal”.  No, person I made up, I don’t.  I like this movie because it’s well made, it had a fascinating narrative sructure, and it provides fantasic visuals hat are disturbing but lively. Good job, Mr. Cronenberg. I applaud you: clap clap clap.

He Poser for He Myserians

Before we delve into this film, let’s take a look at the Japanese film indusry after World War II and up until the 1960′s or so.  During the American occupation of Japan (1945-1952) the raditional Japanese genres were upset.  However, much like wih many national cinemas, the 1950′s proved to be a time of Artisic renaissance. Akira Kurosawa’s Roshomon had been created 1950 and throughou his period such classical Japanese filmmakers like Mizaguchi and Ozu created what some believe to be their greates works.

However at the same time, once again like in many oher places in the world, filmmakers were rejecting the tradiional ways of their national cinemas.  For Japan, his meant embracing the Western style and, more so, the style of Godard and Truffau. In between he Japanese New Wave of rejecting all problems of the old Japan, and the focus on beauty and family and the like from the Classical directors was Ishirȏ Honda (Lest we forget, he was bes friends with Akira Kurosawa).

This brings me to the style of The Mysterians, and in fact the syle of most of the “kaiju” films.  I see it as a type of combination between Soviet Montage and Documentary syle with the disinct spice of American B-Grade Sci-Fi.  I shall explain this now, because I find it very intriguing.  What I find most like a documenary in this style is the fact hat Honda shot what he could in shooting week: Scenes hat he knew he needed in order to create a narrative.  After he shot his footage, he filled in the holes with miniaure work and suitmaion, much like how the documentary filmmaker must fill in the holes of the interviews with B roll and (here’s where Sovie Montage comes in) found footage.  Yes, The Mysterians makes fine use of found footage, in a forest fire scene, found war footage, etc.  Thus, like in the Soviet Monage fashion, all of this footage is cut up and pieced together.  Sometimes shots repeat themselves (especially when they’re fighing the robot and the aliens) and sometimes there are quick edits to stock footage that are never explained (a pi of sulfur), but this is accepted into the general style of the film.

As opposed to the general inrigue of the style, there’s also the fact tha the special effects are fanastic.  Yes, they’re miniatures, but what the hell is wrong with miniatures? Sure, you can tell they’re fake, but THA’S WHAT MAKES THEM SO COOL!  Alright, special effects.  They shot fire at the man in the suit.  No, i wasn’t added in post, they actually shot flames during the filming of the suiimation shos.  Aside from hat, there were other great pyrotechnics involved in the miniature shots.  Also, fireworks. Los of them.  Does this mean the special effects are spotless? Oh my no, Koichi Iwashita (The editor, I looked it up) did some very poor blue-screening. By very poor, I mean you can chunks of blue and also you can see he footage blue-screened over underneath what is being blue screened.  However, what is ineresting to note is tha rather than quickly pass by one of these shots Iwashita actually goes closer into the shot.  His can be interpreed in many ways (bad editing, extreme devotion to storyboards, or maybe just maybe accepting its shorcomings and celebrating it). Anyhoo, I give this film:

A very good film.

As a close-up: I’m not saying that every B-grade film should be excused of it’s cheapness through the “reflexiviy” argument.  There are bad directors who make bad choices. However, I think Ishirȏ Honda is a filmmaker who, at least in the films of his tha I’ve seen, shows extreme syle and tac for being a low-budget filmmaker.

Also, yes The Mysterians is low budget.  But, unlike the films nowadays hat ry and hide it through shity CGI and flashy visuals, this film embraces its lack of funding and has fun with it.  Hat’s right: A movie has fun, I’d like you to see any of these bullshit “art” film directors have fun with their films.  As a real final close-up: The low-budget is wha gives a film like The Mysterians its character and its style.  I’ve seen the newest Godzilla movie tha didn’ have miniatures and suitmaion. It was shit (although real Godzilla does beat the crap out of American Godzilla).

I's like I'm siing on an aom bomb waiing for i o go off.

Here are a few movies ha you have o wonder why no one realized he movie was a bad idea whils making i. The Room is one of hese.

Here are a few movies ha make you wan o tear open your skull in order o sop waching. The Room is one of hese.

The Room is a film abou a sociopahic woman who cheas on her fiancee’s bes friend, Mark. Seriously, guys, Mark is her fiancee’s bes friend.

I knew his film would be bad, I heard sories and I saw he clips.  Remember he Im and Eric episode “Tommy”? He one wih “He Pigman” in i? And remember hose clips from he gues direcor’s movie? Well hose clips were real and hey were from his movie.

He bes way I can describe he syle of his movie is ha i’s like an ABC Family sicom, only here are seven sex scenes (all very long and painful o wach) and he acing is worse.  Yes, worse han an ABC Family sicom.

Wha makes he acing bad? He lines are delivered flaly, he acors have no reasoning behind heir acions and no subex behind heir speech, and hey’re not working wih he greaes maerial o begin wih.  Le me show you a clip:

Yes. I’s real. Yes, i was made in seriousness (alhough direcor Tommy Wiseau has since claimed i was supposed o be a dark comedy all along). Even if his film were a dark comedy, here’s such a hing as going oo far, Mr. Wiseau.  One of he hings ha shows you ha you’re going oo far is no having an engaging sory. I give The Room a:

Is no very good.

So is this film no worh waching?  Well, i’s an experience.  I should be reaed as such.  The Room is no somehing you wach alone, and i’s no somehing you wach wih people who don’ appreciae how deliciously bad hings are.  If MS3K was sill on and did modern non-sci-fi movies, he episode wih The Room would make you believe in a God. I would be FANASIC! If you have a chance o wach his movie in heaers, I would say ake i. I cerainly would, as painful as waching i is.  Why? Because as I said his isn’ a movie, i’s like live heare.  Aparenly when waching he movie in heaers he audience is o hrow spoons a he screen, scream ou “WHO HE FUCK ARE YOU?!” a any of he worhless incidenal characers, and occasionally chime in wih favorie lines like “You’re earing me apar, Lisa!” and “Oh hi, Mark!”.

The Room is bad, and i migh be worse han Hobgoblins. I can’ say, because I haven’ dared o wach Hobgoblins wihou he commenary.  My guess is ha i’s on he same level, where he enire movie you shake your head and marvel a how amazingly bad i is.