Reviews

In one of my favorite movies, "My Dinner With Andre", Andre says, "if people could see what life was like it in the cigar store next door, it would blow their mind". I've always thought that that was the impetus for Wayne Wang's, "Smoke; a fantastic movie featuring some of Hollywood's greatest talent. This movie also grabs that theme - real people living realistic, working class lives - and takes it all the way to 'Anywhere USA'. Soderbergh found real working class people in a real small town and put them in a doll factory: a place that indeed did blow my mind. The theme of people living lives of quiet desperation has never been more palpable in any movie that I've ever seen. At least until about 50 minutes or so into the movie.

Spoilers ----- to defend Soderbergh a little, he stated in the commentary that his intention was to make a little film about a triangle of real people and toss a murder plot in. Indeed, around fifty minutes into the film, the person who was quietly living the most desperately upsetting life unravels the Hollywood way and the 'if it bleeds it leads" network news way: she commits murder. Certainly, real people do occasionally unravel in such ways but seriously, Hollywood has already made what, about 50,000 such movies? The overwhelming majority of people like this character Martha do not commit murder, they simply survive in a fog of mental anguish saved by meal breaks and dreams of summering on the shores of Aruba. They are not exceptional people, even exceptional enough to commit murder. They are working class heroes (heroes because they accept the limitations that their lives offer rather than succumbing to acts of crime or violence). Unfortunately, their truth is betrayed by the strings of a Hollywood that is not brave enough to just allow us to witness the drab reality of many small town, working class lives. This betrayal is exceptionally bitter since the film was just beginning to show us how most 'unexceptional' people constantly swallow the onslaught of a life filled with nothing but disappointment. This was illustrated most deftly when we saw Martha sitting alone in a diner at midnight, getting what comfort she could from food after having been viciously berated by the 'friend' she'd just babysat for. That's what 99% of most women like Martha would do; they wouldn't strangle the woman who'd berated them any more than you or I would! But this film sold the very tangible reality of these people out for cheap, unoriginal sensationalism. Think about it: how many movies have you seen about unexceptional working class people? Now… how many of those movies starred real people instead of movie stars who - because of their incredible looks and/or amazing talent - landed into the most glamorous career in the world?

I'm still highly recommending the film because the cast - particularly the two leads - are so refreshingly 'normal' and engaging (all of their inarticulate banter throughout the movie is their own) that I feel it's worth following them anywhere. Even through Soderbergh's and Hollywood's somewhat limited imaginations.

One can say that this is an impressionist view of the 24-hour period after the towers fell. There is no human expression in this documentary, either from a narrative perspective or from people expressing their feelings. In a way it's good that the filmmakers decided to let the images speak for themselves because often times, narration over-exaggerates and music exploits the situation even more. But there is something sorely missing from the impressionist viewpoint that this film offers… any glimpse of any kind of human expression at all. It's as if the casualties of 9/11 were nothing more than the buildings and cars that we see smoldering in ashes for 48 minutes. There are plenty of shots of firemen and other emergency teams, but we are never close enough to see the expressions on their faces or even hear anything of their conversations (other than the occasional barking of orders). Yes, we can use our imaginations to try to make sense of the loss of life in those ruins, but the most profound moments of that day were the moments of human contact when we reached out to one another for strength. Nobody witnessed this event alone. People raged and cried with others and hugged total strangers. I feel miserable that the generations to come will miss the reality of human suffering that day by seeing this ''document' that omits humans from human tragedy. Hopefully, they'll have the opportunity to see many other much better documentaries.

I've seen several documentaries about our soldiers in Iraq, including a couple of brief ones that showed what life is like for some of those who are now back home. Most of the documentaries were very good but none had the impact that this one had. This one focuses on five soldiers who have come home with wounds that stagger the imagination, including a couple of GIs who were shot in the head, and a young soldier who spent three months having surgery on his intestines in order to clean out all the sand that had originally gathered in his open wound. Each soldier is emotionally dealing with his injury and his feelings about the war on different levels, which is important to see because people on both ends of the political spectrum tend to want to lump all the soldiers in one category. I happened upon this masterpiece on the Sundance channel, but it really deserves to be seen on a much wider level, especially for those who are considering on joining the army. It seems only fair that if they are effected so strongly from video games, commercials and recruiters, they should also consider the price they may have to pay if they join. Most of the soldiers in this film say that they would still have joined had they known what they know now, so it wouldn't necessarily stop young men and women from joining the armed services. But it sure would make them think more clearly about the realities of war, and hopefully question whether or not the war they may be asked to fight is legitimate enough for them to risk spending the rest of their lives severely disabled and in emotional and physical pain.

Important to know straight off -- this isn't a horror film or a creature feature. This is a film about that two-headed coin: fear and faith. It's about what our minds conjure up when we let our fears get the better of us, and it's about what our minds conjure up when we hope or pray. As many people have said, this film takes its time in bringing on 'the monster'. Seemingly, that is so, but if you put away the usual limited way of looking at horror movies, you will realize that the 'monster' appears fairly early on in the film. You can't see it; you only feel its presence. If you were paying attention, you'll know that the Wendigo isn't a monster, it's a spirit, and it can change its size and shape at will. The catch is……. the will does not belong to the Wendigo, it belongs to those who conjure the Wendigo. If the imagination holds on to fear, the Wendigo will take the shape of that fear, like a chimera. It may appear as drops of blood, or as a sudden gust of snow, or as a giant deer with dragon breath (notice that the reason the 'monster' image of the Wendigo looks rather cheesy is because that is all a very young boy can muster in his mind. Chances are, the little boy's parents haven't let him watch "Alien" yet!). If it is hope you need to conjure, the Wendigo will go where you want it to go and be what you want it to be (the father's description of how "easily" he got to the house after he'd been shot sounds like he had a little help there!). The Wendigo will also create havoc for those who deserve a nasty fate. It cannot kill, but it can create enough fear in a person to drive himself (in one case, literally) to his own demise. In other words, what devours us isn't a boogie man with sharp teeth, it is our fear that devours us.

There is a reason that this film spends most of its first hour in the presence of the family as it goes through everyday rituals and discussions. There is a tension that is penetrating that normalcy. We - and the characters at different times - are aware of the bullet holes in the walls, of the menacing presence of the creepy neighbor, and of the resonating grisly demise of that deer on the road. The father's feeling of helplessness gets triggered against his wife and son. The Wendigo takes the form of that aggression too. Before the father goes on the sled we see him playacting murdering his son. It is a game, and his son is never realistically threatened, but the father needed to do this in order to vent out his aggression (subconsciously of course). The film smartly tells its story from the viewpoint of the young boy. Smartly for one reason because it is the core of fear that really scares us, and that core began at a very young age. Remember the shadows in the corner of your room that seemed to swallow up the furniture with their darkness? Remember the overcoat that limply hung on the closet door looking like a hanging dead man? Or how about the breeze outside your house that whistled through the branches as they clawed at your window? They're all innocent and harmless things, yet we practically scared ourselves to death as kids by letting our imaginations (our little Wendigos) run wild. The film also is smart to tell its story through the little boy because he is going to learn something that he will take with him into adulthood. He will face death and embrace it and let it go (the scene in the hospital where his father is in surgery, and then after the father dies). It is a rite of passage. The little boy will now be able to fill his father's shoes (metaphorically, despite the literal image!).

This movie is the stuff of myths. It is what horror originally was in the movies. Today with terrorists and serial killers, it's easy to get lost in horror as 'reality'. Slasher movies have championed the literal with realistic special effects, offering little to feed our need for fantasy. If you look back into your childhood, you will find what you yourself planted there long ago. Your imagination. Your appreciation for this movie will depend on how much of that you have retained.

You gotta love a movie with a credit for technical adviser as "The High Priest of the Church of Satan" (he also has an effective small part in the film). This is no "Exorcist", but it is excellent cheese. Ernest Borgnine and William Shatner act their roles to pieces, which is exactly what they should do (this is camp schmaltz, folks!). I thought veteran actress Ida Lupino actually managed to lay an air of dignity throughout her role; eyeless or not. The special effects are well… lots of eyeless faces (the eyes after all are the windows to the soul, and most of the cast ain't got their souls anymore), and a stunning ten-minute finale of melting, oozing faces and bodies, moaning and writhing in an acid rain. Great stuff! This would make a hearty double feature with director Robert Fuest's other masterpiece of camp macabre, "The Abominable Dr. Phibes". This isn't as good, but it does have great production design, and a wonderful twisted score highlighted with the groaning voices of the damned. Wonderful effective opening credits courtesy of Heironymous Bosch too! Is this movie scary? No, unless you're under fourteen. It may scare the bejesus out of you in that case, which after all, would be apt! Is this movie fun? Absolutely! An excellent rental to cuddle up with on a stormy night or Halloween.

I think this is a film that will have very limited appeal. Much of one's enjoyment will come from how familiar one is with Werner Herzog's career (I suggest seeing Les Blank's "Burden of Dreams" to get a good range of this man's incredible persona, then listen to his commentary on each of his movies. He's amazing). But that in itself is not enough. One also has to be a fan of mockumentaries, which apparently many people don't 'get" (I love that one of the posts in the message board is "IS THIS REAL?"). And finally, one has to have an inexorable ability to put up with the kind of caustic sense of humor that wears on one's nerves like the coarsest sandpaper (think "My Breakfast With Blassie" meets "Jaws"). Zak Penn is Andy Kaufman incarnate. He's brilliant, yet just even saying that makes me want to -like Werner Herzog says in this film- track him down and strangle him. He's brilliant because Hollywood is full of guys like these. BTW, If you really appreciate sweet torture, listen to Zak's commentary on the DVD!

Anyway, as well as being a great mockumentary, with its layers of movies within movies within movies, it also has some terrific moments of great film-making within one of its stories. I of course new it was all fake, but it was so well done, I found myself humming the theme to "Jaws" at the film's climax. I even wanted to shout out at Werner Herzog when he tried to shoot Nessie with his flair gun, "Are you crazy?? You want to kill this legend that's been hanging around for millions of years?? You're going to die someday anyway….. leave it alone!". But I held my tongue. Besides, Nessie is a vegetarian, isn't she?

Truth… Fiction… Whatever… this film illustrates Herzog's philosophy of "ecstatic truth". No one really knows what is true. But the emotions we feel are very, very palpable. That's really why we go to the cinema, isn't it?