Friday, November 12, 2004
I find serial killer films fascinating, because they have such strict conventions. For instance the cop on the case is often a chick, who ends up either falling for the killer, or empathising with him somehow. There's usually a scene where he says something like, "Admit it. You are just like me!" while our feisty heroine trembles on the other side of the cell bars. Silence of the Lambs has a lot to answer for.
And the killer has to be a near genius who has a uniquely twisted psyche and subsequent modus operandi. I mean, if he was just abused by his parents and was brutalised while serving in the army, it's not enough. His murders would be really boring, then.
No, he has to have motives of almost byzantine complexity - to make him even more frightening than the last celluloid sicko. Take the killer from Taking Lives, who is a "human hermit crab".
If this movie is anything like reality, then I could never become a serial killer! It's too much like hard work.
And the killer has to be a near genius who has a uniquely twisted psyche and subsequent modus operandi. I mean, if he was just abused by his parents and was brutalised while serving in the army, it's not enough. His murders would be really boring, then.
No, he has to have motives of almost byzantine complexity - to make him even more frightening than the last celluloid sicko. Take the killer from Taking Lives, who is a "human hermit crab".
If this movie is anything like reality, then I could never become a serial killer! It's too much like hard work.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Why is it that the heros in American courtroom thrillers all have to be smug liberals? Take for instance Runaway Jury.
It's a very slick (but implausible) tale of good versus evil. The good guys are a legal team of smug liberals trying to nail the gun industry (I'll call it "Big Ammo") and make it pay for the death of some poor share trader who got his head blown off by some disgruntled worker (and by inference, the death of every other poor sap who went the same way).
Then there are John Cusack and his spunky girlfriend, who are manipulating the jury for what at first seem like purely selfish reasons, but finally turn out to be noble and compassionate ones (that is, they are smug liberals, too). The bad guys are Big Ammo, of course, and "jury consultant" (that is, jury manipulator) Gene Hackman and his creepy team of headkickers and cyber-dorks.
But it just didn't work for me. I was siding with Big Ammo! Why should they have to pay for what some nutjob did with their product? And frankly I think most viewers would agree with me.
One day I want to see a thriller in which the heros are gun-toting, Dubya-loving Republicans who stick it right up the liberal intelligentsia. Or, better still, just blow the fuckers away!
It's a very slick (but implausible) tale of good versus evil. The good guys are a legal team of smug liberals trying to nail the gun industry (I'll call it "Big Ammo") and make it pay for the death of some poor share trader who got his head blown off by some disgruntled worker (and by inference, the death of every other poor sap who went the same way).
Then there are John Cusack and his spunky girlfriend, who are manipulating the jury for what at first seem like purely selfish reasons, but finally turn out to be noble and compassionate ones (that is, they are smug liberals, too). The bad guys are Big Ammo, of course, and "jury consultant" (that is, jury manipulator) Gene Hackman and his creepy team of headkickers and cyber-dorks.
But it just didn't work for me. I was siding with Big Ammo! Why should they have to pay for what some nutjob did with their product? And frankly I think most viewers would agree with me.
One day I want to see a thriller in which the heros are gun-toting, Dubya-loving Republicans who stick it right up the liberal intelligentsia. Or, better still, just blow the fuckers away!
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Watched Sexy Beast last night. It's quite amazing. Ben Kingsley plays the main role of this utter arsehole sent to convince a loveable lummox of an ex-con to "do another job". He's just about the nastiest piece of work in all of movies.
I think Kingsley modelled himself on that archetypal image of the devil. Look at the poster, you'll see what I mean. He's a dead ringer for Lucifer, except he hasn't got the horns or the tail.
To think that this was the same guy who played Gandhi. Talk about versatile!
What's his next role, God?
He'll probably nail that, too.
I think Kingsley modelled himself on that archetypal image of the devil. Look at the poster, you'll see what I mean. He's a dead ringer for Lucifer, except he hasn't got the horns or the tail.
To think that this was the same guy who played Gandhi. Talk about versatile!
What's his next role, God?
He'll probably nail that, too.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Watched a doco on the life of Robert Evans called The Kid Stays in the Picture. It was entertaining, no doubt about it. Also very slick.
It wasn't your usual doco, because it was based on Evans' book, and narrated by him. How solipsistic is that? So, it obviously wasn't going to be objective. But then, objectivity isn't exactly a requirement for the genre these days is it?
Although it's no secret that Hollywood stars are egomaniacal, there are some particularly juicy examples of this that Evans relates. Take, for example, Mia Farrow and ex-hubby Sinatra. Frankie was getting especially cranky over her commitment to Rosemary's Baby - mainly because he had a competing project on the go - and threatened divorce if she continued working on the film.
Farrow was going to buckle, and quit the gig, but Evans talked her around, saying that her performance was brilliant. Appealing to her vanity (personal and professional) cheered her up no end. She kept on working, and Frank got his divorce. When RB wiped the floor with Sinatra's project (I forget the name of it) she wanted to take a full page ad out showing the box office taking of both pictures, just to rub it in! Crikey, how mean is that?
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" says Evans, after relating the episode. Certainly a sentiment that Woody Allen would no doubt agree with.
But then Evans himself is a bit of a blow-hard and a prima don.
The guy certainly had his ups and downs, but he hardly had what could be called a rough life by most people's standards. Yet he insists on painting himself as some kind of heroic battler against the odds.
One of his "struggles" was with cocaine. Hell, why was he complaining? Most people never accumulate enough money to be able to to try it, let alone get hooked on it (er, without having to steal stuff, that is).
His punishment when he was busted? He had to produce an anti-drugs ad! (It's shown in the doco. Dozens of celebs - half probably doped up to the eyeballs anyway - all chanting "get high on yourself". Crikey, you'd have to get stoned to be able watch it all the way through without hurling...)
It wasn't your usual doco, because it was based on Evans' book, and narrated by him. How solipsistic is that? So, it obviously wasn't going to be objective. But then, objectivity isn't exactly a requirement for the genre these days is it?
Although it's no secret that Hollywood stars are egomaniacal, there are some particularly juicy examples of this that Evans relates. Take, for example, Mia Farrow and ex-hubby Sinatra. Frankie was getting especially cranky over her commitment to Rosemary's Baby - mainly because he had a competing project on the go - and threatened divorce if she continued working on the film.
Farrow was going to buckle, and quit the gig, but Evans talked her around, saying that her performance was brilliant. Appealing to her vanity (personal and professional) cheered her up no end. She kept on working, and Frank got his divorce. When RB wiped the floor with Sinatra's project (I forget the name of it) she wanted to take a full page ad out showing the box office taking of both pictures, just to rub it in! Crikey, how mean is that?
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" says Evans, after relating the episode. Certainly a sentiment that Woody Allen would no doubt agree with.
But then Evans himself is a bit of a blow-hard and a prima don.
The guy certainly had his ups and downs, but he hardly had what could be called a rough life by most people's standards. Yet he insists on painting himself as some kind of heroic battler against the odds.
One of his "struggles" was with cocaine. Hell, why was he complaining? Most people never accumulate enough money to be able to to try it, let alone get hooked on it (er, without having to steal stuff, that is).
His punishment when he was busted? He had to produce an anti-drugs ad! (It's shown in the doco. Dozens of celebs - half probably doped up to the eyeballs anyway - all chanting "get high on yourself". Crikey, you'd have to get stoned to be able watch it all the way through without hurling...)
Saturday, July 10, 2004
I always find it fascinating that famous people get romantically involved with each other.
Do these relationships start as career moves? Or do they work because celebs have so much in common, and can offer mutual support in surviving such a crazy life?
Beats me.
Do these relationships start as career moves? Or do they work because celebs have so much in common, and can offer mutual support in surviving such a crazy life?
Beats me.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Old rockers never die, they just keep, er, reinventing themselves.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Yet another example of the enduring power of fame, and its ability to keep generating revenue.
