13 Assassins

In the Edo period of Japanese history, the samurai lived as powerful servants to the even more powerful shogunate. While the samurai may have been the ultimate warriors on the highly guarded and closed off islands that made up Japan in those days, their code required absolute devotion to their lords. So strong was this devotion that it was unthinkable to not follow the lord’s demands. Along comes Lord Naritsugu, who is both a high-level shogun lord and a complete psychopath. Everywhere he went he raped, tortured and killed at will, often the victim’s were completely innocent families, often using the noble samurai to finish the job. Naritsugu’s main samurai, Hanbei, is a seasoned veteran who was a top pupil back in the day, second only to an ultimate bad ass of a samurai, Shinzaemon.

Unlucky for Hanbei, Shinzaemon has just found out what Naritsugu’s been up to and that Naritsugu is about to take over has top shogun. Well, ole Shinzaemon can’t let that go down. Problem is, he can’t find anyone to join him in his quest to take out Naritsugu, as most samurai wouldn’t even think of touching a hair on a shogun lord’s head. So, all Sinzaemon can do is round up a group of samurai rejects and iconoclasts and try to take down Naritsugu. So, the ragtag group of 13 takes on Hanbei and his army of samurai to stand up for what’s right and bring down the hand of justice.

This movie is freaking awesome. I tend to either not much care for Takashi Miike’s movies at all or love them. This one definitely falls into the latter category. The movie is a tale about the dangers of absolute, unthinking devotion to authority. The style is that of a classic samurai period piece and, as such, mimics the great westerns of the golden age. Change the background to the frontier of the western U.S. in the 19^th century and switch out the main actor with Clint Eastwood and you would have a western classic on your hands. The white hats and black hats are similar in substantial ways and diametrically opposed at the same time. They’re also both heavy hands who ultimately must have a final showdown to decide the fate of the town. It’s classic stuff, high noon samurai style, and it’s awesome.

WW

Bridesmaids

Annie’s life is falling apart. She has no relationship with her mom. Her business has recently failed. She has no love life and the one guy she is involved with is a douche of the highest order. The only constant and positive aspect of her life is her lifelong best friend Lillian, but Lillian is now spending most of her time in Chicago, nearly an hour away, and now Lillian has announced she’s moving there because she’s engaged. Annie is essentially on the verge of a nervous breakdown when Lillian asks her to be the maid of honor and pairs her up with Lillian’s new best friend the all to together and seemingly perfect Helen. It is the straw that breaks the camels back.

What makes a comedy great? Is it the story? Is it the emotional bits that function to keep the story arch and character development going? Or is it just laughs? There are many comedies we can all think of that may be full of gags and laughs but that didn’t stick with us because they lacked the other elements. It’s rare that a comedy has all these elements firing on all pistons. Bridesmaids is no exception. I left feeling like it wasn’t that great because I didn’t care much at all about the emotional arch of the Annie character. I love Kristen Wiig, but it seemed like, for most of the movie, she was just doing her character from most of her movie appearances but just amped up a bit. At the same time, I laughed my ass off in this movie, more than any other comedy I can remember in a good long time. So, what does this mean? If I give the main story line a B-, does that mean the movie is a B-?

I don’t think that’s fair. Plus, as time passed I began to think more kindly on the Annie character and like her a bit more and also came to realize that excluding such an emotional aspect of the movie would have made it just another Apatow-helmed dirty mouthed gross out comedy. While I like some of his movies of such an ilk, it’s been done and, lately, done way too often. Instead, it was like those movies but worked slightly better, to where I am still thinking about the story and movie now, still mentally invested in the characters.

But, hands down, 100%, without a doubt, the absolute best thing about this movie was Melissa McCarthy. Her character, Megan, was easily the funniest character I’ve seen in a solid decade. She took what could have been a completely forgettable side character and totally nailed it, to the point that, by the end of the movie, her merely being on screen made me laugh. From the first moment she speaks to the roll of the credits, she kept my attention and made me laugh like I haven’t laughed in years. Hilarious! So, in the end, I felt so so about some of the storyline aspects of the movie, but it was a decent story that was very well acted and it consistently made me laugh and, after all, isn’t that what a comedy is aiming to do?

S'good

Krull

As anyone who knows me or follows this blog knows, I love campy cinematic crap from my childhood. I own so many movies from the 70’s and 80’s that most people have long forgotten that it’s not even funny. I also love to scan back, remember some movie even I’ve long forgotten and give it an overdue repeat view. Anytime someone undertakes such an endeavor, they inevitably find that some movies they loved as a kid hold up over time and some most certainly do not. Well, all that to say, viewing Krull now, a movie I totally dug as a little guy, I realize just how much Krull sucks. There really isn’t a good aspect of this movie. The effects are awful, the props are awful, the acting, the writing, even the score, it’s all just terrible.

Krull has about as much suspense and drama as an episode of the A-Team. True, three people die in Krull, which is monumentally more than in any episode of the A-Team, but there was never a second where I felt any of the important characters was in any danger whatsoever. There were these highly trained killing machines with laser guns who seemed to be everywhere and were constantly trying to kill the five or so people on this mission. Those five or so people were not trained and had things like staffs and spears. Yet, they seemed to be able to easily defeat the killing machines through some cunning bobbing and weaving. Awful, just awful.

Their biggest help comes in the form of a Cyclops that looked like the neighbor from Home Improvement with a second rate mechanical blinking eye molded over his actual eyes. It’s the fakest thing I’ve ever seen and they chose a guy who is not at all imposing or athletic to be this big heroic warrior. Sheesh.

I could go on and on, but the absolute worst thing, hands down, was the music. The score is the most grand, sweeping, epic score I have ever heard and the movie is about as sweeping and epic as Clerks. They go to like two locations! Take the biggest and most bombastic parts of the Star Wars score and imagine that playing constantly throughout the movie, as in every single time a person crossed the room or took a single step. It was beyond description.

Long story short, if you’re aching for some retro fantasy, pop in Conan the Barbarian, revel in some James Earl Jones/Arnold Schwarzenegger goodness and skip Krull.

U

Trinity and Beyond

Trinity & Beyond is a 1995 documentary about America’s embracement of and development of nuclear weaponry. Using declassified footage, the documentary largely lets the old military footage of these gigantic test blasts and the preparation there for (and sometimes backlash thereof) speak for itself. If you are at all fascinated by human evolution, this movie is not something to miss. There are shots in this movie I have never seen and blasts the scale of which I have never known. On this level, it is truly disturbing.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is our willingness to simply accept that the development of these weapons was just part of life and completely necessary. While a few people may have spoken out against atom and hydrogen weapons, the majority, especially those involved in their creation, seemed to think nothing of it, as though it was as necessary as developing a sharper knife than your enemy. In reality, we were creating ways to destroy each other on a scale unlike any in human history. As though we were figuring out how to jump start an ice age or plague.

Where the movie falls short is two fold. First, the general aesthetic and score are campy at best. They make shtick of something of greater historical and ecological significance than nearly anything else. Secondly, and this is largely because it was made in the mid-to-early 90’s, it seems to treat the threat like something from the past. In fact, the story pretty well ends in 1964, as though America and many others like it stopped developing these horrific weapons back in the day. In reality, atomic weaponry is now in the hands of countries that can barely sustain a workable hospital or education system. These weapons of mass destruction are being refined and developed by numerous countries and, oh by the way, America and Russia still have plenty enough to wipe out a huge chunk of humanity. Put plainly, the movie seems to think this is a closed case, when, in reality, we are still in an era where a select few could send humanity back into the dark ages in a matter of hours.

Until we leav it, the nuclear age is going to be a disturbing threat to humane and ecological existence and if you are unclear of this after watching the footage contained in this movie, then ignorance must truly be bliss.

S’good

The King's Speech

Britain in the late thirties was at a major crossroads. At the turn of the century the British Empire was the largest in history, controlling so much of the earth that there was no part of the empire that was not seeing daylight at any given point of the day. They literally controlled nearly half the population of the earth. Through world war, uprisings and general unrest at being empirical subjects, the reign of George V saw the first three decades of the 20^th Century take a great deal of power from that empire. Toward the end of his life, George saw things potentially getting much much worse. It looked as though Europe, including Britain, may well be on the verge of yet another world war and, with his health failing, his sole heirs were a playboy who cared more about mistresses than civic duty and a nervous, bland younger son who could barely speak due to an awful stammer. The latter, however, decided enough was enough and he must both grow a backbone and eliminate that stammer.

He was growing increasingly frustrated in his efforts, as nothing seemd to work, when suddenly an odd actor from Australia came along and seemed to have the answer he’d been looking for. He was unorthodox and so were his methods. He was the last person a potential heir to the throne would be expected to become subject to. Lionel made the Duke of York come to his office in a nasty part of town. He referred to the Duke as Bertie, a family nickname, and made him talk about personal, private matters. All of this made the Duke very uncomfortable, but the more he opened up and let himself go, the more he became the man he was hoping to be.

The King’s Speech is about more than him overcoming his stammer, it is about the friendship of this very odd pair and the making of a king. It was a good thing the Duke of York decided to get himself into shape, as his father died just before World War II broke out and his older brother abdicated from the throne to marry his mistress almost immediately after taking the thrown. It was a decisive move at a delicate time. On this note, King’s Speech is very interesting. I love history and it was great to watch a ‘behind-the-scenes’ view of an important moment in Western history.

That said, while I liked the movie, I didn’t love it. I don’t think they did a good enough job of showing the stakes behind it all. Outside of the occasional mention by one of the characters of the import of his attempts to better himself, the film never really portrayed the basis for that import. Only once do they show Hitler or anything military at all. There was very little shown of the government dissension (for crying out loud Ireland removed the monarch from it's constitution on the day of his ascension to the throne) and nothing shown of the poverty and unrest of England or the rest of the empire. In other words, it was vital that the king become a strong, powerful leader at this pivotal point, but you wouldn’t know that from the film alone. I never felt like much was at stake other than the personal battles of the Duke of York.

Long story short, it was a movie that was interestingly shot, very well acted, but never really sucked me in all that much. I liked it, but I didn’t love it and I certainly didn’t love it as much as everyone else seemed to.

S’good

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

About 25,000 years ago a cliff face in Southern France collapsed. It completely sealed off a large cave on a riverbed. When I say completely sealed off I mean it. In 1994 some French archeologists were taking part in a ‘shot-in-the-dark’ method of looking for caves that they sometimes did in their spare time. The method is to walk along areas that look to have formed as a result of a collapse of the rock face and use either your hand or face to feel for air coming out of the rock. Air means at least a shaft is under there. Well, they found one and the shaft just kept going, though it was barely big enough for either of them to get through. They kept following it down and down until suddenly it opened into a huge expanse. What blew them away, however, was not the size, but what they saw inside. The cave is a perfectly preserved glimpse into life over 25,000 years ago (the date of which they know from carbon dating and many other tests). It is truly as though they stepped back in time.

There are footprints, there are pieces of ash from torches, there are altars and there are numerous, incredible paintings. Not only are these now the earliest known paintings, but they are truly the product of high levels of skill, much more advanced than other known works of art dating thousands of years later. There are also the bones of animals long extinct and some of the paintings are of animals that scientists had no idea existed in France, such as lions, hyenas, bison and more. The French government, in an attempt to preserve this amazing time capsule, sealed it off and forbade any entry except for a single, small group of scientists who is allowed for one hour a day, for four days, once a year.

Werner Herzog is the first person in these last 16 years allowed to film inside the cave. They allowed him in only with the scientists and only if he used battery operated equipment. Though this means the camera work can be iffy at times and the lighting is not always that great, the chance to take a look inside this incredible site is worth every minute. In the entire world, as far as we know, there is no other site like it. While other ancient finds exist, they are always tainted and faded. With this cave, it is truly like walking in two seconds after Cro-Magnon man walked out. The only thing that makes it at all dated are the stalactites and stalagmites that have developed over the millennia, but all these do is make the joint all the more amazing visually. If you could pick someone to guide you through this amazing cave, I can’t imagine many more qualified to make it interesting than Werner Herzog. It’s the most upbeat and positive I’ve ever seen him. Even Werner can’t help but be in awe of this place.

WW

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story

One of the people interviewed in this movie said (roughly) the problem I have with the Republican Party is that they portray themselves as the party of the common man, yet work primarily for and in the interest of the wealthiest 1% of the country and portray themselves as the party of strict moral standards and yet lead often deviant lifestyles. Put plainly, this guy’s problem with the Republican Party is that they are so good at pulling the wool over people’s eyes and he doesn’t appreciate it. If that the case, he’s certainly not going to be a fan of Lee Atwater, a key figure in the modern version of the Republican political machine. You think Karl Rove is bad? Take a look at his teacher.

The Republican Party was making it in the 60’s and 70’s, but it seemed like the Democrats had cornered the market on effective, beloved mass communication. The Republican Party might get the occasional vote, but if they wanted to be a true powerhouse, they had to get better at being persuasive and eloquent. Lee Atwater, though a nobody from the Carolinas, was a master at what he called spinning, which is, of course, now part of the basic political vocabulary. He could make anything sound as damning or uplifting as the chose. At the start of the 80’s he had the perfect vehicle through which to exhibit his gifts, Ronal Reagan. Reagan said he never would have won the primary and been on the road to the Whitehouse without Lee. But while Lee had the talent, he completely lacked in conscience. He had zero qualms about lying or cheating or straight up backstabbing to get the right story out.

He used racist tactics, sexist tactics and everything in between. The fascinating aspect of the story is not that such a person existed, but that it worked so very well. America, we were duped and then we were duped again in the 90’s and then his protégée duped us again in the early millennium. Atwater, his methods and his approach have become such an overwhelmingly successful aspect of campaigning that now it’s considered political idiocy to not use them. Now, the tables have turned and it is the Republican Party who is so effective at mass communication and the Democratic Party who seems at a loss for these abilities, even with the eloquence of Obama at the mic. Let’s just hope they don’t find their own Lee Atwater to turn that ship around for them.

If you want to see an unbiased, balanced examination of a very uniquely American political animal, this is the movie for you. This guy is fascinating and his story is even more so.

S’good