hate... living. LOVE SWINGIN'!
May. 29th, 2007 01:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerFor lovers of zombie comedies, shorn Billy Connolly, 50's Americana, Carrie-Ann-Moss-Housewife-Fetishists, and the sex god that is Dylan Baker... I bring you the magnificent trailer for a film that looks to be one of my very favorites of 2007:
FIDO.
Yay. Yay. Yay.
(also, I love how Bub!Connolly even seems to moan in a Scottish accent.)
So last night, Mom and I went to see BUG.
I'm sure the few of you who've heard of this film have no desire to see this movie. Based in the trailers, it looks like yet another SAW knock-off with creepy crawly monsters, and with Ashley Judd too, wow, looks like a winner! The only thing it seemed to have going for it was William Friedkin, but the man hasn't made a worthwhile film since THE FRENCH CONNECTION* and THE EXORCIST**
And yet, have you ever seen the trailer for a film and thought to yourself, "I... I'm not so certain they're advertising what this film's really about." How many times have we seen studios getting a strange, different kind of film, and having absolutely no fucking idea what to do with it. That became increasingly evident once Lionsgate threw BUG before the windshield that is PIRATES 3: MY DINNER WITH BARBOSA.
Combine that with the fact that BUG was originally a play, and my interest was piqued. I read a couple reviews on the usual sites and thought, "Hell with it, let's check it out." And I brought my Mother along as well. I'm incredibly happy I did; this is a movie you NEED to digest with someone else.
It was clear from the start that this crowd came here to see a SAW/HOSTEL crapfest. This was the single biggest congregation of yahoos with whom I'd ever had the misfortune of sharing a theater, between talking during the film, yelling things like "AW, SNAP!!!" at the screen, and hearing cell phones go off no less than eight times.
So keep that in mind that BUG's final appeal for me only increased because of the sheer outrage of the crowd. When the credits showed up, one person went, "YOU'RE FUCKIN' KIDDING ME!" and a few others joined in. Is it wrong of me that I should be actively pleased that a movie pissed off this kind of crowd? These people didn't know what the hell they were getting into, as apparently goes for some of the critics on rottentomatoes.com who accuse it of being too "talky."
Because this really is a play. By and large, it's set in one dingy, creepy, and effectively claustrophobic motel room. It's about people, having about as much to do with insects as THE SQUID AND THE WHALE had to do with sea creatures. The best label that fits is "psychological thriller," with an emphasis on the first part. What it's about... well, the plot concerns a broken, emotionally-isolated woman with a psycho ex-husband and a strange new boyfriend who starts seeing bugs crawling on (and soon under) his skin. And then she starts seeing them too. And it just... goes from there.
I'll say this: I had NO idea Ashley Judd had this kind of performance in her. Judd and Michael Shannon (a Steppenwolf regular who reprises his role from the stage version) give the bravest damn performances I've seen in a film this year. Seriously, by the end of this movie, these two actors are doing thespian acrobatics. Based on the rottentomatoes.com reviews, some thought they fell and failed, while most others hail their performances as the best (or in some cases, only) reason to see the film. These were some seriously bold performances, the both of them, of a kind would never be noticed by the Oscars.
By that, I mean these performances are often hard to watch. They're rich and human, not as two-dimensional crazy as lesser actors would give, but they (and this movie itself, really) are deeply unpleasant to watch in places. I think I'm putting this film at the top of my "deeply unpleasant, but in a very good way" movies list, beating out SID AND NANCY and maybe, just maybe, David Mamet's EDMOND. As another reviewer put it, and he said this positively, "They don't make movies like this anymore. Because no one wants to see movies like this."
Is BUG itself, as a whole, brilliant? Hell, I don't think so. I'm not even sure it's ultimately any good. But it's different, it's interesting, and if you'll pardon the expression, it gets under your skin like whoa. And y'know what, I'll take a different, interesting, flawed film over a movie that's technically solid*** any day.
BUG deserves to be seen, but I'm not gonna tell any one of you to see it. Many will totally, totally hate it. Others, like me... well, you may not like it per se, but you're gonna be chewing on this film for days to come. I know I am. If nothing else, someone else see BUG so I can talk to you about it!
I'd personally liken it to REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, only without that awesome soundtrack. Also, I think it might be better.
*Anyone else out there really prefer John Frankenheimer's THE FRENCH CONNECTION II? I also need to see the Roy Scheider spin-off film, THE SEVEN-UPS.
**and I'm sorry, TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. is such a crazy piece of 80's trash, the bastard redheaded stepchild of the wonderful and under-appreciated MANHUNTER.
*** Which is why I prefer GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR to the "better-made" THE DEPARTED. I'd rather have a movie that reaches to the stars and fails than a film that stays right in safe territory, know what I mean?
FIDO.
Yay. Yay. Yay.
(also, I love how Bub!Connolly even seems to moan in a Scottish accent.)
So last night, Mom and I went to see BUG.
I'm sure the few of you who've heard of this film have no desire to see this movie. Based in the trailers, it looks like yet another SAW knock-off with creepy crawly monsters, and with Ashley Judd too, wow, looks like a winner! The only thing it seemed to have going for it was William Friedkin, but the man hasn't made a worthwhile film since THE FRENCH CONNECTION* and THE EXORCIST**
And yet, have you ever seen the trailer for a film and thought to yourself, "I... I'm not so certain they're advertising what this film's really about." How many times have we seen studios getting a strange, different kind of film, and having absolutely no fucking idea what to do with it. That became increasingly evident once Lionsgate threw BUG before the windshield that is PIRATES 3: MY DINNER WITH BARBOSA.
Combine that with the fact that BUG was originally a play, and my interest was piqued. I read a couple reviews on the usual sites and thought, "Hell with it, let's check it out." And I brought my Mother along as well. I'm incredibly happy I did; this is a movie you NEED to digest with someone else.
It was clear from the start that this crowd came here to see a SAW/HOSTEL crapfest. This was the single biggest congregation of yahoos with whom I'd ever had the misfortune of sharing a theater, between talking during the film, yelling things like "AW, SNAP!!!" at the screen, and hearing cell phones go off no less than eight times.
So keep that in mind that BUG's final appeal for me only increased because of the sheer outrage of the crowd. When the credits showed up, one person went, "YOU'RE FUCKIN' KIDDING ME!" and a few others joined in. Is it wrong of me that I should be actively pleased that a movie pissed off this kind of crowd? These people didn't know what the hell they were getting into, as apparently goes for some of the critics on rottentomatoes.com who accuse it of being too "talky."
Because this really is a play. By and large, it's set in one dingy, creepy, and effectively claustrophobic motel room. It's about people, having about as much to do with insects as THE SQUID AND THE WHALE had to do with sea creatures. The best label that fits is "psychological thriller," with an emphasis on the first part. What it's about... well, the plot concerns a broken, emotionally-isolated woman with a psycho ex-husband and a strange new boyfriend who starts seeing bugs crawling on (and soon under) his skin. And then she starts seeing them too. And it just... goes from there.
I'll say this: I had NO idea Ashley Judd had this kind of performance in her. Judd and Michael Shannon (a Steppenwolf regular who reprises his role from the stage version) give the bravest damn performances I've seen in a film this year. Seriously, by the end of this movie, these two actors are doing thespian acrobatics. Based on the rottentomatoes.com reviews, some thought they fell and failed, while most others hail their performances as the best (or in some cases, only) reason to see the film. These were some seriously bold performances, the both of them, of a kind would never be noticed by the Oscars.
By that, I mean these performances are often hard to watch. They're rich and human, not as two-dimensional crazy as lesser actors would give, but they (and this movie itself, really) are deeply unpleasant to watch in places. I think I'm putting this film at the top of my "deeply unpleasant, but in a very good way" movies list, beating out SID AND NANCY and maybe, just maybe, David Mamet's EDMOND. As another reviewer put it, and he said this positively, "They don't make movies like this anymore. Because no one wants to see movies like this."
Is BUG itself, as a whole, brilliant? Hell, I don't think so. I'm not even sure it's ultimately any good. But it's different, it's interesting, and if you'll pardon the expression, it gets under your skin like whoa. And y'know what, I'll take a different, interesting, flawed film over a movie that's technically solid*** any day.
BUG deserves to be seen, but I'm not gonna tell any one of you to see it. Many will totally, totally hate it. Others, like me... well, you may not like it per se, but you're gonna be chewing on this film for days to come. I know I am. If nothing else, someone else see BUG so I can talk to you about it!
I'd personally liken it to REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, only without that awesome soundtrack. Also, I think it might be better.
*Anyone else out there really prefer John Frankenheimer's THE FRENCH CONNECTION II? I also need to see the Roy Scheider spin-off film, THE SEVEN-UPS.
**and I'm sorry, TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. is such a crazy piece of 80's trash, the bastard redheaded stepchild of the wonderful and under-appreciated MANHUNTER.
*** Which is why I prefer GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR to the "better-made" THE DEPARTED. I'd rather have a movie that reaches to the stars and fails than a film that stays right in safe territory, know what I mean?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 06:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 06:30 pm (UTC)...
Must... find... Johnny Go-ian picture to photoshop in!
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 06:37 pm (UTC)"I'm the only man I know who died in a Muppet movie!"
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 08:47 pm (UTC)Eh, he got to have his revenge anyway by being a psycho ass-kicker in BOONDOCK SAINTS.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 08:01 pm (UTC)Also, I am rediculously afraid of/disgusted by bugs. Should I still see Bug? Will that make it even better, or will I want to vomit like that stupid new scene in the King Kong remake?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 02:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 08:19 pm (UTC)As far as GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR over THE DEPARTED, I can only say I prefer films where Leonardo DiCaprio talks in a funny accent.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 08:45 pm (UTC)I just wish I could edit Leo and Cameron Diaz out of every damn frame of GANGS OF NEW YORK, and replace them both with more Liam Neeson. That would have been Scorsese's greatest film ever.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 10:12 pm (UTC)I haven't seen GANGS OF NEW YORK! But I saw DARKMAN! Liam Neeson should be in that sequel.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 04:50 am (UTC)I might have to check out Bug too. On what you said about trailers that completely mislead on the actual movie-the DVD for Cider House Rules (based on the John Irving book and directed by Lasse Halstrom, he who made the wonderful What's Eating Gilbert Grape and then made more book adaptations that got sappier with each film), has almost 10 different trailers and one of them makes the movie look like it's a high suspense, mental thriller, I couldn't quite believe what I was seeing.
ahahahahahah
Date: 2007-05-30 10:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 10:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 03:36 pm (UTC)I thought it would be another SAW ripoff like you mentioned but (like you) when i heard it was based on a play I became very interested, although, i have not been been able to figure out what it was actually about until recently.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 07:56 pm (UTC)Provided the rehearsals for Richard III and Taming of the Shrew don't bring me down. (doing rep this summer. kill me.)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 09:50 pm (UTC)