My latest AndersonVision review, though not so kind in nature!

SEIZURE
United States, 1974
U.S. Release Date: ?
Running Length: 94 minutes
MPAA Classification: R
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: ?

Starring: Jonathan Frid, Martine Beswick, Joseph Sirola, Christina Pickles, Herve Villechaize, Anne Meacham, Roger De Koven, Troy Donahue, Mary Woronov, Richard Cox, Henry Judd Baker
Directed by – Oliver Stone
Written by – Edward Mann and Oliver Stone
Cinematography: Roger Racine
Original Score: Lee Gagnon
Studio: Cinerama Releasing Corporation

Film Rating – A star and ½ out of 5 (3 out of 10)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am quite displeased to present to you my first true negative review for AndersonVision. Instead of dishing out such crapper classics like “Highlander 2: The Quickening” and “Hudson Hawk,” I decided to give my royal flogging to a picture that itself is super obscure, even within the giant wave of European art house exploitation horror pictures of the 1960s and 70s.

In fact, the only reason it’s remembered at all is that it was the directorial debut of Oliver Stone. Yes, you read that right. The same Mr. Stone that after this insignificant failure, he would become a top gun of an Oscar-winning screenplay writer in Hollywood, then his directing career took off like Ray Liotta on cocaine with the Oscar-winning “Platoon” followed by several more good and great pictures of his career.

However, like Francis Ford Coppola’s own zero-budget horror-themed directing debut “Dementia 13,” people wouldn’t have realized from watching this movie that Stone was on his way to filmmaking success. Well, sort of.

If anything, there are indications of film schematic philosophy that will re-surface in Stone’s later movies, though with greater success in those films. Going hand-held into the chaotic vegetation of the forest, which we will see in “Platoon,” rapid-edited montage clip of footage from earlier in the film will happen in “Natural Born Killers,” bastard stock-hungry millionaire from “Wall Street,” color-tinting like “JFK” and “Nixon,” and so on.

Of course, unlike those other films, these ideas don’t work to save the film from its ultimate fate. In spirit and ambition, I assume Stone wanted to make for a macabre morality tale, along with such horror fantasy genre conventions that might have been found in the pulp paper-works of the Victorian Era. For we have a horror author Edmond Blackstone (Frid) who is suffering from horrific nightmares on the eve of a weekend party with a wide range of guests. He dreams of three evil people that terrorize his family and friends, but when Edmond proceeds to write and draw these devilish creatures, they themselves arrive for a night of horror. Edmond’s nightmare is happening again, but this time its real…

If anything, I respect Stone’s intentions, but such lofty noble thoughts are undermined by the reality that such allegorical representations of evil, whatever from past times of Earth or mythology, end up being that of a dwarf (Villechaize, before “Fantasy Island”) who seems almost the non-intentionally silly ancestor of Mini-Me, a strong black executioner (Baker) who looks like a reject from “Star Trek,” and a black Queen of Evil (Beswick) who seems like a carbon Xerox copy of similar femme fatale figures from the European horror mood pictures of the time, though not as seductive on an evil level, nor as menacing as such.
Never mind that Stone himself apparently was aiming for a twist shock ending to which would follow the grand literary tradition of unreliable narrators, specifically the American classical masterpiece short story, “An Occurrence at Owl Bridge,” but again like much of the film, it doesn’t compute like it should, nor is it as surprising as Stone probably hoped for.

Not every directorial debut can be a home run like “”Duel” or “Reservoir Dogs”. Sometimes directors are learning the ropes and managing their intentions, so I do give Stone some leeway on that regard. But yet, watching such initial works from people that would later be cited as masters or among the greats is morbid curiosity, especially those pictures that fail. Though with “Seizure,” this is a real hard to find movie that hasn’t been on VHS since a brief run in the late 80’s (to capitalize on Stone’s career emergence) and of which apparently Stone tried to bury, much like Stanley Kubrick’s “Fear & Desire”.

I do understand why Stone would want nobody to ever know, much less see, this early weak work from him, but people have got to start somewhere.

Film Rating – *1/2

I disagree fully, considering Lynch may never have even set out to attract a wide mainstream audience. That's like saying that because most men would cringe when watching a chick-flick, the film's purpose has been defeated...no?

In Godard's Notre musique (2004), one character says, "If you understand what I have said, then I have not told it correctly."

And understanding a film goes far beyond narrative comprehension; I'd say that, if you connect with the film, appreciate it on an aesthetic level even, then you've "understood" it. As far as stories go, Mulholland Dr. confuses me, too, even on rewatches. Sure, I pick up something new every time I watch it, but I hold no shame in the fact that I discard the ten famous clues Lynch included with the (region 2) DVD as to solving his nightmare. I've read them once, and have cared little for them since.

Linear treatments of narrative have almost been exhausted now; sometimes the style can come across as fresh, and get away with it, like Sofia Coppola with Lost In Translation; but most other times, it is a very select few who can penetrate my desires...and Lynch is one of them. Not because he sets out to confuse (that's not his purpose at all), but because he knows exactly what he's doing, and translates his intentions beautifully onto the screen. Nobody moves me with a moving image as powerfully as Lynch does.

I have to disagree with this strongly, though I understand that you express a personal opinion regarding your own viewing experience. I agree with your example of "Lost in translation" which I regard as an excellent movie.
I don't mind if a film leaves the audience to form their own interpretation. For example "Broken Flowers". It is an excellent movie, shows the character from a distance, has a small mysterious element in the form of a pink letter, but at the same time is a straight narrative. But my complaint with Mulholland Drive is not about mystery or interpretation, but about mixing up real and fantasy plots conveniently in order to create a mystery out of nothing.

Yes, I take that back, actually, about linear narratives having been exhausted.

But if you found hollowness beneath Lynch's mystery, then how come my claim to understand the film is a pretence?

I've said in the past that I think it helps to approach Lynch's films, particularly Mulholland and Lost Highway, as blankets, as textures, as a canvas full of splattered paint. What comes across to us as rather abstract might make perfect sense to the painter; but in describing it as abstract, the painter has not failed to translate his meaning, because that is what he always set out to do: not to confuse, but to create said blanket, the shapeless texture, a mass of visuals and sounds, underneath which might be as much depth as you want to find, or a vacant void of emptiness.

With most other filmmakers, the subtext is there, lying on a plate, and whether you like the film or not depends on whether you decide to eat what's on the plate. But Lynch only serves what your mind wishes to have; there's nothing tangible there, it's what you find to eat for yourself.

All this talk is giving me the urge to watch it again tonight.

Actually the little preface in the beginning of the film stating that it is based on a true story is just a trick by the Coens. The film has no basis in fact.

The Street Fighter ** 1/2

My first Sonny Chiba flick and it was surprisingly pretty enjoyable. His fighting style was a little different than others I've seen, but it got the job done

Return of the Street Fighter **

No thoughts?

Pretty much the same movie with quite a few flashbacks so it was almost like watching The Street Fighter again

I hate when sequels do such bullshit. I mean what the fuck? Why the fuck am I watching the same movie again almost quite literally?

Well the same could be said for the Friday the 13th series, but it's a guilty pleasure of mine. At least the death scenes are different and usually more comic later on

I feel that a screenwriter/director should communicate their ideas to the audience. If I am not wrong, Lynch refuses to explain the plot in any of his interviews. The only medium through which we can now understand it is the movie itself. I accept if you say you understand it, I don't necessarily imply that you are pretending, but I have a strong suspicion that your (or anybody's) interpretation might be totally different from what was originally intended by the script. I remember you had written an essay long ago about art in which you said that an artist completes a work and the viewers pick it up at a later stage and form their own interpretation of it. Thus art survives, though transforming in the process. In that grand picture of art, what you say makes sense, but again I doubt if we really force Lynch to come up with a single solid theory to explain all of the scenes of Mulholland drive, he would really succeed. IMHO there is a lack of clarity. But I may be wrong.

In this sense, Lynch's films are what I'd call "pure" Cinema, to me. How to describe them better than simply watching the film? In another sense, his films are "pure" Cinema in that he doesn't use scripts or storyboards, and thus what comes into physical fruition after leaving his mind is the moving image, not a translation of that moving image (i.e. a script).

I don't feel there's anything wrong with Lynch's intentions being deliberately open to audience interpretation.

Munich **
Somehow I was expecting a very heavy and boring movie full of history and stuff. But it turned out to be pretty interesting. The merit of the movie lies in showing the events without excessive sentimental drama. Good movie but lacks a lasting impression.

Accattone(1961) Pier Paolo Pasolini / Italy / 7/10
Good first feature by Pasolini. Solid story and acting but technically flawed. Nevertheless it doesn't seem like it holds the film back. Definately displays talent on Pasolini's part and that of the lead actor Franco Citti. A bit slow in the beginning and I was struggling to get through it but the final 20 minutes are amazing, much like another Italian neorealist gem The Bicycle Thief.

The Seven Samurai
1954/Kurosawa

A poor village under attack by bandits recruits seven unemployed samurai to help them defend themselves.
Starring Takashi Shimura, Toshirô Mifune, and Yoshio Inaba
-- 1st Kurosawa film --

This was quite an enjoyable piece of Japanese cinema which is widely known as one of the greatest films of all time. Kurosawa overcomes technological defecits and the restrictions of his forrest setting and comes through with some impressive camera work for the time period. He also provides a nice running score and notably exceptional lighting.

All of the cast played their roles well, but Takashi Shimura as Kambei the wise leader and Toshirô Mifune as Kikuchiyo the rambunctious rebel both particularly shined. One especially interesting aspect of this film is its constant shifting of the main character role. As the film begins, the villagers are the main focus, and then Kambei as he is introduced, and then Kikuchiyo, and then as the film closes the focus seems to land on Katsushiro, the young apprentice.

While the film may have been a bit overlong at almost 3 1/2 hours, and it perhaps had too many subplots, it was ultimately a pleasurable viewing expierience as well as an important one in an exploration of classic and foreign cinema. I'm looking forward to getting Rashomon.

4.5/5

My favorite Kurosawa film and the one that turned me into a Kurosawa fan. I'd also recommend Throne of Blood

Yeah Throne of Blood and Ikiru both look good.

No Man's Land (2001) Danis Tanovic / Bosnia / 8/10
Bosnia and Herzigovina, 1993. A Serbian and to Bosnian soldiers get trapped in no man's land. One of the Bosnians is laying on a bouncing mine, and if his weight is taken off the mine will explode.
Wow. Amazing, breathtaking movie. Filled with dark comedy and ironies, it's an incredibly important piece of filmmaking and satire. The bleak reality is so beautifully portrayed. The final frame is an excruciating jarring. A startling wake-up call. Highly recommended.

Over the Hedge **
Animated movie about a racoon and a bunch of hibernating animals. The racoon destroys the stored food of a large bear and has to replenish it in a week. It teams together with a bunch of animals fresh out of hibernation who have no idea about outside (human) world, to gather food by stealing from the humans. It is not all that funny in the beginning, but towards the end it is hilarious. I have a minor complaint with children's movies including this - they often have some preachy dialogue about the importance of family etc, which I find a little annoying and out of place. However these movies are specifically targetted towards kids and not someone like me, so I dont know, maybe the kids do enjoy that kind of stuff!

Red Heat ** 1/2

I really enjoyed Arnold as a stuffy Russian cop (who's accent was pretty decent). Jim Belushi added a lot of comic relief to this film and it was a very enjoyable movie.

Love Actually **
Similar to Bridget Jones' Diary and Notting hill, a british romantic comedy with predictable story line. There are several couples here, their lives are shown paralelly. The music is good, but the songs of Notting Hill were better IMO.

Irish, my favorite joke in that picture being where Arnold, after firing the Dirty Harry revolver, comments he still prefers his gun from back home.

Still, at least you've entered the filmography of Walter Hill, who at the best of his times, hes easily one of my favorite filmmakers.

The Rules of the Game
1939/Renoir

An assorted cast of characters - the rich and their poor servants - meet up at a French chateau for various reasons and the result is murder.
Starring Nora Gregor, Marcel Dalio, Roland Toutain, and Jean Renoir
-- 1st Renoir film --

This film provided an interesting if not confusing viewing expierience because at times the comedic and dramatic aspects of the story seemed indistinguishable from one another. Certain scenes and situations seemed to either be badly misconstrued comedic scenes or ineffective dramatic ones. While the premise of the film is also somewhat indecipherable, the cast of characters provides for an interesting backdrop, and their various antics and interactions do create a somewhat interesting atmosphere.

While some of the acting seemed a bit stiff and out-dated, the character of Octave was clearly the most interesting and well-acted role among the bunch. Only after the film was completed did I discover Octave was played by none other than Renoir himself. As far as Renoir's direction, there seemed to be no glaring flaws in his shot framing and lighting, but the film was severly hampered by the lack of music.

Ultimately, the film wasn't very interesting or exciting, but also not deep enough to posses true dramatic effect. Whether it was seeking to be a nice little French romantic comedy or a sophisticated satire on aristocratic culture, I felt as though it failed.

3.5/5

A Clockwork Orange
1971/Kubrick

A very fantastic film. This was the first complete viewing for me. I enjoyed this the most of the Kubricks I've seen, but I'm rewatching 2001 soon, and hoping to get to Barry Lyndon in a couple weeks time.

5/5 Stars

Glad you liked it Mista. As I said before, it's my favorite Kubrick flick

The Aristocrats * 1/2

One joke told 100 ways for 90 minutes. It CAN get little tedious

I finally managed to watch Closer (2004) over the weekend and totally enjoyed it. What an amazing unconventional movie about love and abandonment, guys. Intriguing plot, wonderful script, outstanding acting performances! I suggest everybody to watch this movie, especially the not-so-young-anymore ones. Definitely my kind of movie, all dialogue and no special effects.

On the other hand, I unfortunately watched Kingdom of Heaven (2005) as well. Gee, what a totally boring, unbearably long and sadly disappointing movie. Coming from sir Ridley Scott, Gladiator's director, one could well expect something worth but it's not the case. Orlando Bloom is a cutie. That's all I was thrilled about, in between yawns. Nonetheless, I'm going to watch Alexander soon. I bet Colin Farrell will keep me awake.

Kingdom of Heaven would've been much better without Orlando Bloom.

In that case I'd have remorselessly surrendered to sleep.