In Which Your Faithful Narrator Discusses Pulp Fiction

I just finished watching Pulp Fiction. It has probably been three or four years since I actually sat down and watched the whole thing through. When I saw it in the movie theatres it totally turned my head around. I was amazed and awed by the film. I remember going back to the theatre to see it again, this time with a notebook so I could scrall notes to myself. I don't think I took any notes, but it was the thought that counted. Pulp Fiction really did affect me in many ways, for one, I discovered film. I discovered that movies can more than entertainment, they can make one think.

I have always been intriqued by the debate surrounding various aspects of the film. Particularly, in relation to the briefcase. What is in the briefcase? Some postulate that it is nothing more than gold, others say that it is the diamonds that were stolen from the jewlery store in Reservoir Dogs (the character name Marsallis does appear in that movie, so one can give that theory a little credence). Then there is the spiritual thoughts of the film. The briefcase contains Marsallis' soul. That is an interesting thought because I have heard that there are faiths that think the sould is taken through the back of the neck, Marsallis has a large bandaid on the back of his neck throughout the movie. There is no explaination for that, it just is. So, if you wanted to you could postulate that yes, that glowing briefcase does in fact contain Marsallis' soul. I kind of like that idea. Another "clue," if you will, that the briefcase holds a soul is when Jules and Vincent shoot the guys in the apartment there is a yellow glow that fills in the screen. Okay, I'm thinking too hard on this, I'm sure.

As I said, its been awhile since I've seen the film and I am happy to report that I am able to quote whole portions of it as I watch it. Matter of fact, sections of dialogue have found their way into my everyday speech (some of the pithy phrases, not the curse words so much).

What did I think of the film as I watched it again? First of all, topping off at over two and half hours it is a long movie. I never realized how long Pulp Fiction really is; it seems to go on and on at times. Tarantino has a tendency to use too much dialogue. He doesn't let the action help the movie, he often over powers the view with his dialogue. At times, it works, at others, it doesn't (he is particularly guilty of that in Reservoir Dogs). I think Tarantino's scenes are too long and his camera work, thought good, is a bit too static some times, though the scene outside the apartment as Jules and Verne discuss the pros and cons of foot massage is still one of my favorite scenes in any movie because the camera work and the dialogue really do work together. The Jack Rabbit Slim section of the film really doesn't seem to do too much for film. I found myself wishing it had been shortened and edited a bit tighter.

This is an important film. It certainly did move modern cinema into new directions. Looking at the film again for the first time in a long time I am able to say that it is a good film (though, I'll admit calling it a film and not a movie is actually kind of difficult), it doesn't spin my head like it did the first time, but that's probably because I watched once a week when I was in college so its like wearing a well worn pair of jeans, there is a certain amount of familiarity that I brought to the viewing. Pulp Fiction certainly is a film worth studying.

If I had to grade it, I'd give it a good solid B+

In Which Your Faithful Narrator Discusses Battle for Algiers

I watched the movie Battle for Algiers last night. It is a French film, so I had to read it, but that's actually alright. Sometimes reading a film makes me pay attention to it even closer, because I don't understand French (aside from the occasional "oui," "messeur") I am forced to really watch the images on the screen, I can't flip through a magazine or close my eyes and get the movie through my ears.

The Battle for Algiers is about the Algerian revolution in the late 50's against French colonial rule. It is actually a brutal movie. The situation quickly degenerates into guerrilla warfare on both sides. The French blow up an apartment building, the Algerian fighters blow up two cafes and a discotheque. The French torture captives for information, the Algerians shoot the French policemen patrolling the streets. It becomes a tit-for-tat kind of movie very quickly.

One cannot help but link our present situation in Iraq to the past situation in Algeria. I found myself asking the question "why" a lot. And I wasn't able to get any good answers from the film.

It is a dark film. It has to be, there is very little to celebrate in the film. Music is very important and certainly helps to move the story, but also set the tone. To the film. This is a film that requires more than one viewing in order to detach from the film, but on the other hand, it is important to work with the film.

I'm glad I bought the movie. It is an important addition to my collection.

Grindhouse

I went to the movies this evening. I saw Grindhouse the newest Robert Rodriquez/Quentin Tarantino vehicle. Grindhouse is a movie that is over the top, which seems to be what Grindhouse Cinema was all about. Grindhouse was a form of cinema that was popular in during the 60' and 70's. I'd seen it and I didn't even know it. I used to enjoy watching those bad kung fu movies that used to be shown on Sunday afternoons when I was a kid, but Grindhouse was also bad horror (slasher films) and the like. It also falls under "exploitation" genre of film, i.e. blaxpoitation films (i.e. Shaft and Super Fly). For some better examples you can check this out. I have a friend who just loves these kinds of films. I mean he loves 'em. Its his fault that I'm kind of into the whole genre to begin with.

Grindhouse is a hell of a good ride. Its kitsch-ie, raw, silly, strange, over-the-top, funny, sexy and bloody. I could go on with the adjectives, but you I think you get my meaning. Grindhouse is a "double feature." That is there are two full length films as well as fake movie trailers.

The first movie is Planet Terror. It is a blood spattered good time. The basics are this: a biological weapon is released by accident that causes humans to turn into these strange zombie like creatures. This has all kinds of great horror and bad sci-fi elements as well as just strange stuff. I was particularly intriqued by the go-go dancer with a machine gun for a leg. Weirdly, it works. The movie is just so far-fetched and my disbelief was suspended to such a degree that I just went with it.

The second movie, Tarantino's offering, is called Death Proof. I really liked that one. It has one of the best car chase scenes I think I've seen in a long time. Kurt Russell stars as Stunt Man Mike a somewhat disgruntled and disturbed stunt man who has done stunts in movie no one has ever heard of, but the time he gets done with people he comes in contact with, though, they know very well who Stunt Man Mike is. Death Proof felt a lot like Reservoir Dogs, at least at the beginning, particularly with the dialogue heavy scenes and the camera work, but the second half is well worth the build up.

In between the movies there are fake movie trailers that are actually quite fun. One of these trailers was directed by Rob Zombie of White Zombie and House of 1,000 Corpses fame. Another of the trailers was for a "movie" called Machete. It "starred" Danny Trejo. You probably don't know the name, but you've seen the actor. He is the Latino actor with the bandito tattooed on his chest. He usually plays a bad guy.

The whole experience was a good time. This movie is certainly not one to take the kids to, but if you're looking for a hell of a good time and want to be thoroughly entertained by all means go check this film out. From what I understand the movies will be released seperately on DVD so you won't be able to get the "Grindhouse experience" unless you go to the movies and see it. I may have to go see it again.

Shooter and Where it Leads

I went to the movies today. That's something I don't do very often... go to the movie. I was hoping to see Grindhousethe newest Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodeiquez "double feature." I have a thing for movies of this nature. Strange and off beat. I also like "exploitation" films, too and this kind of fits in that category, I think, but, darn the luck-- Grindhouse wasn't shown until four o'clock and I didn't feel like waiting around. So, I decided to give The Shooter a try. I didn't know much about it, but I'd seen the previews and it looked like a movie I might like, you know one of those movies that is geared towards the 18-35 year old male (I fall into that category). It looked like a good a balls out kind of movie. It didn't have quite the fun quotient of say The Rock but it had its moments.

I must say this off the bat: it is a bit over the top in its violence. I, personally, don't need to see heads explode as bullets pass through them, but realism is a must now adays so there you are. On the whole, I liked the movie. It was paced well and had just enough twists and turns to keep me guessing. Though, I found myself getting lost once or twice, I was able to catch up. In movies like this one must be able to turn off their powers of disbelief. If you don't, can't or won't you just won't enjoy the movie. There are some far-fetched scenes.

The Shooter is about a former Marine sniper, Bob Lee Swagger, who is a bit disenfranched about his government (cliche, I know) because of something that happened in the past (Rambo type start to the film). He is recruited by the CIA, or the FBI, or one of those alphabet soup agencies to help them catch an assassin who is planning to kill the president, but in actuality they are setting him up to take the fall. Let's just say that that is the start of a lot of bad things that happen. I'd go into it further, but then I'd have to ruin the surprise.

I must say that Mark Wahlberg (aka Marky Mark) continues to impress me as an actor. He really is very good. He "holds his own" as they say. Also, Michael Pena does a great job as a rookie FBI agent, but I got him confused with Michael Beach, who stared as Ira Hayes in Flags of Our Fathers. They look an awful lot alike.

Here's what drives me nuts about going to the movies: the cost and the 15 minutes of advertisements/trailers. The trailers don't bother me too much, but its the ads the drive me bonkers. I really shouldn't bug out too much about the cost, though, because after I dropped my seven bucks to get into the movie I spent another 10.50 to get myself a Coke and think of nachoes, I was hungry. I feel like I'm a captive. At least I wasn't subjected to the anti-pirating PSA's they had a few years back. I'm also kicking myself because I forgot my MovieWatchers card.

I'll try and see Grindhouse soon, but I also want to see The Hoax mainly because Clifford Irving appears in an amazing film called F for Fake, by Orsen Welles. And the movie The Hoax is about Clifford Irving's world renown con: an authorized bio about the excentric billionare Howard Hughes.

So, to bring this back to its original thesis: The Shooter is a pretty good flick. You don't have to think too hard, it has some good one liners and some great shootouts. Its violent, but I don't remember much vulgar language. Oh, and it was good to see Danny Glover back in the movies. I hadn't seen him in a while. So, if you have a few extra bucks in your pocket go check out The Shooter.