There's just too much afoot at present, so I'm back to doing a multiple entry (sounds painful):
The Big Kahuna (2000): Another film that didn't get much exposure here, probably because it's really a filmed play, despite the attempt to open things out. Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito play two old hands trying to flog their wares at a convention and teach a youngster (Peter Facinelli) the tricks of the trade as they man their hospitality suite. They were hoping to entice a Mr. Big, but after deciding that he was a no-show, they discover that the kid had spent most of the evening talking religion with him -- a complete no-no from their point of view, but more important than business to the young one. It was a talkathon -- well enough acted, but hardly a movie.
From Beyond (1986): No horror director has a better grasp of H. P. Lovecraft than Brian Yuzna who has made some of the gooiest, goriest pictures ever and really gets into Lovecraft's twisted imagination. This is another tale of experimenting in areas that are better left alone with most of the cast ending up as mutated meat. Unfortunately I do have the taste for this kind of madness.
Spartan (2004): Another picture starring Val Kilmer who does not rank among my favourites. However since the movie was written and directed by David Mamet, I thought it might be pretty good. Unfortunately I was disappointed as it could just about have been written and directed by anyone with an extremely convoluted plot, a not overly likeable hero, and none of the sharp dialogue that usually is found in a Mamet film. This one concerned the abduction of the President's daughter, not as a hostage, but into the white slave trade since her abductors did not know who she was. The powers-that-be did not want the truth to be known, but of course Kilmer acting on his own -- like a Spartan warrior of old -- threw a spanner into their cover-up lies. Yeah, and pigs will fly!
2 comments:
Just finished 'The Big Kahuna'. Your words "Didn't get much exposure" kind of enticed me. Anything that doesn't is either because a, it's c*** or b, it requires a little thought and people don't get it.
I agree though it was hardly a film. It wasn't. It was a play. On film. A bit like 'Tape'. All set pretty much in the one room with 3 characters (apart from the party scenes, but they're just background). And the big speeches too - Devito gets the best one at the end (it's his film really). Some memorable quotes.
There's a great contrast of actors here between the two leads. Devito. Always gets the character roles, his playful attitude comes over in the many colours of his voice. Kevin Spacey? Never quite got him. There's no personality behind him, in everything I've seen him in. Even on stage at the Old Vic where he's artisic director for a couple of years. He had no presence really as Richard II. But I digress.
What is a story? They say that by the end of a story the characters must have changed due to what they've learned over the time you've been with them. And that's exactly what happens. A nice look at the depths of friendship and the way we make things happen by the words we choose.
:-)
So is this the difference between a movie and a film?
Post a Comment