shrugfestival Reviews

Coupling (2000–2004)

The UK trumps the Yanks in the sitcom dept.

[24 February 2004]

I'm an American who just saw Season 1 of "Coupling" on DVD for the first time. Based on those first six episodes, I think the BBC's "Coupling" -- along with a new US series over here called "Arrested Development" -- is possibly the sharpest, funniest, and best-written situation comedy since the golden days of Norman Lear and MJM Productions.

The cast chemistry is amazing. The archetypes are extremely identifiable, even over here, which is why the series translates so well. In comedies the subject of sex is often treated adolescently, and it's true that the characters in "Coupling" have some childish, "American Pie" reactions to sexual politics, but they're still, clearly, adults. As with "American Pie," there's a big heart behind the hormones and phermones. But the gags in "Coupling" are brilliantly written and executed. The writers don't take the easy way out; the bawdiness of their humor is cut with intelligence and a really, REALLY great sense of left-field punch lines. Maybe naysayers have to wander through the bereft nature of many American sitcoms to understand why "Coupling" is so appreciated by a cult American audience, but it's the real deal.

Episode 4 of Season 1, called "Inferno," contains an extended monologue in which an embarrassed male character attempts to outline the plot of a lesbian porn film. He is forced to defend his affection for the stuff by being asked to give a cogent plot summary. He's squirming under this challenge -- he's got to defend his proclivities, maintain a balance between self-defense and self-effacement, and STILL intellectualize the plot of the film enough to prove he's smart enough to rise above it. This whole sequence is, possibly, the best-written and funniest 5-minute quasi-monologue ever to be televised.

"Coupling" takes a traditionally pubescent subject matter, the puerile male fascination with sex, opposes it with the progress of rational thought, and is extremely funny in the process. Lots of US sitcoms (and some UK ones) are lucky if they get one horse laugh from the viewer every three minutes. "Coupling's" ratio is more like one horselaugh every thirty seconds. It's that good.

(I never saw the NBC version of this show, incidentally, and have no interest -- apparently it sucked. I can understand why someone would want to use the BBC version as source material, though.)

Feardotcom (2002)

3/10

[3/10 · 21 January 2003]

And the "3" is all production value.

Better films have been made from more preposterous premises. The reason those films are better than "Feardotcom" is because they attempt a rational explanation -- or at least extrapolation -- as to how those premises could, logically, proceed. "Blade" and "The Matrix" come to mind. The idea of the internet as a living and malevolent vessel isn't necessarily one they shouldn't make a film from; they just shouldn't have made "Feardotcom."

As such it's a series of somewhat interesting and well-produced shots, which are so good I suppose the director thought they would be enough. They aren't. You also need good dialogue, good acting (Stephen Rea wishes he was Hannibal Lecter here, but he's just a garden-variety psycho), more narrative effort and quicker, more effective comebacks. A blown chance at a reasonably gripping and provocative horror fantasy.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

? out of 10

[27 October 2002]

I've watched Paul Thomas Anderson's last two movies, "Magnolia" and "Boogie Nights," a grand total of 10 times. I saw "Boogie Nights" six times because I loved it. I saw "Magnolia" four times because it fascinated me, but I didn't know I loved it until the last screening, this summer. I expect that's at least part of what Anderson hopes to accomplish, and all his films are worth at least a couple screenings just to get to the bottom of them.

"Punch-Drunk Love" is no exception, but for the film director that's fascinated me more than any other since the 90's, I walked out of the theater without a strong inclination to forgive its weaknesses. That's not saying there aren't good points about this film -- in fact, there are many wonderful points. But I'm not certain where the center of the film was, and although I recommend it, I can't explain it.

I DON'T think films like this are complete rubbish, because there's obvious skill behind them. But where "Boogie Nights" had an immediacy and a beautiful, flawed innocence, and where "Magnolia" had unrelenting emotional power, "Punch-Drunk Love" just puts weirdness upon weirdness. And while it's certain all these weirdnesses mean something, it's gonna take awhile to figure out what that is.

I don't like most of Adam Sandler's other movies, or other performances. I think he's had potential to break through to something more substantial, but has never decided to do it. Sandler's performance here is, by far, the best performance I've seen from a comedian-turned-actor. This includes Steve Martin and Robin Williams. I never expected to say this about Adam Sandler. But he nails every subtlety in Barry Egan and completely understands what his character's flaws, weaknesses, aggressions, vulnerabilities and beauties are. He doesn't act that much differently from his low comedies, but he refines the edginess so neatly that it feels he's never done it before. I was really quite taken aback by it. There are so many quick, almost Freudian-slip like moments he's required to perform here, and he catches them all really, really well. Nobody should overlook what Adam Sandler accomplishes here.

It's what he has to work with that I have to plunder a little bit more. Obviously this film is intended more as an emotional tone poem than anything that makes narrative sense. There's a subplot involving a phone sex scam that is absolutely unbelievable from start to finish -- kind of like my main problem with "Magnolia," which featured a scene where a pharmacist gives a customer feedback about all the prescriptions she's taking out. It just would never, ever happen in the real world, and the phone sex scam here seems just as forced a plot development as that.

But I have to say, the jury is going to be out on "Punch-Drunk Love" for me for awhile, because as unbelievable and bizarre much of it actually was, there was a lot of very emotional, moving stuff as well. I'm probably gonna have to rent it quite a few times when it comes out on DVD. I don't necessarily think that's a waste of time, because with other Anderson films, that strategy's paid off well.

Head (1968)

7/10

[7/10 · 17 October 2002]

I've seen "Head" 3 times: twice on video, and just recently on the big screen. I've decided I like it.

"Head" came at a time when the Monkees' popularity had waned, their TV show had been cancelled, and their breakup inevitable. They were the first band ever to be a pure creation of the media -- and took the heat for it. The Monkees were, to the showbiz world at large, the first band to be assembled via auditions and head shots, right when color TV was hitting its first stride. Only Mike Nesmith had any real musical ambitions as a songwriter and performer.

Their records in fact were not terrible, by any means, but the "manufactured" attacks kept coming. And when their short-lived media success was over, and they were staring down their own archaic nature right in the face, they did something you'd expect from an Andy Warhol creation: They willfully committed career suicide with "Head."

It helps to look at "Head" right now, when the music industry's boy bands and teen queens -- many of them manufactured exactly the same way as the Monkees were -- are starting to see the mortality of their OWN careers. The Monkees were scrubbed, goofy, shriek-inducing teen stars, and for their last act they just said "The hell with it," and deconstructed themselves in a way people have not yet gotten used to.

I've spent 20 years seeing "Head" and not really developing an opinion on it. In my last screening I was surprised at how well-shot and interesting most of the scenes were. The film LOOKS quite good. And while you can't accuse the film of having any kind of plot, knowing the background of the Monkees' story, maybe juxtaposing it with how, say, the Bay City Rollers quietly faded out, you definitely get a sense of "story" if you pay close attention.

"Head" satirizes EVERYTHING of its time -- drug culture (the Monkees never look stoned in this movie, I noticed), the star-making studio system, the iconoclasm of Hollywood, and especially hippie culture. Frank Zappa's appearance alone -- he despised hippies -- proves that point. In their own way the Monkees even playfully deflated the spiritual and philosophical pretensions of -- egad -- the Beatles. In a scene where Peter Tork, sick of being "the dumb one," relates to the band, word-for-word, what he learned from a mystic guru in a sauna, he completes by saying, "Why listen to me -- I know nothing." Davy Jones indignantly stands up and says, "What are you talking about? You made us listen to you all this time and you know NOTHING?" It's that kind of annoying neutrality that bugged the Monkees, even if they were products of a TV executive's imagination.

Jack Nicholson and Bob Rafelson "wrote" the script, but it was obviously just a set piece with contained social commentaries, linked together by thin transitions, kinda like an acid trip. In fact I'm pretty sure "Head" is making fun of LSD too, even as it gets a pretty good grasp of its narrative qualities. As ramshackle and anarchic as the images in "Head" are, they're really not pointless at all. These are not random flashes from a freakout; most of them are very clever bits of symbology.

It drags a little bit, but the constructs are quite interesting most of the time, and there were a lot of laugh-out-loud moments in the theater where I saw it. The loudest laughs came at the end of the movie, where the placard informs us that "Head" was rated "G". It's the most subversive G-rated movie in cinema history.

Not the greatest rock and roll movie ever -- nowhere close -- "Head" is nonetheless one of the bravest, up with "Gimme Shelter." Every boy band should be required to watch it. And it's a hell of a lot more fun than "Woodstock."

Heaven's Gate (1980)

7/10

[7/10 · 2 July 2002]

This is NOT a bad movie.

I remember "Heaven's Gate" being slaughtered when it first came out -- its notoriety was such that even I as a 13-year-old caught wind of its nasty reputation.

It's certainly not without its flaws. Yes, it's too long, and its pace is very slow. A lot of superfluous scenes could have been cut out, and it's the definition of elliptical filmmaking.

"Heaven's Gate" has been called a huge self-indulgence on the part of Cimino, but for me that didn't come across at all. There is not a single shot in this movie that doesn't have a valid point -- it's just that Cimino didn't have to include all the points that he did. For a movie to be self-indulgent on the part of the director, it usually has to be without complete merit in certain key areas. There's a lot of hanging silence in the movie, a lot of very long shots, and very long scenes. In my opinion, though, all of the long scenes served to convey something that's at least helpful to the understanding of the movie -- usually in terms of characterization.

Is that really Cimino's self-indulgence, or is he just trying too hard? It might have been interminable to sit through all 3 hours and 39 minutes to the movie back in 1980, but when I saw it on DVD I felt enough of a pulse to the characters and the plot to keep me interested.

It's awash in atmosphere. The dialogue isn't exactly snappy, but it's certainly smartly written. Cimino evokes sympathy through the use of quiet tones between the speakers, and that's not easy to do. The Christopher Walken character goes through a profound and complete change over the course of this movie -- it's a fully developed part.

To classify "Heaven's Gate" as the biggest financial bomb in history is probably accurate; but by no means was this an artistic failure, not by any stretch of the imagination. It's an intelligently made, very deliberate Western. It's not what I'd call a great movie, but it's certainly good, and in many stretches very good.

I do wonder how people can blast "Heaven's Gate" as one of the worst films of all time, yet could give Oscar nominations to "The Thin Red Line." Both films use exactly the same template, scope, deliberation and moral imperative. "Heaven's Gate" just suffered from terrible publicity -- possibly the fault of Cimino's arrogance, or the fault of others who grew impatient with the process. But maybe what Cimino was fighting for wasn't just sprung out of his own ego. 'Cause from the looks of it, he knew the inside and outside of his story, and knew how he had to tell it.

"Heaven's Gate" is a GOOD movie. It's not a classic, but it's certainly nowhere close to an embarrassment. It might be the biggest bomb of all time if you're talking the ledger balance. But its horrible legend and near-unanimous bashing at the time of its release also gives it one more superlative: It's one of the most underrated films of all time.

And Justice for All (1979)

4/10

[4/10 · 28 June 2002]

A very sloppy movie, very much a product of the late 70's. The redeeming point is Pacino's performance, which is awfully good, but the movie tries to do too much. Satire is easy to screw up, and Jewison often perpetrates very heavy-handed, pedantic films with overstated messages. The two don't mix. Too many scenes and lines of dialogue were just too hackneyed to be believed. A couple of less simmering subplots and this could have been effective. Pacino is great to watch, but a bit more subtlety is really necessary to pull this stuff off.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Revels in its ridiculousness, and that's not a bad thing

[7/10 · 2 June 2001]

Baz Luhrmann knows he's going to look foolish. So does Nicole Kidman. So does Ewan MacGregor. By the end of the first half hour of this film the entire cast and crew has tried very hard to bring themselves to meet your very definition of the most utter foolishness you can imagine. Then they go past it. So, the question is, are you going to take this film for what it is -- an absurdist satire on cynicism, if you can believe that -- or just think it nothing more than ridiculous? I decided to go with it and had two-thirds of a great time. You know exactly where the plot's going, you know how it's going to end, you know with all the silly archetypes you've been introduced to that it's going to have nothing but either flamboyant or sincere melodrama at the outcast. I laughed hysterically at this film, but I think it knew I was laughing at it. In fact the movie almost dares you to ridicule it, then tops your ridicule with a cherry and does the next most ridiculous thing you can imagine. I admire its audacity. It was laughing back at me. I can handle that. Really the only big drag about the film was the length of the ending and how it probably took itself a little more seriously than it had to at that part, but hell, you knew going in that it was melodramatic, didn't you? Frankly, I admire its nerve. That counts a lot for me. 7/10

The Contender (2000)

A beautiful failure

[5/10 · 14 October 2000]

This is perhaps the most beautifully acted, wonderfully directed and handsomely made film I've ever been completely let down by. It's not a matter of my disagreeing with the film's politics, but the didactic nature of the script and the fatal unbelievability of the characters.

Case in point: the judicial confirmation sequence, which features Shelly Runyon (Gary Oldman) criticizing Laine Hansen (Joan Allen) over her pro-choice stance, with invective, emotionalism and, strangely, cliches that would barely find their place on a pro-life pamphlet. I can't see a Senate confirmation hearing devolving into that kind of sensationalism -- forgive me if I'm wrong, but I can't believe that would ring true.

I also found Jeff Bridges' Presidential character cynically portrayed to the point of annoyance. Maybe it would be wonderful to have a President so jaded about the sanctity of his position that he frankly considers the benefits of free food and catered whims the best part of the job. He's a buffoon who eventually attains a profile of dignity, but I don't believe the ascension is real. It all feels done for show. Other elements of the writing and characterization are broad as the Beltway; it's a careening script that reflects literary intelligence and fanciful characters at the same time that it betrays a political naivete.

It's compellingly frustrating, because this is the best ensemble acting I've seen since Pulp Fiction. Despite the massive reservations I had with his character, Bridges is extremely fun to watch, as is Oldman. I loved Joan Allen's restraint and dignity.

Lurie made an interesting film, Deterrence, which took an unbelievable premise and slowly infused it with an authenticity. Here he achieves the opposite, simply because he was too unwilling to risk his message being lost. If there were more subtlety in the film, if the sinister ambitions of the characters were more implied, it might have worked better. If the audience weren't blunted over the head with The Author's Message, that message might have been more powerful. This was the exact same problem with Philadelphia -- overwriting. Any film that comes right out and says its message directly, didactically, turns me off, whether or not I agree with the sentiment being expressed. The audience should be led to the trough, but not doused with the water.

A big, though by no means bereft, disappointment.