Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Two Moon Junction (1988)
A young Southern débutante temporarily abandons her posh lifestyle and upcoming, semi-arranged marriage to have a lustful and erotic fling with a rugged drifter who works at a local carnival.
The Notorious Bettie Page (2005)
The Notorious Bettie Page (2005)
The story of Bettie Page, one of the first sex icons in America.
Review
If this film strikes you (as it did us and, apparently, others departing the theater) as disappointingly thin, it may be because the subject herself is mildly disappointing. The film faithfully presents us Bettie Page as she probably was: a playful almost-innocent from the rural South whose career as "the pinup queen of the universe" was for her just goofy, natural fun. Her eventual moral qualms, religious conversion and sudden departure from nude and bondage modeling are biographically accurate, yet hard to understand given how untroubled she seemed by her livelihood.
There are many reasons to see this film even so, not least of which are the amazing b&w noir cinematography of W. Mott Hopfel III (complete with old fashioned wipes and dissolves), the 1950's-faithful acting of the cast under the direction of Mary Harron, pitch-perfect performances by some of our most underrated supporting actors (including Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, Austin Pendleton, Dallas Roberts and Victor Slezak), not to mention the Oscar-worthy and technically difficult lead performance of Gretchen Mol.
Ms. Mol does several scenes fully naked and most others in amazing period lingerie and "specialty" costumes (gloriously assembled by costume designer John A. Dunn), yet she astonishingly maintains Bettie Page's unstudied pleasure in her lush body. To watch Ms. Mol as Ms. Page, an aspiring actress, progressing through degrees of progressively less "bad" auditions and student acting scenes is to see a truly fine actress in complete control of her craft.
The script does effectively bring us into 1950's America, where childhood sexual abuse, lawless abduction and rape, and the legal suppression of brands of pornography which today seem laughably tame, is a reality. 50's New York is evoked with seamlessly-inter cut news reel footage. 50's Miami comes alive in super-saturated, 16mm-style color. The real Bettie Page seems to scamper, smile and pose before us, and yet the effect is curiously lightweight, barely lewd and not at all dangerous.
How odd that bondage's greatest icon should be so lacking in venom, and that this technically excellent biopic should have so little sting/imdb
If this film strikes you (as it did us and, apparently, others departing the theater) as disappointingly thin, it may be because the subject herself is mildly disappointing. The film faithfully presents us Bettie Page as she probably was: a playful almost-innocent from the rural South whose career as "the pinup queen of the universe" was for her just goofy, natural fun. Her eventual moral qualms, religious conversion and sudden departure from nude and bondage modeling are biographically accurate, yet hard to understand given how untroubled she seemed by her livelihood.
There are many reasons to see this film even so, not least of which are the amazing b&w noir cinematography of W. Mott Hopfel III (complete with old fashioned wipes and dissolves), the 1950's-faithful acting of the cast under the direction of Mary Harron, pitch-perfect performances by some of our most underrated supporting actors (including Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, Austin Pendleton, Dallas Roberts and Victor Slezak), not to mention the Oscar-worthy and technically difficult lead performance of Gretchen Mol.
Ms. Mol does several scenes fully naked and most others in amazing period lingerie and "specialty" costumes (gloriously assembled by costume designer John A. Dunn), yet she astonishingly maintains Bettie Page's unstudied pleasure in her lush body. To watch Ms. Mol as Ms. Page, an aspiring actress, progressing through degrees of progressively less "bad" auditions and student acting scenes is to see a truly fine actress in complete control of her craft.
The script does effectively bring us into 1950's America, where childhood sexual abuse, lawless abduction and rape, and the legal suppression of brands of pornography which today seem laughably tame, is a reality. 50's New York is evoked with seamlessly-inter cut news reel footage. 50's Miami comes alive in super-saturated, 16mm-style color. The real Bettie Page seems to scamper, smile and pose before us, and yet the effect is curiously lightweight, barely lewd and not at all dangerous.
How odd that bondage's greatest icon should be so lacking in venom, and that this technically excellent biopic should have so little sting/imdb
Friday, April 23, 2010
Sirens (1993)
Sirens (1993)
Review
I had never heard of this film before I saw it on television one night. Luckily I saw it in Australia and it wasn't edited for content. I found it refreshing and intelligent. Set in the 1920's, it's about a reverend and his wife who travel to the Outback of Australia to "tame down" an artist (played well by Sam Neil) who has been creating "lewd" paintings. In the end, the film successfully criticizes religion's hang ups about sex. The reverend, of course, plays the part of conservative who is against these paintings that he deems are pornographic. During the course of the film he has several opportunities to explain his objections. While the film ultimately suggests that he is wrong, it still allows us to understand the reverend's point-of-view and perhaps even sympathize with it. The most remarkable thing about this character was his "some things are best left untold" stance concerning his wife's misbehaviors. This was a brilliant unexpected twist for me. At no point in the movie is the reverend made out to be a villain. Rather, he is presented as an intelligent and forgiving man, who just happens to be conservative about sex. With that said, I do not believe criticizing religion's view of sex was the main purpose of this film. The true story -- related but not the same -- was about the reverend's wife finding her own repressed sexuality while also well-aware of her husband's views which she initially shared. She is the heroine of the film. She makes a journey, encounters inner conflict, and returns changed by her experiences for the better (or we are led to believe). Any review of Sirens would be incomplete if it failed to comment on the sex scenes. They are explicit but nothing to be alarmed about especially considering this film targets a purely adult audience. The sex scenes are tastefully done even if they are built on lust instead of love. If I may venture an opinion, I think most women will find this movie very erotic. Take for instance, the perpetually bare-chested muscular blind guy. This character fulfills no other purpose than to incarnate female sexual desires. Men however will not find this film very arousing. It explores the sexual desires of women not men. But there are plenty of beautiful naked women to kept them interested even if the story doesn't. But as a man, I enjoyed the movie too. (I can't even recall any film attempting to explore men's sexual desires artfully at this moment...) In summery, a very good film that is thought-provoking and well-done. 7/10- imdb
Review
I had never heard of this film before I saw it on television one night. Luckily I saw it in Australia and it wasn't edited for content. I found it refreshing and intelligent. Set in the 1920's, it's about a reverend and his wife who travel to the Outback of Australia to "tame down" an artist (played well by Sam Neil) who has been creating "lewd" paintings. In the end, the film successfully criticizes religion's hang ups about sex. The reverend, of course, plays the part of conservative who is against these paintings that he deems are pornographic. During the course of the film he has several opportunities to explain his objections. While the film ultimately suggests that he is wrong, it still allows us to understand the reverend's point-of-view and perhaps even sympathize with it. The most remarkable thing about this character was his "some things are best left untold" stance concerning his wife's misbehaviors. This was a brilliant unexpected twist for me. At no point in the movie is the reverend made out to be a villain. Rather, he is presented as an intelligent and forgiving man, who just happens to be conservative about sex. With that said, I do not believe criticizing religion's view of sex was the main purpose of this film. The true story -- related but not the same -- was about the reverend's wife finding her own repressed sexuality while also well-aware of her husband's views which she initially shared. She is the heroine of the film. She makes a journey, encounters inner conflict, and returns changed by her experiences for the better (or we are led to believe). Any review of Sirens would be incomplete if it failed to comment on the sex scenes. They are explicit but nothing to be alarmed about especially considering this film targets a purely adult audience. The sex scenes are tastefully done even if they are built on lust instead of love. If I may venture an opinion, I think most women will find this movie very erotic. Take for instance, the perpetually bare-chested muscular blind guy. This character fulfills no other purpose than to incarnate female sexual desires. Men however will not find this film very arousing. It explores the sexual desires of women not men. But there are plenty of beautiful naked women to kept them interested even if the story doesn't. But as a man, I enjoyed the movie too. (I can't even recall any film attempting to explore men's sexual desires artfully at this moment...) In summery, a very good film that is thought-provoking and well-done. 7/10- imdb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


