450. Sedmikrasky/Daisies (1966)

Running Time: 74 minutes
Directed By: Vera Chytilova
Written By: Vera Chytilova, Ester Krumbachova
Main Cast: Ivana Karbanova, Jitka Cerhova, Marie Ceskova, Jinna Myskova, Marcela Brezinova
Click here to view the trailer

COUNTERCULTURE

Well last night was SUPPOSED to be the start of my three film tribute to Sergio Leone, but the old VHS copy that I had, didn't have any sound and thus, I went to a backup movie - "Daisies", in a continued effort to expand my knowledge of 60s cinema.

It's going to be quite difficult for me to write a plot summary for "Daisies", but, as always, I'll give it the old college try. There really isn't any clear plot, but rather the film uses symbolism, vibrant colors and even experiments with sound effects, to tell it's story. The film centers around two young girls, both named Marie, who decide that since the world has "gone bad", then they will also go bad. Their exploits include frolicking in a meadow and picking fruit from a tree, probably symbolizing the forbidden fruit from the Garden of Eden, scamming old men out of free meals, dancing at a nightclub and using scissors to cut up many different objects, mostly phallic symbols. I'm just going to stop there, because any further attempt to describe the happenings of the film, will simply turn into boring blathering.

As far as my personal thoughts go, that's kind of a hard one too. I will say that from the opening scene, I was really dreading the next seventy-four minutes. However, as the film progressed, it actually had kind of a hypnotic effect on me. The mixing of colors, alternating between many different tones and using black and white for certain scenes, really seemed to lull me into this movies' submission. There are MANY absolutely gorgeous scenes and the way that they're cut together and put on display, is sometimes quite magical. There's a certain sexual arousal that comes along with the film too, as we're forced to watch two young ladies frolic around in next to nothing, barefoot and fancy free. In fact, while we're on the subject of sex, I often wondered throughout the film if these two young women were meant to be portrayed as lesbians, or simply two foot soldiers for the cause of feminism, getting across the point that men are the Devil.

On the other hand, the film, at times, seemed very pointless and nonsensical. There wasn't a plot and if you take a look on the special features of the DVD, you'll see that the Czech authorities actually used this film as an example, when citing that many of the Czech films being produced around this time were too confusing and made no sense. It's hard to disagree with them, as there really isn't a whole lot of sense to be made here...or is there? If I were able to watch "Daisies" another time or two and really get a grasp on what the message was and what Chytilova was trying to say, I think it would help me to really appreciate it a lot more and maybe....maybe even consider it a favorite. It certainly appealed to me, in some ways. It interested, engaged, hypnotized and aroused me also and that's certainly nothing to sneeze at. However, it also bored me, at times, and usually made no sense. This is a prime candidate for a film that I would have really loved to watch a second time, but I have an unwritten rule: Films that I watch for the book only get one chance to impress.

RATING: 5/10 We'll call that a review. I know it's short, but the last one was really long, so it evens out, right? I'm going to watch this again someday and I'm certainly going to keep it at the forefront of my mind. Don't be surprised if you see that rating jump two or three notches come recap time. As for now, since I can't decide, we'll slice it down the middle.

MOVIES WATCHED: 343
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 658

November 2, 2011 1:20pm

Read More

October 2011 Recap

You know the drill. Let's get crack-a-lackin...

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in October 2011
1) The Breakfast Club (1985 - John Hughes) 8/10 - A previous, personal favorite that held up when being viewed for this journey.
2) Bonnie and Clyde (1967 - Arthur Penn) 6/10 - Certain scenes and performances worked really well, but the overall picture just isn't worthy of the accolades that it gets showered with.
3) Festen (1998 - Thomas Vinterberg) 8/10
4) Splendor in the Grass (1961 - Elia Kazan) 5.5/10 - In retrospect, this one barely gets a recognition of average. The performances are solid, but the movie itself is very forgettable.
5) The Shop on Main Street (1965 - Kadar, Klos) 9.5/10 - There's something stopping me from giving it a full out '10', but I'm not sure what. Nonetheless, I'm almost sure it will make an appearance on the next TOP 20.
6) The Evil Dead (1982 - Sam Raimi) 6.5/10
7) One-Eyed Jacks (1961 - Marlon Brando) 6/10
8) The Blair Witch Project (1999 - Myrick, Sanchez) 10/10 - Not backing down on my rating!
9) Reversal of Fortune (1990 - Barbet Schroeder) 7/10 - The type of movie you'd expect to garner Academy Award noms. Technically solid, great performances and hey, I even learned something about a landmark court case that I previously knew nothing about.
10) Scorpio Rising (1964 - Kenneth Anger) 1/10
11) David Holzman's Diary (1968 - Jim McBride) 7/10 - It stuck with me for the remainder of the month, so I had to inch it up at least a half a notch.
12) Rosemary's Baby (1968 - Roman Polanski) - 8/10
13) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 - Don Siegel) 6.5/10 - Can definitely see the appeal of the film and understand it's inclusion, it just didn't appeal to me as much as it did to others.
14) The Exorcist (1973 - William Friedkin) 7.5/10

NON-1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in October 2011
1) Everything Must Go (2010 - Dan Rush) 5/10 - I’d wanted to see this film ever since I saw the trailer for it and thought it looked really good. I was also excited to see Will Ferrell tackle a more serious role. As far as Ferrell himself goes, I would say that his go at a serious film was a partial success. It’s not that he really did a bad job, it’s just that, in my opinion, he didn’t transform enough to really get over with me as a serious actor. When I watch “Punch Drunk Love”, Adam Sandler does a good enough job to make me totally forget about “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore”. When I watch “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” or “The Truman Show”, Jim Carrey does a good enough job to make me totally forget about “Ace Ventura” or “The Cable Guy”. However, in Ferrell’s case, as I was watching “Everything Must Go”, I just couldn’t erase the images of “Anchorman” or “Elf” and therefore it just wasn’t AS enjoyable. As for the film itself, it was a little too cliché for my tastes. In fact, it was more than just a little cliché. Here we’re handed a story that we’ve all seen a thousand times before – “By gosh, this guy’s just having a rough go of things, but dammit if he’s not gonna’ grab life by the horns and make lemonade out of lemons”. It’s a story that has been committed to celluloid more times than I care to count and here we are again, traveling down the same road. Toss in the added plotlines of making the main character an alchoholic, having him befriend a kid and giving him a female interest to play off of and you’ve got yourself something that every Hollywood executive would be proud of. It wasn’t a total loss and actually for the most part it was fairly solid, but I’ll warn you, you’ve seen this film before in other incarnations.

EDIT - My original rating for "Everything Must Go" was a '6.5/10', but in retrospect, it was very forgettable and very plain.

2) Jack Goes Boating (2010 - Philip Seymour Hoffman) 6.5/10 - **SPOILER ALERT**
With not enough energy last night to devote my attention to a movie from THE BOOK, I turned to the streaming portion of Netflix to check out Philip Seymour Hoffman’s directorial debut, “Jack Goes Boating”. After watching this film, I had the thought, that if I’d seen this movie five years ago, I’d have loved it. It seems like it’s something that would’ve appealed to me back then, but with my filmic palate growing and having seen more and more movies over the years, I’m starting to get more picky and thus, “Jack Goes Boating” didn’t do THAT much for me. Sure it had it’s moments and Hoffman’s acting was fine, as usual. It just wasn’t all that structurally sound, if you ask me. In the film, Jack (Hoffman), a very mild-mannered, extrememly shy man, working for his uncle, is set up with Connie (Amy Ryan), another fairly shy person. The duo were made for each other and while walking in the winter snow of New York City, they make a future date to go boating together. In the end, Jack and Connie witness the demise of their friends’ relationship, a married man and woman, something that you’d think would turn these two emotionally void people against the idea of making a go at a relationship. There were some scenes that made me cringe. This film had trouble deciding if it wanted to be a melancholy or happy affair. The music, atmosphere and situations seemed to indicate melancholia, while certain scenes, like when Jack locks himself in the bathroom after burning the meal he was preparing and being lured out by his three singing guests, seemed far too peppy for a movie like this and really, actually made me cringe. I did like the idea of having the character of Jack be very childlike, being taken care of by his friends (the married couple). His friend Clyde (John Ortiz), was almost like a father to him (and oddly enough, we never hear of Jack’s father in the entire picture), teaching him how to swim and hooking him up with a culinary instructor. In the end, Jack is waved off, ready to face the world without being looked after by his friends, but turns to wave back at the man who has basically taken care of him in his adult life. “Jack Goes Boating” may be something I need to revisit again someday and my opinions of it seemed to be still forming even as I write this, but for now, call it a “just above average” night at the movies.

November 1, 2011 11:21pm

Read More

571. The Exorcist (1973)

Running Time: 122 minutes
Directed By: William Friedkin
Written By: William Peter Blatty, from his novel
Main Cast: Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow, Linda Blair, Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb
Click here to view the trailer

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 5 of 5

Well it's officially Halloween and with this review we'll cap off the past few weeks, which have been filled with thrills and chills, with "The Exorcist". Before I get into the review, I just want to make it clear that in viewing "The Exorcist" I DID watch the original cut of the film and not "The Version You've Never Seen". Now then...

Chris MacNeil (Brustyn) and her daughter Regan (Blair) have taken residence in Georgetown, while Chris, an actress, films a movie. The characters are established early, as is the relationship between the mother and daughter - a tight knit one. It isn't long, however, before the shit really hits the fan and Regan begins to appear to be sick. At first, she just develops odd behavior, being very free with her curse words and peeing on the dining room floor, during one of her mother's swanky dinner parties. Regan is put through a battery of tests, when the doctors suspect that she has some type of rare liaison on her brain. When all the tests come back negative, the doctors are baffled, and so is Chris, whom has now witnessed even stranger behavior, such as violent convulsions from Regan and an occasion where her entire bed physically shook. Meanwhile, Father Damien Karras is questioning his faith to the Catholic church and his mother's death doesn't help matters. When Regan's doctors tell Chris that her daughter may be possessed, Chris MacNeil turns to Father Karras.

I had only ever seen "The Exorcist" on one other occasion, prior to my viewing last night. I can remember being in middle school and hearing some of my fellow classmates talking about "The Exorcist" and saying how great it was. When I was a kid, I was always a little leery of horror pictures, because when I was an even younger kid, I watched things like "Child's Play" and certain Stephen King films and had a hard time sleeping for a few nights. I had always opted to steer clear of "The Exorcist" when I was a kid and even when I became a teenager and outgrew my fear of horror pictures, the desire to finally see it, simply never came. When I got married, my wife finally convinced me to sit down and watch it and I was surprised at how out of proportion I blew things in my own mind. It wasn't nearly as bad as I had heard or maybe I was just an adult now and fearing more real life things, like if me and my wife would make the next month's rent.

However, I'll admit it - last night the movie did get to me...just a little. It's not really that it scared me or anything, it was more disturbing than anything. And even to say that it disturbed me is a little too much, but there was just something there that was too unappealing for my tastes. The film itself is actually quite good. It gives us a fairly basic story and gives it time to unfold. "The Exorcist" doesn't use a lot of gore to get it's points across, but rather, uses interesting situations, strong language and when gore is used, it's used to it's fullest potential. The audience is shown things, that up until that point it had never seen and it's shown things probably far worse than any audience could even begin to conjure up in their imaginations. It takes a setting, as innocent as an obedient, little girl's room and turns it into a living hell on Earth. It treats everything as if it were 100% real and nothing that is ever happening in this film, is (even in the slightest) made to look like a phony situation. Another thing, in my opinion, that makes "The Exorcist" even more powerful, is it's inclusion of some superstar actors. You have Max von Sydow, Lee J. Cobb and Ellen Burstyn, three caliber actors whom you wouldn't and still today don't, normally see in horror pictures. Those, in my opinion, are the reasons why "The Exorcist" works.

I love how so many aspects of "The Exorcist" feel like a battle. You have the obvious battle between good and evil. You have, at one point, a sort of battle between science and religion. You have Father Karras battling his own, personal demons and trying to cope with his mother's death and his lost faith. There are so many scenes and situations of conflict that, when coupled with the extreme scenes of grotesqueness, it's not difficult for the film to put you into a state of unease. The scene where Father Karras and Father Merrin enter Regan's room and come face to face with Regan, is probably the closest we've ever seen, in film, to a battle between God and the Devil (unless I'm forgetting something, which is quite likely). The whole scene seemed to echo a battle scene to me. It was a fight for a soul, in my eyes. It was these two men of God taking on this demon and this demon is personified by a twelve year old girl. When the two men are stating over and over, "The power of Christ compels you!", it's like the scene in the battle where the swords are clanging and the score is raging and it just overpowers you with intensity.

Now, back to why it disturbed me. Honestly, it's hard for me to put that into words. The film put me in such a state of uneasiness (as far as watching films goes), that it almost began to turn me off, at times. In the end, I'm still able to admit all the positives about "The Exorcist", but no matter what the rating it gets, it's probably not something that I'd ever include on a TOP 20 list or anything. It's just not something that I could ever even consider a favorite, because it's not something that I'd want to watch that often.

The only bad thing that I feel I should mention is the opening. After watching the film and thinking back over it, I thought of the boring opening scene (set in Iraq) and wondered why it was necessary. THE BOOK makes note that the scene is baffling for those who haven't read the book and that really got me to wondering why they'd even include it in the first place. There were probably a thousand better ways to introduce and establish the character of Father Merrin and exclude that opening. Especially when you have a film that has garnered such a reputation as being so SCARY, you know your audience isn't going to want to waste any time getting into the meat and potatoes of the whole affair, so it made it doubly boring.

The bottom line is that "The Exorcist" will more than likely give you, at least, a little bit of a fright. I know you'll get the macho film-goer who will never admit to it, but I'm sure that everyone who sees this movie will be thinking about it well after they've left their seat. It's technically great, but in the end I can't say that it's a favorite of mine or that it ever will be. It's something that I wouldn't want to watch again for quite a while, despite the fact that it is really good, has great characters, situations, scenes and acting.

RATING: 7.5/10 That's a rating that mixes my hesitations about the film, with the technical brilliance. I hope I hit all the points I wanted to hit - I know, it was a long review.

MOVIES WATCHED: 342
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 659

October 31, 2011 5:48pm
HAPPY HALLOWEEN

Read More

Sergio Leone Hat Trick - Coming Soon

October 29, 2011 10:16pm

Read More

310. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

Running Time: 80 minutes
Directed By: Don Siegel
Written By: Daniel Mainwaring, from the novel The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney
Main Cast: Kevin McCarthy, Dana Wynter, Larry Gates, King Donovan, Carolyn Jones
Click here to view the trailer

Note: A commenter, here on the blog, has asked me if I would be able to start including trailers for the films that I review. In an effort to try my best to meet reasonable requests, I will start including a link to the trailer underneath the cast list. Of course, if I'm unable to find a trailer, one won't be included. Now then.....

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 4 of 5

As we near the end of our "Frightfest 2011" festivities, I officially take a look at the oldest film I've watched since my return - "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". This was actually more of a sci-fi film than a horror film, but it fit right in with the theme of thrills and chills for Halloween.

Dr. Miles Bennell (McCarthy) has been called by his nurse to return home early from a medical convention, with the information that everyone in town is apparently in need of him. When Bennell gets back, he soon finds that everyone has miraculously recovered from their ailments. However, there are several people in town claiming that certain members of their family, aren't who they claim to be. For example, little Jimmy Grimaldi is certain that the woman who is claiming to be his mother (and has since his birth), isn't actually his mother. At first, the doctor brushes off these notions and recommends a psychiatrist, who chalks everything up to a "mass hysteria" of sorts. Then Bennell gets a call from a friend, Jack (Donovan), who has a seemingly dead body lying across his pool table and one that resembles Jack to a tee. When they take the corpse's fingerprints, they find he doesn't have any. Later, in the night the "corpse" awakens and proves that it wasn't really a corpse at all, but something else. As the film goes on, Bennell teams up with his old fling Becky Driscoll (Wynter), Jack and Teddy (Jones) and together the quartet start to piece the mystery together, tying everything to mysterious, pea pod looking plants that have "cropped up" all over town and are the obvious sources of the corpse-like bodies/replicas that are popping up.

SPOILER ALERT!

While I did enjoy "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" while it lasted, when it was over I couldn't help but shake the B-movie feeling and overall feeling that I had just taken in a very average picture. There were many aspects of the film that I did enjoy. I enjoyed the fact, that while the pea pod explanation was kind of a really stupid one, they played it off as a real threat and really made you feel that these characters were in danger and that they needed to survive these things at all costs. Some of the camera angles were really intense and frightening also - a specific shot of Dr. Bennell with his face right up in the camera, as he stood aghast at the horrors that befall the town. Another shot, a wide shot this time, of all the townspeople, now in a zombie-esque state, gathering (all at the same time) on the street and getting their directive. For a cheap, 1950s, sci-fi affair, at least the man behind the camera knew what he was doing. I also enjoyed the whole subplot of Dr. Bennell and Becky HAVING to stay awake. It actually made me wonder if there has ever been a movie where a group of characters, for one reason or another, HAD to stay awake. If not, I think if you could come up with a good reason as to why they couldn't sleep, that could be a hell of a movie.

On the other hand, there were also things that I really didn't care for about "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". For starters, the acting wasn't that great. Sure, Kevin McCarthy did a fine job as Dr. Bennell, but the rest of the cast was hit or miss, with most of them missing. As I mentioned above, while the threats did seem real, the whole pea pod thing was just so unbelievable, that it was really hard to get behind the idea of giant, evil vegetables being the cause of the havoc in this town. If they were simply staying true to the book, then it's hard to fault them for it, but it was just a goofy concept, if you ask me. Also, the other thing that I really HATED about this film and the thing that's really going to drag this one down, as far as ratings go, was the ending. What a terrible ending! I thought I had it pegged from the beginning. The entire film is told in flashback mode, as Dr. Bennell is being held in a psych ward because he's trying to get across the idea that everyone in town is brainwashed and not having much luck. I thought for sure, that when we snapped back to the present, at the end of the film, that Dr. Bennell would realize that his psych ward captors were also the victims of the body snatchers and realize that he was, indeed, caught. But, of course, we had to go for the happy ending, where the doctors realize that Dr. Bennell isn't crazy and that there are actually body snatchers on the loose. I hated it and it really drug the whole thing down. If they had gone with my ending or any un-happy ending, I could have easily ignored my other list of grievances, in regards to this movie, and given "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" a really good, high rating.

RATING: 6/10 As it stands, however, they went with the happy ending, so I went with the just above average rating of a '6'. I would, however, really like to take a look at Philip Kaufman's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and see if it worked out any better. I'll be out at Wal-Mart most of my weekend, earning my income, so I'll probably see you all back here Sunday night for my review of the MOTHER OF ALL HORROR FILMS - "The Exorcist". Take care.

MOVIES WATCHED: 341
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 660

October 28, 2011 10:10pm

Read More

482. Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Running Time: 136 minutes
Directed By: Roman Polanski
Written By: Roman Polanski, from novel by Ira Levin
Main Cast: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 3 of 5

Well gang, "Frightfest 2011" is raging on to it's third installment, as we inch closer and closer to Halloween and "Mother of All Horror Movies" - "The Exorcist". Tonight I take a look at a movie that I went giddy over the first time I saw it - "Rosemary's Baby".

Rosemary (Farrow) and Guy Woodhouse (Cassavetes) are a young, New York couple, searching for an apartment, where they can raise a family. When the film opens they are touring the most recent candidate - an apartment at Bramford. The duo decide to take the place and before a few weeks are up, they meet the nosy neighbors - an aging couple, Minnie (Gordon) and Roman Castevet (Blackmer). When The Castavets invite Rosemary and Guy to dinner, the two feel obliged to accept, despite Guy's initial hesitation. When the evening concludes, Guy seems pleased as punch to be living next to the Castavets and can't say enough good things about them. On the other hand, Rosemary, didn't have as good a time as she thought she would and while she can't put her finger on it, seems to carry an uneasiness when it comes to Minnie and Roman. Fast forward a little bit and Guy lands the lead role in a major play opening up and the two finally decide to have that baby they've been talking about. Rosemary, however, has a little too much to drink on their intended night and goes to sleep, dreaming very strange dreams. The next morning Guy informs her that the two "went ahead as scheduled" and Rosemary can't get over the vicious looking scratch marks on her back. Now, Rosemary is pregnant, but everyone, including Guy, Minnie, Roman and her new obstetrician, Dr. Sapirstein (Ralph Bellamy) seem to be acting strangely.

The first time you see "Rosemary's Baby" it's extremely hard not to like it, in my opinion. There are so many intricacies in the script and so many little things, that the film kind of takes on the characteristics of a thrilling murder mystery, as opposed to a cryptic horror film. Really, if you get down to bare bones, "Rosemary's Baby" isn't that scary at all. To me, it's more eerie than anything. There's a real sense of threat and uneasiness in the atmosphere of the film, that you can't help but be on edge throughout and even until well after the picture has concluded. The New York setting is the perfect place to evoke this eeriness, because it's the last place you'd expect to be frightened. Think about it, 95% of all horror movies take us to the most desolate of settings (middle of the woods, a cabin fifty miles past Kalamazoo), while "Rosemary's Baby" told us that "shit could happen EVEN where there were a lot of people.

SPOILER ALERT!

Going back to the aforementioned idea that this picture takes on the characteristics of a murder mystery - well it really kind of does, in my opinion. You have so many different outcomes that when it gets down to the end of the movie, anything could happen. Who was in on all this? Did Guy really set up HIS OWN wife? Is the Dr. in on it to? What about the younger, more Charles Grodin looking Dr, is he in on it too? You have more questions than you have answers, where USUALLY the intent of a horror movie is to just be scared, this one plays out like a mystery, where you just have to know what happens and what's happening. "Rosemary's Baby" really works so much better the first time around. The first time I saw this picture, I honestly thought that there was a good chance that Rosemary was a whacko and that she was going to end up in Happy Hills Psychiatric Ward, while Guy was left to take care of this baby all alone. In actuality, that is a viable possibility, right up until the very end. Speaking of the end, it's an ending that I'm not crazy about. In my opinion, it's far too anti-climactic. We've just been spoon-fed two hours of tense, taught, eerie footage and then all that happens in the end is Rosemary happens upon this secret room, finds her baby and holds it, basically accepting all the shit that so many people just conspired to get over on her.

On a final note, the book makes note of a scene where Rosemary firsts notice the baby kicking, exclaiming "It's Alive!, It's Alive!" (ie. "Frankenstein") and the horrifying look on Guy's face, as he realizes what's living inside his wife's womb. I honestly didn't even notice this on first viewing (although I might just have to go back and take a look), but it's small details LIKE that one that make "Rosemary's Baby" stand out. Little intricacies that were added in to really hammer home the story. The story is so far-fetched on it's own, but the way the entire idea is executed, you really forget how hokey the story is and just go with it for the duration.

RATING: 8/10 Like I said, it works a little better the first time you see it, when you don't have all the answers, but it still holds up quite well. However, Mia Farrow still annoys the piss out of me.

MOVIES WATCHED: 340
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 661

October 26. 2011 11:29pm

Read More

486. David Holzman's Diary (1968)

Running Time: 74 minutes
Directed By: Jim McBride
Written By: Jim McBride
Main Cast: L.M. Kit Carson, Eileen Dietz, Lorenzo Mans, Louise Levine, Fern McBride

FILM IS TRUTH 24 TIMES A SECOND

I realize you probably all thought I got lost, but I still made it back within a matter of hours, just not the amount of hours I had hoped for. I watched "David Holzman's Diary" last night, but was too exhausted to write the review, so I'm here now.

The film is yet another experimental film, but this time the experiment goes a whole lot better, if you ask me. David Holzman (Carson) is a film fanatic living on the Upper West Side of New York City. When the film begins, David announces his plan to begin a video diary, capturing every minuscule moment of his life, so that he can "get it all down" and find out the truth about his being. He introduces us to his new pair of eyes - his camera and we're off. He begins filming on July 14, 1967 and films for approximately a week. Once he's told us of his initial idea, he then introduces us to his girlfriend Penny (Dietz) via photographs. Penny is a model and when she comes to the apartment later that evening, she wants nothing to do with David's diary. She storms out and the next day, David explains that he's called her and worked things out. The next day, Penny comes back to David's and as she's sleeping, in the middle of the night, he films her. She catches him and storms out a second time. David tries his best to phone Penny, while trying simultaneously to film and mic the conversation, but she wants nothing to do with him. Meanwhile, David also takes to the streets of NYC to shoot various people, most notable an Upper West Side cougar and a woman who lives across the street from David, whom he names Sandra.

While "David Holzman's Diary" didn't blow me away, it did intrigue me very much. While it may not get the most stellar of ratings, I have a feeling that this will be a movie that I'll be thinking about for some time and one that COULD become a favorite. The film is very intimate, as a lot of it is just David, sitting in a chair, in front of the camera and talking to us. There's also an element of voyeurism, as David film's his neighbor. Both are elements that usually work to intrigue me and this film was no exception. I think the underlying message or theme of "David Holzman's Diary" is simply taking a look at oneself from a different perspective. Here, David wanted to "get it all down" so that he could find out some kind of truth, that he thought he was missing. He wanted to view his life as an outsider and watch it unfold as he would a television program or a film. He wanted to see if he could somehow dissect his life and find something that he had been missing.

SPOILER ALERT!

However, by the end of the film, David is jobless, without a girlfriend and under the realization that he's actually a pretty pathetic character. He lost the only thing he really had going for him, in Penny. He made desperate pleas to try and get her back. He lowered himself to following women on the Subway, until the finally turned around and told him to "beat it" and he lowered himself to peeping on "Sandra", another girl that he's seemed to have fallen in love with, without ever having any interaction with. Even the lady who answers at his message service seems to feel sorry for him when she tells him that Penny called and she wants him to stop calling her. He's a man who wants to feel important, like some of his favorite film director's, but you get the feeling that before he started filming himself, that he lead this unbelievably humdrum lifestyle. He dated Penny, but she rarely excited him. Even when he initially talks about her, he calls her vain and then recounts one minute detail about her that "touches him" and it seems that's really all she does that makes him happy. And then, in the end, he really realizes how vulnerable he is, when his apartment is broken into and all of his equipment is stolen. Maybe, that's the equivalent of killing off the character. I mean, like I said, this guy had nothing and you get the sense that filming his life was really the most excited he's been about something. And then it's all over.

RATING: 6.5/10 It's a movie where you can really dissect the character and it was a really good one. Why the low rating? Well, it seems appropriate...for now.

MOVIES WATCHED: 339
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 662

October 25, 2011 2:18pm

Read More