wencer Reviews

Mr. Flip (1909)

Ben Turpin was the man

[1/10 · 26 January 2006]

This gem of a film begins with Ben Turpin being in the general vicinity of a woman and finding himself apparently obligated to put his hand under her chin. I'm assuming that this must have been Ben's "bit" because the rest of the film utterly refuses to deviate from this premise. Ben uses a phone, and touches the neck of the operator. Ben goes to a bar and keeps touching the neck of the lady bartender. And so on and so forth. And why not?

This raises several questions, such as: Why does Ben always do this? Has he been hypnotized? Is he trying to check their pulse? Maybe he's constantly fighting the urge to touch them and is secretly ashamed of his behaviour. In any event, the movie remains very objective about his motivations, other than to repeatedly press the point that Ben touches the necks of every woman he sees, and that none of them seem to care for it.

The next obvious question is why are there no other men? Has Ben stumbled upon a secret city (or possibly shopping mall) of amazons? If so, what is its purpose? The only other man is a second fellow being shaved by a woman, and who objects strenuously when his shaver leaves to help subdue Ben and his neck-touching way.

I like to think that Ben's character was a vampire scouting out potential victims. In either event, I gave the film a ten because it seemed so utterly ridiculous and unashamed for being so completely nonsensical. Luis Bunuel ain't got NOTHING on this. My only complaint is that there are no close-ups of Turpin's trademark cross-eyed, pin-headed visage. But again, this is trumped by the utter lack of plot or even the frailest attempt at coherency. A must see for all fans of movies which are under fifteen minutes long and leave you thinking "Huh?"

Secretary (2002)

Truly beautiful, if you can past the S&M

[10/10 · 14 August 2003]

secretary is an odd movie because, well, a lot of it is just gross.

as a male who loves movies and the role models within, i have oft identified so well with james spader because he is so bleedingly human. i LOVED secretary and here's why.

i can see so much of myself in spader. not the sadism, not the sexual deviance of course. but he's so seemingly honest to himself, and he seems to subtlely and tenderly address some of the facets of humanity that are SO TRUE and SO BEAUTIFUL. in "secretary," spader's stoic human voyeurism is seen. sometimes it's blatant and unabashed, other times he seems to feel guilty and shameful and peers from around the corner. he TRIES to be confident, but it's just so hard, especially if you're worried about your own behaviour. this concept is so wonderfully articulated by spader, and much more honest than the macho stereotypes or even the two-dimensional losers played by other actors. spader is also clearly pensive and neurotic - the way he makes himself vulnerable by pausing awkwardly mid-sentence or wrinkling his mouth up at one-side of his face. him momentarily lose the facade of ACTING confident, and thus risks comprimises his integrity as a person. because he lets us SEE this side of him - by ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE AWKWARD - he becomes so much easier to relate to. his compulsions clearly torture him, and he has difficulty coming to terms with who he is. the scenes where he works compulsively to sweat profusely, you can SEE his character genuinely struggling to real his simple goal. it's pure dedication without false machismo. and then, afterwards, when he struggles to collect himself: a classic spader move is to clumsily struggle with objects in his physical environment, grabbing at them in vain, trying to bring the world to meet his "uncomfortable" mentality and emotional state. we see such moves in even "Speaking Of Sex," in "Stargate" and we see it terrifically here when his office is trashed.

*** SPOILERS ***

all of this is wonderfully seen in Secretary, and if you can get past the disgusting parts, you realize that Spader is still loving, wonderful and so sympathetic. this notion likely doesn't sit well with those offended by his behaviour because they want NOT to like his character. but here's why this movie is great: the ending. very often, spader's eccentricites are not accepted. his trust in "Speaking Of Sex" results in him being punished, even if it's only a slap on the wrist, and in the end, he ends up with a detestable woman. In "sex, lies & videotape" he is confronted about his "project" and is forced to correct his abnormal behaviour. but in Secretary, spader is ALLOWED to be himself. it's as if the notion of genuine humanity and uncertainty is allowed to flourish, and that he is ALLOWED to continue being a little off. the woman genuinely loves him, and their relationship is celebrated. the movie isn't saying that you have to be in a sadomasochistic relationship to be happy by any means. their relationship is merely an extreme example of how two people, despite their weirdness and the way they are seen by the rest of society, can be happy (and succesful) with one another. it's a triumph of human spirit, especially for everyone's who's ever felt uncomfrtable with themselves in the rest of society.

*** END SPOILERS ***

i am NOT into sadism or role-playing sex games or anything like that. but this movie isn't really about that. it uses the device so carefully (the fact that the only time breasts are seen is during a placid bath PROVES to me that it is just a device) to create a wonderful story about a couple that struggles for happiness and accepting THEMSELVES for who they are in a judgemental society. again, i can see why people who see this would be disgusted and might want to villify james spader's character, so i urge those who have not seen this to do so with an open mind, and to TRY to like james spader's character so much. i would also be greatly interested to hear from a woman who loved this movie (assuming there is one) because most of my thinking came from trying to identify and learn from the male character, and i'd be greatly interested to know about the woman. is she as inspiring?

A Mighty Wind (2003)

good but not the best

[7/10 · 25 April 2003]

as a rather violent fan of both Spinal Tap and Best in Show, perhaps i went into this with unrealistic expectations. don't get me wrong, "a mighty wind" does deliver a few excellent moments, both through the beauty of editing and through the talented actors. the issue really seems to lie with the pacing. there are extended periods of time where nothing really funny happens, and if it weren't for my faith in christopher guest i would have gotten bored. in particular, the "folksmen," the band featuring the spinal tap boys - Guest, McKean and Shearer - are probably the least entertaining. it is eugene levy who really saves the movie with his staggered delivery and bizarre eccentricities. the other scene-stealers are kept in too limited a role too: fred willard is spectacular, as is parker posey and the women with the strange lips who played the "glamorous" lesbian in Best in Show. overall, the movie does have a lot of great moments, but it almost seems to caught up in its own plot to be as outrageously funny as Best in Show. nonetheless, the novelty of the "mockumentary" makes it a worthwhile watch and you'll still enjoy yourself.

Speaking of Sex (2001)

surprisingly good

[8/10 · 4 April 2003]

What's the deal with James Spader? Why does he always end up playing the incompetent boob with weird sexual fetishes?

This superbly cast film is well-written and well-directed. The thing is, it doesn't really have any zingers, any defining moments. The talented James Spader (Crash) and Lara Flynn Boyle (The Practice) are two therapists that get emotionally involved with a troubled couple, the talented Melora Walters (Being John Malkovich) and a very down-to-earth Jay Mohr (SNL). Spader is particularly gifted through his mannerisms and uncomfortable demeanor, although Walters' performance as a simple and emotionally confused woman is equally amusing. As things between characters get complicated, the director does an excellent job of keeping the pacing going; the film never really loses momentum. The writing is based mostly on the situation, yet a couple of twists and subtleties really keep the viewer enguaged. Especially brilliant is Bill Murrary (Groundhog Day) who steals scenes from Phil LaMarr (MAD TV) and Catherine O'Hara (SCTV) with his exaggerated delivery. Furthermore, the director uses several manic cuts and tricks to keep the images fresh. The only real sore points stem from the fact that there isn't much TO the movie. It's hard to find an emotional connection with any one character, such that by the end, you're more interested in seeing what will happen as opposed to hoping for happy fates. Furthermore, the script's humour is mostly character-based; there aren't really any lines that bowl you over or stick in your head. But the dialogue is well-scripted and well-delivered. This movie isn't really a romantic comedy; but a piece of good entertainment for several demographics. It's got a Snatch feel with a Zoolander comedic touch. Great entertainment for an afternoon and a definite renter if you want to laugh a bit. James Spader forever.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

Awful for so many reasons

[1/10 · 20 January 2003]

I recall seeing this one summer in high school when tickets had gone up something upwards of two dollars in a month. I wouldn't have minded the increase if the movies being made were better, or at the very least, NOT inspiring me to have my eyes slowly eaten out by ravens or vultures or what-have-you. This "movie" (and i use the term loosely) was excrutiatingly abysmal. The main problem, of course, is that Harrison Ford plays a villain. Oops, that may have been a spoiler, although if you're reading this review and STILL want to see this bile, I can only say "I warned you" and take solace in the fact that there are other people in the world that will also be permanently stupider for having seen it. But back to Harrison Ford: There's a reason why he doesn't play bad guys, and that reason is that he can only make about three faces: smug, blank, and momentarily enraged. This makes him ideal for Richard Kimble, Hans Solo and Indiana Jones. This makes him awful as a genuine bad guy. Now one can argue that this was a good casting move, making his villainy more of a shocker. The person making this argument would, however, be wrong; Ford's "evilness" is so obvious from the get-go that the revelation is rather embarrassing for all concerned (which, fortunately, did not include me). Other gaping problems include Ford's character dying every five minutes,

Michelle Pfeiffer owning a pistol that stores 17,000 bullets, some annoying shots on a dock which completely ruin any pacing the movie may have been struggling to acquire, and a dog with a funny name (which i wisely have blocked from my memory). And don't even get me started on the last scene. Let's just say that underwater fight sequences involving people dead for several years make me laugh until stomach acid comes out my eyes. In fact it was so funny that a few weeks later, myself and a few friends pre-drank a second screening (a friend got us free passes, and how the movie was still in theatres is beyond me) so that we could tear the movie apart in a way that makes Statler and Waldorf look like yes-men. If you see this movie, be prepared to become a bark-eating hermit and recluse yourself from society. I saw it two years ago and still sport the scars...

Blue Steel (1934)

Pretty brutal

[4/10 · 8 January 2003]

The only reason why I stuck this one out was the film's mercifully short run-time. The movie starts with a generally confusing and slow-paced sequence inside an old west tavern, and the movie never really acquires any pace. For the first fifteen minutes, several bewildering cut-aways to John Wayne plague the "action," yet give the audience no idea as to John Wayne is playing, if he is a "good guy," how the other characters know him, or if the other characters even know he is there. This would be a great technique if the director gave you the impression he was TRYING to confuse you. Instead, one immediately gets the impression that the film is amateurish, even for a b-movie. This should not suggest that the movie is unentertaining. I found the awkward pan shots and poorly-shot stunts to be thigh-slappingly hilarious, particularly the scenes in which characters fall off desert cliffs and land in deep-wooded rivers. Oh yeah, and a lot of the characters look the same and whenever one gets shot, well, head-scratching ensues. I'm sorry if you've had to see this.

The Godfather (1972)

Vastly Over-rated

[2/10 · 7 January 2003]

The Godfather is an engaging and compelling story to say the least, but as a movie- so what? Just because something makes for a great story or play doesn't mean it can automatically translate onto the big screen. There has to be some point of making it into a movie, and quite frankly, The Godfather works just as effectively as a book. The characters, the dialogue, the plot twists- yeah, they're all okay, but where are the shots, the angles, the editing techniques, the sound effects that make this into a number one film??? The conventions of film are all used pretty simply according to the Hollywood format- ie, make the camera invisible. There are few scenes anywhere in The Godfather Trilogy that stand out in the history of cinema. If you want an entertaining movie, you will certainly like the Godfather. But you may just as well read the book (unless, like so many today, you haven't the time). But if you want a film that stretches the genre or that will blow you away with an element OTHER than storyline and dialogue, you can do a lot better.