Ghosts of Mars (2001)

John Carpenter is one of those weird directors I can't determine if I like or not. On one hand, "The Thing" is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I love "Escape From L.A." in all its campy insanity. On the other hand I actually wasn't a huge fan of some of his other classics like "They Live" or even "Halloween." I think the problem with the later was that I just don't like slasher films that much. They bore me. Anyway, that's besides the point. What I'm saying is that I never know what to expect when watching a Carpenter movie for the first time, which is nice but at the same time makes watching his films a bit dicey.

"Ghosts of Mars" is widely considered as displaying Carpenter at his absolute worst, and while I went into it with an open mind, it's difficult for me to imagine him topping it in terms of badness. I mean, "The Ward" was crap, but "Ghosts of Mars" is one of those films that just kind of hurts you while you watch it. It's not an instant, excruciating pain, but it is a slow turn of a screw that keeps digging something into your back, making the sit more and more uncomfortable the longer it goes on. And by the end you're just wishing it would stop and put itself out of your misery.

The film stars Natasha Henstridge as a cop on Mars who is sent with her unit to transport a murder suspect back to town from an outlying mining colony. Her unit contains both Pam Grier and Jason Statham in one of his earlier roles, so there is a bit of star power at work. True it's also got Clea DuVall acting like she's on quaaludes dragging down the talent, but any movie that stars both Foxy Brown and Turkish has at least a little bit going for it.

Wot's 'appening wiff dem sausages, Foxy?

And then they reach the town, which is deserted sans the mutilated dead bodies hanging all over the place as if they've wandered onto the set of "Predator." Going to the jail, they meet their assignment, a man by the name of Desolation Williams (snicker) played by the Master of Scowling himself, Ice Cube. Believe it or not I have found Ice Cube to be entertaining on occasion, but this was not one of those moments. In "Ghosts of Mars" he's pretty much checked all of his limited acting talent at the door and gives a performance that you'd expect from a rapper turned actor. I don't know if he wasn't having a good time on set or something, but there's nothing to him except just being a guy who sneers a lot, shoots guns and says every line like a jock who was cast in a high school play and is really pissed about it.

Desolation and the cops are quickly accosted by a large mob of colonists who have gone insane, as we find out that spirits of alien beings have possessed them, and have been killing everything in sight. There's an interesting element to them, since once the body they're inhabiting is killed, they are free to move to another host and possess them. This means that generally speaking, killing them is a bad idea since their spirit can still get you afterwards. But then again these incorporeal beings apparently can't move through walls or doors or glass and can only move very slowly so I'm not sure how the crap that all works. The important thing to remember is that for some reason the spirits turn people into Uruk-Hai.

"Whom do you serve?"

"Sarumaaaaaaan!"

That's a fine enough setup I suppose, and it could have made for an entertaining film, but there are a number of factors at work with prevent that from happening. First and foremost is the fact that "Ghost of Mars" looks unbelievably cheap. I'm serious, you have no idea how chintzy this movie looks. I'm all for actual sets and whatnot, but not when they're done so poorly and lit so as to look like everything around the actors is made of cardboard. It's difficult to describe without you having seen it, but whenever they're outside there's no depth to anything on screen, and it looks like you're watching the characters faff about on the "Ghosts of Mars" Action Playset. Or maybe a better way to put it is that it looks like you're watching a taped production of a stage play. It's really bad.

Apart from the bad sets and the TERRIBLE CG they had going on, which are bad for even 90's CG standards, there are some truly bizarre choices that were made in the editing room which makes the entire film teeth-grindingly aggravating to watch. Nearly every single transition between scenes - NEARLY EVERY SINGLE ONE - is a dissolve fade, an edit which is normally associated with some passage of time. However the passage of time between edits in the film is sometimes as little as a couple of seconds, like when characters move from one room to another.

 Get used to this.

On top of that the film makes heavy use of using a dissolve fade when most films would simply use a normal cut within the scene itself. So you'll have situations when you're watching a character walking from one end of the room to the other via two or three of these dissolves, giving off the impression that he is fading in and out to move. I have never seen this technique used before to that extent, but I tell you I hope to never see it used like this again. It's horrendously distracting and completely asinine, and the guy who edited this film needs to be punched in the face.

And don't get me started on the chronology which is as fractured as season four of "Arrested Development." The entire story is told in flashbacks, being narrated by a person who could not possibly be relating the events to anyone considering she was not present during many of them, and the people who did experience them are all dead. So how could she be describing what they saw or did? I guess the character had a copy of the script.

You know what this movie is? This is an Uwe Boll film. I'm dead serious. This is something you'd see from Uwe Boll. And not even more recent "slightly competent" Uwe Boll. This is "Bloodrayne" or "House of The Dead" or "Alone In The Dark" here. This is amateur, cheap, lazy, cheesy, "I did this for the tax write-off" schlock. And it was made by the same guy who did "The Thing." I am saddened and stunned by that revelation.

This was just a test-run for "In The Name of The King."

This summer...in a world...where trailer cliches are king...one man...will make a stand...unlike anything you've ever seen before...

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Ghosts of Mars" is terrible. It's cheap looking, it's boring, and it's poorly acted despite having a handful of legitimate talent. About the only decent thing is the Anthrax penned soundtrack, which manages to be fairly metal. It doesn't make the movie work, but it's nice to know the band got a paycheck.

Amélie (2001)

You know, I constantly complain and bemoan the fact that movies I like are very tough to talk about, and even tougher to write about. I never know where to start, and when I finally get on a roll, it quickly turns into a mess of rambling, unfocused, most likely redundant gushing. It's so much easier to talk about why a movie doesn't work as opposed to talking about why a movie does work.

When a film is simply incompetent, or just full of dense stupid, it's easy. Ranting and raving and slathering like a dog over dumb crap and nitpicking plot-holes is just plain fun, I have to be honest. It's when you get movies where I can't really do that when I find myself at a loss for words.

But the hardest kind of movies to talk about are weird movies. Call them what you will, weird, quirky, different, unique, confusing, artsy, auteur, whenever a movie possesses a certain quality that simply boils down to "You really have to see it to get it" it's always excruciatingly hard to write about.

So long story short, my friends and I watched a French film directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Damn.

Check and mate.

  "Vive la France!"

"Amélie" is an absurdly unique film. It's unlike anything you've ever seen, especially if you haven't seen much foreign cinema. Not that being familiar with French movies will prepare you, necessarily, but it couldn't hurt. It's so efficient at carving out its own little world and transporting you to another place while being unbelievably and charmingly quirky that I'm not sure how many people would like it. And the worst part of it is that I'm not sure I possess the vocabulary to explain why. But I'll try my best.

The idea of "Amélie" is that it follows a young lady named Amélie, played in a frankly stunning performance by Audrey Tautou. She's a bit of an eccentric "free spirit," and almost comes across as an artsy proto-hipster in some ways. It's hard to explain but it wouldn't be hard to imagine her making clothing out of discarded drapery remnants or keeping a collection of toothpicks people threw out after eating their hors d'oeuvres, because it made her sad that they were only used for that one purpose. So she's walking that fine line between artsy and straight up weird. Then again, maybe it's just because she's French. It's hard to tell sometimes.

This is either the look of pure unadulterated innocence and wonderment, or the look of someone who will make an ascot out of your skin.

Amélie, after doing a good deed for someone, decides it is her mission in life to make other people happy, either through lending them a hand, fixing a problem they might have, or just playing matchmaker. And, since it is something of a romance as well, along the way she winds up finding love of her own.

I know, pretty cliched stuff. But that's really where the cliches end. It's not that the story of "Amélie" is honestly anything special, it's that the direction and look of the movie is. The best way to describe the way this movie goes down is to say that it's very aware that it is a movie. There is some serious forth-wall desecration going on here, to the point where Amélie will directly talk to the camera. Added to that is the constant narration which provides exposition, including telling us every character's likes and dislikes upon us first meeting them, and that's on top of dropping seemingly random nonsense on us.

Don't believe me? Here's the opening narration which are the first lines of the film:

"On September 3rd 1973, at 6:28pm and 32 seconds, a bluebottle fly capable of 14,670 wing beats a minute landed on Rue St Vincent, Montmartre. At the same moment, on a restaurant terrace nearby, the wind magically made two glasses dance unseen on a tablecloth. Meanwhile, in a 5th-floor flat, 28 Avenue Trudaine, Paris 9, returning from his best friend's funeral, Eugène Colère erased his name from his address book. At the same moment, a sperm with one X chromosome, belonging to Raphaël Poulain, made a dash for an egg in his wife Amandine. Nine months later, Amélie Poulain was born"

Quirkiness at maximum capacity - ERROR

I can't really explain the quirkiness of this film in any other way than just flat out transcribing it. And while that whole diatribe seems completely whacked and nutty, it actually works in context of the movie. Oh sure, I could sit and wax philosophical about how it ties in with the theme of seemingly random events and people coming together, sometimes through fate, accident or both, and how Amélie reflects that same concept in the sequences of events of the over-elaborate puzzles and hoops that she makes her love interest jump through due to her own shyness or fear, almost like she's running from destiny, but that would be pretentious. And possibly flat out wrong.

The important thing is that it does work when you view the movie as a whole, and the quirkiness adds to the charm of the film, which "Amélie" has in spades. In fact, it's so charming that even things that really probably shouldn't be that funny end up getting a chuckle. Whether it's two characters having a serious conversation while pricing and stocking dildos in a sex store, or Amélie's mother getting crushed to death by a rooftop jumper committing suicide, the level of humor ranges from somewhat low-brow to outright dark. But even those two extremes, once again, are smothered in so much whimsical charm that they always seem light-hearted.

I swear, I'm going to use the word "charm" so much in this entry that my C, H, A, R, and M keys are going to wear out.

As you may have been able to piece together, I enjoyed "Amélie." I'm glad I saw it. That being said, it's just such a weird film that I'm honestly not quite sure what I thought of it, if that makes any sense at all. If there were issues I took with it, they seem almost moot, because they have to do with plot. And to be honest I'm not sure how much something like plot is important to a movie like this.

I guess I'll just come out and say that my issues with it really boil down to the fact that it seems like Amélie started off with one plot and then halfway through moves on to another. The whole "helping everyone she meets" thing is dropped after about a half hour or so. After that the film really becomes about her pursuing this guy who she is crushing on, but since she is seemingly incapable of talking to the dude, she constructs these Rube Goldberg-esque plots to talk to him. Some of them come off as downright creepy, but again, it's hard to tell if she's a creep or just French.

But while these plans surprisingly work, she can never seem to follow up on them. And so back and forth we go between the two for a good hour of the film. These two are desperately trying to talk to each other the whole movie, but it just isn't happening for reasons that are infuriating to watch. Although to be fair, the payoff in the end is actually very well done, quite satisfying, and really cute.

 SO. ADORABLE.

There's also this thing with her pranking this really mean guy at a vegetable stand by busting in his apartment constantly and doing all kinds of nefarious things. Most of them are relatively harmless but one in particular moves into the "you could potentially kill this individual" territory. That whole thing about helping people started ringing a tad hollow at that point, I'm just saying.

But like I said, all of that is moot. With a movie with a style like this, sometimes I'm not even sure if the plot is important at all. It's just an overall feeling that you get from a movie like this, and I'm guessing that most people would come away from "Amélie" with a smile on their face. Who cares if it made a whole lot of sense? With as quirky as this movie is, not making sense is almost expected.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I'm not sure what the point of "Amélie" is, but it was a cool little movie. I think it's one of those "you take out what you put in" films that could have various meanings depending on who was watching it. While I'm not sure if I was a huge fan of it or not, it was definitely worth my time, and I'd suggest everyone watch it if they had the opportunity. That is, if you're ready for some charming French quirkiness. Highly Recommended.

Session 9 (2001)

I was recommended this one by a guy I used to work with a little while ago. He said that based on horror movies I said I liked, "Session 9" should be right up my alley. I asked "What's it about?" He said "A mental institution." I asked "Is there torture?" He said "Nope." So I said "Cool" and picked it up. That's literally all the pretext I had before watching it. I knew nothing beyond that.

I have to say that was a nice change of pace. Too often I find my movie-going experience ruined by trailers or Rotten Tomatoes or other people coloring my opinion before seeing a movie. But since "Session 9" is over a decade old at this point, that wasn't an issue. So I was able to go into this totally fresh.

The story is about a hazmat team sent into an old asylum to clear out a crap-ton of asbestos. Of course the place is dilapidated and dark and creepy, with hallways roughly 25,000 miles long, and archaic instruments lying about which were used to basically torture people into being not-crazy. Ridiculously scary building aside, tensions are high because everyone on the team has some issues which are not helped by the fact that they have a huge job to do in a very short amount of time in this nightmarish location.

"Yeah, I guess this place is pretty scary. Could be danker though. I feel like the ghosts are skimping on the dank."

It's not a huge leap to spot where things are headed. It's laid on pretty thick right from the start that there is some haunted crap going down in this place, although it's so stereotypically "haunted" looking that a blind guy could probably pick it out of a lineup of photos and say "Demons live there." What was interesting, and something I really didn't notice until the film had been unraveling for quite some time was that for a haunted asylum, there really isn't much going on as far as paranormal happenings.

In fact, the first time we run into anything supernatural is almost an hour into the film. I feel the need at this point to inform you that the first scene of the movie is the hazmat van parked outside the front gate, waiting to be let in to the asylum, and the only scene that happens away from the asylum is a flashback composed of about four shots. In that way, the movie never really leaves the grounds. Now this may seem like a total load to not have anything happen before then, but "Session 9" actually does a rather good job at being fairly tense despite nothing much actually happening for the first act and a half.

The biggest (and most pleasant) surprise of the entire movie for me was the fact that it never degraded into conventions that are the norm for film stock such as this. One would normally expect to see some undead nurse in a bloody uniform, her lips sewn together hauling around hypodermic needles that she stabs people to death with. Perhaps a warden, his eyes ripped from his sockets, who slices people up with a straight razor. And of course, we can't forget the little girl with super long hair that falls over her face so she can't see anything, but can still crawl/teleport down hallways in really jerky stop-motion type movements.

"I can't see $@*!"

None of this crap is anywhere to be found. Hallelujah, Rock & Roll. It's so nice to see a horror movie that isn't afraid to not have these things, but it means that they need to find some other way of making things scary. What ends up being scary in "Session 9" are the people as opposed to some Michael Meyers type boogieman, which is far more scary, if you ask me.

In fact, (very minor spoiler) I'm not even 100% convinced at the end that there even was a poltergeist. I mean, I'm pretty sure there was but upon a second viewing I may be able to construct a fairly reasonable theory that all the things that occur were the doings of one person, and not an evil spirit. I'm sure that there could be holes-a-plenty poked in it...but there you have it: ambiguity!

The cast was also very good. Josh Lucas plays an outstanding asshole, and Peter Mullan was heartbreakingly convincing in his role as the main character, a man struggling with what can only be described as a LOT of issues, the full extent of which only becomes clear at the end of the movie. And by the way, yes, that's THE Peter Mullan. Oh come on. Mother Superior from "Trainspotting?" Get with it people.

Of course the person most people will recognize is David Caruso. Oh man. I loved Caruso in this movie. He was awesome. Not only does he do a great job acting freaked out when the time calls for it, but there is this fantastic intensity just under the surface with him at all times. When it does surface, it's pretty awesome, and showcases the fact that Caruso is a better actor than he is usually given credit for. "Session 9" is also notable for having Caruso deliver what has to be the single greatest line reading of "F#@k you" ever recorded on film. It is glorious.

I replayed this like 27 times. It's that awesome.

Overall I'd say this movie reminded me of "The Shining." Now, I'm not saying that "Session 9" was anywhere as good as Stanly Kubrick's masterpiece. It wasn't. But they both had a clear understanding of what it is that makes going into a scary place actually scary. It's not things jumping out at you and making really loud noises, it's not a bunch of gore being splattered in your face, and it's not a cast of annoying as hell characters waiting to get killed off as soon as humanly possible.

No, what makes a scary place scary is what it does to the people who are inside it. And when we enter their minds, like we do in both "Session 9" and (arguably) "The Shining," we as the audience lose our own perception of the reality we are seeing, which makes us unsure, uneasy, and ready to be scared when things finally start going to hell.

Oh man. Gotta fit a "CSI: Miami" joke in here somewhere before the end...ummm...

"Looks like I'm fighting...the institution."

 

That's better.


THE BOTTOM LINE - While I won't say that "Session 9" bowled me over, so to speak, I did notice about half an hour into the film that I was riveted to the screen, and I stayed that way till the end. Full of good acting and some genuinely creepy moments. I was pleasantly surprised. Recommended.