Cruising
1980, William Friedkin

A sort of hyper-stylized, De Palma-esque gay fever dream. The plot is deliberately obscure (murder victims arbitrary reappear as murderers so it is impossible to determine who is the culprit in the murder mystery). It’s more or less exclusively about the grotesque homosexual leather rave parties and the highly sexualized grotesque gay-on-gay murders (which are magnificently filmed, by the way – Friedkin outdoes De Palma as his own Hitchcock-reverence/imitation-game). It’s a crude, homophobic freak show; a very entertaining and profoundly affective one.
Jade (Director’s Cut)
1995, William Friedkin

It’s a tough movie to love, I get it. It’s stubbornly slow, stiff and serious. David Caruso’s performance is absurd. The car chase is the worst. It is, however a miraculous achievement for the hard-headed pragmatist who did “The Exorcist.” Friedkin achieves something here he never achieves: beauty. I don’t often toss that word around, “beauty.” It’s awful. But how else to describe black and white footage of Linda Fiorentino writhing against a wall while being eaten out by some guy set to The Mystic’s Dream by Loreena McKennitt (which plays over the end credits and I can’t remember any other time that I’ve sat through the whole end credits of any movie ever).
Rampage
1987, William Friedkin

Rather silly. It’s a courtroom drama that begs the same question as most courtroom dramas, “Is he a criminal or is he crazy?” It shouldn’t be better than any given episode of Law and Order, but Friedkin’s script has a sort of loveliness to it, and it’s directed with the strange, offbeat gloominess as nearly all of his other films.
Inglourious Basterds
2009, Quentin Tarantino

There are worse films. I’ve been lucky enough to have seen only a few of them.
They Live
1988, John Carpenter

I like the metaphor (which I’ve been encouraged to believe is Reagan-era consumerism but putting on the glasses could just as well be taking hallucinogens, whatever the era) but I don’t think it’s quite on the level of Carpenter’s masterpieces “In the Mouth of Madness” and “Assault on Precinct 13.” The most powerful scene is the one where Keith David and Roddy Piper are beating each other up. It, in itself, says everything the movie has to say, which might be what’s wrong with the rest of it.
Sucker Punch
2011, Zack Snyder

Like “The Island,” it’s visually amazing, and it’s by a filmmaker who is clearly, unbelievably talented, but I don’t know who decided this was a script worth filming. I wish it would have been sadder; there was potential there.
Nancy Drew (2007, Andrew Fleming) > Wall-E (2008, Andrew Stanton)


“Nancy Drew”‘s lush colors and costumes, engaging mystery plot and numbingly charming protagonist make for a genuine pop masterpiece (Rachael Leigh Cook certainly doesn’t hurt matters), whereas “Wall-E” is too irresponsibly depressing for children and too relentlessly, cloyingly cute for adults (though Fred Willard’s bits are hilarious).
Swimming with Sharks (1994, George Huang) > Fight Club (1999, David Fincher)


If you’re the kind of person who believe a movie to be the sum of its parts, “Swimming with Sharks” won’t do much for you. The filmmaking is about as lacking in personality as it gets and there is a sort of bothersome hollowness to the characterization. If, like me, you find a movie fascinating even if it is not fascinating on all or even most levels, “Swimming with Sharks” will probably be worth the time it takes to watch it and then some and then even more. Though I don’t think I’ll ever shake my intuitive leanings toward the right, I admire the film for making what must be the most persuasive Marxist case for the intrinsic amorality of capitalism in all of contemporary cinema. The fundamental premise as I understand it is that capitalism inherently negates and denies the importance and relevance of emotional experience in human life and the movie is a vaguely Shakespearean extrapolation from there. The premise might be wrong, but if we take it on its own terms, the movie’s argument seems infallible, and it’s that kind of argumentative trickery that makes it so persuasive. Either way, the ending is more monstrously awful than anything in any Clive Barker movie – if only the filmmaking was better, I might have cried.
“Fight Club,” on the other hand… I guess someone arbitrarily decided that it was anti-consumerist (in actuality, both the consumerist and anti-consumerist lifestyles are depicted as horrible) but it really doesn’t make any pertinent points about any aspect of human life at all. Fincher does succeed in making a tolerable movie of confusing and lousy source material via his sly cinema-rhetoric and this is arguably virtuous in itself.
Scary Movie | 2000 | Keenen Ivory Wayans


Scary Movie 2 | 2001 | Keenen Ivory Wayans


Little Man | 2006 | Keenen Ivory Wayans







