Hey folks, Harry here with a pretty darn critical person by the disguise of the Jankypryck. J-prk as some misguided fools refer to the illustrious Jankypryck didn't have the greatest of first days at Sundance.... but here.... see for yourself... I'm still dying to see Malkovich's directorial debut! Here ya go....
Harry and crew,
I've been in hibernation for quite some time but now i'm out and ready to party. So where do i party? Where all the stargazers and beautiful folks go to party and kiss famous butts. Sundance. Whoo! Let's all pat me on the back. This is the Jankypryck by the way. And i've just seen a couple of movies that i'd like to let you know about, "the Dancer Upstairs" by John Malkovich, and "Soft for Digging" by some NYU grad. Here goes.
Last night i stumbled into the Eccles theater and witnessed a mob. People were clamoring to get into John Malkovich's "The Dancer Upstairs" and so was i. We filed in a little late. Got to watch hundreds of people stand up and stair to see what famous folks were within half of a mile of them. And then finally everyone sat down and waited for the introduction. Malkovich came to the podium and gave a very brief statement and then the film began.
The Dancer Upstairs is a bit of a hard film to categorize. There was an odd amount of laughter, but by no means was it a comedy. There was a lot of action, but it was hardly an action film. I guess it's a drama. A drama dealing with terrorist actions and rebellion in Latin America. Malkovich chose to set it in "Latin America" and not a specific country because he felt it was a Latin American film. Atleast that's what he said. After all it was based on a novel and perhaps the novel was set in the broad place. Anyway, i'm wasting your time. What did i think?
Well, i think tha Malkovich is definitely a strong director, but the film itself was not a very strong film. It had it's moments where it felt like it was heading somewhere powerful, but then it would slow to a crawl and lose its pacing.
Javier Bardem was quite good in the film as a torn detective in search of President Ezekial (a violent revolutionary responsible for a shitload of problems), but the rest of the cast did not work so well. Not that they were exactly bad, they were actually just a little bland. No one's character was as broad as Bardem's. You had the showoff sex fiend cop. The pissed off lady cop. And the sexy mysterious ballerina.
The ballerina (not sure who played her, sorry but i'm an idiot) was actually pretty good in the film, but the forced love story just took me out of the film.
I have my gripes with this film. Pacing issues. Unnecassary love story (yes, i realize it was in the book). A rushed ending. And what about basically forgetting about Javier's family?
I don't want to say this is a bad movie, because i saw something after it that was a hideous movie. It was okay. It was interested. Worth seeing if you want to sit and watch an interesting movie that takes a while to get going and then cheats you on an ending.
But i do believe that Malkovich shows promise.
Oh, and to the asshole that asked Malkovich if he made this film in regards to the attack on 9/11... pull your head out of your ass you mindless shithead.
Now, i have a treat for you. A quick little review of a film called "Soft for Digging".
A seven minute silent horror film that was stretched out into 85 minutes. Oh my lord. I wouldn't even normally care to bother you folks with a review of something like this (it was made by an NYU film student and starred only one old man), but this movie really scares me about this year's Sundance. It was so piss poor with so many problems that i can't even begin to wonder what the Sundance committee was thinking by accepting it. Hey sundance committee, do exactly what that retard who asked malkovich the stupid question should do.
I don't want to tell you that this was awful film, because it was. I want everyone to experience this piece of shit in the shittiest theater (the Black Box) with the shittiest sound and the shittiest... i don't know... it's just shitty.
It's made by a guy who's obviously clueless about filmmaking. Perhaps he slept his was through NYU. This was his thesis film afterall, and dear lord i hope that he failed that class.
Oh and i have not even told you what this festering pile of turds was about. Here goes...
A bad acting old man silently witnesses a murder and then is driven mad by slow pacing and bad direction and the ghost of a little girl. So he silently tries to make things right. And he silently bores me to death. As does the murderer.
There is a ten minute scene (the whole film is only 85 minutes) that shows the old man stumble around the outside of a children's asylum. Oh wow. Really... i mean wow.
Maybe there is an interesting film short in there, but not when its a boring rotten feature film.
Better luck next time director. Whoever you may be.
So in closing "the Dancer Upstairs" is interesting and potentially worth seeing (with a warning), while "Soft for Digging" is a must see for all sadomasochists.
Today i will be seeing "Better Luck Tomorrow", "Run Ronnie Run", "Gerry", "the Good Girl", and "May". Perhaps if you will have me, i will write more about them tomorrow. And perhaps i will be less of an asshole. Atleast i hope i will.
By the way, i saw Roger Ebert eating a sandwich the size of his huge cranium and it was brilliant. Kudos Ebert, you gave me the best show of the night.
take care folks I'll be in touch,
