Kym (Anne Hathaway) is that family member that everybody speaks about in hushed tones before a major gathering, all full of smiles upon hearing of her imminent presence but secretly hoping that something will get in the way and she just won't show up. Everybody loves her, however grudgingly, but nobody wants her to ruin things, and everybody knows that she's the exact type who would ruin things just to look upon the rubble.
Compounding this is the fact that the reason Kym is coming home is for her sister Rachel's (Rosemary DeWitt) wedding. Her fiancee Sidney (Tunde Adebimpe, lead singer of indie outfit TV On The Radio) has arranged for a festive wedding filled with music and culture, but without much warning, Rachel feels her big day being taken over by Kym, who's been let out of rehab for two days to be a part of the festivities. Kym seems hell-bent on centering attention on her despite wanting desperately to be a part of the wedding, and to Rachel's great dismay, her father (Bill Irwin) plays right into Kym's hands.
The thing I find most fascinating about this film is that Rachel is not played for sympathy; in the case of a lesser script, she would be irritating and childish, but a damaged young girl desperately needed to be loved would constantly be lurking just beneath the surface. Instead, we are shown all of Kym, all the lovability and the manipulation and the self-destruction that brought her to the point in her life at which we meet her. We are given a very valid reason for the family's tentative approach to her, and we are given explanations, but we can also see that Kym has serious troubles that she has to fix on her own.
Jonathan Demme, director of an eclectic mix of films including "The Silence of the Lambs," has shot the entire film with handheld cameras, giving the picture a documentary feel, though God help us all if we ever see a story this venomous unfold in an actual documentary. From the very first scenes of the film, Kym is bitterly abrasive, railing against anybody who tries to show her affection while simultaneously clawing at everybody for it. Rachel, meanwhile, is furious that her sister's attention-grabbing fits are going to steal her wedding day away, and as we learn, Kym has already taken a considerable amount away from Rachel.
Hathaway, as Kym, gives what is by a mile her best performance here, as she is beautiful enough that we can see why Kym is so good at getting whatever she wants out of life, but at the same time, there is a damaged quality to her that makes the audience want to reach out and hold her and reassure her that she will be alright. For reasons I will not reveal, at the end of the film Kym ends up bruised and battered, and in the film's loveliest scene, as Rachel does in fact get married, Kym looks proudly at her sister, smiling radiantly with a massive black eye.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Review: A Christmas Tale
The premise of "A Christmas Tale" sounds like something out of a bad major-studio Christmas movie (one of which I sat through last weekend, but I digress): A family, fractured and split up by years of infighting and drama, comes together one Christmas when the matriarch of the family announces that she has cancer, coupled with a terminal illness that even if treated will only give her two more years or so. Now, you'd think that this synopsis would end with something like "And they all learn heartwarming lessons about the value of family," but arguably the most wonderful thing about Arnaud Desplechin's film is its stubborn refusal to accept any one family cliche at any point. To that effect, it might be the most honest portrayal of a family at Christmastime ever put on film. Certainly, it's the most brutal.
There are a massive amount of plotlines that the film juggles with a delicacy I lack, so I'll just introduce the players. Junon (Catherine Denueve) is the mother of the Vuillard family, and she is dying, but oddly upbeat about the whole situation; at any time, she seems like the only one in the room who's not worrying about her demise. Her husband Abel (Jean-Paul Roussillon) just wants to bring his family under one roof one more time. This hasn't happened in years because of Elizabeth (Anne Consigny), the perpetually depressed oldest daughter. Six years back, she bailed her ne'er-do-well brother Henri (Mathieu Almaric, also onscreen right now in far more theaters as the latest Bond villain) out of debt in exchange for his promising that he will never come near family get-togethers again as long as she is present. The youngest, Ivan (Melvil Poupad) is the problem solver, trying to hold everybody together for Junon's sake, if just for a few days.
There are far more people involved, such as Henri's girlfriend who seems bemused at the entire situation, or the young man who continually comes to Vuillard gatherings year after year despite not actually being a part of the family. The film is about the people more than the holiday and its trappings, and what a delightfully unhinged clan they are. The film does not allow us the satisfaction of understanding motives or thoughts, most of the time, even when at certain points, characters will break away from a scene and talk directly to the camera, filling in some of the narrative blanks. The film is two and a half hours long, and oddly, it feels too short, like there is much more to be understood about these people.
By far and away, Almaric is the standout performer in a film full of them. As Henri, he storms the family celebration like a whirling dervish, taking out his rage, depression and vendettas on everybody. In his very first scene onscreen, Henri falls face-first into the street while stumbling home drunk in the middle of the day, and this speaks volumes about his character. The more fascinating dynamic is between he and Elizabeth; they hate each other, but the film never really tells us why, and by the end it starts to appear as though they don't even know. At one point, Henri needles Elizabeth's husband to the point where her husband beats the hell out of him on the kitchen floor, and after, Elizabeth tends to his wounds while laughing, and more oddly, Henri will only let her attend to him, shouting at anyone else who tries.
The film is full of scenarios like this; the entire family has been blackened by years of rage towards one another, but yet they show love, at least love as far as they understand it. This means tolerating one another, or putting up with Elizabeth's crying and Henri's manic self-destruction and Junon's cold detachment from all her children, for the sake of keeping the family together. In its own bizarre way, "A Christmas Tale" captures the true essence of why family becomes so much more valued at this time of year.
There are a massive amount of plotlines that the film juggles with a delicacy I lack, so I'll just introduce the players. Junon (Catherine Denueve) is the mother of the Vuillard family, and she is dying, but oddly upbeat about the whole situation; at any time, she seems like the only one in the room who's not worrying about her demise. Her husband Abel (Jean-Paul Roussillon) just wants to bring his family under one roof one more time. This hasn't happened in years because of Elizabeth (Anne Consigny), the perpetually depressed oldest daughter. Six years back, she bailed her ne'er-do-well brother Henri (Mathieu Almaric, also onscreen right now in far more theaters as the latest Bond villain) out of debt in exchange for his promising that he will never come near family get-togethers again as long as she is present. The youngest, Ivan (Melvil Poupad) is the problem solver, trying to hold everybody together for Junon's sake, if just for a few days.
There are far more people involved, such as Henri's girlfriend who seems bemused at the entire situation, or the young man who continually comes to Vuillard gatherings year after year despite not actually being a part of the family. The film is about the people more than the holiday and its trappings, and what a delightfully unhinged clan they are. The film does not allow us the satisfaction of understanding motives or thoughts, most of the time, even when at certain points, characters will break away from a scene and talk directly to the camera, filling in some of the narrative blanks. The film is two and a half hours long, and oddly, it feels too short, like there is much more to be understood about these people.
By far and away, Almaric is the standout performer in a film full of them. As Henri, he storms the family celebration like a whirling dervish, taking out his rage, depression and vendettas on everybody. In his very first scene onscreen, Henri falls face-first into the street while stumbling home drunk in the middle of the day, and this speaks volumes about his character. The more fascinating dynamic is between he and Elizabeth; they hate each other, but the film never really tells us why, and by the end it starts to appear as though they don't even know. At one point, Henri needles Elizabeth's husband to the point where her husband beats the hell out of him on the kitchen floor, and after, Elizabeth tends to his wounds while laughing, and more oddly, Henri will only let her attend to him, shouting at anyone else who tries.
The film is full of scenarios like this; the entire family has been blackened by years of rage towards one another, but yet they show love, at least love as far as they understand it. This means tolerating one another, or putting up with Elizabeth's crying and Henri's manic self-destruction and Junon's cold detachment from all her children, for the sake of keeping the family together. In its own bizarre way, "A Christmas Tale" captures the true essence of why family becomes so much more valued at this time of year.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Review: Twilight
I feel obligated to give about a paragraph of full disclosure before writing any kind of review of "Twilight." First of all, I have read the first book in the incredibly popular vampire series, because I don't believe in drinking the haterade just to drink it; to a fault, I'll give just about anything a fair chance to impress me. This has led to watching way more of "The Surreal Life" than I'd like to admit, but it keeps me honest. The second thing I feel the need to mention is that I think the series is castrating the vampire genre, but I'll get to that later, in context.
On with the review. "Twilight" is the story of Bella (Kristen Stewart), a young girl who leaves her mother and stepfather in Arizona to live in Forks, Washington with her dad, police chief Charlie Swan (Billy Burke). She becomes something of a local celebrity, and soon catches the eye of Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Edward seemingly despises her, judging by the fact that the first time she comes near him, he looks like he's having a seizure and a spastic orgasm at the same time. However, this is because Edward is a vampire, and is undeniably attracted to Bella, at first on a PG-13-friendly physical level, and then later on a much deeper, more romantic, but no more physical one.
Now, as an adaptation of the novel, "Twilight" is about as good as it was probably ever going to be, even if done by a more noted filmmaker than Catherine Hardwicke (director of the incredibly unsettling "Thirteen"). The issue with "Twilight" is that the book is good because of the introspection gained from it being a first-person narrative, from Bella's point of view. When she describes all the feelings Edward stirs within her, it's interesting if a little bit Harlequin-lite. This can't really translate to the screen, though, and as a result, there's a lot of downright comical scenes where Bella and Edward exchange longing glances, and don't communicate the same sense of gut-wrenching need that the books get across.
Speaking of Edward, I've watched interviews with Pattinson, he's a charming, well-spoken and funny guy, but this movie does him no favors. The other issue of translating the books is that something has to be cut (the books are all pretty huge, actually), and what was cut first was all the lighter, funnier interplay between Bella and Edward. As a result, Pattinson spends more than half the film over-emoting and delivering lines like "You're like my particular brand of heroin" with an all-too-straight face. This having been said, when the film picks up in the second half (as actual danger comes into play beyond the love story), Edward becomes more interesting to watch, and Pattinson steps up to the plate ably; he even briefly plays the role of action hero near the end, and it works. Stewart, as Bella, looks bored for the first half of the movie, but again, as the film picks up momentum, so does her performance. I'm not sure what it is, but there's something about her as an actress, a certain quiet strength that makes her seem like a poor fit for a damsel in distress on the level she's playing here, but she fits well enough.
The film as a whole is just okay; it's laughably overdramatic at times, but not horrible, though purists of the series will beg to differ. It's just hard to watch a vampire movie where sunlight makes them sparkle and the main characters can barely even kiss without conflict. The fact is that the "Twilight" series is the perfect set of books for the Disney Channel generation, because Edward is the perfect heartthrob for it; he's beautiful, would rather watch a girl sleep all night and talk about her feelings than try for anything more and is totally safe for the average suburban 12-year-old to fantasize chastely about without her parents getting upset. The movie reflects this; it's pseudo-edgy enough to attract a modern crowd without actually stepping on a single set of toes.
On with the review. "Twilight" is the story of Bella (Kristen Stewart), a young girl who leaves her mother and stepfather in Arizona to live in Forks, Washington with her dad, police chief Charlie Swan (Billy Burke). She becomes something of a local celebrity, and soon catches the eye of Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Edward seemingly despises her, judging by the fact that the first time she comes near him, he looks like he's having a seizure and a spastic orgasm at the same time. However, this is because Edward is a vampire, and is undeniably attracted to Bella, at first on a PG-13-friendly physical level, and then later on a much deeper, more romantic, but no more physical one.
Now, as an adaptation of the novel, "Twilight" is about as good as it was probably ever going to be, even if done by a more noted filmmaker than Catherine Hardwicke (director of the incredibly unsettling "Thirteen"). The issue with "Twilight" is that the book is good because of the introspection gained from it being a first-person narrative, from Bella's point of view. When she describes all the feelings Edward stirs within her, it's interesting if a little bit Harlequin-lite. This can't really translate to the screen, though, and as a result, there's a lot of downright comical scenes where Bella and Edward exchange longing glances, and don't communicate the same sense of gut-wrenching need that the books get across.
Speaking of Edward, I've watched interviews with Pattinson, he's a charming, well-spoken and funny guy, but this movie does him no favors. The other issue of translating the books is that something has to be cut (the books are all pretty huge, actually), and what was cut first was all the lighter, funnier interplay between Bella and Edward. As a result, Pattinson spends more than half the film over-emoting and delivering lines like "You're like my particular brand of heroin" with an all-too-straight face. This having been said, when the film picks up in the second half (as actual danger comes into play beyond the love story), Edward becomes more interesting to watch, and Pattinson steps up to the plate ably; he even briefly plays the role of action hero near the end, and it works. Stewart, as Bella, looks bored for the first half of the movie, but again, as the film picks up momentum, so does her performance. I'm not sure what it is, but there's something about her as an actress, a certain quiet strength that makes her seem like a poor fit for a damsel in distress on the level she's playing here, but she fits well enough.
The film as a whole is just okay; it's laughably overdramatic at times, but not horrible, though purists of the series will beg to differ. It's just hard to watch a vampire movie where sunlight makes them sparkle and the main characters can barely even kiss without conflict. The fact is that the "Twilight" series is the perfect set of books for the Disney Channel generation, because Edward is the perfect heartthrob for it; he's beautiful, would rather watch a girl sleep all night and talk about her feelings than try for anything more and is totally safe for the average suburban 12-year-old to fantasize chastely about without her parents getting upset. The movie reflects this; it's pseudo-edgy enough to attract a modern crowd without actually stepping on a single set of toes.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Review: Young People Fucking
For a little Canadian indie flick, "Young People Fucking" actually creating something of a stir for a brief time earlier this year. ThinkFilm, the distributor, couldn't get it out in theaters because of the title (which admittedly, is shameless if pretty damn funny as well), and Roger Ebert, scourge of the oppression of any movie, published a review in his blog and took the time to get it up on IMDB as well. The question is, though, is there anything more here than just shock value? I'd say so.
The film is essentially a meditation on the universally known six stages of sex (prelude, foreplay, sex, interlude, orgasm, afterglow) through the perspectives of several different relationships, existing as types of relationships. There are the exes, Mia (Sonja Bennett) and Eric (Josh Cooke) who have dinner after some time apart and end up sleeping together; the best friends Matt (Aaron Abrams) and Kris (Carly Pope, of the defunct WB show "Popular"), who try and have sex just to spare each other the difficulty of finding somebody else; the couple Andrew (Josh Dean) and Abby (Krisin Booth) who try and spice up their sex lives while celebrating Andrew's birthday; the first date between Jamie (Diora Baird) and Ken (Callum Blue) and the pair of roommates, Gord (Ennis Esmer) and Dave (Peter Oldring), who end up involved with Gord's girlfriend Inez (Natalie Lisinska) in a threesome.
The film cuts back between one night in the lives of these five couples, and because this is a no-budget indie, it lives and dies by the performances. For the most part, the film lives on them, because all the actors involved delve fearlessly into sometimes humiliating, often hilarious situations that are all tangible enough to work. There are no exaggerated "American Pie" sexual pratfalls here, and what makes the film so cringingly funny is the fact that most of what happens onscreen is discussed, and often even suggested, in your average issue of "Cosmopolitan" or "Mens' Health."
As far as the stories go, the one between the best friends works the best, mostly because it's the sweetest out of them. Matt and Kris attempt to get drunk and fumble around, but trying to treat each other like any other one-night stand fails miserably, because they actually care about each other, and begin to realize this during. The funniest story, if the most out-there, is of the married couple. After discussing how they both feel boring and unsatisfied, Abby pulls out a strap-on, and the end result (no pun intended) is uncomfortably funny, just because it delivers what would probably be the most honest result of such an experiment.
The only time the film falls flat is in the plotline with the threesome. Gord is borderline creepy in wanting to watch his roommate have sex with his girlfriend, and becomes fully creepy when he begins making demands of them both. The scene is played for laughs, but Gord isn't likable enough for it to work. You can only feel sympathy for Dave, who looks horrifically uncomfortable the entire time. The only thing that redeems this plotline is Inez's very last line; it's fair, and honest, and will make any guy watching this bite his tongue just a bit.
For a no-budget indie comedy, the film works on all fronts. It's nothing revolutionary, and about twenty minutes in you can see why it couldn't find theatrical distribution (I'm no prude, but the film is borderline pornographic.) If I could make a recommendation, rent the film "Shortbus." Released in 2005, it was also met with controversy for its graphic sexual content (though in that film, the issue was with all the sex in the film being real) and handles similar themes of sexual need in a much gutsier, funnier and better written manner.
The film is essentially a meditation on the universally known six stages of sex (prelude, foreplay, sex, interlude, orgasm, afterglow) through the perspectives of several different relationships, existing as types of relationships. There are the exes, Mia (Sonja Bennett) and Eric (Josh Cooke) who have dinner after some time apart and end up sleeping together; the best friends Matt (Aaron Abrams) and Kris (Carly Pope, of the defunct WB show "Popular"), who try and have sex just to spare each other the difficulty of finding somebody else; the couple Andrew (Josh Dean) and Abby (Krisin Booth) who try and spice up their sex lives while celebrating Andrew's birthday; the first date between Jamie (Diora Baird) and Ken (Callum Blue) and the pair of roommates, Gord (Ennis Esmer) and Dave (Peter Oldring), who end up involved with Gord's girlfriend Inez (Natalie Lisinska) in a threesome.
The film cuts back between one night in the lives of these five couples, and because this is a no-budget indie, it lives and dies by the performances. For the most part, the film lives on them, because all the actors involved delve fearlessly into sometimes humiliating, often hilarious situations that are all tangible enough to work. There are no exaggerated "American Pie" sexual pratfalls here, and what makes the film so cringingly funny is the fact that most of what happens onscreen is discussed, and often even suggested, in your average issue of "Cosmopolitan" or "Mens' Health."
As far as the stories go, the one between the best friends works the best, mostly because it's the sweetest out of them. Matt and Kris attempt to get drunk and fumble around, but trying to treat each other like any other one-night stand fails miserably, because they actually care about each other, and begin to realize this during. The funniest story, if the most out-there, is of the married couple. After discussing how they both feel boring and unsatisfied, Abby pulls out a strap-on, and the end result (no pun intended) is uncomfortably funny, just because it delivers what would probably be the most honest result of such an experiment.
The only time the film falls flat is in the plotline with the threesome. Gord is borderline creepy in wanting to watch his roommate have sex with his girlfriend, and becomes fully creepy when he begins making demands of them both. The scene is played for laughs, but Gord isn't likable enough for it to work. You can only feel sympathy for Dave, who looks horrifically uncomfortable the entire time. The only thing that redeems this plotline is Inez's very last line; it's fair, and honest, and will make any guy watching this bite his tongue just a bit.
For a no-budget indie comedy, the film works on all fronts. It's nothing revolutionary, and about twenty minutes in you can see why it couldn't find theatrical distribution (I'm no prude, but the film is borderline pornographic.) If I could make a recommendation, rent the film "Shortbus." Released in 2005, it was also met with controversy for its graphic sexual content (though in that film, the issue was with all the sex in the film being real) and handles similar themes of sexual need in a much gutsier, funnier and better written manner.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Review: RockNRolla
What a deeply, deeply disappointing film this was. I should have known, really; I read that "RockNRolla" was shown as the surprise film at the Chicago Film Festival this year, and a lot of people left. Despite this, and the negative buzz, not to mention the constantly shifting release date, I wanted to believe in this movie. I'm a huge fan of Guy Ritchie's early work, particularly "Snatch," which yielded what might be Brad Pitt's best performance. However, Madonna and "Swept Away" happened, and Ritchie tailed off from there. Case in point: last year's "Revolver," which was Ritchie's attempt at a "Fight Club"-esque mindfuck that fell on its face.
"RockNRolla" was supposed to be Ritchie's return to form, to the delirious, hilarious crime adventures he built a career on. Instead, it shambles along at the tempo of a bad episode of "Law & Order." The story centers on...well, come to think of it, I'm not quite sure who it's centered around. The titular "rock n' rolla" is Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell), a snotty Pete Doherty doppelganger (in personality, at least) who's gone AWOL, presumed dead. However, nobody in the crime underworld believes that Quid is actually dead, least of all his adoptive father Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson, who looks like he's having a ball), the biggest and most successful crook in London.
Cole is having trouble with the new Russians in town, and things take a turn for the worse when Cole loses the lucky painting of the Russian boss. He enlists One Two (Gerard Butler) and Mumbles (Idris Elba) to get the painting back, but they end up involved with Stella (Thandie Newton), a femme fatale who seems to be playing every possible side. There are about a million more characters and plots in play, and describing what happens is just about impossible, not only because I don't take notes during movies but because it seems like even Ritchie didn't quite understand the film he was directing.
This could all be forgivable if Ritchie had played this like his old films; "Snatch" has a plot every bit as labyrinthe, but it worked because it was funny and had a kinetic energy ripping through every frame that left the audience breathless and not caring about plotting. Here, Ritchie tries to make a crime film like every other filmmaker, and loses what made his early work so innovative and great. The film spends nearly the first hour of its 110-minute running time setting up all the pieces, and it takes so long to get to the action that by the time you get there, any involvement in the plot has long gone out the window.
Even when the action does show up, it lacks the spark of Ritchie's earlier films. For that matter, it lacks the spark of most recent action films. The film's standout scene is a foot chase between One Two and a seemingly unkillable assassin, which might be the most realistic chase ever put on film; by the end, both men are limping after each other, unable to run out of exhaustion. Kebbell also stands out as a philosophy-spewing junkie with a penchant for violence, who always seems to be one step ahead of the fray. His character belongs in a better film than this.
"RockNRolla" was supposed to be Ritchie's return to form, to the delirious, hilarious crime adventures he built a career on. Instead, it shambles along at the tempo of a bad episode of "Law & Order." The story centers on...well, come to think of it, I'm not quite sure who it's centered around. The titular "rock n' rolla" is Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell), a snotty Pete Doherty doppelganger (in personality, at least) who's gone AWOL, presumed dead. However, nobody in the crime underworld believes that Quid is actually dead, least of all his adoptive father Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson, who looks like he's having a ball), the biggest and most successful crook in London.
Cole is having trouble with the new Russians in town, and things take a turn for the worse when Cole loses the lucky painting of the Russian boss. He enlists One Two (Gerard Butler) and Mumbles (Idris Elba) to get the painting back, but they end up involved with Stella (Thandie Newton), a femme fatale who seems to be playing every possible side. There are about a million more characters and plots in play, and describing what happens is just about impossible, not only because I don't take notes during movies but because it seems like even Ritchie didn't quite understand the film he was directing.
This could all be forgivable if Ritchie had played this like his old films; "Snatch" has a plot every bit as labyrinthe, but it worked because it was funny and had a kinetic energy ripping through every frame that left the audience breathless and not caring about plotting. Here, Ritchie tries to make a crime film like every other filmmaker, and loses what made his early work so innovative and great. The film spends nearly the first hour of its 110-minute running time setting up all the pieces, and it takes so long to get to the action that by the time you get there, any involvement in the plot has long gone out the window.
Even when the action does show up, it lacks the spark of Ritchie's earlier films. For that matter, it lacks the spark of most recent action films. The film's standout scene is a foot chase between One Two and a seemingly unkillable assassin, which might be the most realistic chase ever put on film; by the end, both men are limping after each other, unable to run out of exhaustion. Kebbell also stands out as a philosophy-spewing junkie with a penchant for violence, who always seems to be one step ahead of the fray. His character belongs in a better film than this.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
In 2005, with a single self inflicted gun shot wound, America lost one of its most vocal critics and rugged outlaws of this and the last Century, at the age of 68. Born in 1937, he was Hunter S. Thompson. I became enamored with the man after seeing Johnny Depp's performance as Thompson in the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. So much so, that I read the book of the same name and became further intrigued.
His prose has a poetic guilding to it that is most unmistakable and seems to take the reader to the far edge of reality and then over and beyond. This remarkable and troubled man lived through some of the most profoundly influential events in American history including the death of Dr. King, death of RFK, the Watergate Scandal, and even 9/11.
Thompson was the inventor of a journalistic style called Gonzo. Gonzo is also the title of the documentary I have just seen which chronicles the life and times of this extreme individual.
This movie is fittingly narrated by Johnny Depp using the words of Hunter S. Thompson himself and features friends and enemies alike recalling the life and wonder of the Rolling Stone journalist/phenomenon.
Hunter was in constant search of something called the American Dream. His political views were in my opinion very extreme, but there was a lot of heart in the words of his philosophy. This man was no stranger to Free Speech. He has my undying respect for being a truly unique individual, whose only real failing was that he could not respect the limits of his own mortality.
Hunter once said that the only people who know the edge are the ones who have gone over it. I think he was right.
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson is or will become a classic among documentary films.
His prose has a poetic guilding to it that is most unmistakable and seems to take the reader to the far edge of reality and then over and beyond. This remarkable and troubled man lived through some of the most profoundly influential events in American history including the death of Dr. King, death of RFK, the Watergate Scandal, and even 9/11.
Thompson was the inventor of a journalistic style called Gonzo. Gonzo is also the title of the documentary I have just seen which chronicles the life and times of this extreme individual.
This movie is fittingly narrated by Johnny Depp using the words of Hunter S. Thompson himself and features friends and enemies alike recalling the life and wonder of the Rolling Stone journalist/phenomenon.
Hunter was in constant search of something called the American Dream. His political views were in my opinion very extreme, but there was a lot of heart in the words of his philosophy. This man was no stranger to Free Speech. He has my undying respect for being a truly unique individual, whose only real failing was that he could not respect the limits of his own mortality.
Hunter once said that the only people who know the edge are the ones who have gone over it. I think he was right.
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson is or will become a classic among documentary films.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Livewire