Return to Wonderland

Escaping the Adventure

Sweet Transvestite from Agrabah

Dorothy in Wonderland

Movie Review: "Manos: The Hands of Fate"

When watching a '60s horror movie, we don't expect to be dazzled by special effects or shaking with fear, but Manos: The Hands of Fate goes to new levels of disappointment. I've written a few posts on bad movies recently, which I partially attribute to a group of friends who enjoy laughing at poorly-made movies and partially to a cult film class. It is essential when watching Manos, or any of these terrible movies I've mentioned, to watch with a sense of humor and a group of friends who can appreciate its badness with you. Manos is a horror movie about a couple on their vacation with their daughter and dog who get lost on the beaten trail and stumble upon lodging occupied by some unusual characters. Torgo, a quasi-ram-legged house servant, greets them and speaks of "the master" who is away but will return and be displeased with the child's presence. The movie is just over an hour long, and yet my friends and I coudn't help but keep checking the clock. The first ten minutes or so consists of repetitive driving shots and confusion. What little dialogue there is looks somewhat dubbed and only partially matched. Obsession with a portrait of "the master" and his dog becomes even more ridiculous when we see the mater and his happy, friendly dog. The characters are absolutely idiotic and the dialogue seems improvised, or at least I would hope it was in order to give the writer more credibility.

I think I tried to repress some of the movie, but what remains after the hour were some lingering questions. Who is Manos? The master speaks about pleasing Manos and directly talks to Manos is a somewhat satanic ritual, but we never get an explanation of what/who Manos is. What happens to Torgo? The last time we see him, he runs off after his face was touched by a group of the master's wives (as a form of torture) and his hand was cut off and set on fire (in one quick movement). The master and his wives talk about sacrificing Torgo for his insolence, but at the end of the ritual, they have his burning hand and he runs off to some unknown land. And finally, what are we supposed to be afraid of? The monster is merely a man who sleeps, has multiple wives, and burns hands of insolent servants. Besides a moment of hand-sacrifice to the mysterious Manos, the antagonists are creepy at worst.

Movie Review: Battlefield Earth

Roger Christian's Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 is a movie starring John Travolta, Forest Whitacker and Barry Pepper based on the L. Ron Hubbard's book. Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology and this movie is meant to reflect some Scientology beliefs. Now, I don't know a lot about Scientology, but after seeing this movie, I have no desire to be a part of it. Battlefield Earth is known as one of the worst movies ever made, which wouldn't be so bad if it hadn't been such a big-budget film. Jon Stewart described Battlefield Earth as "a cross between Stars Wars and the smell of ass", however I would say it's a cross between Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, amateur Shakespearean theater and a train wreck.

Before getting into the technical details and why this film is so laughably bad, here's a quick plot summary. It is the year 3000 and humans are on the verge of extinction after a humanoid alien race (who are eight feet tall and have dreadlocks/unusual facial hair) called Psychlos have ruled Earth the past thousand years. After being abused and eventually put to use as gold miners, Johnny Goodboy Tyler (Pepper) learns the Psychlo's ways and leads a rebellion.

John Travolta seems to be the only one who thinks this movie was a good idea. In fact, he was so excited about making this movie that he contributed a good deal of his own money to have it made. What's most confusing is how a talented actor like Travolta manages to give such a ridiculous performance so seriously. The performances from all the actors are overdone and laughable. The lines are delivered with inconsistent accents and a mock-Shakespearean air that makes the movie quotable purely for the hilarious emphases (e.g. "Do you WANT LUNCH?!", "While YOU were still learning how to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was learning how to CONQUER GALAXIES!").  

One of the main problems in the technical aspects of the film alone was the double-open swipe. As a transition between almost every scene, a swipe was used coming from the center of the screen out to the edges of the shot. These seemed to serve no purpose and just made the movie all the more cheesy and ridiculous. However the most distracting and problematic aspect of the cinematography was the overwhelming amount of canted angles. I counted approximately four or five level angles throughout this two-hour movie. They were used to the point where they weren't serving their purpose unless they were meant to make the audience tilt their heads, which they were doing anyways. Along the same lines, there were certain aspects of Battlefield Earth that were simply not done well. The humans ("man animals") and psychlos spoke different languages and yet we only get slight grunts hinting at a foreign language, otherwise they both speak English. They also couldn't breathe the same air, and while they did a good job of making sure the humans and psychlos weren't wearing the air masks at the same time, there are certain points when the humans are able to breathe in certain areas and we don't know why.

If you're going to watch Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, do so with an expectation for the most entertainingly bad movie you've ever seen. Prepare for a futureistic post-apocalyptic epic filled with overdone performances, canted angles and double-open swipes. And if the open-ended conclusion leaves you wanting more hilarious sub-mediocrity, remember that it only covers the first half of Hubbard's book and John Travolta still has plenty of cash to spare. Here's hoping for the sequel.

Movie Review: Eraserhead

Eraserhead is one of those films that people really have a hard time interpreting, and while most confusing movies become cleared up through director's commentary or critical reviews, this is one movie where the director is of little help and apparently no one has eve come close to guessing his intent. The story follows Henry in a dead, industrial city where he tries to adjust to his new life as the father of a mutant premature child after having just found out that he impregnated his girlfriend. There are painfully long silent scenes and drawn out glances that create an awkward, somewhat frightening feeling where the viewer doesn't know what to think or expect. When watching the film, one can't help but notice how very abstract and  expressionistic throughout and there was a lot of symbolism that is difficult to interpret throughout the film, especially with regards to outer space. In terms of gender, there were no particularly good female characters, however Mary was pitiable at times. Henry, however, wasn't a very good (in terms of good vs. evil) character himself. We pity him initially, but as the film goes on we begin to dislike him for cheating on his wife and killing his child. Jack Nance does a great job portraying Henry because, even though he does hardly anything worthy of approval throughout the film, it's still hard not to pity him because of his expressions throughout the film alone.

Some suggest the movie is a critique of the "shotgun wedding" idea of getting married because of pregnancy, others think it's a critique of a potential industrial, post-apocalyptic world. What does David Lynch have to say on the subject? Absolutely nothing. Lynch doesn't like to tell his intent when making a film and would rather the audience interpret it for themselves. All Lynch has said on the subject is that no one's theory has even come close to his original intent in making the film. So if you enjoy a good puzzle and interpreting a film in a new and interesting way, Eraserhead would be a great film to watch.

Movie Review: Pink Flamingos

Pink Flamingos is John Waters most famous film and is advertised as “one of the most vile, stupid and repulsive films ever made.” After hearing details a few years ago about a scene where the protagonist eats dog feces, I promised myself I would never watch this movie. Unfortunately, I was assigned a presentation on John Waters and felt I had a responsibility to sit through Pink Flamingos. The rest of the class watched his later film, Cry Baby because they felt that they wouldn’t be able to sit through all of Pink Flamingos based on what they’ve read of it. Cult films and midnight movies such as Pink Flamingos are meant to be gross on some level to glorify the outcasts as opposed to looking down on them. However, Pink Flamingos took this to a traumatizing level. Anything and everything that someone wouldn’t want to watch is in this movie- from eating poop to vomiting to rape to do-it-yourself artificial insemination. But all of this would be a bit more tolerable to watch if there was less amateur filming techniques and if it wasn’t known for actually doing most of the things that happen in the movie. Surprisingly, the incest and rape scenes were almost easier to watch than some other scenes because the viewer can simply tell him/herself that it’s only a movie and that the people aren’t actually related or being raped. However, the protagonist (Divine) is known for having actually eaten the poop and there is a sex scene where a chicken is actually killed before the viewers eyes after being smothered between the couple having sex. Knowing that these events are real and having the film relentlessly show us this from dog to mouth or struggling chicken to bloody mess, makes this film not only difficult to watch, but traumatic. Even knowing of the most notoriously repulsive scenes won’t make the film any easier to watch because just when you think you’ve passed the worst of it, it maintains its level of repulsion consistently throughout the movie. John Waters succeeded in making the most repulsive movie of all time, but the viewer should know his/her limits (and gag reflex) before deciding to watch it.

The Feminist's Guide to Disney Princesses

 I absolutely adore Disney movies. But as I got older and was introduced to feminist ideas, certain characters started to change for me. Suddenly Aurora seemed like a secondary character who doesn't do anything for herself. This made me wonder how a these Disney princesses might be perceived in today's society.

As previously mentioned, Sleeping Beauty's Aurora is really a secondary character in the story. She sleeps through the majority of the movie, and what little conscious time she has is spent daydreaming and crying over her bad luck. In today's society, she would probably be the worst Disney princess because of her lack of realistic ideas, domesticity, and overly emotional character.

Snow White. Oh, Snow White. She is in close contention with Aurora for the worst Disney princess. Similarly, Snow White spends a good amount of the time sleeping and brings little to the story. She is the image of domesticity and the '50s poster wife. She cooks, she cleans, and she sleeps. She has no ambitions other than to get married. In today's society, she would be viewed as very backward and lacking substance. Also, she moved in with seven men. What's up with that? She's more of a promiscuous housekeeper than a heroine. 

Cinderella is better than Snow White but not by much. She, again, is very domestic but not by choice. The plot of Cinderella is very woman-driven (at least on a civilian perspective) and, although Cinderella spends a good deal of her time crying over her problems, she finds the courage to act against her injustices with some help from friends/family. She could be improved as a character if she had found the strength and ability to help herself as opposed to relying on others. In today's society, Cinderella would be a victim of domestic abuse and probably quite messed up throughout her life. Other than that, we don't really know that much about her and can't draw too many conclusions.

The Little Mermaid's Ariel isn't much better. This was upsetting to me because The Little Mermaid was my favorite movie growing up and viewing this movie as an adult made me reconsider my admiration for her. Sure, she's adventurous, curious and talented but what else does she have going for her as a character? Again, the majority of the time she spends arguing with her father and whining or crying about how life isn't fair. She's better than Aurora in that she takes action to achieve her goals, but she does so by getting involved in a crowd that she knows is not the best. In today's society, she would probably be an emo teenager who runs away with a group of drug addicts to escape her pain. Quite depressing.

Aladdin's Jasmine is a step in the right direction. She still has the whiny daughter aspect in that she spends a good deal of time arguing with her father and complaining about her being forced to marry. But she clearly loves her father and is fighting against the ideals of arranged marriages and takes action in finding a life of her own. In today's society, Jasmine would be a snobby rich girl who runs away from home to live a poor, but happy life as a stay-at-home mom and/or world traveler (because lets face it, other than wanting to see the world, her only ambition is to marry someone she loves).

Beauty and the Beast's Belle is a unique Disney princess in that there is a strong focus on her intelligence as opposed to her destiny to marry. She wants adventure, freedom and knowledge. She has a strong love for her father and sacrifices much save him. She has the ability to see potential in people and refuses to follow the stereotype of marrying the most attractive brute of a man. In today's society, she would be a bookworm who always does the right thing. She wouldn't necessarily think of things in terms of feminism but in terms of right and wrong. She would make you feel like a horrible person in comparison.

Pocahontas is another Disney princess that shows more substance because of a huge sacrifice she makes for someone she loves. Again, there's a clash with her father as seen in other Disney princesses but she works for the overall peace and happiness of two rivaling communities. In today's society, she would be a member of the Peace Corps and a superhero. Again, you would feel bad about yourself in comparison to her.

And then there's Mulan. Mulan is by far the feminist's superhero in the Disney world. She knows what she wants, acts out against backwards ideals, honors her family and elders, and manages to bring peace and justice after all conflicts in the story. She proves herself an equal if not superior to her male peers and makes a significant step for women's rights. In today's society, she would be a hardcore feminist who you would not want to mess with.

"Killing Me Softly" Review

Killing Me Softly is a passionate story about a woman, Alice, who leaves her safe, somewhat boring boyfriend for a mysterious, sexy mountain climber. They hastily get married after only a short time of dating and Alice soon realizes how little she knows about her new husband. It is a love story/murder mystery combination that comes with a crazy twist ending. A great deal of focus is put on the passionate sex between the couple and the submissive role Alice plays in comparison to her husband Adam.

I enjoy watching Joseph Fiennes, and this was a great performance from him. He nails the role of a strong, threateningly mysterious man while simultaneously portraying a man who's hopelessly in love. Heather Graham always seems to play the role of the somewhat-naive woman who somehow manages to be half-naked during the film. I found her character frustrating throughout the film because she seems to harp on the same bit of evidence that doesn't end up having much relevance. While the film focuses on the strong separation between Alice's role as a "flatlander" and Adam's role as a heroic mountain climber, this separation seems to be compensated for by their intense sex life and inexplicable connection. Adam is very concerned whether or not Alice trusts him, while she sneaks behind his back reading his private letters and arranging meetings with people from his past.

I was on board with the movie until it got towards the end. The more Alice snoops in Adam's past, the more she convinces herself that he is a murderer and possible rapist. She lets herself become frightened by him so much that she runs away from him even though he openly told her he had nothing to hide, would tell her anything she wanted to know, and would stop in the middle of sex if she asked him. The framing story served well to strike a bit of fear and anxiety in the viewer, but I only became increasingly frustrated with Alice because she continues her meddling and suspicion after authorities ease her mind and she sees Adam sick with worry about her well-being. After the framing story came full circle, I quickly got frustrated with Alice's character to the point where I didn't care about her well-being, even though she was the protagonist. I found myself hoping there would be some kind of twist ending that would make the movie worth watching, and I was relieved to find myself actually surprised at the unpredictable ending to the murder mystery. However, while I was satisfied with the murder mystery in Killing Me Softly, I was left wanting more with the love story. Adam and Alice were built up as having an inexplicable connection brought on by a combination of incredible sex and love at first sight. But after an extremely traumatic event that leaves the two of them scarred but alive, their relationship part of the film seems to be dropped. What was emphasized as so critical to the film ended up seeming like a phase in Alice's life that came, left its impact, and left just like any other relationship. I found this very disappointing and felt unsatisfied with the lack of continuity and conclusion in their relationship.

Something for the Twihards

Twilight is a cultural phenomenon that has taken America by storm over the past few years. The books are best sellers and the movies are in high demand. However, how many people have actually read all the books as well as seen the movies? The craze over the movies has become more of a teenage love fest over Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner. The books are great as supplementary work to the movies, but there is a reason why some people roll their eyes when they hear about Twilight. Stephanie Meyer did a good job with the movies and adding plenty of detail to the stories, but when reading the books, one can only be reminded of a cheesy high school romance novel...without the sex. This can be viewed as a positive or negative thing depending on what you look for in a book. It makes the books quick reads and challenging to put down at times. Some feel that the abundance of sexual tension was nostalgic of high school, while others feel that it's not necessarily worth all the hype they're receiving. The original concept of the story is interesting, although it seems that several vampire enthusiasts were upset by some of the original spins on the vampires (such as sparkling in the sunlight). This could have been remedied by a more elaborate look into the history of the vampire legends and arriving at a less controversial excuse for the Cullens' ability to live amongst average people. The ends of the books leave the reader wanting, but not in the way other sequential books do. They're a bit open ended and seem to provide a conclusion, but don't develop or follow this conclusion up very well. As previously stated, Meyer does a good job with details, but there were points when this attention to detail could have functioned in the conclusions more.

In terms of the movies, they should really be watched after reading the books. There's a lot that you don't get from the movies that is laid out in the books and there is a lot about the characters and editing in the films that makes sense after reading the books. Of course the movies are cheesy and there are far too many dramatic closeups of eyes, but these things make sense to the viewer if they've read the books and understand the characters and what they're thinking. The movies and books are still very much a high schooler's PG romance novel, but they come across as much more legitimate and worthwhile when taken as supplementary works.