Showing posts with label nudity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nudity. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

THE PHAAAAAAANNNNTOM OF THE OPERA IS HEEEEEEEEEEERE!... Or not.

                                     

Despite my wretched heart, I am a romantic. Nothing stirs me more than a touching love story, and not just the sort that happens in tragedy but also happiness, serendipity and chance. I also love my period films, you know the ones with elaborate costumes, sweeping dialogue and relationships between men and women. On the other side of the coin, I love my horror. I love any horror, not just one breed. One of the figures who I admire when it comes to horror is Dario Argento. The man is known for having a true eye for not just violence but also beauty, one of the key points being his masterpiece Suspiria. In my opinion it has never been topped by any of his later efforts, though between you, me and everybody we know, I have a huge appreciation for his over-looked yet flawed thriller The Stendhal Syndrome (also starring Asia).
If you combine romance, period and horror together with Argento's name attached to it directly, chances are you wouldn't need to sell me any further.
WRONG.

While I know and I do somewhat admire Argento for trying something different compared to his past efforts, it is pretty darn appalling. It's not because of the transgressive content (though honestly, what was Dario thinking when he cast his daughter Asia to be lovingly corn-holed by the Warlock himself, Julian Sands), or any of the gore for that matter, but it's just flat out BAD.
I am one of those people who loves Gaston Leroux's original tale, not to mention the prominent musical that have been inspired by the said work, but that doesn't mean I don't like the story being shaken up and turned on it's head, but... DAMN IT DARIO.

"WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?"

There are so many things wrong with this version that it's difficult to list them concisely. It's like Dario picked one massive pimple and the pus sprayed all over the face (sorry if you are eating as you read this). I have nothing against either of the Argentos (Asia is a girl crush of mine) and there's nothing horrid about Sands, but the female Argento and Sands just don't generate the appropriate if any chemistry between the Phantom and Christine. Okay, I can accept the notion that the Phantom represents Christine's dark side and that's what seems to get her off, but there was no build up. The Phantom simply goes up to Christine, says ''Sup?' and she falls into his arms.

What does this say about our heroine? Opera divas are easy.


DARIOOOOOOO! IT'S YOURRRRRR DAUGHTEEEEEEEEER!!!!!


And was that Prince-look-a-like opium addict really Raoul? The guy was fascinating as a damp towel and as useless as tits on a bull, not to mention rather... girly.


Separated at birth??


Another truly silly point is that it's difficult to feel sorry for the Phantom because he is not disfigured (though his clothes and hair are in urgent need of a Queer Eye make over). On top of that I was heavily reminded of The Penguin's whacky origin story in Batman Returns, but instead of being raised by penguins, some kindly rats raise him as their own and he identifies himself as one of them. Heck, he even lets the furry little buggers help him his man-jollies. HOT.


Gimme some cheese, baby.

Oh, oh, but that's not even the TIP of the iceberg, folks! We also have the following:
- A more than little unhinged rat catcher with his man bitch dwarf in a funny looking rat-catching contraption (not popular with the Phantom, of course)
- A dickhead stagehand with a stooopid big-racked whore girlfriend who decide it would be a great idea to venture into the Phantom's lair to find 'treasure'.
- I firmly believe no man or woman should not be ashamed of their naked anatomy, BUT, there is a time and a place for it. In the case of the decadent opium den sequence, old man wang and big ol' jelly rolls makes Da Boomkat sad in pants. :-(
- The Phantom's lines. "Your female smell".,"Your voice... fills me... with divine light!"... you're gonna have to try harder to get into MY panties, Phantie.
- Lack of eroticism. Yes, Phantom and Christine beast like there's no tomorrow, but there is no inherent sexiness in any of their love scenes, not even Asia or Julian's butts can save them.
- Ordinarily, I don't have an issue with a broad array of acting styles, but Asia seemed to have three emotions- confused, slutty and hysterical. I don't like seeing my girl that way all the time. With Julian Sands, well, he just isn't content to nibble on the scenery, but take enormous chunks out of it. In between that, the rest of the cast think they are in a circus, only they are not skilled artistes, but clowns. In the worst possible way. The only character I enjoyed was Christine's bad ass maid. MAN she was wonderfully snarky and vicious! The Phantom should have gone after her, screw the age difference.
- Epically bad lip-syncing. The art of lip-syncing of a complicated one. It takes many years to pull off properly not to mention commitment and enthusiasm. Unfortunately, Asia did not get any of this memo and just juts her chest up and down, looking like she is having an epileptic orgasm this side of Showgirls. Is there a doctor in the opera house?! She looks she's about to collapse!

Is there anything POSITIVE I can say about this movie without wincing?
Well, the movie, like many of Argento's previous films certainly looks gorgeous with lush lighting schemes, not to mention some rather impressive sets such as the interior of the opera house and the Phantom's cave. Additionally, there are some wonderfully gory moments involving death by stalagmites, some messy Phantom-inflicted bites and some other surprising demises that I will not spoil for you should you decide to watch this movie even after this review. Male readers may also be delighted to know that many of Asia's outfits leave little to the imagination, and that's when she's not being ravished by her disturbed lover.

When you look back at Dario's career, you will wonder 'how the heck he went from that glorious prime to this tripe?'. Yes, once again, he is trying something new and normally I would encourage that, but in this case, it was like a train wreak- it's horrid, it's absurd and there are better things to look at and enjoy... but for some reason you keep watching... then you feel dirty after it's finished.

Titties Galore!

So: here we have perhaps the most notorious case of the first big budget, adults only feature to hit cinemas of all time: Paul Verohoven's mastur-er-MASTERPIECE, Showgirls. For those of you who want to know the story, here it is: woman with a sordid past arrives in Vegas to 'make it', only to lose herself (wait, she had an identity) in a world of sleazy strip clubs, sex, drugs, glitz, glamour and VER-SAYCE!

I'm sorry, was this movie intended to be an erotic thriller/drama, because I completely didn't read it that way. What I saw was a blustery vulgar comedy of errors that just happened to have a lot of nudity, seizure-sex and colourful terms for genitalia. I'm not joking! I thought this was meant to be a screwball comedy. It has all of the typical stylings of one:
-One dimensional characters ie. the 'Good Girl', the 'Bad Girl', the Good Girl's Best Friend, the Douchebag, the Mother/Father figure of the Good Girl, etc...
-Laugh-inducing plot turns and 'twists'
-Potentially offensive racial stereotypes
-Despite all of the tribulations (and her best friend getting raped) the Good Girl has gone through, she makes it out in once piece and lives happily ever after.


                                                   Looka me, Mommy, I'm a STAR!

So imagine my surprise when I read Verhoven intended Showgirls to be a serious film that he wanted to titillate the audience.Verhoven, who has also been responsible for Robocop, Total Recall and The Black Book wanted to make a movie that would be talked about for years to follow- well, we can't argue with that, but it hasn't been spoken about in the way Verhoven was hoping. For example, how can one take a movie seriously when you have dialogue such as this running all the way through it?

http://www.joblo.com/video/player.php?video=SHOWGIRLS-Best-Lines

If this stuff wasn't an exercise in hilarity, it would be offensive. I mean, how many people do you know talk like this?

Next, this movie tries so hard to be sexy that it fails miserably:

http://www.joblo.com/video/player.php?video=SHOWGIRLS-Dance

I swear, that dance that Elizabeth Berkley does with that African American dude in the club looks more like an interpretive dance than ACTUAL dance.

http://www.joblo.com/video/player.php?video=SHOWGIRLS-Pool-Sex

Note, ladies and gentlemen: if your partner starts to act like this while doing the wild thing, chances are they are suffering a dreadful seizure and are in danger of swallowing their tongue, so rush them to the ER pronto!

I believe the only actor who truly knows what sort of movie they are in is the lovely Gina Gershon- she is constantly chucking knowing winks to the audience. Later on, she said that sleazy men have came up to her, eyed her up and said "You know, you were in Showgirls", to which she said "Yep. And I got to kiss beautiful women. What's your point?".

    You go, Gina

Ah, but just when we are all rolling on the floor holding our tummies with laughter, Verhoven seems to say "Hey, hey! This is a SERIOUS movie! Here, watch this lovely girl get gang raped by some douchey rock star and his roadies! Yeahhhh, not laughing now, are you?"
Oh Paul, you are such a spoil sport. :-(

That last tidbit non-withstanding, this is an outrageously stupid, dumb-arse film that does everything wrong, but it ends up being so damn right. It really is a shame that Verhoven wanted this baby to be a serious and sexy morality tale because if he was filming it for the reason why we love it so much, he might have made a sequel.

Credit to JoBlo.com for the fantastic vids.