Friday, December 8, 2017

The Disaster Artist (2017) [Midnight Movie]


The Disaster Artist was easily my most anticipated movie of the year, if only because I loved the book it was based on. For the uninitiated, Hollywood hopeful Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) begins an unlikely friendship with the mysteriously odd Tommy Wiseau (James Franco) and it's not long before the two of them cohabit an apartment in LA. Sestero finds modest success in the movie industry while Wiseau, who likens himself to James Dean despite his ghoulish appearance, struggles with auditions.

When a Hollywood producer informs him he'll never be a star, Wiseau decides to make his own movie the only way he knows how: very oddly. He buys his equipment outright, which is pretty much unheard of in Hollywood, and he builds sets despite having access to the real world locations that appear in his script. As in real life, whenever someone questions the way Wiseau does something, he tells them in that untraceable accent of his, "Because this is real Hollywood movie."


The concept is ripe for comedy and the movie certainly delivers, but if there's anything disappointing about The Disaster Artist it's the brevity of it. The movie is only 105 minutes long and that's including celebrity interviews at the beginning of the film and scene-by-scene comparisons at the end. That stuff is fun to watch, but it feels more like extra features than something to put in your final cut. (I heard Franco and company remade more than forty minutes of Wiseau's movie, so hopefully we can expect to see it on the Blu-Ray.)

There were a lot of details left out, too. Its absence is understandable, but I would have loved to see Franco's take on the fake commercial Wiseau shot in order to get himself into SAG. And although the book wasn't full of drama, I think the movie could have used more of it. They kind of breeze over the more worrisome aspects of Wiseau's indecipherable psyche, which somehow made me less sympathetic to the fictionalized version than the real one. My only other complaint is the cameos are kind of pointless; you'll say, "Hey, it's Sharon Stone!" but, like the breast cancer subplot in Wiseau's film, you'll wonder where the payoff went.

I'm not sure I'd trust the Oscar buzz because it's a straight comedy and James Franco's performance, which is a great impersonation with a surprising amount of range, isn't exactly what the Academy is typically looking for. I say fuck 'em. It's a great time at the movies, just don't expect this generation's Ed Wood.

Friday, December 1, 2017

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) [Midnight Movie]


They could have fixed 70% of my problems with Bram Stoker's Dracula if they had just called it Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. The problem isn't that the movie isn't as good as the book—that's just par for the course. The problem is, with a title like that, you'd expect them to take far fewer liberties than they did, especially considering the novel itself was remarkably cinematic for its time. 

The scene in which Dracula is spotted crawling across the wall is chilling in the imagination, but it's lacking something on the screen. Likewise, there's some great visual effects, but Coppola leaves them on display for too long while Keanu Reeves somehow manages not to react whatsoever. I appreciate the shameless use of old fashioned sets and sound stages, but the look of the film hearkens back to previous film adaptations even though the bold title suggests it's intended to be more novel than movie.


Then there's Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder who are outrageously miscast for the project. Phony accents aside, I wouldn't go so far as to say I hated them in this movie because I actually think they could have been good in a different Dracula project. They just weren't cut out for this Dracula project, which feels like an unhappy marriage between a studio flick and a pretentious art film. The rest of the cast, with the exception of Tom Waits, is more or less spot on. Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing is a dream come true, at least when the script doesn't have him acting out of character, and the movie could have used more of Richard E. Grant, Cary Elwes, and Billy Campbell as Lucy's suitors. The hunt scenes involving these players really are a spectacle; it's just everything leading up to these scenes I'm not so sure about.

I guess I should mention Gary Oldman as Dracula, but I really don't know what to say. He's good here, I suppose, but I can't decide if he's "Gary Oldman good" or if he's substandard compared to the rest of his filmography. This is at least the second time I've seen this movie and I still feel like there was too much stuff distracting me from Oldman's performance.


Once it gets going, the movie frequently comes close to genuine thrills, but never really delivers the goods until heads are lopped off and blood is spewed at our heroes. The horror elements can be damn near perfect at times and the score is great throughout (I often listen to it while I write). It should be noted there was a fantastic pinball machine based on the film as well. But then the pacing is off and Coppola throws in a handful of what-the-fuck moments for no apparent reason.

It's a highly watchable movie, but it doesn't quite reach its potential. Usually I'm interested in seeing a director's cut, but I'm beginning to think the studio cut of this movie is possibly better; I'm not really sure what Coppola was going for at times. I don't think he did, either.