Revisit: Memoirs of an Invisible Man

A Warner Brothers film 1992

Directed by John Carpenter

Written by Robert Collector, Dana Olsen & William Goldman

Based on the book by H.F. Saint

After a freak accident, an invisible yuppie runs from a treacherous CIA official while trying to cope with his new life.



Horror master John Carpenter teams up with Chevy Chase in this bizarre effects-pushing adaptation of H.F. Saint's famous novel. Not quite a comedy (as Chase's presence would imply), not quite a horror film, and yet not quite a thriller, Memoirs is a bit of everything but not enough of anything. A fun film, but a weird one, it's not surprising audiences didn't connect with it during it's 1992 theatrical run. The tone is simply too scattered, and Chase too uncouth and indifferent a performer to keep it centered. I've always appreciated Chase's nonchalant style, but it feels really out of place here. Carpenter surrounds Chase with a bevy of quality supporting actors, but Sam Neil seems to be trying way too hard (it's almost like he's in a different movie), Darryl Hannah is just kind of there, and Michael McKean gets nothing to work with. The real highlight (at the time) must have been the invisible effects from Industrial Light & Magic. One year before Jurassic Park blew everyone's minds, ILM was tinkering with mixing CGI and practical effects on this film. Watch only if you're a fan of those involved, or have nothing better to do.

Revisit: The Thief of Bagdad

A United Artists film 1940

Directed by:
Ludwig Berger
Michael Powell
Tim Whelan
Alexander Korda(uncredited)
Zoltan Korda (uncredited)
William Cameron Menzies (uncredited)

Written by Miles Malleson

Prince Ahmad is the rightful King of Bagdad but has been blinded and cast out as a beggar. Together with Abu, the best thief in all Bagdad, the Prince sets out on a series of adventures that involve a Djinni in a bottle, a mechanical flying horse, an all-seeing magic jewel, a flying carpet and a beautiful princess in order to restore his kingdom from the wicked Grand Vizier Jaffar.



Old school Hollywood in all its splendor, The Thief of Bagdad features exotic locales (!), amazing special effects (!), beautiful women (!), and high-flying action (!), all in glorious Technicolor (!!!). Not to be confused with the (arguably better) 1924 silent film of the same name, this Thief cobbles its plot from a bunch of stories out of Arabian Nights, which makes for some spectacular sequences that were then re-imaged for the Disney animated film Aladdin.

The film is delightfully simple stuff -- easy to digest and fun to look at with a lot happening on screen but little going on up stairs. For some reason, none of the actors are Arab -- Sabu (who plays Abu in the film, why'd they even bother to change his name?) is the most famous actor here, and the most ethnic, having been one of the first Indian actors in Hollywood. It also marks John Justin's film debut, a British stage actor who occasionally dabbled in film. He sports a hilarious thin-lip-stache and struggles to hide his British roots throughout the film. We had a lot of fun making jokes at his expense while watching.

Legend has it that producer Alexander Korda was so demanding that he went through six directors during the making of this film, including his brother Zoltan Korda and leading art director William Cameron Menzies. Not shocking -- everything presented on screen, from the lavish set pieces to the extravagant effects to the pastel-saturated color scheme looks expensive as hell, especially considering the time. This is one of the best example of early big budget Hollywood movie-making one could find. Worth watching if you dig that sort of thing.

Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

A Paramount Pictures release 2008

Directed by David Fincher

Written by Eric Roth

A man is stricken with a bizarre condition and forced to go through life aging backwards.



The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is really long. And boring. And nothing like the book at all.

It's a shame too, because I really like Dave Fincher. Fight Club and Se7en are both wildly entertaining, and Zodiac is one of the most criminally under-appreciated masterpieces of all time. He's got a sharp, distinct visual style and a gritty sense of story. None of which serve this film in any real way.

Oh sure, Benjamin Button is pretty. The cinematography is gorgeous, lighting incredible, effects are grand, and Cate Blanchett looks damn fine in that leotard. But the film is all gloss and no depth; it's so vacant it makes Postal seem like an honest treatise on the sociological effects of 9-11 on American Imperialism and suburban violence.

NOTHING happens in this movie. Nothing worth noting at least. Benjamin ages backwards, but it doesn't seem to matter -- when he's old (young), people just make cracks about how spry he is, and when he's young (old), people just seem to want to sleep with him. Brad Pitt provides his pretty face but not much more in terms of emotions; he seems to just waltz through the movie as if nothing is even happening.

Part of the reason for that is the terrible, terrible script. The whole "aging backwards" thing is basically treated like a special effect -- if you took it out, you'd lose nothing but a few quips, a handful of jokes, and some cool special effects. Eric Roth took a fantastically funny short story, ran it through a shredder, mixed it up with some scenes that got cut from Forrest Gump, put it together with some duck tape and handed it to execs with the pretense that it's some big "meditation on life and death". What a crock of horse shit -- really it's a meandering mess that has absolutely no focus with a dash of pretension and a butt load of basic Hollywood romance.

None of which services Fincher's abilities. The guy can piggy back of most 70's era filmmakers, but Button is clearly old Hollywood, and Fincher flounders. The film doesn't know if it wants be a somber tale of woe, a fantasy epic, or a comedy, and it fails at all three. Fincher's dark color palate and brooding camera doesn't make it any more clear.

My advice: don't waste your time with this one. It commits the worst of movie crimes -- it's over 3 hours long and boring as hell. You're seriously better off watching Postal. Not joking.