Troll 2 (1990)

I am in no way a connoisseur of terrible cinema. Sure I've beheld the cinematic atrocity that is Plan 9 From Outer Space because one simply kind of has to. I focus on seeing films that are supposed to be good or sound good, but I have to admit it is refreshing to see an awful film every once in awhile, if only to remind me why those other films actually are so good. If excellence is the norm then you quickly become hard to impress, until you witness something so horrible that you run back into the arms of Tokyo Story because now you feel it is a masterpiece compared to what you just saw.

But here's the thing about most "bad" movies: they are unforgivably boring. MST3K has remedied this problem by adding their uneven though often funny commentary to the lowest budget films in existence. But these films, if viewed without all the smart assery, would bore you to tears and you would more then likely switch them off after half an hour. The truly best of the worst actually somehow manage to entertain you on some perverse level, and keep you entertained throughout the entire thing.

Think about it. The worst films you've ever seen are films that made you angry and are films you would never consider watching again. They are usually films that upset you on some level, or just simply bore you to tears, or rape your senses. You don't think of the worst film ever with pleasure, you think of it with disdain, you try and erase it from your memory.

Troll 2 is certainly nowhere near the worst film ever made. But it is the best worst film I have ever seen. The acting is awful, the plot pathetic, the dialogue dreadful, and the effects abominable. All these elements come together to create a film you truly have to see to believe it exists. It's so bad, its actually enjoyable somehow.

And I think one of the key elements to Troll 2's success is that the plot actually moves. Scenes are not drawn out, there are a variety of characters to keep the film from dragging (especially when the protagonist is so vexing). The film makes up the rules as it goes, and while normally I would be offended by this, here I was fascinated.

I don't really want to get into the specifics of the plot, or point out the characters, or anything like that. I'm actually somewhat disappointed in myself for watching Best Worst Movie, the documentary made by Troll 2's child star about the cult following the film has developed, because it spoiled some of the delights the film contained (though certainly not all). Best Worst Movie and Troll 2 make a good double feature, and which one you watch first is irrelevant; though the film does show some of the best scenes, it leaves one of the most over-the-top characters off screen for you to discover for yourself. But make sure you watch the films together. They make a good companion piece.

The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009)

This movie came out a while ago, and while I normally don't review films that are not currently in theaters, I feel this one kind of merits a review. Maybe.

I never actually planned to watch this film: I heard so much about it through various reviews and friends that I decided there was no point. But, ultimately, curiosity won out and I sat down with a group of friends to review what is one of the most talked about films of the year.

For those of you that really don't know, The Human Centipede tells the story of two American girls (Ashley C. Williams and Ashlynn Yennie) on a eurotrip who find themselves stranded in the middle of Germany at some creepy guy's house when their car breaks down. They are drugged and awake on a make-shift hospital room in the man's basement, who happened to be Germany's most skilled surgeon (he is Dr. Heiter, played effectively creepy by Dieter Laser). They learn they are to be joined, ass-to-mouth, with another man (a Japanese guy played by Akihiro Kitamaru) to create a human centipede. Why? Who knows, but let's just say you don't want to be stuck in the middle.

When I went into this film, I was expecting to be completely grossed out, revolted, and slightly shaken by the movie. And you know what? I wasn't. True, the film displays some horrific acts against humanity, and the sheer depravity of the whole idea makes one sick, but the film achieves this through what most will agree is very little violence. That's not to say what happens isn't sick; the good doctor makes the human centipede a sort of pet, and the graphic nature of the attachment is gross. But there are no ruthless beheadings, or endless torture scenes. Once you get over the idea of the human centipede, it becomes easy to swallow.

Speaking of swallowing, the films most sickening sequence involves one member of the centipede swallowing excrement (with the good doctor yelling, "Swallow it, bitch!"). Yet this scene is achieved by the actors performance, not by actually watching someone swallow make-shift poo.

The movie frustrates, however, as characters make key idiotic decisions where, if they had made a different decision, they might have gotten out of the situation. Por example: one of the girls actually frees herself and the good doctor goes to attend to a power surge issue. But instead of running away, she rescues her unconscious friend and drags her out of the house (I should also mention she is bleeding profusely from a recent injury). Once, out the door, though, the good doctor finally shows up and tranquilizes her (and decides to make her the middle piece).

Now, on the one hand Tom Six, the writer and director, is most likely just making a commentary on most horror films, where characters make incorrect key decisions. That's all fun and good, but the Scream films have already made this pitfall of horror very well known, and so these character decisions come off as lazy writing.

Overall, I wasn't moved by the film either way. I actually forgot about it and have only just now returned to pondering it. It's technically well made, and there's no doubt the Human Centipede will become an iconic monster, at least for the midnight crowd. But I dislike these movies so much because I don't see the point in their existence. Who honestly finds this entertaining? Who will actually admit to looking forward to films like these? I don't want to know you. There are people who like the gross out stuff, and we all know this isn't real. But honestly, what's the point?

On one final note, Tom Six is making a sequel that is due out at some point this year. You'll notice the secondary title is "First Sequence." The next one is the "Full Sequence," and I guess we are going to get a 12-person centipede. There's already an amusing teaser online in which Six speculates about all the hate he's gotten from people calling it the most disgusting film ever made. Well that's giving this film too much credit.

Black Swan (2010)

There have been many movies in the history of cinema that deal with people descending into the realm of madness: Ron Howard's A Beautiful Mind (2001), Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976), Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), and Darren Aronofsky's own Requiem for a Dream (2000). Aronofsky's latest film, Black Swan, deals with obsession and madness through Natalie Portman's ballerina character Nina, who vies for the lead role in the widely-known swan lake.

But there is a catch to this Swan Lake: the director of the show, Thomas (Vincent Cassel), wants the same ballerina to play both the white swan and the black swan. For those who don't know swan lake, here is the quick rundown: a beautiful princess is turned into a swan, and must win the love of the prince to turn her back. Sadly, the prince is seduced by the black swan, the swan princess' sister, and so the white swan commits suicide. I'll be frank in saying this movie is not subtle about dealing with the duality of the swan characters and Portman's own inner struggle to embody both roles.

Portman's Nina is an uptight character who has a sense of entitlement to the role, and just wants to be perfect at everything. This is not what Thomas is looking for: he is looking for someone who knows how to let go, to inhabit the rigid, beautiful perfection of the white swan, and the dark, seductive nature of the black swan. Nina is a perfect white swan, but a terrible black swan. "Would you fuck this girl?" Thomas inquires of the ballerino (is that the correct term?). He can't answer. The point is made

(I have just googled "male ballerina." Indeed, ballerino came back as a positive name, though the french word "danseur" is also common)

This is a frighteningly tense movie, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat for so long that when Mila Kunis' character Lily shows up and takes Nina out for a night on the town, you relax because you can finally just let go, like Nina does. It is then to the director's credit that he keeps us as uptight as Nina, relieving us only when Nina does.

And the movie is incredibly effective as a horror film as well. Nina develops a rash on her back, and constantly has visions of peeling her skin off, cutting her toes, and even pulling feathers out of her back. The movie blurs the line between reality and fantasy so much that you get lost, with Nina, in what is going on. By the end all is clear, which is slightly disappointing because I would have loved some ambiguity left to whether certain events did transpire.

But where the movie goes too over the top is in its visual effects department. Nina's skin crawls, her legs bend awkwardly, and a whole assortment of weird stuff happens that doesn't need to. We get she is going mad, and crawling skin is too obvious a way to sell it to us. The audience is generally pretty smart and can figure out what is going on. The visual effects do pay off in when beautifully rendered shot near the end, as Nina fully embodies the black swan.

SPOILER ALERT

I really had a problem with the film's ending as well. I don't disagree with the events that take place, as it is appropriate for the story and the mirroring of the ballet taking place. No, what I don't like is how similar the ending feels to The Wrestler (2008), as Randy jumps from the ring and everyone chants his name before the screen goes black. Nina jumps too (it is the role of the swan), and then everyone begins chanting her name as the screen whitens out. It's not really that the endings are similar in story, but its also similar in the way he executes it.

END SPOILER ALERT

This movie belongs to Portman, who turns in a terrific performance that is sure to garner her tons of accolades and awards, perhaps an Oscar. Was it the best of the year? Hard to say, as I still have many more films to see. But Portman sells her role, and is able to transfer from uptight, to relaxed, and completely seductive throughout the course of the film. The Academy loves showy performances over the simply, quieter ones, and this one surely draws attention.

Black Swan, in the end, succeeds at being an exceptional thriller and performance piece, and showcase for both Aronofsky's excellent sense of tension and Portman's terrific prowess as an actress. Though it goes over the top and is not something I'd sit through again soon, I do recommend it highly. Just be warned that it is an exhausting movie emotionally, and as Nina feels relieved, so do we.

Rated R for hot lesbian lovin', hot Natalie Portman masturbatin', and creepy teacher-inappropriately-touching-student lovin'. Also blood.

Antichrist (2009)

I have only seen one other film by Lars von Trier, and that was Dancer in the Dark (2000) starring Björk. Dogville (2003) is the next movie I'm going to take on of his, but there seems to be a recurring theme or whatever of crazy women in his movies. Though Björk was a tragic figure, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is fucking insane.

The movie is divided into six sections, an Epilogue and Prologue which are beautifully shot in black and white and underscored with a Handel aria, and then four chapters, Grief, Pain, Despair, and the Three Beggars. What these segments all mean is pretty obvious, by the end anyways, and make the film more or less ambiguous, depending on who you are.

But let me rewind and tell you what the movie is about. Simply, it opens with He (Willem Dafoe) and She having graphic sex while their son decides it is pertinent to jump out a second-or-third story window, which leads to his death. She goes nuts, unable to cope with the guilt that she could have prevented this death and did nothing. He is a therapist of some kind, and decides that her fears lie in Eden, a place in woods where they go.

The film's prologue and first two chapters are actually pretty good, I guess. The film rarely dips into a lot of graphic nature in the first half, save a wolf and deer, and sex, but is an interesting avant-garde therapist movie. Her feet burn in the forest, He makes Her walk between stones, and good ol' therapy sessions abound. This stuff isn't very riveting either, though.

The second half is more riveting, and a lot worse then the first half. She goes nuts, attacks Him, and everything spirals out of control. Chaos Reigns, as the cute fox says at the conclusion of Chapter 2, and indeed it does here. The movie is needlessly graphic, and while I was cringing during certain genital mutilation scenes, it never effected my in the way I think it wanted to. Hearing all the critic's reactions from its Cannes and subsequent screenings, I was expecting something that would rock me to my core, leave me traumatized, and effect me in some way.

The movie gets kudos, overall, for its cinematography (Anthony Dod Mantle) and the courageous lead performances by Dafoe and Gainsbourg. This movie gets worse in my mind as time goes on, but I cannot deny that they gave great performances. Sadly, it was in a movie that is much more boring then it would like you to think. It wants you to think it is brave, bold, daring, and exploring deep themes, when really it can be summed up as one of the ultimate anti-feminist films of all time.

It's amazing that I have to sum this movie up as overall being very...boring. All the problems in the film come from von Trier himself, and while I commend him for going out and trying something different, I reprimand him for not having any clear ideas about what he was trying to achieve. The significance of Eden is so painfully obvious, and the way She parallels the great vixens of mythology, Eve and Pandora, is ridiculous.

The reason I saw this movie in the first place was because it divided the general opinion of it. It ended up on a film critic poll as one of the Best and Worst movies at Cannes. How do you not see that movie? I won't discourage the truly curious to not go see it; you should seek it to at least experience it for yourself and decide where you stand. But to everyone else, who has no idea what this movie is, and how no idea what they would be in for, I say, stay as far away as possible.

Not Rated, but it contains several graphic sex scenes, genital mutilation, and animal abuse. Not real animals, animatronics. But still.

Häxan (1922)

Silent films, to me, represent a very unique time in film's history; this is the time when the job of director, producer, and screen actor was being developed, and it is amazing that films back then were more daring then any single film you usually get in a year in this millennium. Filmmakers back then explored the newest possibilities, particularly the German Expressionists who were probably the best Silent Filmmakers (F.W. Murnau, Fritz Lang, Erich von Stroheim, and Robert Wiene are among the best from that time).

Häxan is such a silent movie, adventurous, daring, trying new things, but it is also one of the only films that defies any convention, any labeling. It is part documentary, part drama, part comedy, and part horror. Yet this movie comes from a Danish director, not a German one, and exemplifies the limitless boundaries of the imagination from that time.

The movie is told in seven parts, though most of them really don't mark the ending of one story. Chapter One is basically a slideshow, as director Benjamin Christensen shows us a lot of researched history on the paranoia of people from the Middle Ages that led to their belief in Witches (Häxan translates, more or less, to The Witches). We get drawings that illustrate hell, where demons put the damned into cauldrons (I couldn't help but notice one of the cauldrons was marked "Judei"), and hot metal liquid is poured down the damned's throat.

Part Two on is mainly recreated scenarios involving witches actually existing. We see the horrible hags in their coven, plundering dead thieves' bodies from the gallows and using their remains in potions. One witch requests a love potion and we get two imagined scenes in which a portly brother of the church chases the witch, madly in love with her.

The film also highlights how witches were ousted: being thrown, naked, into a pond to determine their witchhood. If they floated, they were recovered from the pond and burned; if they sank, the fathers would thank God for sparing this girl's soul (though no remark is made as to whether this woman is rescued).

The only part of the movie I would call a running story, or thread, comes when a man falls ill and his wife blames witchcraft. An old woman stops by for food, and the wife immediately has her arrested by the church, who proceed to torture a confession out of her. And she describes the Witches' mass.

The Witches' mass is introduced to us in the film's first chapter, and it is mainly something you kind of have to see to really grasp how paranoid everyone was back then. To partake, the women fly high up into the sky to some castle and garden, and proceed to frolic with the devil and his minions. Probably the most significant moment of this movie involves the witches proceeding one by one to the devil and placing a kiss on his derrière. This marks them as witches, and allows them to continue on their evil wicked ways.

What message this movie is trying to put out, what lesson it is trying to teach is unclear to me. I was never certain if the director believed all the findings he researched, or he was merely laughing at how paranoid everyone was back then, and how that paranoia made everything a reality. Really, he seems to be presenting the second part as his main point, but he also has conviction in the scenes involving the witches.

The movie breaks the fourth wall a lot, and in Chapter 6 or 7, the director mentions that the actress who played Maria the Weaver (Maren Pedersen, another witch) turned to the director during shooting and said, "The Devil is real. I have seen him sitting at my bedside." Her conviction in this story is resolute, which is why Mrs. Pedersen probably partook of this film.

This film was made before there were conventions and clichés in film. There were no definite rules of story that we learn today in our classes, and Häxan is a movie breathing with life and invention from its director's limitless research on the subject of Witchcraft in the Middle Ages. Even by today's standards I would say this film is very daring and I have really never seen anything like it in all the other movies I have ever seen.