David Lynch's Hotel Room.

A 3 episode HBO series set in a New York hotel room spanning the years of 1969, 1992 and 1936.

"Tricks" - Directed by Lynch and written by Barry Gifford (Lost Highway, Wild at Heart), this is one of Lynch's ventures into film-noir. This reminds me mostly of certain episodes of Tales From The Darkside/Monsters with its purposely droll, slow-winding, unexplained and out-of-time sense of minimalist storytelling. I found its mood and mysterious plot very effecting and an interesting bridge between the Twin Peaks and Lost Highway shift in Lynch's 1990s aesthetic.

"Getting Rid of Robert" - The one episode not directed by David Lynch, this was the weakest entry, but it didn't have much potential to begin with. All anthology shows have filler episodes like this that are more about humor and no real transformation in character. The script by Jay McInerney (Bright Lights Big City) is actually good; typically hip and snarky as McInerney can be. But the direction is flat, the acting is good but just out of place with the concept. Had Lynch directed this, much more dark humor would have boiled to the top. This is identical to a throwaway episode of Tales from the Crypt (but less disturbing) or an episode of Monsters (but more stylish and witty).

"Blackout" - This is a particular favorite of diehard Lynch fans. It has the ingredients of Lynch's strangest work: a visually dark setting, lots of seemingly-meaningless psychobabble, characters who seem to be out of their mind, a surprisingly moving allegorical story and it reunites Lynch with two of his most committing actors, Alicia Witt and Crispin Glover. Alicia Witt is pretty incredible here. But to be honest, the episode in its entirely is not as haunting, effecting or bizarre as I had hoped. The surrealism of the performances and direction makes me wonder if Lynch's style ever goes too far or if that is just the desired effect he wants. Is the acting hammy or just right for the story? Is the story too oblique or is it perfect for these unusual characters? Is the humor intentional or not? It doesn't really matter because it is strangely powerful art. This is certainly the most memorable of the 3 episodes.

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

Very cute love letter to slasher movies, but a weak slasher film on its own two legs

Premise: In a world where ALL of our cinematic psychos are real human beings, a film crew follows a slasher-in-training as he plans his killing spree and stalks his Final Girl. It has a predictable climax (you might have already guessed it), but the buildup is done with great wit and affection for the conventions of the genre making it hard to reject Leslie Vernon.

How it balances the story within a story is very well done. For the first 2/3rds of the film, we are watching a slasher film play out within a mockumentary. It has the perfect alibi to make a "paint by numbers" b-movie while admitting its unoriginality. What it does best is get sympathy from absurd characters and command respect for a genre its lampooning. These are very brave achievements. It also goes in deeper with its deconstruction of slasher films than Scream ever did, but it lacks its contemporary's strong base as a horror film of its own. This film is funnier and more romantic than it is scary.

The last Act of the film is where things fall apart. We expect the generic slasher plot these wiser-than-usual characters manipulate the genre into something new and exciting. But instead the film becomes unrewarding and unexciting, especially compared to Acts 1 and 2, and its twist becomes apparent prematurely. As a horror film, Leslie Vernon kind of goes limp.

I still enjoyed myself with this one. The sheer ambition of this film makes it noteworthy, but the execution was rather mediocre. Its derivative and amateur, but what popular horror film isn't these days. Atleast this one has heart, bravery and the brains to make something a tad memorable. There are so many post-modern horror-comedies and tributes to the golden age of horror films and this is easily best one I've seen.

"Why Do Fools Fall In Love?"

Hollywood-produced parody of a great fallen talent

Watching this biopic of Frankie Lymon, I'm reminded of why I hated a lot of late 1990s cinema. Here we have a very tragic and historic story of the music business and its treated like a campy ghetto melodrama, something John Waters would have envisioned and abandoned. The story is more about the women in Frankie's life, but it still paints a ridiculous portrait of its main character. Everyone is a cartoonish parody of the 60s who speak in never-ending "cute" and unrealistic 1960s euphemisms. The clothing and sets are too stylized and cinematic for a biopic. This is someone's romantic and braindead idea of what the music business was like for young black stars. Its a parody of this man's very important and sad life.

There is little historical accuracy as none of the actors or fashions resemble the real thing. The handsome, muscular, swaggering and very brash Larenz Tate is a good actor, but he is a very wrong Frankie Lymon. Whats really absurd is how his onstage performances look NOTHING like the documented performances of Lymon. Frankie is characterized as a violent, self-destructive "Negro" with no redeeming traits besides the fact he is good looking. Which is retarded because the real Frankie was apparently a classy, but brat-ish man-boy who was corrupted by leeches in the music business. The story finds some respect for Frankie towards the end of the film, but its not compelling at all. Like the film Sid and Nancy we have a very dramatized and speculative climax where Frankie returns to New York and is rejected by his manager and turns to heroin in his disappointment, as he has nothing else to do. THE FILM GLOSSES OVER HIS INTENSE DRUG ADDICTION so this comes out of nowhere and doesn't effect us at all. And the real Frankie actually was in the process of recording new music in New York when he shot up, for the first time in years, to celebrate his good fortune.

The film is written by a woman, a black woman, and it comes off as a condemnation of black men in general as adulterous and insincere. There is little focus on his talent, his deep struggles, his being manipulated by men AND women around him. In the end, his three wives are the heroines for putting up with him. Its poorly staged, poorly researched and way too condescending to be a tribute to this genuine musical legend. Fucking shameful.

Here is the powerful real drama that was absent from this shitty film: An older, heroin-raddled Frankie Lymon makes is final appearance on television having to lip-sync to his classic hit "Why Do Fools Fall In Love?" because his voice is so damaged by age and drugs. Despite this, Frankie's class and showmanship is still moving. In the biopic, this event is a garish and joyous choreographed spectacle by a healthy Frankie. Sickening.

Ninja III: The Domination (full film)

I rewatched David Byrne's True Stories the other night and its still with me, replaying in my head. This is my romantic cinematic statement for a much bigger romantic cinematic statement.



For those unfamiliar with David Byrne and the film True Stories, it is a deadpan musical-comedy in the style of a documentary. But not like Spinal Tap. We are taken on an odd tour of Virgil, Texas and the story springs from all of Virgil's inhabitants. The film is narrated by the seemingly aloof David Byrne, the front man of first-wave American punk band Talking Heads, who is trying to fit in with the townspeople and their off beat groove. True Stories is Byrne's love letter to yesterday's Americana. He cherishes how slowly paced, flat and plain towns like Virgil are or atleast were. The town is in transition and maybe trying to lose its specialness just to catch up with the world. The worldly Byrne as director and storyteller seems to be saying "No. You are fine the way you are and go at your own pace". Byrne is revealing that he gets his own intellectual high brow ideas from the least likely places like the fictional Virgil, Texas. All of the songs are written by David Byrne but mostly sung by characters in the film. Talking Heads only play 3 songs (1 during the closing credits) but they released an album covering all of the songs from the film as an unofficial soundtrack.



All of Virgil's residents are colorful, friendly but deeply flawed. Their believable humanity is one of the film's strengths. They are all so bizarre and bigger than life, but not so strange that we dismiss the notion of finding them in this world. They all are tied to the large computer corporation in town in different ways. Everyone but David Byrne's character is oblivious to the ways it is changing their lives. The film isn't necessarily opposed to corporatism or technology. It just makes startling discoveries about how it has changed the American landscape. There is one very jarring and powerful musical number about the reality of greed and the huge gap in social classes. Its very interesting because it foreshadows so many of today's hot issues like the "We are the One Percent" and the legacy of Steve Jobs, by a good 25 years.

The tagline fits perfectly: A completely cool, multi-purpose movie. You can take this film as a showcase of 1980s offbeat culture a'la Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Or you can view it as a surrealist piece on late 20th century America. Or if you are a Talking Heads fan, it works as a great companion piece. Its power is flexible and long-lasting. True Stories is, one hopes after watching it, true to life.

"Spies Like Us"

For the past 2 years, I've really been analyzing the comedy film and television work of the Second City/National Lampoon/Saturday Night Live crew that pretty much dominated American comedy from the mid 70s to early 90s. Why? Because these comic actors and writers have shaped so much of the current comic/satirical atmosphere. Just about everything we associate with funny would be much different. Plus, I grew up loving their stuff. There's just so much colorful work to review.

But lets look at "Spies Like Us", a popular title but often berated little film that isn't too big on the filmographies of Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase and John Landis. Its a dream team. but kind of a throwaway film. This was made for fun and some pocket change, not to say anything big or change film. Its pretty cute, lightweight entertainment too.

Dan Aykroyd wrote the script with himself and John Belushi in mind for thetitle roles. But after Belushi passed, the role went to their "on-again-off-again" cohort Chevy Chase, who had been doing great minus the support of his fellow Not Ready For Primetime Players. Dan must have wrote this to hightlight his more dramatic side, as this is really one of his earliest straight man roles. To modern audiences its pretty normal to see him so normal like the father he played in "My Girl" or the son in "Driving Miss Daisy".

Aykroyd plays the smart and upstanding role while Chevy is the immature and wisecracking fool. Chevy is the highlight of this movie as he steals every scene he's in. Dan is very dry and not as sharp with his humor here. Akroyd's scripts are usually full of stale characters and wooden dialogue which is great for people like Belushi, Chase and Bill Murray to bring their streetwise comedy style and highjack the picture.

This is really one of the last times the original Saturday Night Live spirit is translated to film. There's some dark humor and rather adult reference in here that are absent from their post-80s stuff.

Donna Dixon: Doctor, I've read all your papers.
Chevy: My papers? How did you get my papers?

I'd say the film is right there with the second-tier original SNL alum comedies with "Stripes", "European Vacation" or "Caddyshack 2". Certainly above the interesting mess "Nothing but Trouble" that would be the last Chas/Aykroyd team-up.

The Magic of "Caddyshack II"

When people who are very familiar with movies think of bad sequels, they think Caddyshack II. I will analyze this belief and offer my extreme opposition to it.

The early 80s were a one-of-a-kind decade defined by its pop culture. Forget politics and all that serious shit. It was about having fun. Look to its films. The movies were light and fun. And when things are light and fun, the genre of comedy shall reign. And it did with two styles: SNL-inspired (comedian-filled, slapstick-driven, drug-induced) and Teen Comedy (T&A, double entendres, etc). And 1981's immortal Caddyshack is the only film to successfully marry the two while they were still young and virile.

But years passed and things changed. By the end of the 80s, EVERY celebrity and film executive was coked-out of their mind and everyone wanted to just take it easy for the next decade. And someone said "Hey! Lets make another Caddyshack!! Who cares if its been 7 years?" But comedies got more fluffly and whacked out as well.

A film full of cynicism and teen sexual exploits could not fly anymore. So Harold Ramis, in his divine inspiration, wrote a Caddyshack full of more obvious social satire and family-friendly humor. I can imagine all of the fans of the original having their bubbles burst right there in the theatre. They were already pissed that they couldn't smoke pot in the theatre and get head at the drive-in. But what is this shit? A plot? Replacing Bill Murray with the always stiff and intellectual Dan Aykroyd? This was "comedy blasphemy".

But I was born in 1987. The heyday of the early 80s was only a dream to me. And I grew up knowing the sentimental fluff of endless Disney feature films and Chevy Chase/Jonathan Taylor Thomas vehicles. So to me, Caddyshack II is a beautiful happening. I mean, you could never imagine a family-friendly Animal House: Post-Grad. But a few big lawless comedies of the 80s went this route. "Ghostbusters 2" is quite fuzzy and toothless, but still pretty good. And watching the later "Revenge of the Nerds", you'd never guess that this is the series that spawned the phrase "We've got bush!". I know that these were made for the fans who had settled down to enjoy with their wife and children.

And in that light, C2 is one hell of a good time. Totally ridiculous and at times tasteless, but it means well and shocks with its inspired moments. And you do get alot of adult crassness for a PG-rated film. This was from that weird period where Weekend at Bernie's could become a cultural phenomenon. The late 80s are the strangest period in our recent pop culture. We're still trying to figure out Steven Seagal and the appeal of Arsenio Hall.

As a sequel, it works too. The character of Ty Webb has always struck me as Chevy Chase's cleverest and most ripe for broad comedy. He returns here in a "Guest Appearance", even though it seems his screentime is equal to the first go 'round. Jackie Mason is a fine substitute for Rodney Dangerfield and adds a great flavor to the childish foolery surrounding him. But I admit, I'd have preferred Rodney. He started making lesser films of this ilk anyway. Randy Quaid is quite the scene-stealer and brings some of Murray's scary anarchy. The plot is tighter and more sentimental. Not quite as effectual or funny, but you have to admire it's trying to evolve the "Slobs vs. snobs" angle. I love the fact that this film has even less to do with caddies than the first film.

The ridiculousness has been amplified to the extreme. The iconic gopher isn't content to just hang in the background and dance. He decides to steal a plate of spaghetti, derail the antagonists' evil plot and flirt with a poodle. Oh yeah. He can kind of talk now. He's more Bugs Bunny than Roadrunner this time. The club was nearly destroyed in the first film. This time, its turned into a giant commercial theme park. Just compare the poster art to the first film's. Pretty amazing. Yes, the gopher is wearing 80s hipster shades. Now try and hate this movie.

The biggest plus to the film is Dan Aykroyd. Dan was the heaviest performer on the original, most-influential Saturday Night Live. But he didn't blossom as well as Chevy or Bill Murray did. He never found his great post-SNL performances as he was always a "character comedian" and writer/improviser. Caddyshack 2 provides him with that very broad and intense character-based silliness he's always thrived in. His "Capt. Tom Everrett" is obviously meant to replace Murray's "Carl Spackler", but they are different enough to highlight Aykroyd's under appreciated brand of comedy.

What pisses me off most about this movie is that there is little information on its production and no attempt to preserve its existence. The trailer reveals there are some deleted scenes, including a much longer version of the seconds-long exchange between Chevy and Dan. Ridiculous. The best scene in the original is Chevy and Bill just winging it. And this time, we get another pairing of Not Ready For Primetime Players, and we're cheated out of the resulting scene. I'd love to read the original script which included Rodney's character and probably Murray's "Carl".

This whole film is a great "What might have been?". Its "A Night in Casablanca" to Caddyshack's "Duck Soup". Or the Three Stooges to Caddyshack's Marx Brothers. Its a piece of pop art I think. And it deserves more love than it gets. Or at least a better DVD.

Also, the theme song "Nobody's Fool" rocks. It sums up the greatness and horror of the 80s perfectly. Its like a stamp on the whole ordeal. Funny how Kenny Loggins made so many classic film theme songs and it was his last, for the sequel to the very film that started his soundtrack career, that really feels genuinely about something."Caddyshack" has that effect on most people.