Change Your Image
AlexoFett
Reviews
The King of Comedy (1982)
Scorsese's Unsung Masterpiece
When critics and film fans alike talk about Martin Scorsese/Robert De Niro collaborations, such classics as 'Raging Bull', 'Mean Streets' and 'Taxi Driver' are more than likely to spring to mind. Their sheer exposure and acknowledgement as some of the best films of all time has led to one of Scorsese/De Niro's works almost going completely under the radar. But make no mistake about it; pound for pound, 'The King of Comedy' is as innovative and ingenious as all three of its predecessors.
Out of the three, the film is probably most similar to 'Taxi Driver'. Another study of lunacy and the nature of sociopathy, De Niro plays aspiring comic Rupert Pupkin, a benevolent Travis Bickle if you will, that is if Bickle had "stayed home watching TV with mom instead of going to 'Nam" as Laura Bushell put it. Mainly misunderstood or ignored by the few who have seen it, its black comedy and cringe-worthy humour creates extremely uneasy viewing, largely due to Paul D. Zimmerman's hilarious and genuinely witty script, and even more so, De Niro's fantastic performance as main protagonist Rupert Pupkin.
As far as believability and authenticity goes, De Niro's performance is as genuine and realistic as his Oscar winning role in 'Raging Bull'. The best indication of this is the scene in which Pupkin stages his own chat show in his basement, along with life-size cut outs of Liza Minnelli and his comic idol Jerry Langford, played by real comedian Jerry Lewis. It is a truly masterful scene, and De Niro truly shows his worth as a comedic actor, holding the screen single-handedly through-out not only this scene, but the entire film, with his great timing and cringe-inducing gags. It is a wonder as to why De Niro's recent ventures into comedy haven't been done with the same commitment and determination that you see when you watch him in this film. Some have contributed this to his current trait of starring in any script that falls on his doormat, in order to fund his self owned Tribeca Studios. Whatever the reason, De Niro hasn't since produced the comedic form that he did in this film in no less than eight tries, and is very unlikely to do so in the future. Albeit De Niro's dominant and thoroughly consistent performance in this film, his support cast certainly doesn't hinder his cause. Jerry Lewis plays a brilliant version of himself in Jerry Langford; a famous comic obsessed by his fame, ignorant to his fans. He and De Niro share great chemistry in their scenes together, most notably when Pupkin turns up at Langford's mansion uninvited and acts as if they were friends. This scene truly is one of the most squeamish and flinch-invoking ever committed to celluloid, without a single drop of blood or word of abusive language used.
Sandra Bernhard also stars, playing Masha; a rival autograph collector of Pupkin, who is also obsessed with Langford. She too shares great chemistry with De Niro, the two of them competing with each other over who knows more about Langford, and who has shared more contact with him. She plays a brilliantly eccentric, almost psychotic stalker, and the scene in which she ties Langford up and forces him to have dinner with her is truly painful to watch. The film is occasionally interrupted by scenes which can be only described as dream sequences spawned from Pupkin's wild imagination. One sees Pupkin signing autographs whilst sitting at dinner with Langford, whilst the another sees him on Langford's chat show as a guest, marrying his school-time girlfriend (played by De Niro's real ex-wife Diahnne Abbott) on air with his ex-head teacher as the vicar. It all sounds very crazy, but such is the working mind of Pupkin. These dream sequences, as well as how his jokes deteriorate during his stand up, give us an idea of an apparent darker side to this film. Pupkin is obviously a disturbed mind, and when his stand-up routines start off as a joke but end with him unconsciously citing personal traumatic experiences, it quickly becomes evident that Pupkin had a troubled childhood. The dream sequences also suggest this, most notably when the ex-head teacher starts ranting about how well Pupkin has done and how he is sorry for any pain that he may have caused him during his school years.
'The King of Comedy' is without doubt Scorsese's most underrated film. The fact that it was the first film to follow arguably their greatest work in 'Raging Bull', the epic biog of boxer Jake La Motta which was applauded for its realism and hard-hitting authenticity, meant that an immediate move into black comedy was always going to come under some scrutiny. Maybe fans and critics thought that following the success of 'Raging Bull', more of the same could be expected. But in truth, by diverting away from such serious, realistic films, and widening his range of genre into comedy, Scorsese really has shown his worth as one of the world's leading directors.
Halloween (2007)
Stop remaking cinema gold!
I have to admit, being a huge fan of the original, before even watching this I was already highly sceptical about the outcome. So in some ways I wasn't very surprised to feel disgusted at the fact that this film shares the name and original characters of John Carpenter's classic.
What did surprise me though, even with Rob Zombie at the helm, is how constantly violent and gory it actually is. Full view shots of neck's being sliced and drained slowly of blood, as well as cranium's being smashed to bits by a baseball bat are a severe regularity. Maybe excusable, as it is of course a horror film, but the original didn't generate shock through volume and excess. For example, in the original, Michael Myers kills a grand total of three teenagers and a dog, as well as his sister of course. This number is achieved by the younger Michael Myers within twenty minutes, before he is even locked away in the mental institute.
And it's not only the violence that disturbs, the abusive and sexual language is vulgar and non-stop. It's uncomfortable viewing to say the least, most noticeably when the (Step?)father comments on how sexy his (Step?)daughter's body is, in so many words. It almost seems as though Zombie feels he is relating to this generation's teenage audience by featuring such dirty, sexual imitations and innuendo's. But what he is in fact actually doing is conforming to the stereotype of what we would expect from him as a musician-turned-director. Don't get me wrong, I, like him am a 'metalhead', but the fact the majority of the characters are rude, foul-mouthed and have long, greasy hair (Including Michael Myers!) makes it seem like a party at Marilyn Manson's place. All the violence, the language, the rape scenes and sexual imitations are here just for the sake of shocking it's viewers, used a (poor) distraction of how bad the story and dialogue of this film actually is.
In some ways this brings me on to the original's greatest asset, as well as the remake's worst; the characters of Dr. Loomis, Laurie and most notably Michael Myers.
What actually makes this film so bad is that is in no way scary... at all. This is mainly attributed to the new Michael Myers; he simply has too much screen time in the film; there's no mystery about him at all, which is his strongest, and scariest characteristic in the original. You see how he grows up as a child, going to school, being a victim of bullying etc. He seems more of a product of an abusive childhood (we're not supposed to be sympathetic to Michael freakin' Myers!) rather than being 'pure evil', despite the new Loomis's best attempts to tell us so. Sigh, so much screen time... Zombie obviously has a special affection for Michael's character. But this results in no jumpy bits whatsoever, as you literally see Michael creeping into the shadows from which he is about to spring and attack, or the windows that his pale, white mask is seen staring through (such an effective tool of the original).
It was always going to be hard stepping into the shoes of Donald Pleasance when playing Dr. Loomis, and Donald MacDowell lived up to the expectations. Himself a talented actor, the script does him absolutely no favours, and his story as a man who has lost his wife and friends through his obsession to council a child he knows to be 'pure evil' and incurable is... well, i guess Zombie did write it himself. But still his performance in this film is poor and lacklustre.
The character and performance of Laurie is probably worse. In the original, Jamie-Lee Curtis' Laurie was a shy, conservative and considerate babysitter with no real sexual assets. In this film though, she swings between this and a up-front, rude and sex-craved little hoe reluctant to have to babysit on Halloween night.
Maybe the only good and mentionable thing about this film is that the score of the original is used well and in good places, but possibly in excess to the point of it being in every scene, watering down its undeniable effect.
There was no real expectation from Rob Zombie, but he did surpass expectation by making this film both a bad remake and a bad horror film. Fair enough a remake should have it's own unique qualities, but not through bad language and excessive violence. It's not scary, not jumpy, and it butchers the concept and the characters of the original to the point of unrecognisable proportions.