JJTTbean

Now, then there's John Malkovich. I never know what to make of him. Sometimes he's the brilliant actor in such movies as "The Ogre" and "In The Line of Fire". And other times he's the miscast weirdo in such films as "Man in the Iron Mask" and "Mulholland Falls". So, i'm not really sure what to make of him usually. He is, certainly a unique actor, and that's exactly what "Shadow of the Vampire" calls for. He's a sort of Dr. Frankenstein for the infant film industry of the 1920's. He plays the character of the director of the dark story of Dracula. AS the director, he's just sane enough to have gotten financial backing and production support to produce the film, but bordering on the insanity of tracking down a real vampire to play the Dracula (aka "Nosferatu"--since the rights hadn't been allowed to film "Dracula") part. John Malkovich is both calm and professional, while there are sudden bursts of his insane fanaticism with vampires and realising his demonic vision of the ultimate horror film. John Malkovich needs to find his niche, but once he does he is brilliant. Congratulations to Nicolas Cage for casting Malkovich so perfectly.

Willem Dafoe on the other hand is always excellent in even minute characters such as "Wild at Heart" and "Born on the 4th of July"! Willem Dafoe, unfortunately hasn't had the career making movies that his abilities deserve. However, "Shadow of the Vampire" is certainly his most amazing effort and he enveloped himself in the role to the extent of unrecognisability. To watch the original film of "Nosferatu" you'd think that Willem Dafoe had played the part originally. His actions and movements, his mannerisms are uncanny. Obviously, the makeup he covers himself in adds so much to the part as well, but Dafoe becomes "Max Shreck" the Vampire actor who has the innate desire for human blood. He rightfully deserved all the praise and the 2000 Oscar nomination for best supporting actor (which ended up going to the equally talented Benicio del Toro for "Traffic").

The film is about a director's passion for film and how he is willing to risk the lives of his actors and even his own life in order to make his lifelong dream of the best and most perfect horror film. I'm not sure how much of the film is true, as far as whether any of the actors or crew really died on/off the set, but it would be interesting to find out that they really did die. Obviously the story is based on the filming of "Nosferatu" but the vampire killings are for the sake of "entertainment" (for lack of a better word).

The only problem i have is the end of the film seemed unresolved. The film also starts to border on the campy horror movies where everyone dies all at once. And as in many ficitious concept stories, there's the thought that maybe it was a better concept than it was a movie (see "Unbreakable"). If anything the performances of both Malkovich & Dafoe are by far their best and it is worth it just to see the slithering and depravity that Dafoe's character exudes and the creeping insanity that overtakes Malkovich's character.

Who is this guy David O. Russell? Who is he to write and direct such a god-awful piece of trash?

Well, looking back a ways, he seems to be a master of trash! It seems David O. Russell also wrote & directed "Flirting with Disaster" (1996). This has got to be one of the most whiny and annoying films to date...on par, of course, with "Three Kings" (1999).

He also wrote & directed AND produced that delightful whimsical romp "Spanking the Monkey" (1994), which is about everyone's favourite subject: the Oedipus complex! That's right, he hates his father, and has unadulterated sex with his mommy. No, thank you Mr. Russell.

Granted, i went into "Three Kings" not realising the baggage that this Writer/Director brought with him. Aside from the wretched plotline, and blathering dialogue, there are the pitied actors who had to be in this film. Mark "Marky-Mark" Wahlburg is a fine actor (see: "Boogie Nights"), and tries his best to wade through the drudgery and only remove his shirt a few brief times. Ice Cube (or is it Ice T? or is that Ice Cream?) is also a swell actor. But it's hard to strut your stuff, when you're cast as the "token-black-guy." And George Clooney is still scrambling for his "star-vehicle." Georgey doesn't realise, though, that his destiny as an actor lies as the doofy romantic leads, wooing opposite the likes of Michelle Pfeifer. His aching to be an action-star is painfully obvious, and always ceases to thrill. Hopefully, he'll realise that he's not meant for action films--sooner than Harrison Ford has (see: "Seven Days and Seven Nights").

I could go on about the contrivances, and the dreaded comic-relief of the profanity-ridden reporter, or the supposed timeliness of this movie about a war-for-our-times. But it would all essentially be about the same theme: bad film.

What's his name? David O. Russell? Stay away from this name; it does not bode well for whatever project he is involved with. I mean, come on...Mary Tyler Moore exposing herself?! (see: "Flirting With Disaster"). What's wrong with you Russell?

I realise that Summer is a time for films with plots that require little thought and lots of action. I realise that the acting is not supposed to be paramount to the special effects. But the quality of movies keeps on deteriorating, and i don't know how much longer i can take it. When two of my favourite actors--Jeff Bridges and Tim Robbins--go out and make a brainless action movie about undercover terrorists, i have to wonder if they've lost their agents, or if they're now in it only for the money.

Tim Robbins seems to be doing his best impression of a Stepford husband, with his painted smile, psychotic eyes, and a phony voice that repeatedly says, "come on, buddy, trust me, i'm not a terrorist, i'm just the guy next door." Wink, wink! to the audience. We know what's really going on! But we don't care.

Sure, Jeff Bridges is paranoid, but he obviously should be, because his Norman Bates-neighbour is killing his friends, loved ones, and bombing major government buildings.

If i could come up with a more contrived story with two-dimensional characters, they could never be as lame as what the makers of Arlington Road have come up with. I think they would have been better off throwing Freddy Krueger into the story, and making Nightmare on Elm Street, Part XIII, where the folks of Elm Street all move to Arlington Road. At least, then, i could forgive them for making a Stupid movie.

I suppose i'll have to wait until December 31st for all the good movies to come out, just as i had to do last year, so that all the films could be re-membered for the Academy Awards. Arlington Road should not only be overlooked by the Academy but by every movie-goer out there. See something with more quality, like "South Park."