Adam's Thoughts on The King of Kong

When watching this film I immediately knew that Bill was a freaking slime ball -- I loved how I could be so against Bill (a real person portraying himself) instead of some actor. I had such an emotional investment in this film hoping that Steve would kick Bill's ass.

The interlacing of home video and current footage was well done in the movie, especially toward the beginning when the topic of discussion was Time magazine coming to Iowa. Being a documentary, there wasn't really much to say about camera work -- although the camera was a bit shaky at times.

Most importantly, the emotional investment in the movie was key. Everyone want's to see the good, genuine guy, Steve, beat the egotistical snake-in-the-grass, Bill. When Steve was shown crying because he was screwed out of his score, I felt extremely bad for him. It was crazy that Bill could submit footage and be declared the victor when Steve had his title taken away for doing so.

Near the end of the documentary, when Steve greeted Billy and Billy said, "There's some people I'd rather not be around," I found myself saying out loud, "What a piece of shit!"

Even though Steve didn't win the challenge, I felt like he was the real winner because he was genuine and true -- the opposite of Billy. The ending of the documentary breathes a sigh of relief... what a great ending!

To be so emotionally involved in a documentary about two guys trying to achieve a high score in a video game is incredible. A big thumbs up to Steve and a big middle finger to Billy.

Film #9: The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters is a 2007 American documentary film that follows Steve Wiebe as he tries to take the world high score for the arcade game Donkey Kong from reigning champion Billy Mitchell

Brian B's Thoughts on Ravenous

Well thanks everyone for taking time to watch my selection. Like many of you I vaguely remember seeing this film years ago. I remembered the premise and some of the scenery/cinematography which seemed like enough of a reason to revisit it.

It's hard not to be drawn in by the opening of this film (unless you're like my girlfriend who immediately demanded we stop watching). That rare steak in front of our supposed military hero lets us know what type of film we're in for. I think that's one of the best parts of this film. It's got style. Most of you guys have pointed out the flaws of the director, namely most of the action scenes, but it's unfortunate that this was her last major film. It's hard to watch this film and not see promise. At times the film falls into traditional fight scenes when it could have kept with a more visual style. Wikipedia tells me that Bird was the 3rd director on the film so maybe that effected some of this.

I also agree with my fellow reviewers that it was great to see a film about cannibalism from another perspective. The film did a good job of mixing a pioneer story (the Donner party) with native stories, in a time when the 2 were colliding. Gaining power from eating your victims has popped up from time to time in films and mythology. The immortality of the wendingos reminded me of vampire films where the damned learn to embrace their powers. A unique and refreshing idea.

Where many are confused by the humor of the film, I thought it was mostly used to convey the madness of the characters. Cannibals are some sick people and I would imagine they have a pretty sick sense of humor. Especially when they're borderline immortal.

One of the things that struck me the most in the film was the story arc. It rises and falls only to rise and fall again. This unique story arc puts the viewer on edge. You never know when the story will take another direction. Something I'd like to see more of, especially in suspenseful films.

Ultimately, the movie misses when it pulls punches and succeeds when it is confident in itself.

Darrel's Thoughts on Ravenous

This is the second time I've seen this movie in 11 years and I remember watching it way back when I was 17 after it came out. Many of my teenage years were spent going back and forth to Blockbuster video for horror movies and reading Fangoria. I remember reading about this movie in Fangoria and immediately I was enthused to watch it. At the time the teeny bobber slasher movies were still in full swing and this was before Hollywood was remaking everything that was already classic. This movie to me was a breath of fresh air. I enjoyed it then and I enjoy it immensely now.

Does it have flaws? Yes, the soundtrack is schizophrenic at best and cheesey at worst. The action was indeed clumsily staged in the movie. Yes the acting was on and off sometimes(except for Carlyle I'll get to Pearce in a minute.) But.......This movie was a fantastic mixture of a bit of horror, a bit of comedy and just a slight bit of drama. Robert Carlyle seems to me like he was having a blast playing the bad guy in this movie. He did it up very well. He had a very slight resemblance to how Charles Manson looks in this movie and it just adds to the vibe he gave off. One moment he was utterly creepy the next dementedly funny in a dry way. However our protagonist played by Mr. Pearce was not so spot on in my eyes. I felt that he was a little too dramatic bordering on melodramatic. His angst filled stares and stone-faced brooding presence just seemed to completely unbalance his performance against Carlyle's. Lighten up man, this movie was just serious enough yet just dramatic enough but it didn't seem to take itself too too seriously. I liked that with the flourishes of black humor here and there they kept the movie from collapsing under the weight of it's own subject matter.

What I love about this movie is that it has a voice all of it's own. There were not many moments that I sat there and thought "I've seen this before." I'm also very glad that there was nary a reference to another set of familiar cannibals in this movie(of the chainsaw variety). In a way the cannibalism could be symbolic of matters pertaining to human darkness itself. How for some humans(serial killers, etc) this darkness is revealed to certain humans and it has a certain appeal to them. To me it seems to be an underlying theme that when one goes searching for darkness for answers darkness has a tendency to take hold of them. Consume them among other things. Could be a hidden motif. Just my thoughts.

Overall I really enjoyed this movie and it was blast to revisit such a fun and refreshing horror movie that I had forgotten all about.

Jessie's Thoughts on Ravenous

This was another first time viewing for me but I had heard when this came out it was about eating people, basically so with that being it's most known plot point, I never really found myself interested in seeing it. But, years later, my mind has broadened much more and am pretty much down to watch any film out there, so was ready to give this one a viewing.

The film is not just a movie about eating people, even though it's the main thread that runs throughout, even that first scene where Boyd is face to face wtih about the rarest damn steak I've ever seen, I could see this was not going to be a shy film. His whole storyline was quite a different one for a protagonist, he was basically a coward who kept finding himself in difficult situations and his only instinct was to run. I thought all the characters that were set up in the beginning by the always entertaining Jeffrey Jones were all interesting and hated seeing them all go down in that one scene. I also noticed how did the cannibal escape the chains they had him bound in when he finds that knife? And was it explained how or why he showed up there only to kill all of them then be back with the military on assignment? Woudln't they have been keeping tabs on him?

I can't say overall I totally enjoyed this, it had some really unique music throughout and couldn't help but just smirk during the "Benny Hill chase scene" through the forest at the beginning. I just wasn't sure what this movie was going for as it boiled down to the end; was it just us watching Boyd's journey into the dark world of cannibalism and to a larger degree madness, was it all a plot set up by the General who hated him anyways? I kind of got that idea as he was enjoying the Flesh gumbo there at the end, and in that case was this some kind of metaphor for the Military itself being just a machine that "eats up" it's young soliders over and over again while the leaders feast on the bones? No, i'm reaching there, I think they had a unique script that ended with a nice climatic fight scene, which was sort of predictable but I thought this really needed to end with one of them eating the other.

Sidenote: Anyone else notice the similarities between the reveal of Ives as the Colenal same as the Doctor from Dr. Caligari's Cabinet? thought that was interesting

Brian Hammons' thoughts on Ravenous

I remember working at my first job at a movie theater back in '99 when this came out. Back then I saw just about everything that our theater got, or, at least pieces of it during downtime on the clock. In fact, our club member who made this selection, Brian B., originally met me while I was at work and I let him into a few movies for free (and gave him a sizable portion of the promotional standee for The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course). I remember having some sort of mild affinity for this film, but until watching it this morning, was finding recalling it quite difficult. I think the somberness and tone were probably over my teenaged head and I don't think I'd ever sat down fully and watched it in its entirety. Still, this film always reminds me of that time period, and, immediately upon hearing its "theme" that plays during the closing credits (as well as when Boyd walks back to Fort Spencer) I was hit with a rush of nostalgia. While sweeping up auditoriums as an usher you'll hear the music during a film's credits countless times during its stay at your theater, it's for this reason I can sing the entirety of Dashboard Confessional's "Vindicated" from Spider-Man 2. I remember being really taken by the eeriness of that piece of music, the simplicity, the bass drum, and organ/keyboard; I found it rather haunting and captivating, and I remember not turning up the lights in the auditorium to begin cleaning, but typically sliding into a seat in a very dark aisle and just sitting there listening to it. Rediscovering it today made me happy as I really, really dig that particular song and just found it on YouTube so I can listen to it at my leisure.

First I'll get out of the way some of the issues I have with the film. Some of the plotting of the action sequences seemed clunky. I don't think physical action scenes were Antonia Bird's specialty as a director, and not altogether surprisingly, this was the last major film she directed (although she's done some TV work over the last decade). There were plenty of little guffaws that a clever viewer will catch, they misspelled Nietzsche's name at the beginning of the film, while the soldiers search for Ives' party one kicks over a patch of snow which reveals itself as a piece of white cloth, Ives said he reached Denver that spring which would have been of 1847 but the city wasn't even founded until 1858, etc. There's also lots of continuity errors, Ives' hands being tied and the mysteriously being free, the placement of the knife during the final fight scene changing position between shots, etc. A point of calling all of this to attention is to point out some of the shortcomings of the director and crew. It's also a film that has a troublesome tone as at times there's moments that are borderline comedic but most of the tone is solemn and serious.

However, these things being said, it's still a riveting and for my money rather fascinating film. The aforementioned music, locations, tone (when its not uneven), etc. really give the film a unique feel and vibe that is somewhat unsettling, which makes it that much more compelling and interesting. It's sort of Robert Carlyle's show as Ives/Colqhoun, he appears to really be relishing playing such a disturbed character, and brings lots to the role. The twists and turns are placed well throughout the film to keep the viewer on their feet and unsure of what to expect. The idea that they want to be cannibals forever, continually eating flesh to garner strength, doesn't have a lot of legs for a long-term story and seems a bit shortsighted. But, that's not really our concern, as we're more focused on this particular event of Ives' betrayals and systematic conquering of Fort Spencer. I liked the use of locations, they filmed in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Mexico, and much of it looked fantastic.

If you've still got your copy around I'd recommend listening to one or more of the alternate commentary tracks, Carlyle's has an amusing story about real-life vegetarian Guy Pearce having to eat the "flesh stew". If you liked this film, and want something even more off the beaten path, seek out Cannibal! The Musical, a film from the creators of South Park I was fortunante enough to see at a film festival in Louisville. As Colonel Hart said, "It's lonely being a cannibal. Tough making friends".

Adam's Thoughts on Ravenous

To call this movie "odd" would be an understatement. First, I'd like to take a look at the soundtrack. At first, I thought that the sound mixer might have made a mistake and used had taken the music from a different film and used it for Ravenous... then again, it might have added an odd balance to such a disturbing and serious topic of cannibalism.

Acting here was hit-and-miss. The part of Boyd and Colqhoun were excellently displayed, as Boyd was the captain regretting his cowardice decision to play dead in the war, and Colqhoun being the mentally unstable gentleman. The acting of the rest of the crew was passable at best.

Also, something I didn't understand: If Boyd was a Captain, why were lower people like Tolfer and Cleaves simply calling him "Boyd" and not using his title, "captain"? Eh, oh well. Also, I found it hard to believe that it took the general to show up so slowly during the final scene? I don't want to pick it apart, but this really stood out to me. I had a hard time believing that the film took place in the 1840s. I just didn't really buy it.

I liked how the film brought in American Indian folklore with the Windeego. I thought that the myth was a really cool thing to revolve the film around.

Not a bad film, but I just had a hard time wrapping my head around it. Guy Pearce and Robert Carlyle were standout actors here, and viewing the film was worth it just to see their performances.

Film #8: Ravenous (1999)

Ravenous is a 1999 horror/drama film directed by Antonia Bird and starring Guy Pearce, Robert Carlyle and Jeffrey Jones. The film revolves around cannibalism in 1840s California and some elements bear similarities to the story of the Donner Party and that of Alferd Packer. Screenwriter Ted Griffin lists Packer's story, as recounted in a couple of paragraphs of Dashiell Hammett's The Thin Man, as one of his inspirations for Carlyle's character. The film's darkly humorous and ironic take on its gruesome subject matter have led some to label it a black comedy. The film's unique score by Michael Nyman and Damon Albarn generated a significant amount of attention

Brian B's thoughts on Mi Familia

Ya know, this film was alright. The sort of film that may be on TV on a Sunday and you wouldn't kick yourself for happening upon it and finishing to the end. The first half of the film really didn't work for me. We're told that JLo being rounded up and sent back to Mexico was a family altering event but she makes it back relatively quickly and with minimal conflict, river trip not withstanding. I guess we're supposed to buy into the "river spirit" coming to take what's his like some precursor to Final Destination. Part of Americanizing is undoubtedly setting aside old world superstitions. Was the film trying to make a comment on that? I doubt it. The hodgepodge of scenes did set up the 2nd half of the movie but felt like cliffnotes. Hitting me with the talking points without really drawing me in.

I'd have to agree with Brian that the movie started to draw me in when Jimmy got married. And as the couple learned to love each other it really hooked me. And while it's nice to know the whole back story of the family, a film that started with the sister learning about the impending deportation would have likely hooked me the same way.

I'll give Jimmy more credit than Brian did. I liked his performance and felt like his actions towards his son were believable. He wanted his son to love him and come with him but didn't know how to deal with the continued rejection when he finally felt like he was doing the right thing.

The moment that struck me the most in the film is towards the end when Jose walks over to the mantle and looks over the family pictures. In my house we never had many of these up, but I've been to many houses where there is a mantle, a wall or a table filled with family pictures. It drove home the fact that the families are shaped by many events often experienced by one member and felt by the whole, ultimately leading to the present. It was a nice moment and stirred up some nice emotions but overall the film felt shallow and superfluous.

Brian Hammons' thoughts on My Family

After watching this film and reading Adam's comments I think it's safe to say I had a decidedly different reaction to the material. Adam, in what you wrote, I felt I was mostly reading synopsis and buzzwords but you didn't really get deep into why this film was so affecting for you. It did, on some levels, work for me similarly, although I can say I didn't wholeheartedly get engaged by the material. I'll try to share both the things that did and did not work for me.

I started today after with a bit of a movie marathon. I don't know if this movie's filmic company did it any favors as it was arguably the weakest overall film I screened. One movie I watched had a story which took place over roughly a year (compared to three generations) and roughly 95% of its duration had just the two main characters on-screen, while not the "sprawling epic" (as the "behind the scenes" feature on the My Family DVD proclaimed) of My Family, it decidedly left me pondering mortality and family in a much more poignant way than I did after seeing My Family.

I watch hundreds of films per year and one thing I try to steer clear of is overwrought sentimentality. I feared for soap opera-like dialogue and characterizations in My Family but in large part this was not the case. Some of the drama worked, some scenes/scnerarios seemed less natural than others, etc. I guess my reaction to that is it felt a little uneven.

Adam mentioned in his comments looking at the acting, which I think is a terrific way to go, and I'm going to couple that with my general feelings on the effectiveness of some of the performances and story cogs. My favorite moments in the film were after Jimmy completed his first stint in jail and married Salvadoran refugee Isabel. Isabel, played delightfully by Elpidia Carrillo, really brought me back into the film. Similarly to how she brought life back into Jimmy, she also served to ignite the film, bringing a verve and rawness that felt more authentic and enthralling than much that proceeded or followed it. The scene in their bed, where they both unburdened their souls, finally connecting, was one of the film's best. So, you can imagine my disappointment when mere minutes later the screenwriters killed her off.

Stuff that didn't work so well for me, never been a Jimmy Smits fan, this didn't do much to alter my viewpoint (sorry, Adam!). I didn't feel he brought a lot to the role, wasn't forced to really stretch his capabilities or challenge or reinvent himself in any ways, etc. Some of the aforementioned story cogs that didn't appeal to me were the "Americanizing" of Memo, with the clueless, hopeless caucasian family held captive in the wilds of East L.A., the portrayal of Chucho and gang life in general of the time weren't handled expertly, and lastly, the relationship between Jimmy and his son Carlitos never clicked for me either. Jimmy's indecisiveness, such as running into his son on his way out the door escaping his life, to then swearing he'll never leave again, felt patently insulting and supremely poorly written/plotted.

I was surprised at how effective I found superstar Jennifer Lopez as young Maria, but disappointed in Jenny Gago's performance as her. I felt a disconnect as if it wasn't the same character due to the different approaches and natures each brought to the role. The only Oscar it was nominated for in '96 was Best Makeup due to the generational aging effects which were fine. There were a couple lines I liked which I don't recall verbatim, Jose, the family patriarch, at the wedding saying the riches of a man were his family, and secondly, when it was said (by the narrator I believe) that Jimmy never thought about the future but now that he had a son on the way it gave him reason to think of tomorrow.

As Adam said, I think the film does allow you to examine family, dignity, etc. and look upon yourself and your own history. While most of us don't have such bold pasts -- siblings shot, marrying priests, walking a year to find home, etc. we can relate to the ebbs and flows, up and downs, that come with being a family.