Here’s another article I wrote back in college. I thought it was a worth a read, so check it out! Enjoy!

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery is an immensely funny commentary on the timeless “spy genre”. The story revolves around hot 1960’s spy/photographer Austin Powers, who is brought out of a cryogenic sleep in 1997 to fight his old nemesis, Dr. Evil, who has come out of hiding to wreak havoc on the world.

This film is a great case study for the “5 Levels of Humor”, a standard of comedy that my friends and I developed back in high school. This scale is the creation of a panel of fellas including: Phil Persing, Jason Estock, Dean McCarthy, David Weigel, and Chris Chandler in addition to myself. My goal for the next few paragraphs is to first introduce and explain the “5 levels”, give some opinions on the movie in light of these levels, then discuss why the sequels have failed to capture the humor of the original film.

The Five Levels of Humor
The “levels” of humor as developed by me and my friends in Delaware rely heavily on gauging what is funny and why and how often. The levels are NOT based solely on what has gotten the best laughs but what has EARNED the best laughs.

The first level is obvious crass humor. Whether blatantly sexual, physical, or vulgar, first level humor depends on the lowest common denominator for a cheap chuckle. It is usually not an earned laugh, just a lucky one gained from appealing to base human instinct. Examples of this level of humor in Austin Powers include the ridiculously long and drawn out “Evacuation” scene with Austin’s 48 second urination as well as the flip of Austin into his Jaguar, at which point he smashes his notch (that is, his crotch) on his stickshift. It’s banal, stupid, tired crud that can get a chuckle from any child.

The second level is the clever use of crass, sexual humor. This is vulgarity that really is funny for more than the fact that it’s crass. It’s timing and execution are well-done and intelligent. This refers to type of jokes that exist on “two levels”, the obvious crass level as well as the clever double-entendre level that makes you think, “Oh, well that’s clever, I don’t feel so guilty laughing anymore”. Examples of this humor within Powers include the “Who does number two work for?” scene as well as the “How dare you pass wind before me…I’m sorry I didn’t know it was your turn.” dialogue. This is crass and obvious but made funnier by the use of intelligent tricks and circumstances.

The third level is Parody, the taking of an idea or convention and tweaking it to its humorous polar end. We all know parody well, for we are bombarded by it over and over. It’s funny, and we enjoy it on many levels, cause we say to ourselves, “Oh, yeah, [insert convention here] is funny when you think about this or show it like that.” Not all Parody works. In fact, many times, I find it terribly dull and unoriginal. However, some parody is just wonderful, esp. when one is able to take an idea that’s been used and carry it out in a way that makes it new and exciting, even though it’s familiar. Examples of this level in Austin Powers are Austin and Dr. Evil at Dinner, wherein Dr. evil reveals his plot; and the scene in which Dr. Evil and his henchmen laugh frivolously about their evil scheme, wherein we see what happens after the boisterous “mwah ha ha” is finished.

The fourth level of humor is a playing off a serious concept and making it funny. This is a level that works well with violence. When people run into boards and fall down or crash on their bikes, we don’t want it to be funny, but if it is done just right, it can be–even though it should be sad. The level also works well with titles or other SERIOUS ideas and makes them humorous. A perfect example of this in Austin Powers is Dr. Evil’s line, “DR. EVIL. I didn’t spend six-years in evil medical school to be called ‘Mr’ thank you very much”. This is a funny and clever play on something serious–medical school.

The fifth level of humor is the wonder. This is the taking of normal, commonplace, everyday objects and making them hilarious. THIS MY FRIENDS IS THE TRUE TEST. The fifth level of humor, if you’re lucky, might appear three or four times in a modern comedy feature film. My primary example of this humor is The Simpsons. Watch an episode and see how many genuine laughs the show earns by taking nothing and making it funny. A line that comes to my mind is when Homer says. “Alright, alright, I’ll let him do it–but then I get a chipwich okay.” The “chipwich” is not funny in any way shape or form; on the contrary, it is a wonderful snack, for serious real. This gag however makes it a reward of good behavior, a treat to be earned by 40-something year-old father; and therefore, it becomes hilarious. If you ever see the episode when Apu loses his job at the Quik-E-Mart, you’ll hear this line and know the fifth level. Austin Powers has some great examples of this with the gags of Dr. Evil having some ridiculous mishaps with his chair. A chair should never be funny, a man sitting in a chair should not be funny unless he farts or its a parody where he makes fun of something else or he falls over, but this movie is able to make it funny when the chair just rolls. THAT, my friends, is earned humor.

I’ve shown that Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery contains all five levels of humor. This, I believe, is the reason for its success. This movie is able to appeal to people of all intellectual humors because it contains humor for everyone. This is a “diamond in the rough” so-top-speak of 1990’s comedy. Yeah, some movies are funny, but they have scenes which drag forever. Austin Powers has the wonderful gift of implementing many levels of humor in every scene to the point that it always gets a laugh. Always.

It is this cleverness that I believe sets the first Austin film apart from its successors, the reprehensible The Spy Who Shagged Me and the hopeful but disappointing GOLDmember. The later two films focus not on grabbing a laugh whenever possible but setting up first and second level gags for cheap and, oftentimes, ridiculous gross-out chuckles and screams. The writers took the road more traveled and lost the cleverness and wonder of their incredibly solid property. To me this is heartbreaking, for I can see the great potential of sequels for Austin when I understand the true cleverness of his first outing.

IS this little gem perfect? no, it’s got some flaws, but nothing to ruin it. The only flaw I am even going to bring up is its treatment of only black man to appear for more than 3 seconds. He’s a soldier who is used for a first level “ha ha, he’s gay” gag. What a waste; don’t make the single representative of a race a non-speaking, clunky homosexual.

Now that I have that sour taste is out of my mouth, let’s move on to better things. This movie has some wonderful, heartfelt criticisms of the free-love era of the late 1960’s. What’s amazing about the criticism, however, is the attitude the film takes in giving it. This is not a preachy, “blah, blah sex is bad, we hate the sixties. Liberalism has arrived in perfection now in 1997″ type of critique. This is a criticism that says, “Those days were fun, and we enjoyed them, but we were wrong.” It’s honest and fair and really worth applauding. Austin Powers is a satire of not only the spy genre but the values of hippies during the cold-war era, people who just wanted freedom during the confines of nuclear terror and a moral system they wouldn’t uphold.

Furthermore, the film really destroyed the tiresome, foolish conventions of action movies. Austin Powers, as much as some may not realize, re-wrote the rules for action films, in that, it made stupid decisons openly laughable. If a villain imprisons a hero for no real reason–it’s laughable. If a villain reveals his entire plot; it is laughable. If the final moment of heroism is shot in slow motion for dramatic effect–it is laughable. This is a strength of the film that I appreciate as a writer, cause its a good reminder of “Hey, you do something stupid; someone will point it out and make fun of you. You will be proven an idiot if your characters make idiotic decisions.”

Here are some wonderful tidbits for which one may want to look.

In the opening dance sequence, look over Austin’s shoulder and focus on the black-haired guy with the goatee. His movements are priceless. They will make one understand why background detail can make a movie so much better, for he is twice as funny as Mike Myers in this sequence.

Take note of the cop in that sequence as well, and how he joins in the fray. This is a little bit of symbolism (I think), that the rules don’t apply to Austin. He (and his movie) will proceed regardless of law and conventions of the spy genre, and it’s gonna be fun.

All of Austin’s disguises involving a beard are joyous; they are, in fact, great. (I know that sentence sucked; I was trying to get to that fifth level.)

The movie sports cameos the likes of CLINT HOWARD, Seinfeld’s SOUP NAZI and IMMIGRANT PAPI, TOM ARNOLD, CARRIE FISHER and BURT BACHARACH.

CLINT HOWARD’S character is named “Ritter”, which meant nothing then, but now is an unintentional reminder of a great actor who passed in early September 2003.

I listened to the audio commentary on this, but I didn’t really hear anything too interesting to broadcast. Frankly, the commentary is pretty boring and mainly involves dull jokes, acknowledgements of crew memebers, dialogue about Elizabeth Hurley being gorgeous and some brief analyses of shots. If you really hope to get anything from the commentary, expect little more than a few bits about how the writing changed and a description of what was added and subtracted in the editing room.

The deleted scenes, on the other hand, are worth a watch. There’s 7 of them total. The first two are alternate endings, neither is nearly as strong as the one seen in the film. The first ending is drudgingly expository and drawn out. The second tries to avoid the drudgery by cutting to different shots as voiceover explains everything, but it also provides few laughs overall. Both offer interesting approaches to the movie’s conclusion, however; so you may want to give them a watch.

The third and fourth cut scenes involve tangents, wherein the movie stops and gives the audience a peek into the lives of henchmen beyond working for an evil empire. These scenes are original; I’ll give them that, but they would have been so disrupting and distracting to the plot that they would have been loathed by fans across the globe.

The final three scenes are not new but extended beats from scenes still in the movie. The first of these three (that is, the FIFTH overall deleted scenes) gives us some more hints at what Austin’s life was like in the sixties, but yields few laughs and would have interrupted the flow of the film. The second of these three is an extended description of Virtucon’s enterprises, and it is not funny at all…it’s pretty worthless. The last of these scenes is actually funny and could have fit nicely into the final film. The concept is funny, and the execution brought a smile to my face though not a laugh from my mouth. Overall I think they were wise with axing these little numbers. The movie didn’t need them. They aren’t that great, but they are worth a viewing.

Entertainment provides escapism; that is the basic nature of it. This is a great film to just bring up one’s spirits. It’s a great tool for looking at what high school guys might dub the “5 Levels of Humor”, and it’s just fun to watch. I own this film because it is worth owning; it is worth watching time and time again when I need a good laugh. It’s a quality piece of comedy cinema…unlike its successors, which I do not endorse in any way, shape, or form.

Grace, Peace, and Thanks to you all. I found another “objective review” from college, and I thought I should put it into the mix. Like any of these older reviews I put up, I have done some editing but the content is intact. Enjoy!

The Brotherhood of the Wolf is unlike anything else I have ever seen. It’s an intense blending of genres that follows 18th century Renaissance man, Sir Gregoire de Fronsac and his Native American companion, Mani, on a quest to capture and study a beast ravaging the French countryside.

I have more contrasting and peculiar views on this film then perhaps on any other motion picture in my collection. I must love it, for I was willing to shell out 30-some dollars for a Special Canadian Import of it. The movie is, well, an entity unto itself, demanding analysis that I am completely unequipped to provide it. Why? Well, frankly, it’s a French film, and I don’t understand French cinema. I mean, c’mon, I barely have a working knowledge of American cinema. That being said, my review is going to be less full and, in my opinion, less valid than reviews of many of my other films.

Like all good adventure films, Brotherhood blends a variety of dramatic devices and genres to become an engaging and dynamic motion picture, which I believe will last for many years to come (at least in France, if no where else). I am going to begin this review with criticisms of the film, move into its narrative strengths, and end with a few extra comments on other aspects of the film on which one may want to focus specific attention.

One complaint that one might have is that the story includes too many characters. With this criticism, I wholeheartedly empathize but do not wholly agree. Yes, I feel the film overwhelms itself with entirely too many characters, six of which are considered primary. While I do believe this will confuse and frustrate a viewer upon a first viewing of the picture, I also find the scope of characters fascinating and rich. I have seen the film in its entirety four times now, so I am familiar with all the characters, and I could probably name off a dozen or so without pausing—but that came from 3 viewings of the original theatrical cut, 1 viewing of the director’s cut, hours of investment in film reviews and the discs special features. So, if the amount of characters frustrates you, have no fear; I identify, and in part, agree with you.

This film is terribly flawed, however, in one major area. French or not, the nudity in this piece is so gratuitous its shameful. When it comes to American History X or even Roadhouse, I won’t apologize for the filmmakers use of nudity or sex; but here I AM DRAWING MY LINE. This is not because I feel nudity in film is inherently wrong; it’s because the nudity in THIS film is wrong, all wrong, for one simple reason.

First and foremost, it’s unnecessary. We have no need to see uncovered chests in the brothel; we know the score; we know how that goes; we get the picture. In these scenes, the random displays of extras’ chests are so distracting and pointless that the shots seem twice as long as they should. “BUT CJ”, some may say “YOU GET TO SEE MONICA BELLUCCI. DOES THAT NOT APPEASE YOU?” To you dirts, I have one reply.

Absolutely not.  Granted, had she been the only one we see nude, I would be singing a much different tune, not because of HER but because the nudity and disclosure would have set her apart from the other women in the brothel, who we would have only get to see covered. THAT artistic choice I would have tolerated, even defended with a blood-stained sword. BUT, no, showing me her skin just to satisfy carnality means nothing…except more criticism.

The nature of Bellucci’s character, SYLVIA, should have demanded a better treatment of her sexuality. SYLVIA is a mysterious and fascinating character in the film; but we see her and other women in the basic same way, as whores. SYLVIA’s character is much more important to the story than that, and her character should have been treated with more respect than elaborate costumes, a cool weapon, and some mysterious dialogue. Bellucci’s sole nudity would have set her apart from the other whores in the movie, in that we get to “know” more of her than any of the others. This is not an excuse to see her naked; this is a logical argument that her nudity could have been more meaningful and beautiful had the filmmakers thought with the mind in the upper half of their body.

My one exception to this sweeping criticism of the films treatment of nudity is the transition involving Ms. Bellucci’s body and snowy mountain tops. I am well aware of the analogy of a woman’s breasts being like mountains, and the transition it inspires midway through the film is worth some thought. I do not believe that the transition is lustful; rather, I feel it expresses a sense of awe in the female body, not Ms. Bellucci’s in particular, but the shape of the female form itself. The transition, at least to me, suggests, that a woman’s shape is as grand, breathtaking, and captivating as any serine hillside or majesty in nature. Though I think this shot is unearned given the film’s previous failures with the fragile subject of nudity, I have to admit that the transition is beautiful and communicates to me a genuine respect for the female body on behalf of the filmmakers. It’s disappointing that this reverence is not also manifested elsewhere in the motion picture.

Let’s move on to the movie’s strengths as an adventure film.

First, this movie satisfies the criteria of good horror. Time-and-time again, the movie creates a sense of fear in its audience. The filmmakers load the tale with plenty of the gory details, chases, and monster-attacks that have given horror films their identity. The movie adheres to the genre’s conventions of letting helpless women fall victim to an attacker who endures substantial abuse by conventional weapons. In some ways, the film makes the aged-old devices fresh, interesting, and terrifying

But Brotherhood’s true strength is that it refuses to be restricted to its horror elements and also becomes a kinetic martial-arts action film. Now, contrary to popular (and I believe, unwarranted) opinion, the action in the movie is not The Matrix in 18th century. This movie utilizes marital arts techniques that have been used for decades. The fight scenes it creates are not “battle-ballets” of wire work and 100s of effortless blocks and kicks per minute. No, the action of Brotherhood is well-choreographed, full-contact, dirty, no-holds-barred brawling. When someone gets hit; they get hurt. People actually get cut with sharp objects (unlike persons in The Matrix Reloaded). Women who fight get hit just like the men. People lose limbs. People bleed from more than the corner of their lip. THIS IS ACTION, fighting with real pain at stake. Furthermore, the fights in this picture, unlike in many martial arts film, are not repetitive. The film utilizes a variety locations, weapons, and methods of mayhem to keep the action fresh and welcome.

At this point the movie still would have been solid, but the writers decided to take the film one step further and make it emotionally engaging through romance, genuine dramatic tension, and moments of levity. This human dimension, I believe, is what truly sets Brotherhood apart from so many other action, horror, and adventure films. The film is steeped in story, in myth. This is not the event-driven “myth” of Robert Rodriguez’s disappointing Once Upon a Time in Mexico, it’s the strong, character-driven myth of the Arthurian legends. The Beast of Gevudaun was a real creature believed to have killed some 130 women and children. Many of the characters in this film were inspired by real persons from recorded documents. The film is not historical; nor does it intend to be. But it is intentionally rooted in the humanity of the story it tells. In this aspect more than any other, Brotherhood of the Wolf extends beyond a horror or action genre piece to become a full and engaging dramatic adventure. 

Here are a few more thoughts.

First, I don’t understand the nightmare, if you do, please Comment.
Second, Note the treatment of the Native American. He is treated with a respect I have rarely seen in film. His medical prowess, fighting ability, and skills with nature are all interesting if not admirable. He really makes me regret what the Europeans did to his people and culture.
Third, Watch the small details regarding tools used by characters. Notice Fronsac’s use of iconic Native American weapons during his attack on the witches/gypsies. He is fully taking on the persona of his companion (as a type of vengeful ghost). Then note in the final scene his use of two identical daggers, to symbolize Mani and himself. Also take note of both the bone-sword used by Jean-Francois in the end battle and the firearm he uses earlier. The bone-sword serves as type of replacement for his diseased and crippled arm, and the gun/bullets shows a self-indulgence and arrogance in his character.

Anythang else?

Yes. Plenty…most of which I do not understand, or I do understand and can’t formulate into words. I watched all three-plus hours of special features included on my extended Collector’s edition set, and I missed so much in this movie. I missed so much that my notes from the features are an absolute mess.

The film had a variety of deleted scenes, some of which were included into my DIRECTOR’s CUT and some of which were not. Frankly, all of the deleted scenes I saw should have been included in the final DIRECTOR’s CUT. That is, with the exception of one scene that did not make sense in the final narrative of the film. The first of the deleted scenes is an extended version of the film’s first major fight scene, wherein Mani, the Native American warrior, beats a group of soldiers who are abusing peasants. The extended version is just a joy to watch, and it really conveys the comraderie of Fronsac and his Native American companion. The second deleted scene is the scene that makes no sense given the narrative structure of the film, so I won’t go into it. The third scene is character exploration for the priest Sardis and his relationship to the Marongias family. The fourth scene is a gorgeous, haunting romantic scene between Fronsac and Marianne. The fifth is scene displays Sylvia’s relationship to the rest of the characters in the story and really establishes her power. They are all worth watching, and all but one of them (in my opinion) should have been added to the DIRECTOR’s CUT of the film.

Well, again, I have the 3-disc special edition and with it a variety of features, all of which are insightful. The filmmakers are very vulnerable and honest with the documenters and, in being so, really shed light not only the film but on French cinema as a whole. While I do not recommend that all of you go out and buy this thing up; I definitely recommend grabbing the DVD up from me for a weekend (if possible) and getting the goods on the film itself and the real facts on which the story is based. This movie is captivating; I want it to be longer than it is and explore all that it has. I want to watch it constantly, and I want to show it to friends and talk about it. This is a movie I recommend for a great ride and a rich and fulfilling cinematic experience.

Hi all, Grace, Peace, and Thanks to you. I came across this “objective review” of The Fugitive that I wrote during college. I edited the format slightly to make it more readable and corrected some errors, but the content is still intact. It’s a journey back in time to the mind of a much stupider C.J., and that’s saying something. Enjoy!

The Fugitive is a near perfect thriller. The story follows Dr. Richard Kimble, convicted of murder of his wife, who escapes during a prison transfer and runs from Federal Marshall Samuel Gerard while also trying to solve the mystery surrounding his incarceration.

When thirteen, I ventured into a movie theatre to see The Fugitive. At the time, I knew not of it’s background, story, or actors less Harrison Ford. I enjoyed, but I didn’t really get much out of it. It was great; I knew that, but I was unsure why. Now, some 8 years later, I am beginning to understand. While the film is not shot beautifully; the images are appropriate and tell the movie well. The overall story is told well. So well, in fact, that I was surprised at how truly upset I was about the whole ordeal facing the protagonist. The Fugitive is a well done, intriguing, convincing murder-mystery filled with great action, suspense and characters.

Let’s talk Dr. Richard Kimble. Some might say, “I find it highly convenient that he is a doctor.” Well, his being a doctor is not some convenience to save the story. It is the foundation on which the story is possible. Because he is a doctor, he is able to solve this case; in fact, being a doctor is what caused the whole fiasco. The reason we don’t hear about the successful fugitive dog-catcher or gardener accused of murder is that they wouldn’t have made it passed the second act of this story. Ford’s portrayal of Kimble is also great. Note how in many scenes, Ford’s eyes shift around the room quickly; he’s always observing and learning. We also get the sense that he is vigilant and watchful, but only following his wife’s murder. This contrast is evident when one contrasts Kimble in the flashbacks to Kimble in the present.

Ford’s Kimble is controlled and collected, and the filmmakers constantly remind the audience that he is, for the most part, a good person. Though he has a surprisingly small amount of dialogue for a protagonist, his actions constantly speak to the viewer. We see Kimble rescue an officer from the train crash, and later help with him at the hospital. He helps a sick child, and offers mercy to Sikes on the elevated train. This constant reassurance is important for the audience, for it reminds us that Kimble, though he makes some wrong turns, steals and lies, is still an admirable man for whom we should feel sympathy.

One complaint some might have with the movie is the extensive use of montage. The film has 4 montage sequences. While some feel montage is “cheap” storytelling, I feel that it can be a useful and oftentimes entertaining tool to cover long periods of time or masses of information. The makers of The Fugitive understand this and make the four montages not only interesting but important. The story of The Fugitive occurs over at least a year’s time, so some montage is necessary. During that year, the filmmakers employ montage to let the audience follow both the Federal Marshall’s office and Kimble simultaneously. One should watch the montages closely as to pick up minute details that may be important in putting the story together later. The use of montage in this movie is not only convenient, but I feel appropriate and skillful.

Here are some other things to note about the movie.

• Wardrobe is meaningful. One may notice some similarity between Gerard and Kimble. Both are hunting a man. Both are in their 40s. Both are driven and dedicated. Both also share similar taste in clothes, mainly blues. Both Kimble and Gerard incorporate a lot of blue into their wardrobe, symbolizing calm collectedness. Gerard, however, also wears some amount of red, symbolizing a sort of intensity and fire that he has that Kimble does not. Kimble sticks to blues and rounds out his clothing with earth tones, oftentimes brown. I don’t know what that color symbolizes, maybe it means he’s surrounded by crap. Crappy people and crappy circumstances.
• Furthermore, the character of Sikes is described as being a “clothes horse” for he has a variety of clothing articles and styles, which is very fitting given his shifty character.
• Kimble’s wife, Helen, is a beautiful charming woman. Her death should hurt us as much as it hurts him. Initially, we are definitely inspired to have sympathy for her, for we see the assault taking place. The first rule of getting an audience to care about a woman is as follows: show her getting assaulted. Everyone will hate her assailants and want to hold her—except maybe Gasper Noe, maker of Irreversible, the film of pain. The filmmakers understand this, and play their cards accordingly. Through flashbacks, they continue to give us reason to love her and want justice. When we see Kimble’s wife with him, she is absolutely gorgeous, witty, and wonderful. We are to believe they had a passionate marriage, for their love scene is shot with unexploitative eroticism. I applaud the filmmakers for building up her as well as the marriage, for when we see just a glimpse of how much Kimble lost, we back his quest all the more.

The DVD special edition has some great stuff. A few features are on it as are the trailer and scene selection. I really enjoyed them all as far as I can remember. One should pay close attention to the story development process as described, for it is genuine and really interesting.

Again, this is one of those strong films I love based on its merits. The story is great and well-told. The filmmakers pay close attention to minor details that really give the story extra substance. The movie is definitely worth multiple viewings and is pretty good, even if one is not in the mood to watch it (as most great movies are).