Dust Up - which wants to be a grindhouse western comedy, I think - is a bizarre little movie that seems like a Troma film on half the budget and half the sleaze. With an eye patch laden hero, a kinda TV star in the cast - Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Amber Benson - and an inordinate amount of random sexual deviance, Dust Up certainly makes an impression in its own way.
Set in the modern day southwestern United States, the film is plotted like most westerns of a time gone by. A loner with a violent past (and, as mentioned, an eyepatch) lives alone and only interacts with his Native American friend (in this case, a guy who's pretending to be a Native American), until he becomes caught up in a battle between a down on her luck mother (Benson) and a ruthless criminal. That criminal is the film's biggest departure from the norm for classic westerns, presented as a ruthless drug dealer with a henchman who pretends to be a lizard - and is thus called "Mr. Lizard".
You can tell that this is not going to be your grandfather's western from that explanation, but you really can't understand how true that is yet. It isn't long into the film before things kind of degenerate into a mishmash of devious acts that cover all kinds of bases. At the forefront of this cluster of cheesy sleaze is a strong dose of random sexual humor, as the film has more references to hand job techniques and more attempted male-on-male rapes than almost anything I've ever seen. (In fact, I kind of hope it's more than anything I've ever seen, for my own sanity.) Everything is done with a tongue in cheek, I guess, and there's nothing overly malicious about the film's sexual quotient - nor does the film really ever reveal anything visually that's too inappropriate - it's just really bizarre for the sake of bizarreness.
When you get past some of the more uncomfortable humor that misses the mark - most of which centers on the drug dealer aspect of the story, there's a lot of fun to be had with the hero, sidekick, and mother characters who are fighting to survive here. The awkward tone of their relationships reminds a little of quirky indie films like those of Wes Anderson or the like, and each of the actors seem to be having fun with the roles. Aaron Gaffey's performance as the one-eyed veteran is probably the film's most rewarding, as he plays the role with a straight face and seems at home in Dust Up's madcap universe. Benson gets star billing and - as she was on Buffy in many crucial moments - is certainly the heart of the picture. It's just that - as was the case on Buffy in other crucial moments - she's not necessarily given a lot to do at times.
When you put all the pieces together, Dust Up is kind of just there. It's not grindhouse enough for that crowd, nor is it accessible enough for mainstream crowds. It's definitely unique and there are some really fun moments, but it seemed like there were just as many moments that came off as too forced or too brazen or - worst of all - too pointless. I can't bring myself to call it a failure - it's too unique and too good-hearted at times to be a waste of time - but I also don't think you should go out of your way for this one. It probably would play best for fans of wacky westerns with a devious streak - I'm just not sure that crowd is really out there looking for this flick.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Buffy The Vampire Slayer the movie because a) I love it, and b) I was watching a bunch of it. And that's pretty much where I'm still at. I think I'm in "I'm late to the party so I better hurry up and get as much partying in as I can before some drunk person makes everything awkward and things crash to an uncomfortable halt" mode. I was about halfway through Season Three when I did that, and I had things to say that were kind of like this...
After powerhousing through the vastly improved season two (and now about
half of season three) in recent weeks, I've certainly changed my
position on television's Buffy. I still struggle with some of the
characters and it seems like there are more episodes where Buffy slays
non-vampires than vampires, but it's got the same balance between goofy
fun and serious drama (that refuses to be affected by an outlandish
premise) that I've come to expect from the other things I've seen from
Whedon. Sometimes I think that the way to tell if a TV show is great is
to see whether or not you will continue to be addicted to the show when
you wish the writers would change the characters' decisions or
relationships. For example, when you have to deal with Casey and Dana
never working out on Sports Night or when Veronica Mars
continues to choose the stupidest boyfriends ever (and manages to get
roofied approximately 27 times) - but you stick with them anyway. The
Buffy Show passes that test with flying colors, because there are so
many moments - particularly so far in season three - where I find myself
thinking "Oh Buffy! What you doin' girl?!" or "Man, Xander just needs
to never open his mouth again!". I think these things, but I'm still
desperate to see where the show goes next and am already ready to
forgive the characters as soon as they do something to totally redeem
themselves.
Seriously, I wrote all of that in a review of something that wasn't what I was talking about...and now I have more to say. I'm almost done with Season Five of Buffy and Season Two of Angel - and boy, do I have things to say about Angel - so here's the first Midnight Top Five I've put together in a long while. It might even end up with a Part 2 some day.
Top Five Things I've Learned From Buffy and Angel
It's OK for the Hero to NOT be Super Perfect
When Kristy Swanson was Buffy (which I will henceforth refer to as "Buffy 1.0"), the character was a flawed hero. But she wasn't a serious flawed hero, she was comically flawed. It was all "Oh ha! She cares too much about her hair and says what if!" imperfections, and the movie worked as a comedy because of it. But the question I had as I dove into more Buffy - I still have next to no memory of Season 1, which might say something about Season 1 - I kept asking myself how a "serious" take on the teenage girl turned slayer could work while keeping Buffy acting like a "Buffy". (Is there an Urban Dictionary definition for a Buffy? I probably don't want to know if there is, but to me the name - pre-Slayer - equates to aloofness.)
Sarah Michelle Gellar's "Buffy 2.0" definitely lacks the "Valley Girl" tendencies of her predecessor. Sure, there are passing references to her shopping days and that weird moment when she wants to be Homecoming Queen, but this version of the Buffster is much smarter, darker, and more emotional than her precursor. And yet, she remains decidedly imperfect.
The catch is that this Buffy, like I alluded to in the quoted article, makes some really dumb decisions. I don't mean this in the "horror movie character running up the stairs or dropping the knife" sense of dumb, I mean this in an interpersonal sense of dumb. The thing is, this show is almost entirely about the interactions between the characters, and almost all of them are allowed to make plenty of mistakes by the writers. We've got couples who cheat on each other, secrets being kept, and hidden powers, and no one on the show seems to be less-than-truthful more often Than Buffy.
When I commented that I sometimes wished the characters would change their decisions or relationships, I was thinking particularly of Buffy. There are so many moments when I find myself looking at the screen and thinking 'Dammit Buffy, you're messing everything up again and being totally selfish" - like that time when she spent half a season obsessed with sexing a doofus or that time when she completely ignored Giles forever - and yet I recognize that her errors are incredibly human ones. When I made an off-hand comment about Buffy's selfishness one time, I was immediately redirected that "she's earned" the chance to make some mistakes. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that - there are times when she still lacks decency - but the show goes a long way to allow her flaws to be a part of the character arc. It's really fantastic to see a show give a heroic character so many inadequacies.
You Don't Have To Follow Monster Stereotypes
As a horror addict, it's easy to become a purist. One of the things we struggle with the most is when someone changes the mythology or look or actions of one of our precious monsters. Buffy and Angel balance on a fine line in this regard, using the "Chinese buffet" strategy with horror mythology- they take what they want and leave the rest.
For example, vampire staples are present throughout the Buffyverse. Vamps can't enter homes without permission (and MAN, they use this as often as they can), wooden stakes through the heart kill them, and - obviously - they drink blood and can turn others into vampires. But these vamps take on a lot of new forms, most notably the crinkled brow form as shown above, and the shows rarely feel like they're borrowing from things we've seen before.
The "other" creatures - ranging from demons to ghosts to werewolves and more - that we encounter in the land of Buffy and Angel also seem to have new twists on old formulas. There are still moments that make me cringe - the first werewolf transformation we see had me muttering 'Well, we all can't be Rick Baker" sarcastically - but both shows manage to keep things fresh by peppering in different takes on common monsters as they need to. One fantastic example is "Adam", who takes on a lead role in Season 4, a
sort of Frankenstein with a deep, yet reasonable voice, and a very
unique look and skill set. Despite the floppy disk drive - one of the
rare things that really shows the series' age - he's a neat twist on
horror standards.
That Spike Character is Really Quite Something
Considering the fact that Buffy the Vampire Slayer seemed to exist as one of those teenage girl shows when it came out - one could argue that it had the exact same intentions as Twilight with none of the terrible incompetence - and I was a teenage boy when the show came out, a character who looked like Spike was part of the reason I didn't watch the show at time. There was football to be played and nacho cheese to be eaten, and I was just not going to go out of my way to watch a show about a teenage girl (even if it is a teenage girl I had a MAJOR teenage crush on) be wooed by vampires with bleached hair in leather jackets. Yes, that's more the fault of the other guy I'm getting ready to talk about, but Spike's image seemed to sell the fact that Buffy was not for me to that younger and more "we must beat our chests and watch large men fight while being manly" than I am now.
But now that I'm an adult, it's come to my attention that Spike is the best thing about whichever show he's on 97% of the time. James Marsters brings so much to the show every time he shows up, and I actually find myself rooting for more Spike every time I turn on Buffy. The chip - an incredibly contrived idea that the writers continue to run with - was seriously the best thing to happen to Spike, because the writers suddenly have the ability to put the character into a crossover role that exists somewhere between being in the "Scooby Gang" and being the "Big Bad". Spike is one of the more fluid television characters I know of, and the comedic stylings of Marsters - which start with the disconnect between his British accent and his stupid blonde hair - help make Spike completely entertaining in his role.
Now About That Angel Character...
I find Spike entertaining because of the freedom that his character is allowed. Angel, on the other hand, is a character that I find completely fascinating because of his character's arc. I started watching Angel - the show - as an afterthought, because I really didn't care that much about Angel - the character - while he was a love interest for Buffy. There were moments when I was really in to the character (most of which seemed to occur while he was in vampire mode) during his Buffy run, but the whole dynamic between Buffy and him seriously derailed the show sometimes. I think that was probably intentional and probably what I was supposed to care about, but I often found myself in "stop with the Romeo and Juliet and get back to fighting demons and showing off Eliza Dushku's hotness" mode instead.
When the switch to Angel the show happened, however, I was surprised to find myself completely trapped in his spin-off show. David Boreanaz, like Marsters, shows the most range of anyone in the cast. He plays both sides of the equation well: his uncomfortable good guy is humorous and relatable, while his vampiric bad side is imposing and effective. The good guy side is part of what really drew me in to season one of Angel - basically, Boreanaz is allowed to be an introvert superhero, something introverts like me can definitely smile at - and the twists with his character so far in season two - including a fantastic moment where he is thought to be "something different" by his opponents - do a lot for the show. Buffy still seems like the more complete show so far - the "family" relationships between the characters elevate it to a special place - but I've found myself incredibly interested in most episodes of Angel thus far.
(Not one of the Five things, but I'd be a fool to not mention how much Charisma Carpenter's Cordelia brings to each show as well. She has gone from vain gal to comic relief to soul-of-the-show thus far, and I've really enjoyed what I thought was first a throwaway high school stereotype character. It's safe to say that the three characters that really draw me in to these shows - Spike, Angel, and Cordelia - are the three who have kept me most interested in their changing paths through their journey.)
By The Way...You Don't Need a R Rating to do Horror
I already knew this, but it bears repeating. You simply do not need to be a gory, nudity-filled, and foul-mouthed thing to be an effective piece of horror. Both Buffy and Angel are simply TV-14 - the television equivalent of PG-13 that's one louder - but they manage to be decidedly adult with their themes at times. Buffy has lots of sexual scenes (many of which feed into that title character's flaws) that push the boundaries of what can be shown on TV, while the writing of Joss Whedon and pals always seems to find inventive ways to hurl insults and exclaim curses without actually using curse words.
And then there's the violence. Sure, the shows both needed to cut a few corners to stay on network television, but they manage to show the things they need to show. Blood flows from wounds often and dismemberments are a common theme. There are some subtle and fantastic effects - one character in season two of Angel shows off an awesomely floppy neck wound that reminds me of Griffin Dunne in An American Werewolf in London. And - most impressive to me - there's a kill near the end of season two of Buffy that is one of the coolest and most memorable I've ever seen. The camera actually cuts back from the brisk moment of vampire violence (if you've seen the show, you might have guessed I'm talking about the moment pictured above - especially since I posted the picture), but the moment is presented beautifully. The movement of the actors, the lighting, the sound effects and music - all of it just comes together brilliantly. This is a completely perfect horror kill - it's abrupt and shocking, even though we can see it coming - and it doesn't bother with blood or a close up of the damage. It doesn't have to show us these things directly, because we're emotionally invested in the moment and don't even need the details. More horror tales should follow its lead.
Obligatory image of evil Willow.
I could probably go on and on about things I've dug in these shows so far. But I'll let you add to the discussion instead. In case you're a vampire, I'll make it clear - I invite you to hit up the comments below and talk to me about your Buffy/Angel experiences.
While you do that....I'm gonna go finish up season five of Buffy. See you next time Midnight Warriors!
Oh, and I for some reason seriously love the Angel theme. Am I emo now? Does this make me emo?
I had a "last horror nerd to the party" moment lately, when I finally started watching season two of Joss Whedon's Buffy The Vampire Slayer television series. I'm not gonna lie - I had a mad crush on Sarah Michelle Gellar back when that show kicked in and I was a 16 year old The Mike. I'm pretty sure I set a bunch of the backgrounds in the computer lab at my high school to pictures of her, but that's creepy and beside the point. She was dreamy, yo. And yet, I avoided the show completely (until I randomly watched Season 1 a couple of years ago and was kind of unimpressed), something that I can probably attribute to two factors. First, I was a teenage boy who thought he would be less awesome if he watched something that looked "girly". Second, I had already loved the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie when I was 11.
You will note that I referred to only one of the two Buffy The Vampire Slayers as "Joss Whedon's" above. If you're unaware of the man and or the brand name - It's safe to call Buffy a brand, right? - you should know that I'm not implying that the dude who went on to create Firefly and Serenity and to direct The Avengers didn't have a hand in the cinematic adventure that started Buffy on her path to television. But Whedon seems to have worked hard to distance himself from the film, which he wrote with series executive producer Fran Rubel Kuzui directing, due to extensive studio interference in the script and some troubles with the actors on screen. As someone who had seen the movie first - I still vividly remember the theater experience - I didn't really care about this stuff when I first read about it, especially after I watched the ho-hum first season of the show.
After powerhousing through the vastly improved season two (and now about half of season three) in recent weeks, I've certainly changed my position on television's Buffy. I still struggle with some of the characters and it seems like there are more episodes where Buffy slays non-vampires than vampires, but it's got the same balance between goofy fun and serious drama (that refuses to be affected by an outlandish premise) that I've come to expect from the other things I've seen from Whedon. Sometimes I think that the way to tell if a TV show is great is to see whether or not you will continue to be addicted to the show when you wish the writers would change the characters' decisions or relationships. For example, when you have to deal with Casey and Dana never working out on Sports Night or when Veronica Mars continues to choose the stupidest boyfriends ever (and manages to get roofied approximately 27 times) - but you stick with them anyway. The Buffy Show passes that test with flying colors, because there are so many moments - particularly so far in season three - where I find myself thinking "Oh Buffy! What you doin' girl?!" or "Man, Xander just needs to never open his mouth again!". I think these things, but I'm still desperate to see where the show goes next and am already ready to forgive the characters as soon as they do something to totally redeem themselves.
Wait...I'm here to talk about the movie, aren't I?
The point I'm trying to make, I think, by shouting out my opinion on TV Buffy's universe, is that I can see why Whedon is disappointed with the movie version now. The guy loves to take his ridiculousness seriously, and the producers/studio folks behind the film adaptation - armed with a surprisingly perfect cast and a concept that would lend itself to comedy - decided to take it in a different direction. Even after I'd seen season one of BuffyTV, I had the studio guys' back on this one.
Kristy Swanson (who had a strong run of starring roles in films of little success over the next few years) headlines the film, and her Buffy shares more with the women in movies like Valley Girl or Clueless than any vampire story ever told. Her portrayal of Buffy preys on the stereotypes of a southern California teen whose eyes are primarily on boys, cheerleading, and shopping - things that are mentioned, but barely utilized in the television series - while still giving the actress a chance to show off plenty of slaying skills. Donald Sutherland - who feuded with Whedon on set, which is part of what led to the writer allegedly walking off the project - takes on the role of her "watcher", while Rutger Hauer apes Vincent Price as the lead vampire who threatens Buffy's high school existence. With serious actors surrounding the bubbly beauty we do get to see some of the discord between the watcher and slayer that became a key element of the latter series, but Sutherland's improvisation and Hauer's hammy performance don't really look like they'd belong in the world Whedon wanted.
One can argue the different tones between the film and series all day. Whedonites will certainly back the show primarily. They might note that Anthony Stewart Head's Giles is a far more interesting character than Sutherland's Merrick, and that Giles is a character who maintains some great comedy value despite his depth. I'd agree with them. On the other hand, I'm more inclined to take a cheesy villain who still seems like a physical threat, such as Hauer's character here, than several of the one-note villains that appear in the series. For example, season one is all about the return of "The Master" - a deep voiced, monotonous character who seems like an undead version of the loathable bully that actor Mark Metcalf played in Animal House. At least Hauer's fun to watch, right?
A young Seth Green, on the left, is the only actor to play a main character on the show and appear in the film.
I've turned this into a debate pitting the merits of the film vs. those of the show again, which was only partially my intent when I started writing this post. There's no winning on either side, nor do I think there needs to be. The creator wants us to forget the finished product that is this film and watch his show and read his comics, which is his right. But the creator is only one part of the process, and I know - since I was part of it - there was an audience for a more comedic and less cynical version of his story at the time.
Plus it has Pee Wee Herman and the best death scene ever.
The film's dated styles and the existence of the series have not been kind to Buffy the movie. But even as I become slightly addicted to Whedon's intended Buffyverse, I still find a very soft spot in my heart for this comedic film that seems to exist somewhere between Teen Wolf and Encino Man. If I was just getting to the movie now and had already seen the series, this post probably wouldn't exist. I kind of feel lucky that I got in to Buffy when I did - "on the ground floor", you might say - because I can now debate the merits of each version while still respecting both of them. If you aren't biased by the show and are looking for an accessible vamp-com, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is worth your time, no matter what Joss Whedon says.
If you have questions or suggestions not regarding a specific review, or would like to recommend a movie to The Mike, feel free to email him at frommidnightwithlove(at)gmail(dot)com!
Also, please leave feedback at the bottom of reviews by checking one of the boxes, or by leaving a comment! Any feedback that can help improve the site or reviews is much appreciated!
Posts
