Posts
When a movie-reviewing duo is labeled “smut addicts” (as happened at one point in the pages of The Collegian), certain expectations arise that require living up to. Sure, we have tried to do our part by covering such films as Hardcore, Boogie Nights, Wild Things, Lolita and The People vs. Larry Flynt. But when a movie like 8mm hits the theaters, we must break from our usual format of reviewing videos and head to the multiplex to help propagate the message that sleaze can sometimes be good (and good for you).
Read more...
8mm is directed by Joel Schumacher, a fellow with as many misses on his resume (Batman & Robin, Batman Forever) as hits (Falling Down, Tigerland). Nicolas Cage and Joaquin Phoenix star, although there is a delightful performance by Peter Stormare, who is as good here as he was in The Big Lebowski and Fargo.
The plot concerns a private detective, Cage, who must determine whether or not a snuff film is the real deal (for those of you not familiar with porn lingo, snuff films generally depict a sexual act climaxing in the death of someone-though the term can also be used simply for a film in which a person is killed). During the course of his investigation, Cage traverses the pornographic underground gathering evidence. Ultimately he finds the answers he’s looking for, but at the cost of infecting his character in the process.
While 8mm is for the most part well-made, it is definitely not without numerous problems. The theme of traveling through the depravity of the pornographic counterculture is of course an appealing one, but it could have been handled more effectively (see the excellent film Hardcore for a good example). This film suffers too much from a Hollywood test screening mindset that kept it from being as true to its material as it ought to have been. The obligatory action sequence where Cage sets everything right seemed tacked on at the last minute, and therefore significantly detracts from the film’s power.
Another major problem with 8mm is Nicolas Cage. His acting in this film ranges from wooden to, well, wooden. In fact, he acts the same here as in a wide variety of backdrops, from the feel good comedy It Could Happen to You to the mindless action-adventure flick The Rock to the somber drama Leaving Las Vegas. Simply put, Al Gore has more dramatic range than Cage. The latter’s occasional efforts to display emotion more often provoke laughter than empathy. This drawback may not hinder films such as Con Air, where viewers are not expected to think, but in 8mm the zombie approach to acting definitely distracts from the on-screen action. This movie wanted the audience to somehow sense that this depravity had changed the character at some deep level, but one would never know it from Cage’s performance.
Many critics – with the exception of Roger Ebert – have condemned this film, saying it is simply “depravity for depravity’s sake.” This is far from true, as the debauchery in the movie does serve a purpose: it is intended to illustrate the effects of corruption upon a “normal.” It is similar to Seven in that it takes a person from the Hillsdale ideal of “family, church and local community” and introduces him to the sickness that exists beyond the borders of his bubble.
Once again, however, these reviewers failed to be shocked at what many proclaimed as “over the top” (though the scene from an erotic enema movie was admittedly a bit sickening). Perhaps it was that the depravity on display here was too “Hollywoodized” for mass consumption, or maybe we are just too jaded from a steady diet of sickness and corruption fed to us from our television screens and InterVarsity meetings.
So, we would recommend this movie with serious reservations. It is a good Hollywood flick with a moderately effective moral message to boot. If you are truly looking to be disturbed, though, Seven is a better choice. On the other hand, if you are in the mood for a gritty exploration of the sleazy underworld of the adult entertainment industry, check out Hardcore. If you aren’t interested in either, go rent Hoosiers.
