I've been working my way through classic foreign films in the past month or so. I've now treaded a decent amount of ground with Ingmar Bergman and have flirted briefly with Italian neo-realism in The Bicycle Thief. So as I jump around the cinematic world I next decided it was time for Andrei Tarkovsky. I was previously aware of Tarkovsky because one of his films Solaris was remade not long ago by Steven Soderbergh, although I had never seen the original film.
Ivan's Childhood is the story of Ivan (Nikolai Burlyayev). A boy whose family was killed by German soldiers and who joined the Russian army as a scout. He is quite effective because he is a child and can sneak past the enemy lines. When the film opens Ivan has a particularly perilous journey back to the Russian lines. Ivan has a handful of army personnel who know of his scout work and who look out for and worry about him as surrogate parents. They want to send him to school but Ivan having seen horrors in war wants only to be of use against the Germans he hates so much.
The story also introduces a soldier Lt. Galtsev who learns of Ivan and his work and becomes as concerned for the boy as his handlers. The film goes back and forth between moments of stark reality in which Ivan lives and the brighter and surreal recreation of his dreams. As a story its actually quite effective. At times Ivan is so mature and adult and at times the kid in him shines through. A compelling testament to a boy who has lost his childhood to the horrors of war.
Ivan's dreams are so starkly colorful and full of grand images such as one in which the feeling of flight is achieved. The world at war is often overcast and dark with dead trees or burned out houses lining the terrain. Beyond its effective story especially with Ivan's performance, there are so many just beautiful shots.
In fact this is easily one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. So many images were instantly memorable such as a man straddling a ravine while holding a woman her legs dangling over the chasm as he kisses her. Its incredibly satisfying to watch these old classics and to see and understand how and why the influenced so many directors and did so much for film.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Lady From Shanghai
"Maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her. Maybe I'll die trying."
So says Orson Welles' Michael O'Hara at the end of The Lady From Shanghai. This after a movie with several twists, turns and double crosses and a brilliantly shot final in an amusement park fun house. I quote it here because its such a great line and it sums up O'Hara's character so well. But here I am rambling about the end when I should start at the beginning.
We first meet O'Hara as he walks through a park and sees the beautiful Elsa (played by the beautiful (and here blond) Rita Hayworth). A meeting that inspires him to inform us the movie watcher "that's how I found her and from that moment I did not use my head, except to think about her." The film plays out with O'Hara being hired as a deck hand on the yacht of Elsa's husband.
Various characters from Elsa to Arthur (Elsa's husband) to Arthur's business partner approach O'Hara and participate in various mind games and hints at plot dealings. O'Hara is by no means an idiot and sees through most of the manipulation but his soft spot for Elsa is also apparent. The plot unfolds effectively including a fairly ridiculous court room scene where Arthur questions himself on the stand (something I'd only seen done on cartoons and bad 80s sitcoms before).
Welles does a great job here with the exception of his crazy over the top Irish accent which is pretty laughable. Rita Hayworth is well suited to her role and looks gorgeous every moment she is on screen. Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders each plays a delightfully eccentric role.
Now let's return to the ending. A brilliant show down in a fun house hall of mirrors. With principal characters being reflected in multiple mirrors and a shoot out that is an amazing blend of shattered glass and confusion. And then the film ends where this review began on a brilliant end note as our protagonist walks away.
So says Orson Welles' Michael O'Hara at the end of The Lady From Shanghai. This after a movie with several twists, turns and double crosses and a brilliantly shot final in an amusement park fun house. I quote it here because its such a great line and it sums up O'Hara's character so well. But here I am rambling about the end when I should start at the beginning.
We first meet O'Hara as he walks through a park and sees the beautiful Elsa (played by the beautiful (and here blond) Rita Hayworth). A meeting that inspires him to inform us the movie watcher "that's how I found her and from that moment I did not use my head, except to think about her." The film plays out with O'Hara being hired as a deck hand on the yacht of Elsa's husband.
Various characters from Elsa to Arthur (Elsa's husband) to Arthur's business partner approach O'Hara and participate in various mind games and hints at plot dealings. O'Hara is by no means an idiot and sees through most of the manipulation but his soft spot for Elsa is also apparent. The plot unfolds effectively including a fairly ridiculous court room scene where Arthur questions himself on the stand (something I'd only seen done on cartoons and bad 80s sitcoms before).
Welles does a great job here with the exception of his crazy over the top Irish accent which is pretty laughable. Rita Hayworth is well suited to her role and looks gorgeous every moment she is on screen. Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders each plays a delightfully eccentric role.
Now let's return to the ending. A brilliant show down in a fun house hall of mirrors. With principal characters being reflected in multiple mirrors and a shoot out that is an amazing blend of shattered glass and confusion. And then the film ends where this review began on a brilliant end note as our protagonist walks away.
Friday, November 23, 2007
The Mist
The Mist gets going pretty quick. An initial plot device gets the main characters to the principal location and a impenetrable mist covers the whole scene. People come in bloodied ranting about things in the mist. The plot unfolds in various ways as the people are trapped in a grocery store terrified about what is out in the mist and falling to their own human irrationalism.
The first twenty minutes to half hour of this film are really effective. The mist rolls in and is thick and only an occasional scream punctuates the atmosphere. What has happened is unclear beyond a sole man saying there is something in the mist. The characters are generic to be sure but decently developed. The biggest disappointment might be actually seeing what is in the mist, a menagerie of various cgi creatures that in some ways dispel the tension.
There are a series of rather decently orchestrated action sequences that work pretty well. Sadly these moments are brought down by a rather trite storyline involving a crazed evangelical who slowly plays on the collective conscience of the trapped survivors. Marcia Gay Harden seems to be just playing through the paces in this role.
I have only one final thing to say and its going to be very cryptic because it deals with the ending. The original story had a more ambiguous but bleak ending. This film removes the ambiguity but tries to one up the bleakness. When it first happens I actually said holy crap, that scene alone makes it worth it but now several hours later I'm less sure. What happens next might actually make it cheap and symbolic.
Still what works in the film carries it passably across the finish line in my opinion. So if you like non-slasher horror films, you might give this one a chance.
The first twenty minutes to half hour of this film are really effective. The mist rolls in and is thick and only an occasional scream punctuates the atmosphere. What has happened is unclear beyond a sole man saying there is something in the mist. The characters are generic to be sure but decently developed. The biggest disappointment might be actually seeing what is in the mist, a menagerie of various cgi creatures that in some ways dispel the tension.
There are a series of rather decently orchestrated action sequences that work pretty well. Sadly these moments are brought down by a rather trite storyline involving a crazed evangelical who slowly plays on the collective conscience of the trapped survivors. Marcia Gay Harden seems to be just playing through the paces in this role.
I have only one final thing to say and its going to be very cryptic because it deals with the ending. The original story had a more ambiguous but bleak ending. This film removes the ambiguity but tries to one up the bleakness. When it first happens I actually said holy crap, that scene alone makes it worth it but now several hours later I'm less sure. What happens next might actually make it cheap and symbolic.
Still what works in the film carries it passably across the finish line in my opinion. So if you like non-slasher horror films, you might give this one a chance.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Station Agent
It doesn't take long in The Station Agent for us to be familiar with Finbar (Peter Dinklage) and his life. He's a dwarf who has a pleasant life working for his friend at a model train store. He's become used to the stares he receives simply for being a dwarf. When his friend dies and leaves him a plot of land in a small town, having nothing else he uproots and moves into an old train depot.
Soon he has been befriended by Joe (Bobby Cannavale), a man who is helping out his sick father and is a bit too lively for the small town. Although he can sense Finbar just wants to be left alone, its not in his nature to do so. The final major character of the film is Olivia (Patricia Clarkson), a woman who lost a child some time ago and is living alone mourning.
How these three come together as friends and yet in some ways maintain their loneliness is what makes this film. Each is suffering from his/her own problems and each is not quite like the other two and yet you quickly believe in their friendships and they are not complicated by cheap expediencies like romantic involvement. Standing at the forefront of fine performances is Dinklage who is just fantastic as Finbar. Once you realize and you realize it quickly that this film is not going to take advantage of his physical characteristics, you can slip into a comfortable recognition of a guy who has faced hardships and learned to deal with it in a particular way.
In the final accounting not much happens, they all still have their problems and to some degree their loneliness but they also have each other. And that is pretty optimistic.
Soon he has been befriended by Joe (Bobby Cannavale), a man who is helping out his sick father and is a bit too lively for the small town. Although he can sense Finbar just wants to be left alone, its not in his nature to do so. The final major character of the film is Olivia (Patricia Clarkson), a woman who lost a child some time ago and is living alone mourning.
How these three come together as friends and yet in some ways maintain their loneliness is what makes this film. Each is suffering from his/her own problems and each is not quite like the other two and yet you quickly believe in their friendships and they are not complicated by cheap expediencies like romantic involvement. Standing at the forefront of fine performances is Dinklage who is just fantastic as Finbar. Once you realize and you realize it quickly that this film is not going to take advantage of his physical characteristics, you can slip into a comfortable recognition of a guy who has faced hardships and learned to deal with it in a particular way.
In the final accounting not much happens, they all still have their problems and to some degree their loneliness but they also have each other. And that is pretty optimistic.
Hitman
I've often compared my addiction to seeing movies in the theater to a crack addiction. I can actually start to shake if I don't see a film. In the dearth of movies that has existed in the past few weeks I've been shaking pretty bad. Which is why this afternoon I decided I had to see a movie. I was hoping to see The Mist but the theater I went to didn't have a noon showing. So sadly with me jonesin for a film I went and saw Hitman.
Based on a video game (apparently) and starring Timothy Olyphant as the titular (anti) hero, Hitman follows Mr. Olyphant as he commits contract killings but is eventually set up by the very people who employ him. I don't know if that is the plot of the game as well but it sounds just cliched enough to be. Oh yeah Dougray Scott is in this film too. He plays an Interpol agent tracking Olyphant. That is why he is in the film. I have no idea WHY he is in the film. Olyphant takes pity on a stripper and helps her out and of course crazy hijinks ensue. Or something.
The action sequences were competently done and the camera stayed fairly steady so I could actually see what was going on, I'll give the film that. What I won't give it is anything else. Like why were the opening sequences of his youth training just clips from the show "Dark Angel"? No I'm serious. Did they actually say "instead of filming these scenes, let's just take them from some tv show"?
The actors are trying mighty hard to embue any thing resembling character depth to their characters. Poor Mr. Olyphant who isn't exactly an actor with a lot of range tries desperately to be this emotionally distant character who doesn't know how to interact with people especially women. Tries and fails. This thing barely qualifies as worthy of the true video game fans.
Based on a video game (apparently) and starring Timothy Olyphant as the titular (anti) hero, Hitman follows Mr. Olyphant as he commits contract killings but is eventually set up by the very people who employ him. I don't know if that is the plot of the game as well but it sounds just cliched enough to be. Oh yeah Dougray Scott is in this film too. He plays an Interpol agent tracking Olyphant. That is why he is in the film. I have no idea WHY he is in the film. Olyphant takes pity on a stripper and helps her out and of course crazy hijinks ensue. Or something.
The action sequences were competently done and the camera stayed fairly steady so I could actually see what was going on, I'll give the film that. What I won't give it is anything else. Like why were the opening sequences of his youth training just clips from the show "Dark Angel"? No I'm serious. Did they actually say "instead of filming these scenes, let's just take them from some tv show"?
The actors are trying mighty hard to embue any thing resembling character depth to their characters. Poor Mr. Olyphant who isn't exactly an actor with a lot of range tries desperately to be this emotionally distant character who doesn't know how to interact with people especially women. Tries and fails. This thing barely qualifies as worthy of the true video game fans.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Silence
I saw my first Ingmar Bergman film a little more than a month ago. I then proceeded to watch a lot more. I stuck to the drama rather than the comedy and mostly to stuff recommended to me. So granted I might have gotten a slice of the great and missed all the mediocre. But his films are filled with these great contrasts of faith and doubt and often a profound sadness with just the barest moments of redemptive hope that seems just about right. Still I guess no director can have a perfect track record.
The Silence is the third in Bergman's so called trilogy of faith. Through A Glass Darkly and Winter Light were both dark chamber pieces. The former ended on a tone of optimism: god is love. The latter ended on a tone of pessimism: a priest giving a sermon to an empty church. The Silence could also be said to be a chamber piece. It follows two sisters as they travel and stop at a hotel because one of them is sick.
Ester (Ingrid Thulin) is a translator and an intellectual who is slowly dying. Her sister, Anna (Gunnel Lindblom), is her more hedonistic sister. The two are clearly not close and the only thing that seems to keep them cordial is Anna's son. The film just follows each of them for periods of time as they interact in the hotel. There are a some other characters who show up such as a troupe of dwarfs and a hotel porter who can only communicate in charades due to a language barrier.
I basically think that was the plot. I confess this movie was hard to watch. Long, long scenes punctuated by no sound except the ambient sound of the room. Seriously one lasted almost 7 minutes with just the sound of a train. I was tired and tried to watch it several days ago and just fell asleep. Once I was fully awake several days later, I wish I had fallen asleep.
Bergman's characters are often symbolic but that works in a tale of religion or morality. In a film designed to not even talk about religion it honestly just comes off as pretentious and heavy handed. Not that the film isn't flooded with Bergman's characteristic good performances and at times amazing visuals but this time the story just bore me to no end. Bergman is more interesting when he is struggling with faith even if he is more miserable.
The Silence is the third in Bergman's so called trilogy of faith. Through A Glass Darkly and Winter Light were both dark chamber pieces. The former ended on a tone of optimism: god is love. The latter ended on a tone of pessimism: a priest giving a sermon to an empty church. The Silence could also be said to be a chamber piece. It follows two sisters as they travel and stop at a hotel because one of them is sick.
Ester (Ingrid Thulin) is a translator and an intellectual who is slowly dying. Her sister, Anna (Gunnel Lindblom), is her more hedonistic sister. The two are clearly not close and the only thing that seems to keep them cordial is Anna's son. The film just follows each of them for periods of time as they interact in the hotel. There are a some other characters who show up such as a troupe of dwarfs and a hotel porter who can only communicate in charades due to a language barrier.
I basically think that was the plot. I confess this movie was hard to watch. Long, long scenes punctuated by no sound except the ambient sound of the room. Seriously one lasted almost 7 minutes with just the sound of a train. I was tired and tried to watch it several days ago and just fell asleep. Once I was fully awake several days later, I wish I had fallen asleep.
Bergman's characters are often symbolic but that works in a tale of religion or morality. In a film designed to not even talk about religion it honestly just comes off as pretentious and heavy handed. Not that the film isn't flooded with Bergman's characteristic good performances and at times amazing visuals but this time the story just bore me to no end. Bergman is more interesting when he is struggling with faith even if he is more miserable.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Black Sheep
Camp horror films remind me of the 80s. You know the type, poorly plotted, mediocrely acted films about monsters running amuk with a hero having to arise to save the day? But just because the remind me of the 80s doesn't mean people have stopped making them. As a gimmick, Black Sheep actually sounds pretty fun. Genetic experiments on sheep in New Zealand have created ravenous aggressive sheep who kill without provocation. Those who don't die undergo a transformation into were-sheep who are equally ravenous.
Enter a potential hero with ovinophobia (or fear of sheep) and a militant animal rights activist love interest and you have a pretty bizarre premise for a movie. Sadly the premise doesn't really carry a whole film. This would work better as a short. Not that the filmmakers don't do wonders to make the sheep look about as evil as possible. And the special effects (especially the were-sheep) were done by Weta Workshop so of course they look good but it just can't escape the fact that most of the time this film is just tedious. Occasionally its punctuated by scenes so absurd that you can't help but laugh, however these are few and far between as it follows a fairly generic and formulaic plot to its inevitable conclusion.
It might be best to watch while multitasking. That way you will have something to do during the really boring scenes. I know at least ten minutes was spent looking up on the internet while the film played what fear of sheep would be scientifically. The film does mention it eventually though.
Enter a potential hero with ovinophobia (or fear of sheep) and a militant animal rights activist love interest and you have a pretty bizarre premise for a movie. Sadly the premise doesn't really carry a whole film. This would work better as a short. Not that the filmmakers don't do wonders to make the sheep look about as evil as possible. And the special effects (especially the were-sheep) were done by Weta Workshop so of course they look good but it just can't escape the fact that most of the time this film is just tedious. Occasionally its punctuated by scenes so absurd that you can't help but laugh, however these are few and far between as it follows a fairly generic and formulaic plot to its inevitable conclusion.
It might be best to watch while multitasking. That way you will have something to do during the really boring scenes. I know at least ten minutes was spent looking up on the internet while the film played what fear of sheep would be scientifically. The film does mention it eventually though.
Miller's Crossing
Miller's Crossing is a very artificial movie. The scenes are stagey, the dialog comes off as clearly dialog. It may seem like I'm criticizing this film but it is because it is artificial that I actually really like it. Showing a real love of 40s/50s gangster films, the Coens craft a genuinely entertaining story with memorable characters.
We find ourselves thrown in medias res into a prohibition town controlled by an Irish mob boss Leo (Albert Finney) who is beginning to see his power challenged by an Italian boss named Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito). Each has a right hand man: Leo's is Tom (Gabriel Byrne; Caspar's is the Dane (J.E. Freeman). Caspar wants permission to kill a man who is cheating him but Leo refuses and the complications of a decently realized if highly fictional world unfold.
Most of the machinations of the plot revolve around Tom as he is involved in various degrees with Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo's gangster moll; Bernie (John Turturro), Verna's screw up brother and even Caspar and the Dane. Byrne sells his role as a smart, wise cracking adviser who even when he steps wrong with his boss still looks to help him out.
Finney as Leo is also fantastic. One can't help but be amazed at long dialog passages as Finney and Polito argue or Byrne offers advice. Perhaps Finney is at his finest in a scene mid movie where some hit men are sent to kill him. As "Danny Boy" plays, Finney's actions are a priceless moment. Freeman as the Dane is the perfect counter to Byrne's talkative Tom. He's no less smart than Tom but tends to keep quiet and he just might be my favorite character in the film.
I wouldn't say everything works in this film. I felt Marcia Gay Harden's performance a little weak and Turturro's performance is all over the map (all well done but internally inconsistent). Still Finney, Byrne and the like all carry the film strongly and the plot with its intricate complications keeps you leaning forward to what will happen next. And a quick mention for the score which had just the right amount of Irish influence and sentimentality to it to make you smile every time it creeps into the soundtrack, especially the title theme which reprises several times.
We find ourselves thrown in medias res into a prohibition town controlled by an Irish mob boss Leo (Albert Finney) who is beginning to see his power challenged by an Italian boss named Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito). Each has a right hand man: Leo's is Tom (Gabriel Byrne; Caspar's is the Dane (J.E. Freeman). Caspar wants permission to kill a man who is cheating him but Leo refuses and the complications of a decently realized if highly fictional world unfold.
Most of the machinations of the plot revolve around Tom as he is involved in various degrees with Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo's gangster moll; Bernie (John Turturro), Verna's screw up brother and even Caspar and the Dane. Byrne sells his role as a smart, wise cracking adviser who even when he steps wrong with his boss still looks to help him out.
Finney as Leo is also fantastic. One can't help but be amazed at long dialog passages as Finney and Polito argue or Byrne offers advice. Perhaps Finney is at his finest in a scene mid movie where some hit men are sent to kill him. As "Danny Boy" plays, Finney's actions are a priceless moment. Freeman as the Dane is the perfect counter to Byrne's talkative Tom. He's no less smart than Tom but tends to keep quiet and he just might be my favorite character in the film.
I wouldn't say everything works in this film. I felt Marcia Gay Harden's performance a little weak and Turturro's performance is all over the map (all well done but internally inconsistent). Still Finney, Byrne and the like all carry the film strongly and the plot with its intricate complications keeps you leaning forward to what will happen next. And a quick mention for the score which had just the right amount of Irish influence and sentimentality to it to make you smile every time it creeps into the soundtrack, especially the title theme which reprises several times.
Annie Hall
Alvy' (Woody Allen) and Annie' (Diane Keaton) first encounter in Annie Hall pretty much sums up for me why it is such a great movie. As the two meet at the entrance of a gym where they have just played a doubles tennis match and they fumble around each other in their attraction. And Annie utters what AFI has claimed is the 55th greatest movie quote of all time: la-di da, la-di da. Its so endearing that I can't help but smile.
Now Allen has played the neurotic intellect New Yorker in countless movies but never so well as in this film. You see him with friends and lovers and you see him misstep and impress. You see him self destruct his own relationships at times. It feels so real as a study of a relationship. It has its more screwball elements such as Woody pulling a writer from behind a movie standee in order to ridicule an obnoxious guy in line at the movies or the thoughts of the characters shown in subtitle on the screen as Alvy and Annie bumble their way through a early conversation.
But all of that works in a sincere way. And of course its a movie that doesn't feel the need to cheat in a Hollywood ending sort of way. Its not by any means a negative ending but it feels like a real ending. Through in the savvy and witty dialog which Allen brings and you have a truly enjoyable and well done comedy.
Now Allen has played the neurotic intellect New Yorker in countless movies but never so well as in this film. You see him with friends and lovers and you see him misstep and impress. You see him self destruct his own relationships at times. It feels so real as a study of a relationship. It has its more screwball elements such as Woody pulling a writer from behind a movie standee in order to ridicule an obnoxious guy in line at the movies or the thoughts of the characters shown in subtitle on the screen as Alvy and Annie bumble their way through a early conversation.
But all of that works in a sincere way. And of course its a movie that doesn't feel the need to cheat in a Hollywood ending sort of way. Its not by any means a negative ending but it feels like a real ending. Through in the savvy and witty dialog which Allen brings and you have a truly enjoyable and well done comedy.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Cabin Boy
Nathanial: Tell me about the sea. What does it mean to you?
Captain Graybar: Basically, money. I come from six generations of seamen all with the same goal in life: catch fish, sell 'em, get drunk, and get laid.
Nathanial: I don't think Aristotle could have said it better.
I suspect there are two types of people in this world. Ones who recognize Cabin Boy as a terrible movie with no redeeming qualities and those who hear quotes like the above and thus find the movie great. I admit I laughed my ass off when I heard that line and I laugh my ass off every time I watch this movie. Sure the plots nonsensical and the actings dreadful but the one liners make me laugh and smile.
I'm now apparently going to attempt to convey the plot. Nathanial (Chris Eliot) plays a stuck up rich kid who upon graduating from boarding school is off to his life of being pampered, only to get on the wrong boat. The boat filled with wacky misfits soon finds itself sailing into Hell's Bucket the most crazy and dangerous part of the sea. Yeah it barely makes sense to me and I actually enjoy the movie.
Perhaps the greatest testament to this film (or perhaps the saddest) is that the one time I successfully committed a screenplay idea to paper (with the aid of my friend Daryl) I had in mind Cabin Boy every time I was writing. Which probably explains why that script is pretty nonsensical.
Captain Graybar: Basically, money. I come from six generations of seamen all with the same goal in life: catch fish, sell 'em, get drunk, and get laid.
Nathanial: I don't think Aristotle could have said it better.
I suspect there are two types of people in this world. Ones who recognize Cabin Boy as a terrible movie with no redeeming qualities and those who hear quotes like the above and thus find the movie great. I admit I laughed my ass off when I heard that line and I laugh my ass off every time I watch this movie. Sure the plots nonsensical and the actings dreadful but the one liners make me laugh and smile.
I'm now apparently going to attempt to convey the plot. Nathanial (Chris Eliot) plays a stuck up rich kid who upon graduating from boarding school is off to his life of being pampered, only to get on the wrong boat. The boat filled with wacky misfits soon finds itself sailing into Hell's Bucket the most crazy and dangerous part of the sea. Yeah it barely makes sense to me and I actually enjoy the movie.
Perhaps the greatest testament to this film (or perhaps the saddest) is that the one time I successfully committed a screenplay idea to paper (with the aid of my friend Daryl) I had in mind Cabin Boy every time I was writing. Which probably explains why that script is pretty nonsensical.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Hour of the Wolf
Hour of the Wolf is like a cluster bomb of confusing scenes, weird non sequiturs and general mayhem. And that is exactly the point. The film follows Johan (Max von Sydow) and his pregnant wife Alma (Liv Ullmann) who are living on a remote island. Which is about all the set up you get before the insanity starts.
I honestly don't know if the things haunting Johan and also his wife for she sees them as well are supposed to be ghosts or demons or whether they are supposed to be descent in to madness. At first I thought "this is crazy" which slowly transformed into "this is fantastic because its crazy."
Bergman does wonders again with black and white film and the way shadows move across surfaces and veil figures. Sydow is surprisingly low key but brilliant as the artist who is slowly going crazy. This film strikes me as the cinematic equivalent of going insane, here's hoping I never do.
I honestly don't know if the things haunting Johan and also his wife for she sees them as well are supposed to be ghosts or demons or whether they are supposed to be descent in to madness. At first I thought "this is crazy" which slowly transformed into "this is fantastic because its crazy."
Bergman does wonders again with black and white film and the way shadows move across surfaces and veil figures. Sydow is surprisingly low key but brilliant as the artist who is slowly going crazy. This film strikes me as the cinematic equivalent of going insane, here's hoping I never do.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Amelie
Jay Sherman (voiced by Jon Lovitz) was the star of a short lived but in my opinion great prime time cartoon "The Critic." In an early episode upon seeing a poster for a French film he sang the lines "I love French films, pretentious boring French films, I love French Films, two tickets s'il vous plaît!" I couldn't shake this line when watching Amelie.
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (who was on probation anyway for his Alien: Resurrection), Amelie follows the titular character as she attempts to improve the lives of those around her, through elaborately contrived schemes while also slowly learning to take risks for herself as well. The film is filled with quirky odd balls set in their own reality.
Visually there is some great stuff going on in this film and the charm of some of the characters is quite endearing. Audrey Tautou with her small frame and secretive smiles make you want to smile and go with her. Sadly there is an incessant narrator who shows up now and again to forward the film and I found an annoying obsession with not only the coincidences that bring people together but also with the random events that will never have any bearing on anything. All part of some grand ballet of life, I guess.
I also felt the film was telling me how I should live. Even that one isn't really alive unless one is taking risks and enjoying the simplicities of life. So heavy handed is this film that I don't even care whether there is any truth to it or not. So, unlike Jay Sherman, I do not like pretentious French films.
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (who was on probation anyway for his Alien: Resurrection), Amelie follows the titular character as she attempts to improve the lives of those around her, through elaborately contrived schemes while also slowly learning to take risks for herself as well. The film is filled with quirky odd balls set in their own reality.
Visually there is some great stuff going on in this film and the charm of some of the characters is quite endearing. Audrey Tautou with her small frame and secretive smiles make you want to smile and go with her. Sadly there is an incessant narrator who shows up now and again to forward the film and I found an annoying obsession with not only the coincidences that bring people together but also with the random events that will never have any bearing on anything. All part of some grand ballet of life, I guess.
I also felt the film was telling me how I should live. Even that one isn't really alive unless one is taking risks and enjoying the simplicities of life. So heavy handed is this film that I don't even care whether there is any truth to it or not. So, unlike Jay Sherman, I do not like pretentious French films.
American Gangster
In 1968 when his boss died, Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) took up his organization and began selling drugs making millions of dollars. He apparently did this by traveling to Southeast Asia and negotiating directly with the heroin suppliers. Lucas considers himself a business man and dresses in nice suits and talks about trademarks and holds meetings at diner tables like board meetings, offering up aphoristic advice like Chuck Schwab.
Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is a tough, honest cop from New Jersey (seemingly the only honest one) who is charged with a special drug task force. He soon enough has his sights set on Lucas as the most powerful drug lord in New York. Richie's life is in disorder, his ex is suing for custody so she can move to Las Vegas, his fellow cops hate him for his honesty and his child hood friends tend to have become gangsters. Lucas' life is wealthy and privileged beyond what he could imagine.
The story shifts back and forth between Lucas' meteoric rise to power and Richie's near on obsession with getting his man. Directed by Ridley Scott, the film oscillates back and forth between the two in a coherent manner. The trouble is all the skill of Scott, Washington and Crowe can't make this story interesting. I found Richie dull beyond caring and his occasional leaps of logic to progress the investigation are at times out of left field.
Washington fairs a bit better as Lucas, showing an angry brute under all that guise of the gentleman business man. Sadly the overbearing theme of him as a triumph of black enterprise (despite the fact that he is a criminal) is a bit much. But ignoring the blatant mythologizing of Lucas with only the occasional touchstone of reminding people that he is responsible for thousands of dead junkies and several murders not to mention essentially desecrating the corpses of American service men, there isn't much interesting in his story.
As far as gangster films go, it doesn't do anything new or treat in a unique way its subject matter. It seems happier mimicking the seventies classics like "Godfather" or "The French Connection." Reviewers have touted out the confrontation between Crowe and Washington near movie's end as a great cinematic moment often drawing comparisons to Pacino and DeNiro's chat over coffee in "Heat". But frankly I don't see it. In that scene both players new the score and were playing an almost verbal chess. In American Gangster, one side has the clear upper hand.
In fact the film really reaches its end about 25 minutes before it actually ends. Apparently a action packed drug raid was deemed necessary (it isn't). My friend Nick said it was the equivalent of being awake while napping which is pretty good. It takes a long time to get up to speed and once it gets there it almost immediately hits the brakes to slow down before coming to a rest.
Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is a tough, honest cop from New Jersey (seemingly the only honest one) who is charged with a special drug task force. He soon enough has his sights set on Lucas as the most powerful drug lord in New York. Richie's life is in disorder, his ex is suing for custody so she can move to Las Vegas, his fellow cops hate him for his honesty and his child hood friends tend to have become gangsters. Lucas' life is wealthy and privileged beyond what he could imagine.
The story shifts back and forth between Lucas' meteoric rise to power and Richie's near on obsession with getting his man. Directed by Ridley Scott, the film oscillates back and forth between the two in a coherent manner. The trouble is all the skill of Scott, Washington and Crowe can't make this story interesting. I found Richie dull beyond caring and his occasional leaps of logic to progress the investigation are at times out of left field.
Washington fairs a bit better as Lucas, showing an angry brute under all that guise of the gentleman business man. Sadly the overbearing theme of him as a triumph of black enterprise (despite the fact that he is a criminal) is a bit much. But ignoring the blatant mythologizing of Lucas with only the occasional touchstone of reminding people that he is responsible for thousands of dead junkies and several murders not to mention essentially desecrating the corpses of American service men, there isn't much interesting in his story.
As far as gangster films go, it doesn't do anything new or treat in a unique way its subject matter. It seems happier mimicking the seventies classics like "Godfather" or "The French Connection." Reviewers have touted out the confrontation between Crowe and Washington near movie's end as a great cinematic moment often drawing comparisons to Pacino and DeNiro's chat over coffee in "Heat". But frankly I don't see it. In that scene both players new the score and were playing an almost verbal chess. In American Gangster, one side has the clear upper hand.
In fact the film really reaches its end about 25 minutes before it actually ends. Apparently a action packed drug raid was deemed necessary (it isn't). My friend Nick said it was the equivalent of being awake while napping which is pretty good. It takes a long time to get up to speed and once it gets there it almost immediately hits the brakes to slow down before coming to a rest.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Darjeeling Limited
My friend recently summed up Mr. Wes Anderson in the following way:
"Man #1: I'm quirky.
Man #2: Yes, but I'm quirky and droll.
Man #1: That may be so, but I'm
quirky and only decorate in muted pastels. It helps show that I am not happy with my life, but am still getting by.
Man #2: I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree, which may not make us happy, but we'll at least leave with a slightly better understanding of each other, and that's almost as good.
Bill Murray: Hi. I'm here, too."
I'm tempted to just leave this review at that it pretty much sums up the general tone of "The Darjeeling Limited" but what kind of critic would I be if I just let a movie pass without letting everyone know what I thought of it? Not a very good one. Its an odd thing being a critic as you feel compelled to let people know what your two cents are even if no one actually asked for it. So here we go.
The film finds us in India, where three brothers have met on a train to reconnect as brothers. They all have their own quirks and life problems but they agree to travel together and do the activities that their oldest brother has set up. Of course with the three all in the same train car and having their own quirks they quickly run into problems which most brothers have. At times they travel off the train and visit spiritual sites in India and eventually are kicked off the train.
You know for a movie where a lot of stuff is happening, not a lot happens. At least not a lot that is interesting. Does the film look good? Yes. Is the soundtrack enjoyable? I thought so. Does even one of these brothers keep my interest as a character, let alone all three together? Not a bit. I think its better structured than Anderson's last film but it still never rises above being yet another quirky story from Wes Anderson.
He reminds me often of M. Night Shyamalan, a man who is clearly talented if only he would just get over himself and not feel the need to force his style on a story rather than just tell a story in an interesting way.
"Man #1: I'm quirky.
Man #2: Yes, but I'm quirky and droll.
Man #1: That may be so, but I'm
quirky and only decorate in muted pastels. It helps show that I am not happy with my life, but am still getting by.
Man #2: I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree, which may not make us happy, but we'll at least leave with a slightly better understanding of each other, and that's almost as good.
Bill Murray: Hi. I'm here, too."
I'm tempted to just leave this review at that it pretty much sums up the general tone of "The Darjeeling Limited" but what kind of critic would I be if I just let a movie pass without letting everyone know what I thought of it? Not a very good one. Its an odd thing being a critic as you feel compelled to let people know what your two cents are even if no one actually asked for it. So here we go.
The film finds us in India, where three brothers have met on a train to reconnect as brothers. They all have their own quirks and life problems but they agree to travel together and do the activities that their oldest brother has set up. Of course with the three all in the same train car and having their own quirks they quickly run into problems which most brothers have. At times they travel off the train and visit spiritual sites in India and eventually are kicked off the train.
You know for a movie where a lot of stuff is happening, not a lot happens. At least not a lot that is interesting. Does the film look good? Yes. Is the soundtrack enjoyable? I thought so. Does even one of these brothers keep my interest as a character, let alone all three together? Not a bit. I think its better structured than Anderson's last film but it still never rises above being yet another quirky story from Wes Anderson.
He reminds me often of M. Night Shyamalan, a man who is clearly talented if only he would just get over himself and not feel the need to force his style on a story rather than just tell a story in an interesting way.
Bicycle Thief
Vittorio De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief" is my first foray into Italian neo-realism but has the qualities I've always been partial to when it comes to movies. Movies where good doesn't triumph and circumstances rarely work out the way we all hope not because we should all view the world through pessimistic glasses but rather because this is the sad reality of the world. The human condition some call it.
In post war Italy, Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani) manages to get a job which requires he have a bicycle. He has recently hocked it for extra money but through some ingenious moves by his wife manages to get it out for his job. Things are looking up. Antonio has a promising job that pays well enough to support his family and things might just work out. Until a horrible day when a man steals his bicycle. The movie then follows Antonio and his little son as they try to track down the thief and the bike.
Given the premise of neo-realism you can guess how it ends and yet there were these moments of genuine hope that are created that had even I with all my jaded ideas about the world thinking that maybe everything would turn out okay. There are some wonderful scenes such as one where Antonio and his son eat and drink wine in a local eatery while a table full of a rich family dines nearby.
Maggiorani, an amateur when cast does a deft job of playing Antonio. De Sica fills the film with downtrodden streets and markets that are only briefly clashed with the rich upper half and then only intensifying the desperation of the characters. And Enzo Staiola as the son Bruno is so fascinating to watch as a little boy who can only half know of the real disaster they are trying to rectify and Antonio can only attempt to keep the veil of "everything will be alright" up as much as possible. Although this is not a film to watch if you are in a sad mood (unless you like watching depressing when you are depressed).
In post war Italy, Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani) manages to get a job which requires he have a bicycle. He has recently hocked it for extra money but through some ingenious moves by his wife manages to get it out for his job. Things are looking up. Antonio has a promising job that pays well enough to support his family and things might just work out. Until a horrible day when a man steals his bicycle. The movie then follows Antonio and his little son as they try to track down the thief and the bike.
Given the premise of neo-realism you can guess how it ends and yet there were these moments of genuine hope that are created that had even I with all my jaded ideas about the world thinking that maybe everything would turn out okay. There are some wonderful scenes such as one where Antonio and his son eat and drink wine in a local eatery while a table full of a rich family dines nearby.
Maggiorani, an amateur when cast does a deft job of playing Antonio. De Sica fills the film with downtrodden streets and markets that are only briefly clashed with the rich upper half and then only intensifying the desperation of the characters. And Enzo Staiola as the son Bruno is so fascinating to watch as a little boy who can only half know of the real disaster they are trying to rectify and Antonio can only attempt to keep the veil of "everything will be alright" up as much as possible. Although this is not a film to watch if you are in a sad mood (unless you like watching depressing when you are depressed).
Virgin Spring
If you check my blog on a regular basis, say four or five times a day, I first question why the hell you would waste that much time but second I would note that I already tried to write a review for "Virgin Spring" and took it down after less than 24 hours. You see although I have nothing but praise for this movie I couldn't talk about it without revealing plot points and I think a film this good is worth watching unbiased.
Briefly, set in the middle ages, it introduces us to Jore (Max von Sydow) and his family including a young daughter Karin. Karin is a spoiled girl who is ordered one day to bring candles to the church and on the way a horrible tragedy befalls her. What exactly happens to her you can guess and some summaries provide but I will say no more about the plot but the events that occur after the tragedy are just as compelling and powerful as those which lead up to it.
Bergman has the wide open spaces to shoot and show the beauty of nature as he did in "Seventh Seal" and there is lots of absolutely wonderous shots as the action takes place. As with his other movies, this one has questions of faith. Here both the interaction between paganism and christianity but also the ever present idea of a benevolent god in a cruel world. Beyond his beautifully shot films and intriguing stories, for me, Bergman works because he is always in this dialogue about faith that appeals to me as an intellectual and as a person raised in a faith without ever taking that leap.
When I watched "Seventh Seal" there were two moments that just floored me and "Virgin Spring" equally had two amazingly powerful scenes. Of course I'll tease you by not talking about them but rest assured you will know them when and if you see them. Max von Sydow again just holds you while he is on screen from stern master of household to indulgent father to man plagued by guilt of sin and tragedy.
Briefly, set in the middle ages, it introduces us to Jore (Max von Sydow) and his family including a young daughter Karin. Karin is a spoiled girl who is ordered one day to bring candles to the church and on the way a horrible tragedy befalls her. What exactly happens to her you can guess and some summaries provide but I will say no more about the plot but the events that occur after the tragedy are just as compelling and powerful as those which lead up to it.
Bergman has the wide open spaces to shoot and show the beauty of nature as he did in "Seventh Seal" and there is lots of absolutely wonderous shots as the action takes place. As with his other movies, this one has questions of faith. Here both the interaction between paganism and christianity but also the ever present idea of a benevolent god in a cruel world. Beyond his beautifully shot films and intriguing stories, for me, Bergman works because he is always in this dialogue about faith that appeals to me as an intellectual and as a person raised in a faith without ever taking that leap.
When I watched "Seventh Seal" there were two moments that just floored me and "Virgin Spring" equally had two amazingly powerful scenes. Of course I'll tease you by not talking about them but rest assured you will know them when and if you see them. Max von Sydow again just holds you while he is on screen from stern master of household to indulgent father to man plagued by guilt of sin and tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)