Every time I see Maggie Gyllenhaal on screen, I like her more and more. From her early scenes fresh from a mental facility and almost still a child to her determined face as she decides what she wants late in the movie, all I can think is man can this woman act. It doesn't hurt that she is joined by James Spader in most scenes. Secretary isn't a perfect movie, it sort of collapses in the last act but I never once doubted Gyllenhaal's conviction.
Maggie plays Lee Holloway a young woman who was recently released from a mental facility and has returned to her dysfunctional home. Hoping not to fall into the same patterns she goes to get a job and applies as a secretary at the law firm of E. Edward Grey (Spader). Grey is an odd duck, seemingly not comfortable in his own skin, hiding from a woman who comes to see him. He finds something intriguing in Lee as Lee does in him.
An odd relationship develops. I say odd because it isn't conventional, which is of course the point. Both Lee and Grey struggle with their secrets and are not sure what to do with the feelings they arouse in each other. Slowly they come to a non-traditional relationship of sado-masochism from which Grey retreats feeling shame in his own feelings. During this time, Grey helps Lee get over her problem (I suppose?).
Lee grows stronger and decides exactly what she wants and begins to try to get more from the relationship that exists. Now I followed this narrative for about two thirds of the film enjoying its desire to explore new ground of romance and it is admirable to that extent. However, the final act comes a bit out of left field with its surrealist qualities and I sort of wish the writers or director had come up with a slightly more credible and interesting way to resolve the issues.
Still Spader and Gyllenhaal hold the slowly sinking ship above water for the remainder of the film and I'm eager to see Ms. Gyllenhaal in another film.
Side Note: Being from Iowa, perhaps I'm over sensitive about this but I couldn't help but fixate on one almost throw away line late in the film. Lee asking a plethora of questions of Grey in an erotic moment is finally answered by her question of where he is from and Grey says "Des Moines, Iowa." It might be a throw-away line but I can't help but suspect that the writer thought to himself/herself cleverly I'll pick the most generically Americana mid-west place I can think of to show you that this kind of lifestyle by no means should be shunned and exists even in what one would think of a stalwart of American traditional values. And to be honest if that is the reason, I find it a little tiresome.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Seventh Seal
Last night as I settled down late in the evening to enjoy The Thin Man something terrible happened. It turns out the disc was broken and I would not be experiencing this movie. Truth be told I was a little heart broken. I'd been waiting all day for this. So I rushed out to the local Blockbuster and began looking for it, sadly they did not seem to have a copy. But I was there, nothing in collection at home was calling to me (I needed something new). But two friends recently gave me lists of films I should see and I luckily had both on me (and by luckily I mean I made sure I brought them on the crazy off chance that the rental place did not have the movie I was looking for). I ended up renting The Third Man, Secretary and The Seventh Seal.
I thought to myself, its 1030 at night, I can get two movies in before I go to bed. It turns out that was a miscalculation. I was able to get one movie in in that time because I really couldn't watch another movie after seeing Ingmar Bergman's film. If you've ever had one of those experiences where you think you know something, you think sure there may be a detail here or there which you haven't quite got figured out but more or less you know what you are talking about and then suddenly and magically your eyes are opened and you realize you don't know a damn thing, you don't even have half a grasp on what this thing is, then you'll understand why I just made this long rambling sentence.
This past week has been one of repeated shame. I had never seen Casablanca nor Chinatown and well I saw Once Upon A Time In The West so long ago I might as well have never seen it. And what better way to end a week of shame than with The Seventh Seal. When people say movies are an art form, its because of movies like this. The cinematography? unbelievable. The symbolism? fantastic. The writing? I've never heard some of my own thoughts echoed back to me in such an eloquent way. The acting? So much going on in every scene and at times you just have to watch the background actors instead of who is talking because its so telling.
Do I need to give a synopsis? Well for the sake of it I will. Antonius Block (Max von Sydow) has just returned from ten years fighting in the Crusades to his native Sweden. Europe is being decimated by the plague. As Antonius lies on a beautifully landscaped beach, Death appears as it is time. Antonius shrewdly challenges Death to a game of chess because while they play Death may not take him. Antonius is a lost soul, he is desperately searching for knowledge. The film follows him as he travels to his castle and meets with various people along the way all the while playing chess with Death.
Playing chess with Death, wandering along aimless, seeking Truth are all fairly obvious metaphors for the human condition but they are executed here so well. Max von Sydow utters his lines with such power and conviction, at times with a smile on his face that never reaches his eyes and at others with a grim demeanor that saddens you to your soul. And if anyone ever needed an argument that acting is in the person not the words, just watch him and don't read the subtitles.
I was in constant amazement of the shots and the score, my eyes drinking in everything, knowing I was missing ten things for every one I saw. Then came a scene in a church, the play of shadow and light just brilliant, where Antonius is praying at the altar and he sees who he thinks is a monk and goes over to confess. His outpouring of his crisis of faith is so powerful I pushed out of my seat and crawled closer to the screen to watch it. I can't help but quote his monologue:
"Is it so terribly inconceivable to comprehend God with one's senses? Why does he hide in a cloud of half-promises and unseen miracles? How can we believe in the faithful when we lack faith? What will happen to us who want to believe, but can not? What about those who neither want to nor can believe? Why can't I kill God in me? Why does He live on in me in a humiliating way - despite my wanting to evict Him from my heart? Why is He, despite all, a mocking reality I can't be rid of?" - Antonius Block
This is a man who desperately wants to believe. He has seen so much in the Crusades. A lesser movie would have shown some of that, here we get Antonius' anguished face as he pleads partly to the monk, partly to himself, partly to God to just finally give him an answer. The monk is not a monk at all but Death and Death pries him for information. Why does he play chess with Death. And just when you think the scene just can't end in any satisfying way after all that has transpired Antonius at the brink of despair looks at his hand and says "This is my hand. I can turn it. The blood is still running in it. The sun is still in the sky and the wind is blowing. And I... I, Antonius Block, play chess with Death." And I was exhausted.
And despite this phenomenal scene the film still goes on, still assaulting you with images and scenes including a procession of flagellators that was alluded to early on but somehow doesn't prepare you for it or a scene in a tavern where a truly wicked man stirs up trouble for an innocent young man named Jof. But if I was floored by the Church scene and thought it couldn't get any better or more profound I was wrong.
As Antonius sits on a hillside he looks up to see Mia and her son Mikael. Antonius joins her and they have a conversations at times pleasant at times profound like when he pronounces that he keeps the most boring company: himself. Jof, Mia's husband joins them as do Antonius' squire and the girl he has rescued and they all sit down to eat wild strawberries and fresh milk. Jof begins to play the lyre, while the rest are lost in their own reflective worlds, Mia and Antonius continue their conversation. And it dawns on Antonius that he has found a perfect moment, one which no one will ever take away from him and he utters out fantastically:
"I shall remember this moment: the silence, the twilight, the bowl of strawberries, the bowl of milk. Your faces in the evening light. Mikael asleep, Jof with his lyre. I shall try to remember our talk. I shall carry this memory carefully in my hands as if it were a bowl brimful of fresh milk. It will be a sign to me, and a great sufficiency."
And then he walks away with a look on his face I can't really describe with any justice and he looks off and I had to pause the movie. I just couldn't continue for a while. I poured myself a drink and I sort of wandered around my apartment for a while. I lied down on my bed and closed my eyes and just thought about what I had just seen. Eventually I got back up went back to my chair and started watching again. And the movie even after that still doesn't disappoint.
If you are curious about the two scenes I just described and why they are so vivid in my head its because they were just that good so good that after another break when the film ended, I had to go a rewatch those scenes. I know some don't approve of watching a film in tidbits but I often love to do so. And after I had done that I was so drained emotionally, so tired that I couldn't watch another movie if I wanted to and I didn't want to.
This film has that same vivid beauty and grace that I find in Thin Red Line. I've cut down on my movie buying these days but next paycheck, this is going to be on the list. I'll leave it with one of the opening lines:
Antonius: Who are you?
Death: I am Death.
Antonius: Have you come for me?
Death: I have long walked by your side.
Antonius: So I have noticed.
Death: Are you ready?
Antonius: My body is ready, but I am not.
I thought to myself, its 1030 at night, I can get two movies in before I go to bed. It turns out that was a miscalculation. I was able to get one movie in in that time because I really couldn't watch another movie after seeing Ingmar Bergman's film. If you've ever had one of those experiences where you think you know something, you think sure there may be a detail here or there which you haven't quite got figured out but more or less you know what you are talking about and then suddenly and magically your eyes are opened and you realize you don't know a damn thing, you don't even have half a grasp on what this thing is, then you'll understand why I just made this long rambling sentence.
This past week has been one of repeated shame. I had never seen Casablanca nor Chinatown and well I saw Once Upon A Time In The West so long ago I might as well have never seen it. And what better way to end a week of shame than with The Seventh Seal. When people say movies are an art form, its because of movies like this. The cinematography? unbelievable. The symbolism? fantastic. The writing? I've never heard some of my own thoughts echoed back to me in such an eloquent way. The acting? So much going on in every scene and at times you just have to watch the background actors instead of who is talking because its so telling.
Do I need to give a synopsis? Well for the sake of it I will. Antonius Block (Max von Sydow) has just returned from ten years fighting in the Crusades to his native Sweden. Europe is being decimated by the plague. As Antonius lies on a beautifully landscaped beach, Death appears as it is time. Antonius shrewdly challenges Death to a game of chess because while they play Death may not take him. Antonius is a lost soul, he is desperately searching for knowledge. The film follows him as he travels to his castle and meets with various people along the way all the while playing chess with Death.
Playing chess with Death, wandering along aimless, seeking Truth are all fairly obvious metaphors for the human condition but they are executed here so well. Max von Sydow utters his lines with such power and conviction, at times with a smile on his face that never reaches his eyes and at others with a grim demeanor that saddens you to your soul. And if anyone ever needed an argument that acting is in the person not the words, just watch him and don't read the subtitles.
I was in constant amazement of the shots and the score, my eyes drinking in everything, knowing I was missing ten things for every one I saw. Then came a scene in a church, the play of shadow and light just brilliant, where Antonius is praying at the altar and he sees who he thinks is a monk and goes over to confess. His outpouring of his crisis of faith is so powerful I pushed out of my seat and crawled closer to the screen to watch it. I can't help but quote his monologue:
"Is it so terribly inconceivable to comprehend God with one's senses? Why does he hide in a cloud of half-promises and unseen miracles? How can we believe in the faithful when we lack faith? What will happen to us who want to believe, but can not? What about those who neither want to nor can believe? Why can't I kill God in me? Why does He live on in me in a humiliating way - despite my wanting to evict Him from my heart? Why is He, despite all, a mocking reality I can't be rid of?" - Antonius Block
This is a man who desperately wants to believe. He has seen so much in the Crusades. A lesser movie would have shown some of that, here we get Antonius' anguished face as he pleads partly to the monk, partly to himself, partly to God to just finally give him an answer. The monk is not a monk at all but Death and Death pries him for information. Why does he play chess with Death. And just when you think the scene just can't end in any satisfying way after all that has transpired Antonius at the brink of despair looks at his hand and says "This is my hand. I can turn it. The blood is still running in it. The sun is still in the sky and the wind is blowing. And I... I, Antonius Block, play chess with Death." And I was exhausted.
And despite this phenomenal scene the film still goes on, still assaulting you with images and scenes including a procession of flagellators that was alluded to early on but somehow doesn't prepare you for it or a scene in a tavern where a truly wicked man stirs up trouble for an innocent young man named Jof. But if I was floored by the Church scene and thought it couldn't get any better or more profound I was wrong.
As Antonius sits on a hillside he looks up to see Mia and her son Mikael. Antonius joins her and they have a conversations at times pleasant at times profound like when he pronounces that he keeps the most boring company: himself. Jof, Mia's husband joins them as do Antonius' squire and the girl he has rescued and they all sit down to eat wild strawberries and fresh milk. Jof begins to play the lyre, while the rest are lost in their own reflective worlds, Mia and Antonius continue their conversation. And it dawns on Antonius that he has found a perfect moment, one which no one will ever take away from him and he utters out fantastically:
"I shall remember this moment: the silence, the twilight, the bowl of strawberries, the bowl of milk. Your faces in the evening light. Mikael asleep, Jof with his lyre. I shall try to remember our talk. I shall carry this memory carefully in my hands as if it were a bowl brimful of fresh milk. It will be a sign to me, and a great sufficiency."
And then he walks away with a look on his face I can't really describe with any justice and he looks off and I had to pause the movie. I just couldn't continue for a while. I poured myself a drink and I sort of wandered around my apartment for a while. I lied down on my bed and closed my eyes and just thought about what I had just seen. Eventually I got back up went back to my chair and started watching again. And the movie even after that still doesn't disappoint.
If you are curious about the two scenes I just described and why they are so vivid in my head its because they were just that good so good that after another break when the film ended, I had to go a rewatch those scenes. I know some don't approve of watching a film in tidbits but I often love to do so. And after I had done that I was so drained emotionally, so tired that I couldn't watch another movie if I wanted to and I didn't want to.
This film has that same vivid beauty and grace that I find in Thin Red Line. I've cut down on my movie buying these days but next paycheck, this is going to be on the list. I'll leave it with one of the opening lines:
Antonius: Who are you?
Death: I am Death.
Antonius: Have you come for me?
Death: I have long walked by your side.
Antonius: So I have noticed.
Death: Are you ready?
Antonius: My body is ready, but I am not.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Meet Me In St. Louis
Every once in a while convinced I just haven't seen the right musical, I will rent one and watch it. I always try to keep an open mind but I just can't get into musicals. Its weird. I like music and I love music that tells a story but tell a story where people randomly break into song and dance and I just tune out. Still Meet Me In St. Louis as a story did have some charm. And Judy Garland's singing of "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" was stirring (I'm a sucker for a Christmas song).
The movie follows St. Louis family during the year before the World's Fair in 1904. The father has decided to move the family to New York and the family is a bit distraught. The older girls are looking for marriage matches and the younger are well I'm not really sure what they are doing. Esther (Judy Garland) is in love with the boy next door and attempts to peak his interest. And yes, occasionally random breaking out into song and dance.
The crazy thing is that two things stuck with me about this film. The first is one of the daughters Tootie (Margaret O'Brien). This little girl is described as rambunctious on the Netflix description but I would have gone with psychotic. In her first introduction she has a long tale about a man who lures kittens into a house and poisons them on and apparently the same guy also beats his wife. And how does her family respond? They laugh. The laugh? What is going on?
She imagines that her dolls get sick with disease and die and then she buries them. And people laugh. Then there was the unforgettable Halloween scene. I must confess I don't know the history of Halloween, it was also just an excuse to get some candy in my day. But apparently in 1903, according to this film, Halloween was a night when children rule in a near anarchic state, starting a bonfire in the middle of the street and hurling chairs and fences into the fire. Then these same kids run up to houses, knock and when answered through flour in the person's face declaring them "dead".
I was exclaiming aloud during this scene "what is going on?" It was like the scene fell right out of Terry Gilliam's imagination. And the whole scene ends with a stunt that seems to have been done in hopes of creating a massacre. And when she reveals what she did, her family just shakes their heads in that "girls will be girls" way. Because apparently little girls are little more than spawns of Satan? I could almost see her as the inspiration for the character Rhoda from The Bad Seed.
Okay enough of the crazy. There was one other scene that I found endearing. Early in the film, Esther attempts to let the poor clueless boy next door know that she likes him. She requests he walk around her house turning off all the lights after a party. He assents presumably understanding her underlying motive but at almost every turn says something or does something that reflects that he just doesn't get it. And the way the scene ends with him like a moron waving goodbye is just too priceless.
I probably like this scene so much because it smacks so truthfully of my own sad experiences. Short of a woman holding up a sign saying, "idiot, I like you" I'm usually pretty clueless. So the scene I just mentioned to me was fantastic.
If you like musicals and charming movies (with the weird little girl exception) I suspect you will like this one, me I'll stick with the non-musicals for a little while more.
The movie follows St. Louis family during the year before the World's Fair in 1904. The father has decided to move the family to New York and the family is a bit distraught. The older girls are looking for marriage matches and the younger are well I'm not really sure what they are doing. Esther (Judy Garland) is in love with the boy next door and attempts to peak his interest. And yes, occasionally random breaking out into song and dance.
The crazy thing is that two things stuck with me about this film. The first is one of the daughters Tootie (Margaret O'Brien). This little girl is described as rambunctious on the Netflix description but I would have gone with psychotic. In her first introduction she has a long tale about a man who lures kittens into a house and poisons them on and apparently the same guy also beats his wife. And how does her family respond? They laugh. The laugh? What is going on?
She imagines that her dolls get sick with disease and die and then she buries them. And people laugh. Then there was the unforgettable Halloween scene. I must confess I don't know the history of Halloween, it was also just an excuse to get some candy in my day. But apparently in 1903, according to this film, Halloween was a night when children rule in a near anarchic state, starting a bonfire in the middle of the street and hurling chairs and fences into the fire. Then these same kids run up to houses, knock and when answered through flour in the person's face declaring them "dead".
I was exclaiming aloud during this scene "what is going on?" It was like the scene fell right out of Terry Gilliam's imagination. And the whole scene ends with a stunt that seems to have been done in hopes of creating a massacre. And when she reveals what she did, her family just shakes their heads in that "girls will be girls" way. Because apparently little girls are little more than spawns of Satan? I could almost see her as the inspiration for the character Rhoda from The Bad Seed.
Okay enough of the crazy. There was one other scene that I found endearing. Early in the film, Esther attempts to let the poor clueless boy next door know that she likes him. She requests he walk around her house turning off all the lights after a party. He assents presumably understanding her underlying motive but at almost every turn says something or does something that reflects that he just doesn't get it. And the way the scene ends with him like a moron waving goodbye is just too priceless.
I probably like this scene so much because it smacks so truthfully of my own sad experiences. Short of a woman holding up a sign saying, "idiot, I like you" I'm usually pretty clueless. So the scene I just mentioned to me was fantastic.
If you like musicals and charming movies (with the weird little girl exception) I suspect you will like this one, me I'll stick with the non-musicals for a little while more.
Friday, October 12, 2007
%^&*$#$
Nothing has angered me more. Ever. Period. Well at least this week.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/long_good_friday/news/1679303/
Why!!!!!!!!!! Why!!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't mess with a great movie and you certainly don't let Paul "I'm a complete hack" W.S. "I couldn't direct my way out of a paper bag" Anderson take the helm. I will say no more, because it would just be a long list of obscenities with no noticeable finite verb or sentence structure. I just want to say this is wrong, so so unbelieveably wrong.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/long_good_friday/news/1679303/
Why!!!!!!!!!! Why!!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't mess with a great movie and you certainly don't let Paul "I'm a complete hack" W.S. "I couldn't direct my way out of a paper bag" Anderson take the helm. I will say no more, because it would just be a long list of obscenities with no noticeable finite verb or sentence structure. I just want to say this is wrong, so so unbelieveably wrong.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Thin Red Line
In the interest of full disclosure and in anticipation of objection, let me just put this out there. "Thin Red Line" is my favorite movie. How can he say that when there is so little he has seen, one might object. Or as my friends used to tease, how many shots of nature can one man have in a film. And I'll respond, I really don't care. No film exhausts me physically like this one. No film resonates for days, weeks, months, years like this film. No single film makes me, when I heard that there were six plus hours of footage shot, think my lord what I wouldn't give to see a six hour rendering of this film. So much left unsaid, so many cameos that aren't even cameos.
I remember when I first saw this film. I worked at the movie theater then, it was a midnight sneak. That is to say the night before it opened we watched the movie to make sure it was built correctly. But really its one of the perks of working at a theater. I'd worked all night, I was desperately tired and it was worth ever exhausting minute. I was back the next day with my friend Brad to watch it again. I own the dvd, I've watched it more than any single movie I have.
What's it about? What's it about you ask? Sweet maria what isn't it about? Its about the Battle of Guadalcanal, its about war, its about humanity, its about the army, its about connection and cruelty. Its about opportunism, its about utopia. Its about so many damn things and every single one of them is fantastic. I guess in the end its about C Company in all its glory and sadness.
We have gentle Staros, company commander worried about his men and Col. Tall worried about his career. Privates galore all worried about life and death, love and sadness. We have Sgt. Welsh a man not quite sure about the world. And principally we have Witt. Witt, like his similarly named predecessor from "From Here To Eternity" is a man I can't even begin to explain. You just have to watch him, here him talk, see the wonder in his face or the determination or the fear.
Since every time I see it, I see something new I can't focus on one thing, although I'll probably keep coming back to Witt. This time I was struck by John Savage, a soldier who snaps from the pressure, he rants and raves and just rocks you to the core. This is what war is capable of. He's utterly fantastic screaming at the top of his lungs about the loss, pleading with God, the army, anyone else that it did not have to be this way.
This experience (movie/film is too weak) has two moments that I consider the best. The best death scene ever. I won't talk about it because that would spoil it, suffice to say when you see it, you'll know. I've seen it a hundred times, maybe more and every time I think to myself "that just happened." An emotional roller coaster that physically exhausts me such that I don't want to do anything after except reflect.
The other is a scene between two soldiers (one of them Witt again). Two soldiers each attempting to enjoy those few moments of quiet, the world without war. One having realized that once cast out of the garden, you can never go back, the other finding a quiet peace in being abandoned of all things. What else can I say?
Welsh and Witt have frequent interaction in this film. Welsh attempting to understand Witt and praying that emptiness will come to him because for all his cold cool manner he is clearly tortured by war. Witt loving C Company as the only family he has and seeing the good in everything especially people. Some of the best dialogue of the film occurs between Witt and Welsh, to which I will leave you with this which out of context can only pale in comparison but in context is incredibly powerful. Witt: Do you ever feel lonely? Welsh: Only around people.
Okay, I can't stand it anymore. I can't do this film justice. Just thinking about it makes my heart glow and make me want to watch it again, like right now. But I've got things I need to do. You just need to watch it if you haven't or re-watch it if you have. And you can holler and scream all you want that I am wrong and you'll never convince me.
I remember when I first saw this film. I worked at the movie theater then, it was a midnight sneak. That is to say the night before it opened we watched the movie to make sure it was built correctly. But really its one of the perks of working at a theater. I'd worked all night, I was desperately tired and it was worth ever exhausting minute. I was back the next day with my friend Brad to watch it again. I own the dvd, I've watched it more than any single movie I have.
What's it about? What's it about you ask? Sweet maria what isn't it about? Its about the Battle of Guadalcanal, its about war, its about humanity, its about the army, its about connection and cruelty. Its about opportunism, its about utopia. Its about so many damn things and every single one of them is fantastic. I guess in the end its about C Company in all its glory and sadness.
We have gentle Staros, company commander worried about his men and Col. Tall worried about his career. Privates galore all worried about life and death, love and sadness. We have Sgt. Welsh a man not quite sure about the world. And principally we have Witt. Witt, like his similarly named predecessor from "From Here To Eternity" is a man I can't even begin to explain. You just have to watch him, here him talk, see the wonder in his face or the determination or the fear.
Since every time I see it, I see something new I can't focus on one thing, although I'll probably keep coming back to Witt. This time I was struck by John Savage, a soldier who snaps from the pressure, he rants and raves and just rocks you to the core. This is what war is capable of. He's utterly fantastic screaming at the top of his lungs about the loss, pleading with God, the army, anyone else that it did not have to be this way.
This experience (movie/film is too weak) has two moments that I consider the best. The best death scene ever. I won't talk about it because that would spoil it, suffice to say when you see it, you'll know. I've seen it a hundred times, maybe more and every time I think to myself "that just happened." An emotional roller coaster that physically exhausts me such that I don't want to do anything after except reflect.
The other is a scene between two soldiers (one of them Witt again). Two soldiers each attempting to enjoy those few moments of quiet, the world without war. One having realized that once cast out of the garden, you can never go back, the other finding a quiet peace in being abandoned of all things. What else can I say?
Welsh and Witt have frequent interaction in this film. Welsh attempting to understand Witt and praying that emptiness will come to him because for all his cold cool manner he is clearly tortured by war. Witt loving C Company as the only family he has and seeing the good in everything especially people. Some of the best dialogue of the film occurs between Witt and Welsh, to which I will leave you with this which out of context can only pale in comparison but in context is incredibly powerful. Witt: Do you ever feel lonely? Welsh: Only around people.
Okay, I can't stand it anymore. I can't do this film justice. Just thinking about it makes my heart glow and make me want to watch it again, like right now. But I've got things I need to do. You just need to watch it if you haven't or re-watch it if you have. And you can holler and scream all you want that I am wrong and you'll never convince me.
Casablanca
Maybe the saddest thing I could reveal, is that in all my life I had never seen "Casablanca." How can anyone call themselves a lover of film and have not seen this movie. I admit its shameful. But I can say finally that I don't have to be ashamed anymore. I probably can't say anything that hasn't been said, I should probably just say if for some shameful reason like me you have never seen it, then drop what you are doing now, find it and watch it. In fact that is all I will say. I can not do it justice and I know every critic has to get his two cents worth in but in this case I'm going to resist. I know its cheap and a cop out but that's just the way its going to be. For now.
Once Upon A Time In The West
I can't let this film go without comment. Although "Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is nearest and dearest to my heart, this one screams cinematic feast. Three years after one masterpiece, Leone brought us a new story, a bit more nuanced (if the characters aren't quite as interesting in my opinion) they are still incredibly fleshed out. Story: Jill's fresh off the train from New Orleans to meet her new husband. Cheyenne is fresh from a prison break back to lead his gang. Frank is fresh off the kill, ready to do so again. Harmonica is fresh on the hunt to revenge his brother. There is other stuff going on, a railroad coming into town, a greedy money man, and all the tropes of Westerns we know and we love.
The why of this bizarre cinematic love quadrangle is the least of importance. The how is what holds you in your seat. The eery wail of a harmonica introduces us to Harmonica (Charles Bronson). A man who "Instead of talking, he plays. And when he better play, he talks." Harmonica can take it all in stride, he's single minded and patient. Set backs don't bug him and he knows exactly how he wants the revenge to occur and he won't stop before that happens, nor will he allow a hair on his nemesis' head to be harmed before he can do it himself.
Frank (Henry Fonda) is a cold blooded man. He doesn't think twice about killing a child. He does what is advantageous for him. Frank has delusions that he can be more than he is, a business man to replace the railroad baron. But Frank isn't more than a ruthless thug. He has scenes that will just down right creep you out.
Cheyenne (Jason Robards) by contrast is actually quite a decent fellow, for a career criminal. Able to measure a man or woman's character in an instant. Deadly when he has to be, something close to endearing when he wants to be. He speaks dialogue that tells you about the other characters and it never once seems forced. It never once seems false. Cheyenne likes to read people. He likes knowing exactly who he is dealing with.
Robards, Fonda even Bronson all send in performances that you can't forget, for me Robards shines above them all. Just watch and hell re-watch his scenes with Claudia Cardinale. Especially there first scene which ends with such a great reveal I can only quote the dialogue "You know, Jill, you remind me of my mother. She was the biggest whore in Alameda and the finest woman that ever lived. Whoever my father was, for an hour or for a month - he must have been a happy man." He's seen right through Jill. We know something about both of them now, something made more explicit later with Frank.
What else can I say about this movie? Did I mention the dialogue? So fantastically over the top. Just read the stuff I quoted here and in the previous review. Who talks like that? Who cares you revel in its absurdity. And the end, again it can't compete with the end of "The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly" for my money but that isn't to say it isn't utterly fantastic because it is. This is a what a western can be, this is what a western should be.
The why of this bizarre cinematic love quadrangle is the least of importance. The how is what holds you in your seat. The eery wail of a harmonica introduces us to Harmonica (Charles Bronson). A man who "Instead of talking, he plays. And when he better play, he talks." Harmonica can take it all in stride, he's single minded and patient. Set backs don't bug him and he knows exactly how he wants the revenge to occur and he won't stop before that happens, nor will he allow a hair on his nemesis' head to be harmed before he can do it himself.
Frank (Henry Fonda) is a cold blooded man. He doesn't think twice about killing a child. He does what is advantageous for him. Frank has delusions that he can be more than he is, a business man to replace the railroad baron. But Frank isn't more than a ruthless thug. He has scenes that will just down right creep you out.
Cheyenne (Jason Robards) by contrast is actually quite a decent fellow, for a career criminal. Able to measure a man or woman's character in an instant. Deadly when he has to be, something close to endearing when he wants to be. He speaks dialogue that tells you about the other characters and it never once seems forced. It never once seems false. Cheyenne likes to read people. He likes knowing exactly who he is dealing with.
Robards, Fonda even Bronson all send in performances that you can't forget, for me Robards shines above them all. Just watch and hell re-watch his scenes with Claudia Cardinale. Especially there first scene which ends with such a great reveal I can only quote the dialogue "You know, Jill, you remind me of my mother. She was the biggest whore in Alameda and the finest woman that ever lived. Whoever my father was, for an hour or for a month - he must have been a happy man." He's seen right through Jill. We know something about both of them now, something made more explicit later with Frank.
What else can I say about this movie? Did I mention the dialogue? So fantastically over the top. Just read the stuff I quoted here and in the previous review. Who talks like that? Who cares you revel in its absurdity. And the end, again it can't compete with the end of "The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly" for my money but that isn't to say it isn't utterly fantastic because it is. This is a what a western can be, this is what a western should be.
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
There is something profoundly satisfying for me when I watch a Sergio Leone film. Why just last night I sat down and watched both "Once Upon A Time In The West" and "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". I don't know if I need to say this, but that is a six hour commitment. Once Upon A Time In The West is of course fantastic. Grand in scope with a story of revenge. And the dialogue is so crazy and fantastic at the same time.
"The reward for this man is 5000 dollars, is that right?"
Judas was content for 4970 dollars less."
"There were no dollars in them days."
"But sons of bitches... yeah."
or
"So, you found out you're not a businessman after all."
"Just a man."
"An ancient race."
By contrast "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is almost devoid of dialogue. The story not exactly the most conventional. Yet it is more ambitious than most. What you should probably know: Three men learn about 200,000 dollars worth of gold buried in a cemetery. Each has a key to the puzzle of where and each would prefer if the other two were dead. What you need to know: The Good, Blondie (Clint Eastwood) is relatively good. He doesn't kill without reason and he'll let a man who swears he is going to kill him go out of some sense of nobility. The Bad, Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) is bad, really bad, willing to beat a woman for information, and brutally. Finally The Ugly, Tucco (Eli Wallach) is a loud talking, amoral criminal who never forgets the wrongs done to him.
But I can't stress enough it isn't per se about the story. From the opening cords of a soundtrack that just tells you what you are about to see is epic, we find ourselves immersed in an introduction that lasts 30 minutes. A full one sixth of the movie is just devoted to telling you exactly what kind of men the players are. And from there it meanders its way to the finish line but not in a boring way but in a big scale way.
There are so many things I could talk about with this film. The way people seem to hide in plain sight as Roger Ebert commented, as if the characters on screen are capable of only seeing what is in frame. I could talk about the five minute long three person standoff that is the climax of the film. How Blondie at one point says, "six, the perfect number" and Angel Eyes responds "I thought three was the perfect number". A line that so utterly foreshadows the final showdown that if it wasn't intentional then the gods of movies made it so. I could talk about the ridiculously ambitious Civil War sequence.
But what struck me most last night was Tuco. Perhaps one of the most fabulously richly developed characters ever. It surely must be partly writing, it surely must be partly Mr. Eli Wallach. From his desperate entrance in the opening moments of the film, we see him slovenly, unkempt and holding food in one hand, his freshly fired gun in the other. Tuco is a wanted man, with a long rap sheet (comically listed off in partial at several points).
Tuco has a con going with Blondie, his "friend", if such a man can have friends. Loud mouthed, Tuco doesn't know when to shut up. Always cursing and talking big even on the point of being hanged. Equal parts gutless and unforgiving, warns those who betray him that they better make sure he is dead. Tuco is always on, so much so that you might start to dislike him. You might think, he's too much. Then midway through the film we are introduced to a scene you don't really see coming.
A scene in a monastery with his brother. Taking everything in stride, the confrontation with his brother is the most revealing of scenes. A sad reality settles on you. Tuco is who he is for a reason. Tuco had to survive, always to survive and Tuco learned a cold truth. You just can't trust anyone. Blondie witnesses this whole scene silently. After this, as Tuco and Blondie leave, Tuco can't help but comment.
He lets Blondie know how good a brother he has. How truly blessed he is. Blondie accepts this lie despite having witnessed the confessional. And then Tuco is back, veil once again up, vulnerability gone. And yet you can't help but think about everything up to this point and you can't help but go back to this scene in the future. You can't help but think, my oh my, Blondie really is the only friend Tuco has, and how sad and unsettling that is.
This film is often considered the third in the "Man With No Name" trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More being the first two). But to me this film is about Tuco, not Blondie. And if it had nothing else (and by no means does it, for it has a plethora) it would be worth it just for that.
"The reward for this man is 5000 dollars, is that right?"
Judas was content for 4970 dollars less."
"There were no dollars in them days."
"But sons of bitches... yeah."
or
"So, you found out you're not a businessman after all."
"Just a man."
"An ancient race."
By contrast "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is almost devoid of dialogue. The story not exactly the most conventional. Yet it is more ambitious than most. What you should probably know: Three men learn about 200,000 dollars worth of gold buried in a cemetery. Each has a key to the puzzle of where and each would prefer if the other two were dead. What you need to know: The Good, Blondie (Clint Eastwood) is relatively good. He doesn't kill without reason and he'll let a man who swears he is going to kill him go out of some sense of nobility. The Bad, Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) is bad, really bad, willing to beat a woman for information, and brutally. Finally The Ugly, Tucco (Eli Wallach) is a loud talking, amoral criminal who never forgets the wrongs done to him.
But I can't stress enough it isn't per se about the story. From the opening cords of a soundtrack that just tells you what you are about to see is epic, we find ourselves immersed in an introduction that lasts 30 minutes. A full one sixth of the movie is just devoted to telling you exactly what kind of men the players are. And from there it meanders its way to the finish line but not in a boring way but in a big scale way.
There are so many things I could talk about with this film. The way people seem to hide in plain sight as Roger Ebert commented, as if the characters on screen are capable of only seeing what is in frame. I could talk about the five minute long three person standoff that is the climax of the film. How Blondie at one point says, "six, the perfect number" and Angel Eyes responds "I thought three was the perfect number". A line that so utterly foreshadows the final showdown that if it wasn't intentional then the gods of movies made it so. I could talk about the ridiculously ambitious Civil War sequence.
But what struck me most last night was Tuco. Perhaps one of the most fabulously richly developed characters ever. It surely must be partly writing, it surely must be partly Mr. Eli Wallach. From his desperate entrance in the opening moments of the film, we see him slovenly, unkempt and holding food in one hand, his freshly fired gun in the other. Tuco is a wanted man, with a long rap sheet (comically listed off in partial at several points).
Tuco has a con going with Blondie, his "friend", if such a man can have friends. Loud mouthed, Tuco doesn't know when to shut up. Always cursing and talking big even on the point of being hanged. Equal parts gutless and unforgiving, warns those who betray him that they better make sure he is dead. Tuco is always on, so much so that you might start to dislike him. You might think, he's too much. Then midway through the film we are introduced to a scene you don't really see coming.
A scene in a monastery with his brother. Taking everything in stride, the confrontation with his brother is the most revealing of scenes. A sad reality settles on you. Tuco is who he is for a reason. Tuco had to survive, always to survive and Tuco learned a cold truth. You just can't trust anyone. Blondie witnesses this whole scene silently. After this, as Tuco and Blondie leave, Tuco can't help but comment.
He lets Blondie know how good a brother he has. How truly blessed he is. Blondie accepts this lie despite having witnessed the confessional. And then Tuco is back, veil once again up, vulnerability gone. And yet you can't help but think about everything up to this point and you can't help but go back to this scene in the future. You can't help but think, my oh my, Blondie really is the only friend Tuco has, and how sad and unsettling that is.
This film is often considered the third in the "Man With No Name" trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More being the first two). But to me this film is about Tuco, not Blondie. And if it had nothing else (and by no means does it, for it has a plethora) it would be worth it just for that.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Across The Universe
First confession: I'm not a fan of musicals. Its just a bit too bizarre having people express how they feel in song. To quote the Robot Devil from Futurama "
Friday, October 05, 2007
In The Valley Of Elah
Forgive me if this seems a little incoherent, you see it turns out when you watch In the Valley of Elah, Paul Haggis actually sneaks up behind you with a tack hammer and pounds your skull repeatedly screaming at the top of his lungs, "do you get it? the Iraq war is evil, evil I say, America is in trouble, we must rescue it". Still, if I had been able to get my senses back fast enough I probably would have asked for an autograph. Now whether Mr. Haggis is write about Iraq maybe right, but what it is with regards to this movie is really completely irrelevant.
Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) gets a call one day that his son is AWOL. Hank wasn't even aware that his son was home. Hank sets out to his son's base to find him. Soon the missing person becomes a murder victim and Hank, a former MP can't restrain himself from finding out exactly what happened. He is assisted (or is he assisting her?) by local detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron). They slowly piece together what happened while Hank becomes disillusioned by the army, Iraq and just about everything else.
Now the reason I say Iraq is completely irrelevant is because this movie could just as easily have been set in the Vietnam era or any war really. Its about PTSD, not war. Or at least it should be and would have been if a more subtle director had been at the helm. That being said, Tommy Lee Jones knocks his performance out of the park. From his stoic army trained lifestyle that has him neatly making his hotel room bed each morning to his pained by almost passionless reaction to his own son's dead body.
Despite Haggis' heavy hand, I felt the movie was pretty effective and anchored by Jones performing like crazy. I'm the first to raise holy hell that Jones won an academy award over Ralph Fiennes many years back but maybe I should give him another chance because he has wowed me twice now, here and in Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. Sadly the film just doesn't seem to know when it should end, or rather Haggis doesn't seem to know when it should end.
Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) gets a call one day that his son is AWOL. Hank wasn't even aware that his son was home. Hank sets out to his son's base to find him. Soon the missing person becomes a murder victim and Hank, a former MP can't restrain himself from finding out exactly what happened. He is assisted (or is he assisting her?) by local detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron). They slowly piece together what happened while Hank becomes disillusioned by the army, Iraq and just about everything else.
Now the reason I say Iraq is completely irrelevant is because this movie could just as easily have been set in the Vietnam era or any war really. Its about PTSD, not war. Or at least it should be and would have been if a more subtle director had been at the helm. That being said, Tommy Lee Jones knocks his performance out of the park. From his stoic army trained lifestyle that has him neatly making his hotel room bed each morning to his pained by almost passionless reaction to his own son's dead body.
Despite Haggis' heavy hand, I felt the movie was pretty effective and anchored by Jones performing like crazy. I'm the first to raise holy hell that Jones won an academy award over Ralph Fiennes many years back but maybe I should give him another chance because he has wowed me twice now, here and in Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. Sadly the film just doesn't seem to know when it should end, or rather Haggis doesn't seem to know when it should end.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Road Warrior
When the narrator kicks in at the beginning of The Road Warrior you get an immediate sense of what is about to come. He tells a story of a war between two great tribes and the devastating effects on civilization. Fuel has become very scarce. Mad Max gave us an insight into a declining world, one in which a handful of cops hold out against an ever increasing hoard of gangs. When a gang kills and maims those who are important to Max, we get a high octane revenge film. The Road Warrior is in a more explicit world, defined by real life escalation of the Cold War and seems to have taken notions of the 70s Oil Crisis to heart.
Where the world was in decline, we now enter a world that has fully collapsed. A group of decent people still clinging to their humanity is defending an oil pumping station. They are besieged by the truly monstrous The Humongous, a bulking, lumbering villain with a raspy commanding voice and the hint of radiation exposure. Into this world comes Max, a loner, still coping with his loss and the new world. Max has become an opportunist stealing gas when he has to and willing to rescue a man only on condition that he can get some gas. Max however is not built to wander. He is built for a cause, he just needs to be reminded of that.
By films end, Max makes the sacrifice for the people he meets which results in the spectacular 13 minute chase sequence. As the film fades out with the hopes of the survivors, Max is left like a Moses who can get you to the promise land but cannot enter himself. But that is okay, we get the sense that this is who Max is. Max the legend, the epic hero. And we know that this is just one story. In The Road Warrior we get an action film done right. No CGI but real effects. A story you can care about, its a bare bones story but it has a clear sense of what it is, one story in an epic cycle.
Where the world was in decline, we now enter a world that has fully collapsed. A group of decent people still clinging to their humanity is defending an oil pumping station. They are besieged by the truly monstrous The Humongous, a bulking, lumbering villain with a raspy commanding voice and the hint of radiation exposure. Into this world comes Max, a loner, still coping with his loss and the new world. Max has become an opportunist stealing gas when he has to and willing to rescue a man only on condition that he can get some gas. Max however is not built to wander. He is built for a cause, he just needs to be reminded of that.
By films end, Max makes the sacrifice for the people he meets which results in the spectacular 13 minute chase sequence. As the film fades out with the hopes of the survivors, Max is left like a Moses who can get you to the promise land but cannot enter himself. But that is okay, we get the sense that this is who Max is. Max the legend, the epic hero. And we know that this is just one story. In The Road Warrior we get an action film done right. No CGI but real effects. A story you can care about, its a bare bones story but it has a clear sense of what it is, one story in an epic cycle.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
The Long Good Friday
If The Long Good Friday had nothing in it that worked, it would still have its ending which works so damn well that you are in awe. Fortunately it has so much in it that works which makes said ending that much more fantastic. It was directed by John Mackenzie and stars Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren. And Hoskins and Mirren are in top form. This is an old school British gangster film with a synth based soundtrack that you expect from a 70s film. And in no particular order it is in the top ten of my favorite films.
Hoskins plays Harold, a British gangster who rules London. His gangster moll is (Helen Mirren). Hoskins is working up a deal with the American Mafia to develop an area of London in anticipation of the 1988 Olympics. On Good Friday the Americans arrive in town at the same time as someone starts killing Harold's men and blowing up his businesses. Hoskins has only a short window to fix this problem before the Americans abandon the deal. I'll leave to the viewer to discover what went wrong, who is responsible for the deaths and oh the ending.
This is Hoskins at his best. Harold is a blue collar criminal with ideas of greater things. Its clear that he got to the top by being brutal and then brokering a deal to keep the peace. He has politicians and cops in his pocket and clearly has a handle on logistics of being a mobster but always lurking under the surface is that angry and bolstering street tough. Mirren matches him perfectly. She isn't simply a beautiful face but a fully realized smart, tough woman. She has no difficulty giving orders to Harold's men and she adds a bit of charm and class that Harold is ultimately incapable of pulling off.
Watching Hoskins unravel as he discovers what is happening is fascinating. More than willing to have his old rivals be bound and hung upside down on meat hooks, he has no fear of consequences. He is top dog. When Harold does determine what has happened and who is responsible he does something that you know is stupid, his men know is stupid, deep down maybe even Harold knows it is stupid but he can't accept that he isn't in charge. That he isn't the man to fear.
The end is two fold, which is not to say that it ends then ends again but rather it has two parts to it which work so fantastically. To be fair I shouldn't spoil it because its just too good to be ruined by my inadequacy to describe it. I'll just say that it shows Hoskins ranging from the height of arrogance and smugness to the lows of humility and self realization. Oh and about two minutes of Hoskins just looking at the camera, his face distorting in a variety of ways as he goes through his emotions, like the five steps of grief.
Hoskins plays Harold, a British gangster who rules London. His gangster moll is (Helen Mirren). Hoskins is working up a deal with the American Mafia to develop an area of London in anticipation of the 1988 Olympics. On Good Friday the Americans arrive in town at the same time as someone starts killing Harold's men and blowing up his businesses. Hoskins has only a short window to fix this problem before the Americans abandon the deal. I'll leave to the viewer to discover what went wrong, who is responsible for the deaths and oh the ending.
This is Hoskins at his best. Harold is a blue collar criminal with ideas of greater things. Its clear that he got to the top by being brutal and then brokering a deal to keep the peace. He has politicians and cops in his pocket and clearly has a handle on logistics of being a mobster but always lurking under the surface is that angry and bolstering street tough. Mirren matches him perfectly. She isn't simply a beautiful face but a fully realized smart, tough woman. She has no difficulty giving orders to Harold's men and she adds a bit of charm and class that Harold is ultimately incapable of pulling off.
Watching Hoskins unravel as he discovers what is happening is fascinating. More than willing to have his old rivals be bound and hung upside down on meat hooks, he has no fear of consequences. He is top dog. When Harold does determine what has happened and who is responsible he does something that you know is stupid, his men know is stupid, deep down maybe even Harold knows it is stupid but he can't accept that he isn't in charge. That he isn't the man to fear.
The end is two fold, which is not to say that it ends then ends again but rather it has two parts to it which work so fantastically. To be fair I shouldn't spoil it because its just too good to be ruined by my inadequacy to describe it. I'll just say that it shows Hoskins ranging from the height of arrogance and smugness to the lows of humility and self realization. Oh and about two minutes of Hoskins just looking at the camera, his face distorting in a variety of ways as he goes through his emotions, like the five steps of grief.
Monday, October 01, 2007
The Wind That Shakes The Barley
I've known about this movie for over a year. I've read a few reviews. Heck my own parents saw this thing (because they happened to venture to Ireland and see it there). Meanwhile I've been waiting patiently for it to come to the theater (it never did) and then patiently for it to come to dvd. It now has and I have now seen it. So now I can finally have an opinion on it.
The film is set in 1920 Ireland. This is a few years after the famous 1916 Easter Rebellion that was brutally crushed by the British and its leaders executed. The IRA in its original form fought a guerrilla campaign against the British occupiers, called Black and Tans for their uniforms. They were pretty notorious for their treatment of Irishmen and women. After such a mistreatment, Damien, previously believing that turning to violence would serve no purpose becomes militant towards the British. The film follows Damien and his brother Teddy as the fight against the British leading up to the truce which led to the establishment of the Irish Free State. Damien becomes a radical much more than his brother and in the end does not accept the treaty as enough, while Teddy becomes a Free Stater.
Truth be told, this film covered a lot of ground I was already pretty familiar with (albeit in a fictitious story). There is a half hearted attempt to humanize at least one of the British soldiers but it doesn't feel like Ken Loach was really committed to selling that point of view. In terms of story, it doesn't really matter if all British troops in Ireland were committing crimes and terrorizing citizens (and there is plenty of evidence, anecdote and belief that the majority of them were). It only matters that a select group was doing such and that it influenced Damien's decision to fight.
Beyond its novelty as a story, it isn't all that interesting. It plays on the same themes of war and violence and terrorism/freedom fighting as well as brother against brother civil war. Cillian Murphy as Damien is quite good especially in scenes that create the most tension, such as one in which he must execute a traitor. Actors stumble over their lines at time which made me wonder if it was intentional (that is the idea of incoherent expression of thought) or if it was just that he didn't have enough money to be doing multiple takes.
In the end it just feels like there is a bigger and more interesting story to told. Not that it wasn't well done, just that is wasn't very memorable for me.
The film is set in 1920 Ireland. This is a few years after the famous 1916 Easter Rebellion that was brutally crushed by the British and its leaders executed. The IRA in its original form fought a guerrilla campaign against the British occupiers, called Black and Tans for their uniforms. They were pretty notorious for their treatment of Irishmen and women. After such a mistreatment, Damien, previously believing that turning to violence would serve no purpose becomes militant towards the British. The film follows Damien and his brother Teddy as the fight against the British leading up to the truce which led to the establishment of the Irish Free State. Damien becomes a radical much more than his brother and in the end does not accept the treaty as enough, while Teddy becomes a Free Stater.
Truth be told, this film covered a lot of ground I was already pretty familiar with (albeit in a fictitious story). There is a half hearted attempt to humanize at least one of the British soldiers but it doesn't feel like Ken Loach was really committed to selling that point of view. In terms of story, it doesn't really matter if all British troops in Ireland were committing crimes and terrorizing citizens (and there is plenty of evidence, anecdote and belief that the majority of them were). It only matters that a select group was doing such and that it influenced Damien's decision to fight.
Beyond its novelty as a story, it isn't all that interesting. It plays on the same themes of war and violence and terrorism/freedom fighting as well as brother against brother civil war. Cillian Murphy as Damien is quite good especially in scenes that create the most tension, such as one in which he must execute a traitor. Actors stumble over their lines at time which made me wonder if it was intentional (that is the idea of incoherent expression of thought) or if it was just that he didn't have enough money to be doing multiple takes.
In the end it just feels like there is a bigger and more interesting story to told. Not that it wasn't well done, just that is wasn't very memorable for me.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Resident Evil: Extinction
There was something genuinely fun about the first Resident Evil movie. Paul W.S. Anderson was at the helm and doing what he does best make really mediocre movies. But the combination of Milla Jovavich and crack team of special forces going into a zombie filled den of evil was basically the culmination of my dreams as an 8 year old obsessed with monsters and badass special forces units. So sure a part of me realizes it wasn't the best executed of films and part of me is giggling with joy. Now Resident Evil: Apocalypse was pretty close to what I had expect of Resident Evil. Ludicrous, over the top, and Oded Fehr. I was pretty sure the series had peaked. A third film could not be nearly as bad as the second, it just wasn't possible.
Oh how wrong I was. Resident Evil: Extinction picks up apparently five years or so after the previous film. The T-Virus (that would be the zombie virus for lay people) has spread throughout the world and apparently also killed most plant life. A convoy of trucks led by Ali Larter and Oded Fehr is moving across country scavenging abandoned towns for canned food and gasoline ever wary of the zombie threat. Alice (Milla Jovavich) travels on her own, aware that the evil Umbrella Corporation (still one of the greatest names for a huge EVIL conglomerate I have ever come across) can track her if she stays put too long. Meanwhile a scientist is doing experiments on Alice clones as well as working on a injection that will make the zombies docile but instead makes them stronger and more aggressive. Eventually the scientist makes his play for Alice while she aids the convoy in getting to safety along the backdrop of the southwest and Vegas.
Yeah, the film is as ridiculous as that. Its also poorly acted and poorly written and in general the film just makes almost no sense. That being said, I did laugh. Alot. Not that the filmmakers intended for the viewer to laugh or likely were the other viewers in the theater happy that I was laughing. It was just so ludicrously bad I couldn't help but laugh. The whole philosophy of these films seems to be bigger is better. And why does every film have to end with the lead in to a new film that hasn't been made yet? It is my least favorite thing to do in a film. Still, it did kill an afternoon and it gave me some justifiable vitriol. Even zombie fans should probably stay away.
Oh how wrong I was. Resident Evil: Extinction picks up apparently five years or so after the previous film. The T-Virus (that would be the zombie virus for lay people) has spread throughout the world and apparently also killed most plant life. A convoy of trucks led by Ali Larter and Oded Fehr is moving across country scavenging abandoned towns for canned food and gasoline ever wary of the zombie threat. Alice (Milla Jovavich) travels on her own, aware that the evil Umbrella Corporation (still one of the greatest names for a huge EVIL conglomerate I have ever come across) can track her if she stays put too long. Meanwhile a scientist is doing experiments on Alice clones as well as working on a injection that will make the zombies docile but instead makes them stronger and more aggressive. Eventually the scientist makes his play for Alice while she aids the convoy in getting to safety along the backdrop of the southwest and Vegas.
Yeah, the film is as ridiculous as that. Its also poorly acted and poorly written and in general the film just makes almost no sense. That being said, I did laugh. Alot. Not that the filmmakers intended for the viewer to laugh or likely were the other viewers in the theater happy that I was laughing. It was just so ludicrously bad I couldn't help but laugh. The whole philosophy of these films seems to be bigger is better. And why does every film have to end with the lead in to a new film that hasn't been made yet? It is my least favorite thing to do in a film. Still, it did kill an afternoon and it gave me some justifiable vitriol. Even zombie fans should probably stay away.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Good Luck Chuck
I hate Dane Cook. I don't think he is funny. Jessica Alba has no talent save her beauty (well maybe that isn't true but she certainly doesn't have acting talent). Romantic comedies are frequently cliched paint by number scripts with forced notions of love and romance followed by an obligatory and forced temporary break up. Given all this, you might be wondering what in the world would have compelled me to go see Good Luck Chuck.
And sadly I don't have a very satisfying answer to that question. Maybe its my near drug like dependency on movies such that even being at a bad movie still means I'm in a movie. Maybe my natural pessimistic disposition is offset by a deep rooted idealist theory that every movie no matter how bad it may look should at least be given the opportunity to prove that it is more. Maybe its just on a Sunday night when I'm too lazy to do anything else and my choices on television are a plethora of crap, I think maybe spending ten dollars on a bad movie isn't any worse.
For whatever perverse reason I did go see Good Luck Chuck and I know feel the need to let you all know just how bad it was. Chuck is a dentist (that's right I have trouble being convinced that Dane Cook could practice a medical profession as well). Chuck has intimacy issues and apparently a curse on him such that women who date him find their true love the next time they date. Egged on by his best friend played by Dan Fogler, who plays a creepy plastic surgeon obsessed with women's breasts and seems fairly misogynistic, Chuck begins to use his curse to his advantage by sleeping with numerous women.
But Chuck meets Jessica Alba and decides he likes her so much he could commit to her. Now of course he is worried about the curse and does what he can to remove it. And in a bizarre turn he becomes a creepy stalker type who somehow despite all that manages to win the girl back by the credits. For a movie that wants to be a sweet romantic comedy there seems to be a lot of very strong misogyny involved especially against women who are overweight. The fairly dreadful actors fumble through their fairly dreadful script and I was out of the theater and trying to think warm happy thoughts about good movies just after the credits started.
And sadly I don't have a very satisfying answer to that question. Maybe its my near drug like dependency on movies such that even being at a bad movie still means I'm in a movie. Maybe my natural pessimistic disposition is offset by a deep rooted idealist theory that every movie no matter how bad it may look should at least be given the opportunity to prove that it is more. Maybe its just on a Sunday night when I'm too lazy to do anything else and my choices on television are a plethora of crap, I think maybe spending ten dollars on a bad movie isn't any worse.
For whatever perverse reason I did go see Good Luck Chuck and I know feel the need to let you all know just how bad it was. Chuck is a dentist (that's right I have trouble being convinced that Dane Cook could practice a medical profession as well). Chuck has intimacy issues and apparently a curse on him such that women who date him find their true love the next time they date. Egged on by his best friend played by Dan Fogler, who plays a creepy plastic surgeon obsessed with women's breasts and seems fairly misogynistic, Chuck begins to use his curse to his advantage by sleeping with numerous women.
But Chuck meets Jessica Alba and decides he likes her so much he could commit to her. Now of course he is worried about the curse and does what he can to remove it. And in a bizarre turn he becomes a creepy stalker type who somehow despite all that manages to win the girl back by the credits. For a movie that wants to be a sweet romantic comedy there seems to be a lot of very strong misogyny involved especially against women who are overweight. The fairly dreadful actors fumble through their fairly dreadful script and I was out of the theater and trying to think warm happy thoughts about good movies just after the credits started.
Eastern Promises
After a teenage girl is brought to the hospital and dies giving birth to a child, the hospital midwife Anna (Naomi Watts) taking into her possession the girl's diary attempts to track down some family for the new child. She gets her uncle (I've heard several make reference to it being her father, but it is not) to start translating the diary from Russian and follows a lead of a business card to a local restaurant. The restaurant is owned by Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) who also happens to be a fairly powerful and ruthless Russian mob boss. As Naomi begins to understand what is going on she realizes she is in a very dangerous situation. She has also caught the eye for inexplicable reasons of Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), a driver for Semyon and his son Kirill (Vincent Cassel). The film plays out as Nikolai aids Anna in small ways as she looks to uncover what happened to the girl who died.
Beyond anything else it seems this film is about Nikolai played brilliantly by Mortensen. He is understated and a layer of mystery surrounds him. How did he end up as a driver/body guard for Kirill? Why does he take so much interest in Anna? It is stated that a Russian mobster's story is written in tatoos, so what story do Nikolai's tatoos tell? We get some answers to these questions but not all the answers and maybe not even satisfactory answer and I love that aspect of this film. Yes he has a past but does any of that bear relevance on the moment at hand? Not really and so it isn't discussed.
The second amazing thing about the film is a fight sequence late in the film. Graphic and brutal and desperate and all done with Nikolai in the nude. And the point in all the graphicness and brutality is that it is shot in a specific way. It is not choreographed to hide bits of the male anatomy, in fact Nikolai is quite naked and at his most vulnerable and its all visible on screen.
And yet in the end I'm not sure how I feel about this film. Because there is a plot twist late in the film that I didn't much care for. It just made Nikolai slightly less interesting in my eyes and for me this film was made or broke on how interesting he is. Watts is so uninteresting in this film. Vincent Cassel is a bit over the top and Mueller-Stahl seems to be trying to evoke a monster under the guise of a charming restaurant owner but he just always comes off as vaguely creepy to me in every scene.
So in the end I like Viggo and what he does with this role. Some of the story telling elements aren't that interesting but in the end that doesn't detract to much from what works and so its worth seeing for that.
Beyond anything else it seems this film is about Nikolai played brilliantly by Mortensen. He is understated and a layer of mystery surrounds him. How did he end up as a driver/body guard for Kirill? Why does he take so much interest in Anna? It is stated that a Russian mobster's story is written in tatoos, so what story do Nikolai's tatoos tell? We get some answers to these questions but not all the answers and maybe not even satisfactory answer and I love that aspect of this film. Yes he has a past but does any of that bear relevance on the moment at hand? Not really and so it isn't discussed.
The second amazing thing about the film is a fight sequence late in the film. Graphic and brutal and desperate and all done with Nikolai in the nude. And the point in all the graphicness and brutality is that it is shot in a specific way. It is not choreographed to hide bits of the male anatomy, in fact Nikolai is quite naked and at his most vulnerable and its all visible on screen.
And yet in the end I'm not sure how I feel about this film. Because there is a plot twist late in the film that I didn't much care for. It just made Nikolai slightly less interesting in my eyes and for me this film was made or broke on how interesting he is. Watts is so uninteresting in this film. Vincent Cassel is a bit over the top and Mueller-Stahl seems to be trying to evoke a monster under the guise of a charming restaurant owner but he just always comes off as vaguely creepy to me in every scene.
So in the end I like Viggo and what he does with this role. Some of the story telling elements aren't that interesting but in the end that doesn't detract to much from what works and so its worth seeing for that.
The Kingdom
Peter Berg is an odd duck to say the least. Just take a glance at his films and you will see that he directs films all over the map. Very Bad Things which I can't honestly remember very well except that I was not that happy with it when it was over (maybe it deserves a second viewing), came first. Then there was The Rundown, a movie so absurd that its opening sequence involved Arnold Schwarzenagger literally saying good luck as he symbolically passed the action movie star persona to Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson. Then there was Friday Night Lights a pretty standard cut from the mold underdog sports story. And now we have The Kingdom. What motivates a man to direct a black comedy followed by a by the numbers action film, then a sports underdog story and finally a police procedural set in the oddest of locales?
After a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia at an American living compound, a team of FBI agents led by Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) heads to Saudi Arabia to investigate the crime. There the team must deal with the bureaucratic rules that forbid them to touch evidence and the loop holes they must jump through to get to their job. They are accompanied by a protective guard led by Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) who is sympathetic to their search for evidence but is restricted by his own duties. Eventually Fleury is able to get access to the evidence and Al Ghazi is made head of the investigation. The procedural part of the film shows the team finding evidence and tracking down leads until they find some involved parties. This then leads into the final act of the film, an intense firefight between Fleury's team and the terrorists.
Was it a perfect film? Not exactly. The film started with a slightly unnecessary prologue on the history of Saudi Arabia and its relationship to the United States and I didn't think much of Danny Huston's evil Attorney General. A large part of the film is devoted to the slowly building relationship between Fleury and Al Ghazi which was quite well done but when it got into the procedural aspect it was pretty dull and largely superficial. The film really gets going when the team's convoy is attacked and it leads to an intense firefight. Of course it may bend reality a bit at times as five people attack and overcome an entire building full of the terrorists and at times I wondered where they kept getting ammo for their weapons from. Still the violence is graphic but effective and you can't help but think the whole act was well done.
The film ends with some obligatory scenes, in my opinion a little heavy handed. There is some forced antagonism between Fleury and his team for Al Ghazi which I don't think was necessary. Overall though this was an entertaining enough film on a topic that is by no means an easy one to tackle.
After a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia at an American living compound, a team of FBI agents led by Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) heads to Saudi Arabia to investigate the crime. There the team must deal with the bureaucratic rules that forbid them to touch evidence and the loop holes they must jump through to get to their job. They are accompanied by a protective guard led by Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) who is sympathetic to their search for evidence but is restricted by his own duties. Eventually Fleury is able to get access to the evidence and Al Ghazi is made head of the investigation. The procedural part of the film shows the team finding evidence and tracking down leads until they find some involved parties. This then leads into the final act of the film, an intense firefight between Fleury's team and the terrorists.
Was it a perfect film? Not exactly. The film started with a slightly unnecessary prologue on the history of Saudi Arabia and its relationship to the United States and I didn't think much of Danny Huston's evil Attorney General. A large part of the film is devoted to the slowly building relationship between Fleury and Al Ghazi which was quite well done but when it got into the procedural aspect it was pretty dull and largely superficial. The film really gets going when the team's convoy is attacked and it leads to an intense firefight. Of course it may bend reality a bit at times as five people attack and overcome an entire building full of the terrorists and at times I wondered where they kept getting ammo for their weapons from. Still the violence is graphic but effective and you can't help but think the whole act was well done.
The film ends with some obligatory scenes, in my opinion a little heavy handed. There is some forced antagonism between Fleury and his team for Al Ghazi which I don't think was necessary. Overall though this was an entertaining enough film on a topic that is by no means an easy one to tackle.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Movie Idiot walks through a guide to the movies.
Usually every year I grab a copy of the Fall movie preview published by Entertainment Weekly. Sadly this year I missed my opportunity. But never fear faithful reader because I’ve seen a lot of trailers and I picked up a movie facts pamphlet at the theater, so let us see what is being offered (presumably by those willing to pay to have their movie pimped out in a movie facts pamphlet.
Across the Universe – I basically despise all musicals and truth be told I’m not exactly an ecstatic Beatles fan. So I honestly can’t tell you why I want to see this movie but I’ve watched the trailer several times and I’m filled with a desire to go see it.
American Gangster – Yes Denzel, Yes Russell Crowe in a stylized crime/police drama that I will no doubt see and likely enjoy but I’m not exactly waiting on pins and needles for this one.
Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – A western (one of the two film genre’s my dad raised me on – the other being Tough As Nails Lone Cop gets the bad guy films i.e. Death Wish and Dirty Harry) and it stars Casey Affleck who is probably a better actor than his famous brother. Yeah, Brad Pitt is in it too but who cares. Mentioning the Afflecks remind me that Gone Baby Gone is coming out soon too, which intrigues me.
August Rush – Freddie Highmore, Robin Williams, Keri Russell, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and a preview that makes me nauseas from the melodrama. Pass.
Dan In Real Life – Steve Carrell is big right now. So are family style dramas along the lines of Little Miss Sunshine. Maybe I’ll rent it…maybe.
Feast of Love – This film preview actually made me gag more than August Rush.
Rendition – Topical? Yes. Can films be interesting introductions to dialogues of current events? Sure. Does this preview feel like a heavy handed leftist take on current politics? Yes. I think it has something to do with the way Meryl Streep plays the unforgiving politician.
The Brave One
Get to know me even a little and you will figure out pretty quickly that I’ll pretty much see any movie. I’ll go see a movie I don’t expect to like (Nacho Libre). I’ll go see a movie I know I’ll hate (All three Saw films, and yes I’ll probably see the fourth film). I swore after seeing Hostel that if Hostel 2 was made that I would stay far away from it, but yeah I saw Hostel 2. But there are movies that I have never seen for a reason as simple as the fact that the preview did nothing more than made me shrug and say eh.
The Brave One was a preview that didn’t inspire anything. For one thing I saw the preview at the same time I saw a preview for the new Kevin Bacon film and suddenly I figured revenge films were this year’s Disaster flick (think Deep Impact/Armageddon). Plus Jodie Foster pretty much under whelmed me in her last outing. So in truth I had no plans to see it. Until someone let me know that student affairs office had arranged for any student to see a free movie at a local theater and this movie idiot can’t pass up free.
Jodie Foster is Erica Bain, a radio personality who tells anecdotal stories about
At first the film felt a bit hard to get into. The characterization a bit weak especially the relationship but it grew on me. It isn’t unproblematic. There is a bizarre choice to contrast brutal violence with extreme intimacy early in the film which seemed to serve no purpose in my opinion. There is also an extreme leap between nearly agoraphobic traumatic shock to the stolid determination that a gun will keep her safe. But that being said once that is out of the way, the film settles into a bizarre mix of thriller, police procedural and analysis of bruised psyches.
Now the theater was filled with a few obnoxious patrons who were cheering the action sequences, which is an odd reaction to a film that seems to want to inspire discussion about the issues it raises. And yet will only resonate with these viewers as really fun action sequences. The debate might be superficial and bit forced but it definitely feels a bit heavy handed on that front and despite all that they still missed it. But that isn’t what really makes the movie, what makes the film is the relationship of its two main characters.
At its core are two superb performances by Foster and Terrence Howard as the cop who is investigating the vigilante murders. They form a bizarrely wounded friendship, discussing loss, crime and justice. There is one particularly powerful scene late in the movie at a diner. It involves revelations, call backs to earlier conversations and a very fantastic sense of finality. This leads into a fast paced finale that promises to make this go down as a fantastic film. And then.
I really, really wish there wasn’t an and then. But there is. Does a character do something one would never expect him/her to do? Unfortunately. Does the climax of the film seem to contradict the power of the aforementioned diner scene? Sadly, yes. If not for the ending to this movie, this very well might have been one of my top five favorites of the year, it may still make top ten but it is just so disappointing of an ending that I can almost not forgive it.
Still it’s a film definitely worth seeing, especially for that diner scene (can you tell I really liked the diner scene?). But maybe with my warning you don’t put much faith in a fantastic ending. Or maybe you walk out of the theater at just the right moment. You’ll know it when it happens and that is the time to run. Or maybe you stay and disagree with me but I wish it could have delivered a better ending.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
War
Of all the movies I thought that I would be seeing when I went to see War, the one I got was a bit of a surprise. If you've seen the trailer you probably immediately decided this was a film to skip. Unless you are like me who watches films sometimes merely to be in the theater. Admittedly I on occasion like a mindless martial arts film. This one could have standed to be a bit more mindless. When I go see a movie starring Jet Li and Jason Statham I expect to see something like all those old Jean Claude Van Damme movies not the worst adaptation of Yojimbo I have ever seen.
I actually started to pay attention about half an hour into the film and realized I was just watching yet another rehash of a Kurosowa film. You know Hollywood has gotten lazy when it resorts to not just remaking films already made but remaking films that were remakes of films that were remakes of films already made. Yojimbo was a good movie. Sergio Leone's reimagining into A Fistful of Dollars was a good film. In all honesty I like it better because the old west has more appeal as a subject matter perhaps because I grew up on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
Then there was Last Man Standing a travesty of a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken and really you have to try to make a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken a travesty. And now we have War. The worst adaptation to date.
I actually started to pay attention about half an hour into the film and realized I was just watching yet another rehash of a Kurosowa film. You know Hollywood has gotten lazy when it resorts to not just remaking films already made but remaking films that were remakes of films that were remakes of films already made. Yojimbo was a good movie. Sergio Leone's reimagining into A Fistful of Dollars was a good film. In all honesty I like it better because the old west has more appeal as a subject matter perhaps because I grew up on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
Then there was Last Man Standing a travesty of a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken and really you have to try to make a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken a travesty. And now we have War. The worst adaptation to date.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Nannies, teen comedies and buddy cop movies
I'm always disappointed when I see a movie and it doesn't inspire me to write something. Bad movies make me want to rant, good movies make me want to rant. Movies such as The Nanny Diaries, Superbad and Rush Hour 3 inspired nothing. Superbad had its moments but wasn't terribly funny. Rush Hour 3 was well bad, but I accepted that going in and only saw it out of some bizarre completionist notion. If you are wondering why I saw Nanny Diaries well all I can say is I once set a goal to see every Scarlett Johansson film. May I suggest never setting such a goal as she just isn't that impressive of an actress. Here's hoping the next film I see inspires me.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy
All summer long the fantastic independent theater here in Durham was closed for renovations. This is the theater that permitted me to see Aliens and Day of the Dead. Now it is back open and I have gotten an email informing me of some upcoming films and events.
- STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN
- TRON
- THE MONSTER SQUAD Cast Reunion
Monday, August 13, 2007
Stardust
In any given year I see a great deal of movies. I have averaged about 75 movies in the theater for several years now. In addition I rent many movies, watch dvds I own and even when cable is made available to me watch movies on tv. Now as you can imagine that means I see a lot of crap. Nothing can explain why in good conscience I paid to see Hot Rod as a recent example. And once there was the horrendous night I watched Mission to Mars and Reindeer Games, one after the other. Gary Sinise, if you are reading I expect compensation for that slow torture.
Oh, I've had my fair share of rewards as well. Children of Men and Brick were both fantastic to watch. Bourne Ultimatum recently had me smiling from ear to ear. But rarer than that is a movie that I am truly and genuinely floored by. Now these movies don't come every year (sad to say). These are also movies that are not necessarily the most proficient films out there. At times they are even disappointing to me on a second viewing. I can't explain it, maybe its something about the atmosphere of a darkened auditorium and the general joy I get from movies that combine for a truly heart pleasing experience.
Now the reason I am ranting in such a way is because I had such an experience last night, made all the more memorable by the fact that I watched Becoming Jane afterwards. But the second movie actually didn't have any influence on what I thought of the first because I was already thinking about what I wanted to say about Stardust as I drove to the next theater which was on the other side of town (I even got stuck in construction traffic which gave me lots of time to think). Stardust is a movie that caused a rare reaction in me. Where I walk out of the theater and seriously consider purchasing another ticket to watch it again. I'm even considering going back to the theater tonight.
Critics have called Stardust genre defying which I think is just daft. Its a fairy tale. That is its genre. As such the things you would expect, it has. Wicked witch? Check. Evil nemesis? Check. Dashing pirate? Check (sort of, we will get back to that). Beautiful damsel in distress? Check. Dashing hero? Check. What to me makes fairytale subjects such great movies is that you can endlessly tell variations on the same theme. Kind of like jazz (or at least as I understand jazz, apologies to jazz lovers who think I have horribly misrepresented that genre of music).
Synopsis, short and sweet. Tristran (Charlie Cox) is a boy who works in a shop and who pines for the shallow Victoria (Sienna Miller) who thinks he is a shop boy (yes there is a difference between a shop boy and a boy who works in a shop). Tristran promises her he will bring her a fallen star for her love and off he sets to a magical kingdom. There he meets Yvaine (Claire Danes), the star and they journey back to his village. But an evil witch, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) and nefarious prince Septimus (Mark Strong) each want Yvaine for their own purposes. Along the way Tristran and Yvaine run across Shakespeare (DeNiro) as a gruff and tough pirate who happens to be secretly a gay cross dresser.
Now there isn't any question as to how this film will turn out and in truth if you have slightly more than a passing knowledge of fairy tales you can pretty much plot out the major things that have to be accomplished in this film. But all that is irrelevant because what makes a fairy tale good is not its unique storyline but rather how it plays on those age old themes. Maybe another reason fairy tales are so good is because they are black and white and good always triumphs (and especially love). Of course we live in world where very little is black and white (despite what the president says). I could list off tens of reasons why fairy tales are great almost all no doubt would sound like sappy half answers to some. So lets get back to Stardust.
The performances are all proficient if not spectacular. DeNiro seems to be having a field day with his character and you can't help but have a good time when he is on screen. Danes is beautiful and quick witted (having that beauty with a bite that I love so well in my screen actresses (the very reason no one will ever be able to tell me Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You wasn't brilliant)). Ricky Gervais' role is hysterical as a slimy salesman. Pfeiffer revels in her wicked witch as you would expect. Of course none of that would matter if the leads didn't shine (no pun intended there since at times Danes does actually shine in the film). Cox and Danes have great chemistry.
Even knowing deep down how it would end, the film pulled me in. Thus I was anxious when the leads were in danger and happy when the pair are reunited. To sum up this film in a word, I would say 'charming'. It turned what was an average day into a truly pleasant day. Which is why Stardust may not be the best movie of the year, but it is my favorite movie of the year.
Oh, I've had my fair share of rewards as well. Children of Men and Brick were both fantastic to watch. Bourne Ultimatum recently had me smiling from ear to ear. But rarer than that is a movie that I am truly and genuinely floored by. Now these movies don't come every year (sad to say). These are also movies that are not necessarily the most proficient films out there. At times they are even disappointing to me on a second viewing. I can't explain it, maybe its something about the atmosphere of a darkened auditorium and the general joy I get from movies that combine for a truly heart pleasing experience.
Now the reason I am ranting in such a way is because I had such an experience last night, made all the more memorable by the fact that I watched Becoming Jane afterwards. But the second movie actually didn't have any influence on what I thought of the first because I was already thinking about what I wanted to say about Stardust as I drove to the next theater which was on the other side of town (I even got stuck in construction traffic which gave me lots of time to think). Stardust is a movie that caused a rare reaction in me. Where I walk out of the theater and seriously consider purchasing another ticket to watch it again. I'm even considering going back to the theater tonight.
Critics have called Stardust genre defying which I think is just daft. Its a fairy tale. That is its genre. As such the things you would expect, it has. Wicked witch? Check. Evil nemesis? Check. Dashing pirate? Check (sort of, we will get back to that). Beautiful damsel in distress? Check. Dashing hero? Check. What to me makes fairytale subjects such great movies is that you can endlessly tell variations on the same theme. Kind of like jazz (or at least as I understand jazz, apologies to jazz lovers who think I have horribly misrepresented that genre of music).
Synopsis, short and sweet. Tristran (Charlie Cox) is a boy who works in a shop and who pines for the shallow Victoria (Sienna Miller) who thinks he is a shop boy (yes there is a difference between a shop boy and a boy who works in a shop). Tristran promises her he will bring her a fallen star for her love and off he sets to a magical kingdom. There he meets Yvaine (Claire Danes), the star and they journey back to his village. But an evil witch, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) and nefarious prince Septimus (Mark Strong) each want Yvaine for their own purposes. Along the way Tristran and Yvaine run across Shakespeare (DeNiro) as a gruff and tough pirate who happens to be secretly a gay cross dresser.
Now there isn't any question as to how this film will turn out and in truth if you have slightly more than a passing knowledge of fairy tales you can pretty much plot out the major things that have to be accomplished in this film. But all that is irrelevant because what makes a fairy tale good is not its unique storyline but rather how it plays on those age old themes. Maybe another reason fairy tales are so good is because they are black and white and good always triumphs (and especially love). Of course we live in world where very little is black and white (despite what the president says). I could list off tens of reasons why fairy tales are great almost all no doubt would sound like sappy half answers to some. So lets get back to Stardust.
The performances are all proficient if not spectacular. DeNiro seems to be having a field day with his character and you can't help but have a good time when he is on screen. Danes is beautiful and quick witted (having that beauty with a bite that I love so well in my screen actresses (the very reason no one will ever be able to tell me Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You wasn't brilliant)). Ricky Gervais' role is hysterical as a slimy salesman. Pfeiffer revels in her wicked witch as you would expect. Of course none of that would matter if the leads didn't shine (no pun intended there since at times Danes does actually shine in the film). Cox and Danes have great chemistry.
Even knowing deep down how it would end, the film pulled me in. Thus I was anxious when the leads were in danger and happy when the pair are reunited. To sum up this film in a word, I would say 'charming'. It turned what was an average day into a truly pleasant day. Which is why Stardust may not be the best movie of the year, but it is my favorite movie of the year.
Becoming Jane
As a fan of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (both the book and the most recent adaptation into a movie), I held low key hopes for the fictionalized accounting of her life. Not that the preview was particularly astounding. But it did star the beautiful Anne Hathaway and up and coming James McAvoy who was quite accomplished in The Last King of Scotland. As I said the movie is a fictionalized accounting of Austen's life of which we know very little (or so I am told). The film follows the Shakespeare In Love formula by depicting events as being the real life motivation for characters and actions in her novels.
The problem is that this film doesn't make Jane Austen or her characters more interesting. If in fact her plots were just taken from her life and the characters she met then that takes away from Austen's talent and it makes a character like Elizabeth Bennet...well not creative at all. The script seems to adhere to the adage "write what you know" which I think should get the reaction from writers that "if you can't do, teach" gets from teachers. Outrage, pure and unadulterated outrage that what they do could be dismissed as merely something they can do because they have experienced it which if were true would mean anyone in the world could be a writer.
But beyond what the movie is saying about the real Jane Austen, the character in the movie is about as poorly developed as the information we have on the real Austen's life. We have no sense of why she writes, her relationship with her family is barely fleshed out and her motivation for falling for LeFroy (McAvoy) is a downright mystery. The film stumbles over itself trying to get to an end which can satisfy the requirement that of course Austen remained single for her short life. It may satisfy that requirement but it doesn't satisfy as an ending or a film.
The problem is that this film doesn't make Jane Austen or her characters more interesting. If in fact her plots were just taken from her life and the characters she met then that takes away from Austen's talent and it makes a character like Elizabeth Bennet...well not creative at all. The script seems to adhere to the adage "write what you know" which I think should get the reaction from writers that "if you can't do, teach" gets from teachers. Outrage, pure and unadulterated outrage that what they do could be dismissed as merely something they can do because they have experienced it which if were true would mean anyone in the world could be a writer.
But beyond what the movie is saying about the real Jane Austen, the character in the movie is about as poorly developed as the information we have on the real Austen's life. We have no sense of why she writes, her relationship with her family is barely fleshed out and her motivation for falling for LeFroy (McAvoy) is a downright mystery. The film stumbles over itself trying to get to an end which can satisfy the requirement that of course Austen remained single for her short life. It may satisfy that requirement but it doesn't satisfy as an ending or a film.
Friday, August 10, 2007
A War You Won't Believe
No this is not a rant about Iraq. This is a review of 1982 classic Sly vehicle First Blood. Some might question how in good conscience I could watch in the same night Butch Cassidy and First Blood. Well it was late, and I wanted something short and mindless with lots of action. Some might question how I can in good conscience be so critical of a film like Live Free or Die Hard and yet openly praise a film like First Blood.
But First Blood doesn't get complex. Its setup is barely longer than the opening credits. Stallone plays John Rambo, Vietnam vet passing through a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Brian Dennehy plays Will Teasle, local sheriff who doesn't like Rambo's look and helps him pass quickly through town. Rambo doesn't like being pushed or told what he can't do, he's quickly arrested and abused by one of the deputies. Rambo cracks, escapes the police and a manhunt begins. That's it. There isn't much more to it than that. You can empathize with Rambo but you understand the police response. It isn't complicated, it might not be believable but it isn't complicated.
Once they action starts it keeps a good pace throughout the film. And amazingly its an action film that only has one death which is only partly Rambo's fault. It falters a bit in the end and is really strained by Stallone's monologue but overall I find it is a sound action film. Overshadowed by the more ostentatious and less satisfying sequels (and another one on the way), First Blood is admirable. Anytime I want a short fun action film, I'm glad this one is in my collection.
But First Blood doesn't get complex. Its setup is barely longer than the opening credits. Stallone plays John Rambo, Vietnam vet passing through a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Brian Dennehy plays Will Teasle, local sheriff who doesn't like Rambo's look and helps him pass quickly through town. Rambo doesn't like being pushed or told what he can't do, he's quickly arrested and abused by one of the deputies. Rambo cracks, escapes the police and a manhunt begins. That's it. There isn't much more to it than that. You can empathize with Rambo but you understand the police response. It isn't complicated, it might not be believable but it isn't complicated.
Once they action starts it keeps a good pace throughout the film. And amazingly its an action film that only has one death which is only partly Rambo's fault. It falters a bit in the end and is really strained by Stallone's monologue but overall I find it is a sound action film. Overshadowed by the more ostentatious and less satisfying sequels (and another one on the way), First Blood is admirable. Anytime I want a short fun action film, I'm glad this one is in my collection.
An Academy Runner-Up
In 1970 at the Academy Awards Midnight Cowboy took home the award for best picture. It has been a while since I've seen that film but my recollection of it makes me think the Academy did a fine job in their choice. I re-watched fellow nominee Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It is bizarre to watch a movie that was rewarded and loved and realize that it was almost universally panned by critics when it was released. It kind of makes you wonder about being a critic.
I'm not a historian of film. I can't tell you if this movie represented a milestone in film making. I'm not terribly attuned to style. I can't tell you if they way it was edited and shot was revolutionary. I'm just an idiot who likes to see movies good and bad. And I think this is one of the good ones. Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) leads the Hole in the Wall Gang. He robs banks and trains and is followed by his friend The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford). Times are getting tough. Butch is getting older, his gang isn't as obedient any more. Banks are getting harder to rob and he is bringing more attention to himself. Butch is thinking about getting out accompanied by his faithful friend.
When a super posse is hired to track Butch and Sundance down, the two decide wisely to get out of town and wind up in Bolivia. In Bolivia, the adage old habits die hard is proven when Butch and Sundance take up their old trade of bank robbing, now assisted by Sundance's girl Etta Place (Katharine Ross). The ending is pretty iconic and probably known to any reader but I still feel guilty about spoilers.
What to say about this film? There are some unusual choices in the film, such as a music montage of black and white pictures showing Butch, Sundance and Etta traveling to Bolivia. In fact music montages abound in this film. It grew on me by the end it felt like an homage to silent film. Of course the film is about Butch and Sundance. They are two friends we don't have much back story on. In fact both readily admit they don't know much about each other at all. Butch is shocked to learn Sundance is from New Jersey and an early scene in the movie shows that they didn't know each others' real names.
But you don't really need to know anything about their back story and they don't need to really know anything about their back stories. You see they are friends and you just inherently understand, you say "yeah that makes sense" even if you can't say why it makes sense. The chemistry between Newman and Redford just works. Katharine Ross as Etta stands as a bizarre third in the relationship, romantically involved with Sundance but connected to Butch as well. If you think its easy to balance a relationship in a movie between three people without a hint of jealousy on anyone's part, then go watch some hack film like Pearl Harbor and explain why it couldn't happen there?
Suffice to say that the duo of Newman and Redford occasionally joined by Ross is stellar. Hell, its worth the price of admission...or netflix queue or DVD purchase or illegal download or however you get to view the movies you watch. But in addition to that there is also a great chase. Early in the film the super posse pursues Butch and Sundance after a job. The chase lasts some twenty five minutes of screen time. And what's amazing about the whole thing is that the pursuers are never more than blurry indistinct riders on the horizon. Yet it creates an relentless urgency. And never once do these two anti heros say enough is enough. They never choose a place to stand. They keep running.
The scene climaxes in one of the most famous lines in movie history. As the two stand cornered at the edge of a canyon, Butch turns and says "Kid, the next time I say, 'let's go someplace like Bolivia,' let's go someplace like Bolivia." The duo eventually makes it to Bolivia and some humor is brought out of the language barrier. And these are the reasons this movie is so memorable. It has antiheros you like who are funny and serious. It has tender moments and tense ones and characters who aren't afraid to admit they are afraid.
I won't say its the greatest film ever made, I won't say its the best Newman or Redford performance. But I'm glad I own the DVD and I'm glad I re-watched it.
I'm not a historian of film. I can't tell you if this movie represented a milestone in film making. I'm not terribly attuned to style. I can't tell you if they way it was edited and shot was revolutionary. I'm just an idiot who likes to see movies good and bad. And I think this is one of the good ones. Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) leads the Hole in the Wall Gang. He robs banks and trains and is followed by his friend The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford). Times are getting tough. Butch is getting older, his gang isn't as obedient any more. Banks are getting harder to rob and he is bringing more attention to himself. Butch is thinking about getting out accompanied by his faithful friend.
When a super posse is hired to track Butch and Sundance down, the two decide wisely to get out of town and wind up in Bolivia. In Bolivia, the adage old habits die hard is proven when Butch and Sundance take up their old trade of bank robbing, now assisted by Sundance's girl Etta Place (Katharine Ross). The ending is pretty iconic and probably known to any reader but I still feel guilty about spoilers.
What to say about this film? There are some unusual choices in the film, such as a music montage of black and white pictures showing Butch, Sundance and Etta traveling to Bolivia. In fact music montages abound in this film. It grew on me by the end it felt like an homage to silent film. Of course the film is about Butch and Sundance. They are two friends we don't have much back story on. In fact both readily admit they don't know much about each other at all. Butch is shocked to learn Sundance is from New Jersey and an early scene in the movie shows that they didn't know each others' real names.
But you don't really need to know anything about their back story and they don't need to really know anything about their back stories. You see they are friends and you just inherently understand, you say "yeah that makes sense" even if you can't say why it makes sense. The chemistry between Newman and Redford just works. Katharine Ross as Etta stands as a bizarre third in the relationship, romantically involved with Sundance but connected to Butch as well. If you think its easy to balance a relationship in a movie between three people without a hint of jealousy on anyone's part, then go watch some hack film like Pearl Harbor and explain why it couldn't happen there?
Suffice to say that the duo of Newman and Redford occasionally joined by Ross is stellar. Hell, its worth the price of admission...or netflix queue or DVD purchase or illegal download or however you get to view the movies you watch. But in addition to that there is also a great chase. Early in the film the super posse pursues Butch and Sundance after a job. The chase lasts some twenty five minutes of screen time. And what's amazing about the whole thing is that the pursuers are never more than blurry indistinct riders on the horizon. Yet it creates an relentless urgency. And never once do these two anti heros say enough is enough. They never choose a place to stand. They keep running.
The scene climaxes in one of the most famous lines in movie history. As the two stand cornered at the edge of a canyon, Butch turns and says "Kid, the next time I say, 'let's go someplace like Bolivia,' let's go someplace like Bolivia." The duo eventually makes it to Bolivia and some humor is brought out of the language barrier. And these are the reasons this movie is so memorable. It has antiheros you like who are funny and serious. It has tender moments and tense ones and characters who aren't afraid to admit they are afraid.
I won't say its the greatest film ever made, I won't say its the best Newman or Redford performance. But I'm glad I own the DVD and I'm glad I re-watched it.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Coming Soon
I was starring at my tv watching some mindless show last night and as I glanced to either side of my tv at my beloved dvd collection I realized something. I spent a good deal of money on this over the years and it has literally been years since I watched some of these movies. In fact I'm pretty sure that a few of these I have never watched on dvd but I bought it knowing I wanted to own it. So over the next few months I'll be rewatching my collection and then making comments on this blog. Do I still like the movie? Do I regret purchasing the dvd? Did I have to remove the packaging before putting it in the dvd player? Did the dust on the cover cause me to sneeze? Stay tuned for the answer.
Sunshine
Sometimes it can be hard to remember that Science Fiction as a genre can be well done or at least not terribly done. You get caught up in the horrible crap that was say the most recent Star Wars films and you think well this genre really isn't worth staying around. Its sad to say that after my recent viewing of all six films I have firmly decided that Star Wars in all its forms has been ruined. I can still get through the original films but as a friend of mine said all I can see is the flaws. But it isn't just Lucas who is ruining science fiction. Effects laden creature features such as Alien vs. Predator are doing their fare share.
Now I'm sure someone could counter that there is plenty of good science fiction out there and then proceed to list off many an indy movie or foreign film but if it isn't at my local multiplex chances are I am not seeing it. Which is why Sunshine is such a pleasant surprise. It isn't a perfect film by any means but it gets the job done. Its entertaining and generally smart about itself.
In Sunshine, the Sun is dying and therefore Earth is dying. A team was sent on a mission to restart the sun but was lost and now a second team is being sent as the last hope of all mankind. The team consisting of various scientists and pilots must make a crucial decision upon nearing the sun when they discover the previous mission's ship floating in space. How they go about deciding to investigate is rational and smart. The results of that decision play out for the rest of the movie.
Although the film turns down a path I think is a tad on the cheap side, it still manages to jog into the finish line on its strong start. I've heard plenty of criticism about it being cliched or copying from other movies which I find to be lacking in any real criticism what so ever. This film has decent effects, decent actors and a decent story line. Not a perfect film but miles ahead of the competition if its competing against say Revenge of the Sith.
Now I'm sure someone could counter that there is plenty of good science fiction out there and then proceed to list off many an indy movie or foreign film but if it isn't at my local multiplex chances are I am not seeing it. Which is why Sunshine is such a pleasant surprise. It isn't a perfect film by any means but it gets the job done. Its entertaining and generally smart about itself.
In Sunshine, the Sun is dying and therefore Earth is dying. A team was sent on a mission to restart the sun but was lost and now a second team is being sent as the last hope of all mankind. The team consisting of various scientists and pilots must make a crucial decision upon nearing the sun when they discover the previous mission's ship floating in space. How they go about deciding to investigate is rational and smart. The results of that decision play out for the rest of the movie.
Although the film turns down a path I think is a tad on the cheap side, it still manages to jog into the finish line on its strong start. I've heard plenty of criticism about it being cliched or copying from other movies which I find to be lacking in any real criticism what so ever. This film has decent effects, decent actors and a decent story line. Not a perfect film but miles ahead of the competition if its competing against say Revenge of the Sith.
Hot Rod
If you ever wondered why does the movie idiot go to see movies he knows he will hate? You are not alone. I've wondered this for years. Take Hot Rod for example. This is the new comedy (if one is generous) by Adam Samberg. He, if you are unaware, was brought on to SNL apparently on the popularity of some internet comedy bits he did with friends. I've seen a few of these style bits on SNL of late. Highly surreal, bizarre humor such as guys having a conversation while eating heads of lettuce or a bizarre shootout. Seriously lacking in the funny department if you ask me. I always feel like they were aiming for the Steve Buscemi short a few years back where he played a food pawn shop owner.
I'm getting off topic here. I don't find Adam Samberg funny, yet did it stop me from plopping down six bucks to see him lead in a comedy? No? I think I'm a glutton for punishment. Although Isla Fisher was cute but not cute enough to suffer through this film. Ian McShane was and always is the highlight but I didn't go to see him either. I think I go to films this bad because I hope secretly that somehow my preconceived notions will be wrong and I will actually enjoy the film. Believe it or not this has happened on occasion. But whatever my reasons for going, I can only hope my suffering serves as a warning to others.
I'm getting off topic here. I don't find Adam Samberg funny, yet did it stop me from plopping down six bucks to see him lead in a comedy? No? I think I'm a glutton for punishment. Although Isla Fisher was cute but not cute enough to suffer through this film. Ian McShane was and always is the highlight but I didn't go to see him either. I think I go to films this bad because I hope secretly that somehow my preconceived notions will be wrong and I will actually enjoy the film. Believe it or not this has happened on occasion. But whatever my reasons for going, I can only hope my suffering serves as a warning to others.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Transformers
I'm not going to sit here and try to come up with some elaborate justification of why Transformers is a good movie. In fact, I'll do just the opposite. It is a terrible movie. It's overly long, has a poor sense of pacing, the acting is well not really acting. The human element? Oh it made me want to gouge out my eyes with my own fingernails. I've seen Michael Bay talk, he is genuinely convinced he is a decent film maker. This astounds me. But despite how truly bad this film was there is the little kid in me. The little kid who owned and played with transformers. The little kid who watched hours of the old cartoon show. The little kid who delighted in the Transformers animated movie. That little kid was gleeful every single time he heard Peter Cullen utter a line in this movie (they got the original Optimus Prime!). Evey time a machine transformed and fought, pure joy in my eyes. This is the only reason I could stand this movie and the only thing I can recommend about it. If you loved transformers as a kid, there is a good chance you can stomach this film just for the joy of seeing those robots in disguise in cgi rendered realism.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
1408
1408 is the latest victim of the tete-a-tete that is Cinematic Arena for your reading pleasure.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Evan Almighty
Remember that movie a while back starring that no talent hack, Jim Carrey who gets the power of god and then realizes how tough it is to be god and learns a sappy religious lesson? It had a small role for Steve Carrell as a jack ass who gets his just desserts from Jim. Well now the jackass is a likable guy who has just been elected to congress, so God asks him to build an ark and now we are subjected to an even sappier religious lesson. This was a nauseating unfunny film. It barely even makes sense. Run from Evan Almighty as if it were one of the fabled ten plagues from the bible (I suspect it actually is).
Friday, June 15, 2007
Fantastically terrible
I want to write as few words as possible to express how much I disliked the new Fantastic Four movie. It has a poorly plotted story with terrible pacing, uninteresting villains, lackluster action sequences, an unsubtle lesson to learn and horrible acting. I had the most fun watching Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) and he was a wooden one dimensional cocky guy who learns the importance of teamwork and family. Which should tell you he wasn't that interesting. Here's hoping this was the first and last sequel.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Teil Zwei
Did anyone see the trailer for Hostel 2. The voice over was all in German. It was bizarre and inexplicable and made me think "what in the name of all is wrong with Eli Roth?" Well, if you are curious as to what Hostel 2 the movie is like, it's bizarre, inexplicable and made me think "what in the name of all is wrong with Eli Roth?" I can probably safely assume the only one who might see this movie is Brad so I won't feel bad about spoilers.
Does anyone even remember Hostel? It followed backpacking male friends who travel to eastern Europe and stay at a hostel where they are essentially provided with free hot prostitutes. Unfortunately for them, it is also a hostel that kidnaps its visitors and allows rich people to torture and kill them. There was gruesome scenes of torture and death and one of the three backpackers manages to escape and kill several of his nemeses. It was exploitive and gruesome and I told myself I would not watch the sequel when they announced it was in production.
So, of course, here I am having seen the sequel. The film picks up with the previous film's hero who now is haunted by his experience and paranoid for his life. In good fashion, he is quickly iced and we move back to Europe to a new cadre of young people. This time we get three women who are convinced to go to a spa in Slovakia. The film attempts to delve deeper into things by showing more of the business end. We see the process of selection and bidding which people from all over the world participate in with the hope of getting to kill and torture. Two American men win two of the girls and head out to participate. They are first timers. One is gung-ho and the other reluctant. Stay with me now, I'm sure this will be important. We also learn that one of the girls (clearly the lead role) is uber rich. (hmm, I wonder if that will be significant?) The girls are taken and the torture begins.
If I had to compliment Eli Roth, I would say he has a lot of style. He also knows how to make an exploitation film. Oh and he is one sick individual. He seems to make these films to discover the creepiest way to kill someone. Is it cathartic? I hope he exercises demons by doing this because otherwise he's just one step from being a weird serial killer. This film gives us a woman who likes to bathe in a shower of blood, a man who eats raw flesh like a steak and plenty of other disgusting scenes.
The gung-ho guy of course chickens out before the actually killing and the reluctant guy becomes psychotic in his lust to suddenly kill. He's also an idiot. When the inevitable turn comes and our heroine one ups the guy, a viewer who wasn't paying attention might think she would escape in similar fashion to the first film's hero. But you would be forgetting her massive bank account. These are business men. She BUYS her freedom and essentially becomes a new member.
If I ever suggest I might see Hostel 3 (I'm sure it will be made), someone please restrain me. Tell me I will regret wasting two hours. Tell me it will be cheap with a cheap end.
As a side note, Bijou Philips was in this film and didn't get naked. I actually was shocked. I thought she had it in her contract that she always got naked. Even if it wasn't supposed to be in the film. Maybe it was on the cutting room floor.
Does anyone even remember Hostel? It followed backpacking male friends who travel to eastern Europe and stay at a hostel where they are essentially provided with free hot prostitutes. Unfortunately for them, it is also a hostel that kidnaps its visitors and allows rich people to torture and kill them. There was gruesome scenes of torture and death and one of the three backpackers manages to escape and kill several of his nemeses. It was exploitive and gruesome and I told myself I would not watch the sequel when they announced it was in production.
So, of course, here I am having seen the sequel. The film picks up with the previous film's hero who now is haunted by his experience and paranoid for his life. In good fashion, he is quickly iced and we move back to Europe to a new cadre of young people. This time we get three women who are convinced to go to a spa in Slovakia. The film attempts to delve deeper into things by showing more of the business end. We see the process of selection and bidding which people from all over the world participate in with the hope of getting to kill and torture. Two American men win two of the girls and head out to participate. They are first timers. One is gung-ho and the other reluctant. Stay with me now, I'm sure this will be important. We also learn that one of the girls (clearly the lead role) is uber rich. (hmm, I wonder if that will be significant?) The girls are taken and the torture begins.
If I had to compliment Eli Roth, I would say he has a lot of style. He also knows how to make an exploitation film. Oh and he is one sick individual. He seems to make these films to discover the creepiest way to kill someone. Is it cathartic? I hope he exercises demons by doing this because otherwise he's just one step from being a weird serial killer. This film gives us a woman who likes to bathe in a shower of blood, a man who eats raw flesh like a steak and plenty of other disgusting scenes.
The gung-ho guy of course chickens out before the actually killing and the reluctant guy becomes psychotic in his lust to suddenly kill. He's also an idiot. When the inevitable turn comes and our heroine one ups the guy, a viewer who wasn't paying attention might think she would escape in similar fashion to the first film's hero. But you would be forgetting her massive bank account. These are business men. She BUYS her freedom and essentially becomes a new member.
If I ever suggest I might see Hostel 3 (I'm sure it will be made), someone please restrain me. Tell me I will regret wasting two hours. Tell me it will be cheap with a cheap end.
As a side note, Bijou Philips was in this film and didn't get naked. I actually was shocked. I thought she had it in her contract that she always got naked. Even if it wasn't supposed to be in the film. Maybe it was on the cutting room floor.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Michael Bay is trying to kill me
This has always been a movie blog. Movie reviews, strictly. I've tried to keep it that way. I probably shouldn't be writing this post. It is a slippery slope from movie reviews to obnoxious, here's how my day went fodder. But I justify myself in that it will still be about film, albeit short film. Summer is here, all my shows (whether you think they are good or not) are no longer airing new episodes. I'm left with a void I must fill with summer programming. One program that intrigued me from the start was On the Lot. A Fox reality show where they selected 50 aspiring directors and put them in a competition for a contract with Dreamworks. They whittled that fifty down to eighteen and then started having America (not the best judge of character, Spider-Man 3 made 150 million in one weekend) vote on who they liked best. Since they winner could one day have a movie reviewed on this very site, I've taken an interest (or so I keep telling myself).
Initially, the format was to show the filmmakers making their films and the struggles they had. Apparently that didn't test well, so the show went to an American Idol model of performance and results. They show the films of the directors, the judges make comments and then America gets to vote. The show has three judges who make comments for the directors after each film. There are two standard judges and a guest judge every week. The first standard is Carrie Fisher (yeah Princess Leia) who is billed as an actress and screenwriter (check IMDb for a rather sad writer's c.v.). Was she the only screenwriter they could get? Spielberg produces this show, he couldn't demand someone else? Scott Frank or Shane Black, I think would both be really good.
The second standard is Gary Marshall. Gary "Pretty Woman" Marshall. Okay, fair enough. Respected Hollywood icon, pretty successful, sure not the best director ever but is competent in the director's chair and makes Hollywood money. Guest judge for the first week was Brett Ratner (the man who took what Brian Singer brilliantly created (X-Men franchise) and toppled it in a single film (hell toppled it within the first half hour of that film). Things improved in the next week when the had D.J. Caruso, director of Disturbia on. His advice was actually useful and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Now lets take one step back.
Last night? Michael Bay. Michael "if movies were a religion, I would be the antichrist" Bay. Director of such disasters as Bad Boys, Armageddon, The Rock and Pearl Harbor. The host actually said the contestants hope to be a Michael Bay one day. I think any contestant who hopes that should immediately be dismissed from the competition. The three judges watched five 3 minute films last night. Carrie commented and Marshal commented, but I really don't care. Bay's comments are what are causing me to feel like I'm having an embolism.
Bay said to the first filmmaker, you need to make your movie tighter, work on editing. Let's just pause for a moment. Seriously. Just stop reading and think about that for like thirty seconds. I'll wait. .... Okay, ready? Michael Bay the man who had the interminably long Pearl Harbor which could have been cut down to five minutes and still would have been a bad film actually told another person he needs to work on editing?
Bay told another filmmaker that they needed to work on their dialogue. Again sit back read that last sentence again, think of a Michael Bay film and just realize how absurd that advice truly is. He directed a film in which the line "I take pleasure in guttin' you, boy" was uttered. He didn't stop and say wow is this dialogue bad. He just kept filming. Michael Bay telling people to write better dialogue, has the world gone crazy?
Bay told a third contestant his film felt like retread.
...
...
...
I just don't know what to say anymore. Enough of Mr. Bay.
Okay, the films:
Sam Friedlander directed Broken Pipe Dreams. Despite my rant above I had to agree with Mr. Bay (and you have no idea how physically ill that makes me). This film could have been shorter. It had a few too many drawn out shots. Other than that, it was a fantastic send up of the very films Bay loves to direct. I wonder if he knew Bay would be the guest judge because it was just too perfect. When the protagonist falls onto his knees at the end (I was reminded of Nick Cage in The Rock falling on the ground at the end). The red wire, blue wire gag was classic as well.
Trevor James directed Teri about a guy's irrational fears about what his blind date would look like. I found this film boring. The sappy end with the pretty girl (who could still be crazy, didn't anyone ever tell this guy not to judge a book by its cover?) was a poor end to a mediocre film.
Adam Stein directed Dough: The Musical. This is a musical about a bakery owner looking for love. I as a rule hate musicals but this was short, to the point and funny. The lyrics (with exception of a few awkward lyrics to make a rhyme) were fun and the story was good.
Hilary Graham directed The First Time I Met The Finkelsteins. This was a film in the My Big Fat Greek Wedding genre. Maybe it would be funny to someone who knows people like this or families like this. I just found it tedious and over the top and retread (note this was not the film that was called retread by Bay (that would be Trevor James' film).
Shalini Kantayya directed Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey. This was a documentary about a gay Indian (from India, not native American) comedian. I actually didn't know if this was a mockumentary or a real short documentary. I was under the impression that they were all to direct a comedy but maybe I was wrong. It was interesting but not funny.
Surprisingly for me I would have to say I enjoyed the musical by Stein the most. If for no other reason, this show has some decent short films every week, so I'll be watching despite the likes of Mr. Bay.
Initially, the format was to show the filmmakers making their films and the struggles they had. Apparently that didn't test well, so the show went to an American Idol model of performance and results. They show the films of the directors, the judges make comments and then America gets to vote. The show has three judges who make comments for the directors after each film. There are two standard judges and a guest judge every week. The first standard is Carrie Fisher (yeah Princess Leia) who is billed as an actress and screenwriter (check IMDb for a rather sad writer's c.v.). Was she the only screenwriter they could get? Spielberg produces this show, he couldn't demand someone else? Scott Frank or Shane Black, I think would both be really good.
The second standard is Gary Marshall. Gary "Pretty Woman" Marshall. Okay, fair enough. Respected Hollywood icon, pretty successful, sure not the best director ever but is competent in the director's chair and makes Hollywood money. Guest judge for the first week was Brett Ratner (the man who took what Brian Singer brilliantly created (X-Men franchise) and toppled it in a single film (hell toppled it within the first half hour of that film). Things improved in the next week when the had D.J. Caruso, director of Disturbia on. His advice was actually useful and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Now lets take one step back.
Last night? Michael Bay. Michael "if movies were a religion, I would be the antichrist" Bay. Director of such disasters as Bad Boys, Armageddon, The Rock and Pearl Harbor. The host actually said the contestants hope to be a Michael Bay one day. I think any contestant who hopes that should immediately be dismissed from the competition. The three judges watched five 3 minute films last night. Carrie commented and Marshal commented, but I really don't care. Bay's comments are what are causing me to feel like I'm having an embolism.
Bay said to the first filmmaker, you need to make your movie tighter, work on editing. Let's just pause for a moment. Seriously. Just stop reading and think about that for like thirty seconds. I'll wait. .... Okay, ready? Michael Bay the man who had the interminably long Pearl Harbor which could have been cut down to five minutes and still would have been a bad film actually told another person he needs to work on editing?
Bay told another filmmaker that they needed to work on their dialogue. Again sit back read that last sentence again, think of a Michael Bay film and just realize how absurd that advice truly is. He directed a film in which the line "I take pleasure in guttin' you, boy" was uttered. He didn't stop and say wow is this dialogue bad. He just kept filming. Michael Bay telling people to write better dialogue, has the world gone crazy?
Bay told a third contestant his film felt like retread.
...
...
...
I just don't know what to say anymore. Enough of Mr. Bay.
Okay, the films:
Sam Friedlander directed Broken Pipe Dreams. Despite my rant above I had to agree with Mr. Bay (and you have no idea how physically ill that makes me). This film could have been shorter. It had a few too many drawn out shots. Other than that, it was a fantastic send up of the very films Bay loves to direct. I wonder if he knew Bay would be the guest judge because it was just too perfect. When the protagonist falls onto his knees at the end (I was reminded of Nick Cage in The Rock falling on the ground at the end). The red wire, blue wire gag was classic as well.
Trevor James directed Teri about a guy's irrational fears about what his blind date would look like. I found this film boring. The sappy end with the pretty girl (who could still be crazy, didn't anyone ever tell this guy not to judge a book by its cover?) was a poor end to a mediocre film.
Adam Stein directed Dough: The Musical. This is a musical about a bakery owner looking for love. I as a rule hate musicals but this was short, to the point and funny. The lyrics (with exception of a few awkward lyrics to make a rhyme) were fun and the story was good.
Hilary Graham directed The First Time I Met The Finkelsteins. This was a film in the My Big Fat Greek Wedding genre. Maybe it would be funny to someone who knows people like this or families like this. I just found it tedious and over the top and retread (note this was not the film that was called retread by Bay (that would be Trevor James' film).
Shalini Kantayya directed Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey. This was a documentary about a gay Indian (from India, not native American) comedian. I actually didn't know if this was a mockumentary or a real short documentary. I was under the impression that they were all to direct a comedy but maybe I was wrong. It was interesting but not funny.
Surprisingly for me I would have to say I enjoyed the musical by Stein the most. If for no other reason, this show has some decent short films every week, so I'll be watching despite the likes of Mr. Bay.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Knocked Up
If you are really interested in reading my Knocked Up review, you will have to travel over to Cinematic Arena to view it there, as it was the inaugural film of that blog.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Arguments, I live and breath
I've convinced fellow cinephile Cinema Romantico (Nick) to join me in occasionally reviewing films in a more combative multiple opinion format. Nick and I have disagreed on movies almost since the day we met. Even the movies we both liked, we liked for different reasons. Things turned violent, or pseudo-violent. We contemplated a tv show where every review would degenerate into a drawn out fist fight. Sadly who has the time, money or inclination to do a tv show? Especially when the internet is so much less effective an outlet? Introducing Cinematic Arena. (see link in links section) A place where Nick and I can express our cinematic differences in a hostile environment. Come one, come all, feel free to drop your own two cents (or dollar 37) any time. Join sides, defect, enjoy or despise as you see fit.
The Apartment - Winner 1961
Billy Wilder is one of those writer/directors that is praised and praised and praised and I just cannot for the life of me understand why. I saw Sunset Boulevard (1950) which many consider his magnum opus and I thought it was okay. I didn't think it was as great as I was led to believe. But surely The Apartment (1960) would be different. It did win four academy awards. It does star Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine. Once again I've somehow missed why exactly he is considered such a genius.
The film introduces us to our hero, C.C. Baxter (Lemmon), who is stranded outside while one of his superiors at work uses his apartment for an extra marital affair. Baxter appears to do this alot, so much that his neighbors (who conveniently never see the cheating husbands) think he is quite the player. Baxter gets very little sleep and works a boring 9-5 job. But helping out these men is done on the promise that they will recommend him for a promotion in the company. On the way, Baxter shows his interest in the elevator operator girl Fran Kubelik (MacLaine). But it turns out she is having an affair with one of his bosses.
After a falling out with the man, she takes several sleeping pills and Baxter is the one who saves her and helps her recuperate. The film peters out with a fairly unconvincing love story between the two and ending with Baxter quitting due to his unwillingness to continue to have his apartment used. It has a pretty standard happy ending with nothing really surprising.
One major problem with this film is that it isn't funny. I'm not sure I laughed once in the entire film. It was actually quite agonizing as it plodded on. The death blow of this film is that I utterly did not care about the people in this film. I didn't like Baxter and I didn't care that he triumphed. In fact I rather disliked him. I didn't like Fran either. I thought her character was a fair idiot. Since I didn't care about the character I took no satisfaction in the outcome of the film. I just wanted the "the end" credit to come up.
The film introduces us to our hero, C.C. Baxter (Lemmon), who is stranded outside while one of his superiors at work uses his apartment for an extra marital affair. Baxter appears to do this alot, so much that his neighbors (who conveniently never see the cheating husbands) think he is quite the player. Baxter gets very little sleep and works a boring 9-5 job. But helping out these men is done on the promise that they will recommend him for a promotion in the company. On the way, Baxter shows his interest in the elevator operator girl Fran Kubelik (MacLaine). But it turns out she is having an affair with one of his bosses.
After a falling out with the man, she takes several sleeping pills and Baxter is the one who saves her and helps her recuperate. The film peters out with a fairly unconvincing love story between the two and ending with Baxter quitting due to his unwillingness to continue to have his apartment used. It has a pretty standard happy ending with nothing really surprising.
One major problem with this film is that it isn't funny. I'm not sure I laughed once in the entire film. It was actually quite agonizing as it plodded on. The death blow of this film is that I utterly did not care about the people in this film. I didn't like Baxter and I didn't care that he triumphed. In fact I rather disliked him. I didn't like Fran either. I thought her character was a fair idiot. Since I didn't care about the character I took no satisfaction in the outcome of the film. I just wanted the "the end" credit to come up.
All The King's Men - Winner 1950
In 1950, All The King's Men (1949) won the best picture category at the Academy Awards. The movie details the rise of a man from country nobody to the governor. Quickly he seems to be corrupted and although he gets things done, the ways in which he goes about it are in no way laudable. Eventually the indecent things he has done to maintain power begin to snowball and he does more and more virtue-less things. Countless reviews comment on how its a film about how politics can corrupt even the noblest person.
These reviewers couldn't be more wrong. From the start, one can see the true nature of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford). He speaks truth about corruption in politics, but in the first interview he has with Jack Burden (John Ireland), when Stark's adopted son comes in beaten up, the manner in which Stark addresses the boy and treats the situation is a little to callous. While his wife is concerned, for Stark it is only fuel to the fire. He loses his first campaign in politics but tragedy forges another chance for him.
A poorly built fire escape breaks off a building killing several children, which inspires people to get behind what Stark has been saying. It is at the funeral that we get our second look into what is in reality a very dark soul. A mourner grabs his hand and invoking God (an inauspicious start if ever there was one) claims he should have voted for Stark. The look on Stark's face says it all. He likes being idolized, he likes power. Thus a demagogue is born. Demagogues rarely a good thing. A bumbling aristocracy fuels the power of the demagogue and Stark becomes governor.
Campaign promises are kept but at what cost? The corruption is worse than before. The politics dirty. Stark becomes more of a monster than he was before. And Jack helps him along the way. Jack, who has been established as a lost character but with principles, gets dragged deeper and deeper into the world of dirty politics and although he has qualms about what he is doing at times, it never stops him from continuing to do the dirty work.
It is only after the suicide of his childhood idol, that he finally breaks from Stark completely. Forced to live with a monster he helped not create (for Stark was already a corrupt man waiting for his chance) but he did help him attain the office. So it is Jack's penance to live with what he had done, not a very promising life for someone who believes he has principles.
Apparently this movie has been remade and will come out this year. Sean Penn in the Willie Stark role. In our political climate, I'm not surprised that a movie about political corruption would be made, but that this movie would be does make me wonder. Since it seems to me that the message is not that politics corrupt, but that politics draws in the corrupt, it is a cautionary tale we can't actually heed. It could warn about demagoguery, but again they don't call it mob mentality for no reason. I wonder what angle the new film will take and if the true character of Willie Stark will be lost.
These reviewers couldn't be more wrong. From the start, one can see the true nature of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford). He speaks truth about corruption in politics, but in the first interview he has with Jack Burden (John Ireland), when Stark's adopted son comes in beaten up, the manner in which Stark addresses the boy and treats the situation is a little to callous. While his wife is concerned, for Stark it is only fuel to the fire. He loses his first campaign in politics but tragedy forges another chance for him.
A poorly built fire escape breaks off a building killing several children, which inspires people to get behind what Stark has been saying. It is at the funeral that we get our second look into what is in reality a very dark soul. A mourner grabs his hand and invoking God (an inauspicious start if ever there was one) claims he should have voted for Stark. The look on Stark's face says it all. He likes being idolized, he likes power. Thus a demagogue is born. Demagogues rarely a good thing. A bumbling aristocracy fuels the power of the demagogue and Stark becomes governor.
Campaign promises are kept but at what cost? The corruption is worse than before. The politics dirty. Stark becomes more of a monster than he was before. And Jack helps him along the way. Jack, who has been established as a lost character but with principles, gets dragged deeper and deeper into the world of dirty politics and although he has qualms about what he is doing at times, it never stops him from continuing to do the dirty work.
It is only after the suicide of his childhood idol, that he finally breaks from Stark completely. Forced to live with a monster he helped not create (for Stark was already a corrupt man waiting for his chance) but he did help him attain the office. So it is Jack's penance to live with what he had done, not a very promising life for someone who believes he has principles.
Apparently this movie has been remade and will come out this year. Sean Penn in the Willie Stark role. In our political climate, I'm not surprised that a movie about political corruption would be made, but that this movie would be does make me wonder. Since it seems to me that the message is not that politics corrupt, but that politics draws in the corrupt, it is a cautionary tale we can't actually heed. It could warn about demagoguery, but again they don't call it mob mentality for no reason. I wonder what angle the new film will take and if the true character of Willie Stark will be lost.
An American In Paris - Winner 1952
An American In Paris (1951) is a mediocre film. It has the disadvantage of being a musical, which I dislike, since I find it next to impossible for the advent of song and dance to come out of everyday situation. However, this film does manage to integrate the two better than most. Typically singing and dancing is used when the characters are happy and expressing joy. Beyond the musical aspect, however, the film is so average.
The film follows Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly) as an ex-GI who stayed in Paris after World War 2. He is an artist trying to make his fame, like the greats that inspired him. This already is such a cliched character type that I found myself being bored within the first three minutes. Jerry is discovered by a rich woman who wants to be his patroness and perhaps a bit more, while Jerry becomes enamored for a young French woman Lise (Leslie Caron). Caron smiles and looks pretty and puts out one of the most laughably bad performances I've seen in a movie that got this many awards.
The two have there little affair all the while, she is apparently engaged to another man, whom Jerry knows. Her reason for being engaged to him is ridiculous and makes little to no sense. Inevitably she chooses her fiance because of her obligation and gives up true love. Jerry attempts to forget his misfortune by finally taking up with the patroness although he feels nothing for her. There is a confrontation scene between Jerry and Lise at a party, where Lise reaffirms her decision woefully as her fiance watches from a dark corner unnoticed.
There was about twenty minutes left when this scene took place and I expected an interesting resolve. Well I can't say I didn't get that. The movie proceeds into a seventeen minute, no dialogue, music and dance sequence. I'm not sure if it was just extravagant dance or if there was a story being told that I wasn't picking up on. Regardless, if I wanted to see a dance performance I'd go to a dance performance not watch a film. After this elaborate sequence, the film comes back to its reality and forces a conclusion down our throat in a minute flat.
Beyond its musical leanings this film was uninteresting and poorly performed. It feels like a better story could have been told here, even in musical format. For one who enjoys musicals I'm sure its perfectly delightful, but it was not deserving of its best picture award.
The film follows Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly) as an ex-GI who stayed in Paris after World War 2. He is an artist trying to make his fame, like the greats that inspired him. This already is such a cliched character type that I found myself being bored within the first three minutes. Jerry is discovered by a rich woman who wants to be his patroness and perhaps a bit more, while Jerry becomes enamored for a young French woman Lise (Leslie Caron). Caron smiles and looks pretty and puts out one of the most laughably bad performances I've seen in a movie that got this many awards.
The two have there little affair all the while, she is apparently engaged to another man, whom Jerry knows. Her reason for being engaged to him is ridiculous and makes little to no sense. Inevitably she chooses her fiance because of her obligation and gives up true love. Jerry attempts to forget his misfortune by finally taking up with the patroness although he feels nothing for her. There is a confrontation scene between Jerry and Lise at a party, where Lise reaffirms her decision woefully as her fiance watches from a dark corner unnoticed.
There was about twenty minutes left when this scene took place and I expected an interesting resolve. Well I can't say I didn't get that. The movie proceeds into a seventeen minute, no dialogue, music and dance sequence. I'm not sure if it was just extravagant dance or if there was a story being told that I wasn't picking up on. Regardless, if I wanted to see a dance performance I'd go to a dance performance not watch a film. After this elaborate sequence, the film comes back to its reality and forces a conclusion down our throat in a minute flat.
Beyond its musical leanings this film was uninteresting and poorly performed. It feels like a better story could have been told here, even in musical format. For one who enjoys musicals I'm sure its perfectly delightful, but it was not deserving of its best picture award.
Death Notice
Remember when I set up that other blog to write reviews of Academy Award Best Picture Winners? What was I thinking? I'll just post them here in future and repost for no one's benefit what I wrote previously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)