Here is a film for the working man. Here is a film for Joe Cubicle Schmo who can't seem to catch a break. Here is for every white-collar, lower middle-class underachiever who ever hated his job, his boss, his coworker. Here is a film for anybody who just wanted to break out of the rut. Is it perfect? No. But it will have you laughing your ass off and ignoring what it could have done better.
At Initech (or which ever other company you would prefer to substitute in its place), depressed, under-the-radar worker Peter Gibbons finds himself at a crossroads in life. He can never seem to get to work earlier than 15 minutes late because of traffic that only ever seems to move in everybody else's lanes, sits in his tiny desk eight hours a day changing the dates of transactions from 1998 to '98, and heads to a super cheesy burger joint everyday for lunch with his two buddies, Samir Naghe...something, and Michael Bolton (no relation). His girlfriend is cheating on him, but there is nothing he can do except go an occupational hypnotherapist who--before his untimely death--places Peter into a state of euphoria.
With newly found confidence he snags the girl of his dreams (played very cutely by Jennifer Aniston) and moves up in the corporate ranks. It certainly isn't by choice, but by not flying in the middle he has altered the course that so many other office workers resign their lives to. But when he learns that his two friends are about to be sacked the three decide to take down Initech with an infallible plan.
Unfortunately once the narrative finally begins to take hold that is when the beauty of the film goes away. The hilarity of this film comes in the way the typical day of the typical man is captured with Peter Gibbons. He goes to work and the fat operator sitting next to him answers every call with the same chirpy cadence in her voice, every five seconds. His boss is worst type of slimy schmuck that every one of us has had as our superior at some point. Peter forgot to attach a new cover letter on a report causing an stir and sending half a dozen people out to resend him the memo. Initech owns the paper copier from Hell.
The comedy comes from the mid-level waste that invariably bogs down the system, and the fantasy that all workers have about doing something more. The faults come when those dreams begin to come into reality, and from there the comedy becomes a little slapdash. I liked just watching him struggle to get through life day by day, and how that struggle became easier when he just stopped caring. Actually doing something about it made it too fantastic at the end--as tame as it was--and then it became routine Hollywood.
All that said and done, the first two-thirds of this film I was in stitches. Several years ago I had seen this movie, but it was before I had a true taste of the working world and just how perfectly that prison cell of a life was captured in this movie. Had writer/director Mike Judge (creator of the Milton animated shorts on which this was based) stuck to his guns and kept out the "plot", this would be a comedy that would become classic, and worthy of the title.
3/4
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Talk to Her (2002)
Favorite Spanish director Pedro Almodovar tackles extremely difficult material in his film Hable con ella, and I am not positive that it was worth it. Like all of his films this is a sexually charged exploration of what makes people tick, but because of what he chooses to address in this film I am not sure whether enlightened and moved, or offended. Perhaps both; the job of the film maker is to present material and challenge the audiences perception of what is shown, but I cannot accept that what he has chosen is something that would want to be challenged in the first place.
Like all of his scripts, Almodovar's material is a hyper-stylization of the blend of old and new world Spain that he is in contact with. Two men, a journalist and a male nurse, form a precarious relationship with one another, bonded by the fact that the two most important women in their lives are lying in neighboring hospital rooms in deep comas. The first is a matador gored by a bull. The second, a ballerina hit by a car. Both men, lonely and emotionally more unsound then normal men, cling to each other when they have no one else to. When that friendship turns from something driven by necessity to something powered by deep love is unclear, but it happens, and it makes the major surprise of the film all the more disturbing.
Javier Camara gives an outstanding performance as the nurse, Benigno. A man-child with watery eyes and a trustworthy face, Benigno has led a very sheltered life mostly involving the care of his healthy, but lazy mother. After his mother's death Benigno turns his attention to his ballerina patient, Alicia. For four years he has tended to her, massaging, reading, gossiping with her as if she was awake and well. He advises his journalist friend, Marco, to do likewise. But who is that really helping? Benigno is alone in the world except for Alicia, which is pitiable, but strangely charming at the same time. There is a moment where he pulls out bottle of lotion to moisturize her skin and he tells her that it has rosemary in it. It was a special purchase he made for her in order to make her more comfortable, and the loving look in his eyes when he tells her about it is perfection.
As Marco, Dario Grandinetti does a fine job as well. The audience connects with him more because he is sensitive like a woman. Almodovar loves women, and he treats this character as such. In his other films that star men, the director takes a super macho, unpleasant, ultra-feminist point of view that I dislike, and in a way that makes this film stand out as something special of his. Almodovar seems to love sex, and hate himself for loving it at the same time, and therefore most all of his men have ugly personalities. But not Marco. He is sweet and gentle, and after some hesitation he is putting sunglasses on his bull-fighting, comatose girlfriend and sitting her out on the patio.
I found much of this film enchanting, as I usually do with this film makers' visions. The mixture of camp, fine performances, and old school European eccentric touches (like the silent film with the man entering the giant vagina) definitely distinguish this and his other works from those being produced at the same time. Morally, however, I think this film was too much of a challenge for me, and I think that he took too soft an approach on the subject matter. I cannot go more into what this is addressing for it would then negate the point of watching the film, but it is alarming, and makes it hard to trust what it is that the film maker is saying to his audience. Are we supposed to love the characters enough to overlook the actions that they take? Are we supposed to hate one for supporting the other when our consciences scream otherwise? It should not be left up to us to decide, I don't think.
This will be known as an Almodovar staple, but condoning this work and recommending it is hard to do--I really wish it was not.
2.5/4
Like all of his scripts, Almodovar's material is a hyper-stylization of the blend of old and new world Spain that he is in contact with. Two men, a journalist and a male nurse, form a precarious relationship with one another, bonded by the fact that the two most important women in their lives are lying in neighboring hospital rooms in deep comas. The first is a matador gored by a bull. The second, a ballerina hit by a car. Both men, lonely and emotionally more unsound then normal men, cling to each other when they have no one else to. When that friendship turns from something driven by necessity to something powered by deep love is unclear, but it happens, and it makes the major surprise of the film all the more disturbing.
Javier Camara gives an outstanding performance as the nurse, Benigno. A man-child with watery eyes and a trustworthy face, Benigno has led a very sheltered life mostly involving the care of his healthy, but lazy mother. After his mother's death Benigno turns his attention to his ballerina patient, Alicia. For four years he has tended to her, massaging, reading, gossiping with her as if she was awake and well. He advises his journalist friend, Marco, to do likewise. But who is that really helping? Benigno is alone in the world except for Alicia, which is pitiable, but strangely charming at the same time. There is a moment where he pulls out bottle of lotion to moisturize her skin and he tells her that it has rosemary in it. It was a special purchase he made for her in order to make her more comfortable, and the loving look in his eyes when he tells her about it is perfection.
As Marco, Dario Grandinetti does a fine job as well. The audience connects with him more because he is sensitive like a woman. Almodovar loves women, and he treats this character as such. In his other films that star men, the director takes a super macho, unpleasant, ultra-feminist point of view that I dislike, and in a way that makes this film stand out as something special of his. Almodovar seems to love sex, and hate himself for loving it at the same time, and therefore most all of his men have ugly personalities. But not Marco. He is sweet and gentle, and after some hesitation he is putting sunglasses on his bull-fighting, comatose girlfriend and sitting her out on the patio.
I found much of this film enchanting, as I usually do with this film makers' visions. The mixture of camp, fine performances, and old school European eccentric touches (like the silent film with the man entering the giant vagina) definitely distinguish this and his other works from those being produced at the same time. Morally, however, I think this film was too much of a challenge for me, and I think that he took too soft an approach on the subject matter. I cannot go more into what this is addressing for it would then negate the point of watching the film, but it is alarming, and makes it hard to trust what it is that the film maker is saying to his audience. Are we supposed to love the characters enough to overlook the actions that they take? Are we supposed to hate one for supporting the other when our consciences scream otherwise? It should not be left up to us to decide, I don't think.
This will be known as an Almodovar staple, but condoning this work and recommending it is hard to do--I really wish it was not.
2.5/4
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Fairy tales are often cautionary stories told to children with the purpose of frightening them in their instruction. How twisted and perverted they actually are tends to go unnoticed it seems to me, and it is not until maturation that the severity of the implications of these tales become fully realized. Guillermo del Toro's directorial awareness developed in the same way that his understanding of the world matured, the result being his sensational Pan's Labyrinth. With a sharper eye he has taken the clay of all of the stories of princesses, monsters, and naughty children that don't do what they are told, and has sculpted something of his own, much more adult, and all the better because of it.
His heroine is Ofelia, a young girl, but not so young that she should have her nose buried in fairy tale books--which she does--who, with her mother who has recently married a captain of the army, moves out to the forest with a convoy to fight guerrilla fighters. The time is 1944, and Ofelia's stepfather is ruthless Spanish fascist whose draconian methods fall along the lines of "shoot now, ask questions later...if at all" to which he is expert. Ofelia, the daughter of a tailor, and not at all used to living in house full of soldiers can only find solace in her story books, which seem to take on something of a mind of their own.
The large house is built next to a labyrinth and a winding stairwell which leads to a deep pit, ancient and forgotten. A shape shifting fairy leads Ofelia down the stair where she is met by a faun. Smelling of earth, seven feet tall, and with liquid, alien eyes, this creature (who, according to the director is not actually Pan) is frightening, mystic, and not at all trustworthy, but Ofelia believes him when he tells her that she is the Princess Mauna incarnate. She is set with the instruction to complete three tasks by the full moon in order to claim her crown.
The tasks unfold with curious similitude to the events transpiring involving Captain Vidal, her sick, pregnant mother, and the fight between the soldiers and the guerrillas. It is a political fable wrapped in the guise of a fairy tale, and it is dazzling. The world in which del Toro lives is one far beyond most other modern film makers and will leave most movie goers in wonderment at their own lack of imagination. The creatures in the film are a mix of live action and CGI, though I wish desperately it had only been the former; the graphics are already becoming dated. It does not diminish their power, though. The monsters and animals are unlike anything that I have ever seen, nor would I probably ever have conceived. They are thoughts stemming from a twisted brain who blends nightmare and reality in his everyday life. The result of this is that it becomes hard to distinguish what is real and what is all in Ofelia's mind. How much is her simply coping with a horrific reality, and how much could be blamed on the underground kingdom over which she lives? One could make a case for both theories, and both would be irrelevant. To argue a fairy tale's validity seems like a pointless endeavor to me.
This film was very popular in the critics' circles when in first appeared at the Cannes Film Festival, and subsequently enjoyed a large public following, which is exciting to know, considering it is an art house, foreign film, but that speaks volumes to the execution of this genius idea. Superb sets--beyond superb, exquisite--powerful acting, incredible makeup, and a bloody, horrifying, and very engaging narrative blends to create a beautiful art form. A proud addition to Mexican film.
4/4
His heroine is Ofelia, a young girl, but not so young that she should have her nose buried in fairy tale books--which she does--who, with her mother who has recently married a captain of the army, moves out to the forest with a convoy to fight guerrilla fighters. The time is 1944, and Ofelia's stepfather is ruthless Spanish fascist whose draconian methods fall along the lines of "shoot now, ask questions later...if at all" to which he is expert. Ofelia, the daughter of a tailor, and not at all used to living in house full of soldiers can only find solace in her story books, which seem to take on something of a mind of their own.
The large house is built next to a labyrinth and a winding stairwell which leads to a deep pit, ancient and forgotten. A shape shifting fairy leads Ofelia down the stair where she is met by a faun. Smelling of earth, seven feet tall, and with liquid, alien eyes, this creature (who, according to the director is not actually Pan) is frightening, mystic, and not at all trustworthy, but Ofelia believes him when he tells her that she is the Princess Mauna incarnate. She is set with the instruction to complete three tasks by the full moon in order to claim her crown.
The tasks unfold with curious similitude to the events transpiring involving Captain Vidal, her sick, pregnant mother, and the fight between the soldiers and the guerrillas. It is a political fable wrapped in the guise of a fairy tale, and it is dazzling. The world in which del Toro lives is one far beyond most other modern film makers and will leave most movie goers in wonderment at their own lack of imagination. The creatures in the film are a mix of live action and CGI, though I wish desperately it had only been the former; the graphics are already becoming dated. It does not diminish their power, though. The monsters and animals are unlike anything that I have ever seen, nor would I probably ever have conceived. They are thoughts stemming from a twisted brain who blends nightmare and reality in his everyday life. The result of this is that it becomes hard to distinguish what is real and what is all in Ofelia's mind. How much is her simply coping with a horrific reality, and how much could be blamed on the underground kingdom over which she lives? One could make a case for both theories, and both would be irrelevant. To argue a fairy tale's validity seems like a pointless endeavor to me.
This film was very popular in the critics' circles when in first appeared at the Cannes Film Festival, and subsequently enjoyed a large public following, which is exciting to know, considering it is an art house, foreign film, but that speaks volumes to the execution of this genius idea. Superb sets--beyond superb, exquisite--powerful acting, incredible makeup, and a bloody, horrifying, and very engaging narrative blends to create a beautiful art form. A proud addition to Mexican film.
4/4
Thursday, September 22, 2011
L.A. Confidential (1997)
I watch a considerable number of movies. It is my pastime, my hobby, my sport, and my passion. Normally I go through mediocre film to mediocre film, occasionally coming across something that I know excels and brings together great pieces to create a greater whole. But with enough of those, even exceptionally good films can become mundane. Then finally I come across a film that surpasses all of my expectations, challenges my concepts of modern film making, and leaves me breathless. I feel blessed to have seen L.A. Confidential which has punched a hole in my ideas of neo-noir, and what it means to reinterpret a style.
The glamour and gilded beauty of the 1950's are beautifully captured in one of the best whodunit films that I have ever seen. An impossibly complex script weaves together three cops of different backgrounds, motives, and styles to hunt down the murders of six people in a diner, including a recently disgraced officer. Layer upon layer of increasingly complicated narrative brings these men into a world of prostitution, drugs, corruption, and ruthless violence, as well as closer to a dangerous and shocking truth about their own world of L.A.P.D. politics.
Guy Pearce stars as Edmund Exley, the new golden boy of the force trying to live up to the legend that was his father--and he does a pretty bang-up job of it. With him (more against him maybe) is Bud White (Russell Crowe), the bully of the force with a buzz cut, a raging temper, and a passionate stance against violence towards women. Also there is Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey), a skeezy hero of their precinct who spends his time working with the editor of Hush-Hush Magazine (Danny DeVito ) to take down law breaking celebrities, though he views the work as his 15 minutes of fame. These unlikely partners are forced together by circumstance when the facts around the case don't add up, pinning the wrap on three black teens whose only crimes were drugs and sodomy.
Bud becomes involved with high end prostitute who works for a pimp whose girls all look like movie stars. This Veronica Lake lookalike (played with striking resemblance by Kim Basinger) has motives of her own, and is certainly not the femme fatale that she might portray. Don't judge too quickly though, this is complex performance of a complex woman whose connections might be too much for her to handle. Is her pimp behind the murders? Why does there always seem to be a strange third party? And who would gain from killing cops and gangsters?
This film, like Goodfellas, is not a period piece, though at first glance it might suggest it is. This film was so exciting to me because it is obvious that those involved with the making of this picture lived and breathed its inspiration. Much the same that Chinatown did in the 70's, this film has taken the content and the style of the time and has reinterpreted it for the mid-90's audience. It did not try to copy the acting, directing, etc. of the noir films of the 40's and 50's. Instead the 1950's were recreated and fueled with the gritty realism, and blistering pace that a mob movie of our generation might be more inclined to do. It was a film inspired by its predecessors, but not enslaved to their concept, and it therefore created something entirely new.
This movie is bloody, brutal, and best of all it is unflinching--even though its audience might. There were moments of extreme tension released with such riveting, explosive acting and action, that I could not help but be swept away by this film. It crept under my skin slowly, but a third of the way in I was hooked, and with a pace that built to a crescendo and one of the best shootouts that I have even seen, I finished the film and immediately wanted to see it again. It was three steps ahead of me at all times, but I didn't care because it had reeled me in hook, line, and sinker.
Everything about this movie was stellar from its Oscar worthy acting, to its tremendous directing, fabulous sets, beautiful, smoggy, rust colored palate, and its sensational script. This is without a doubt one of my new favorite films, and one of the most exciting, cinematic discoveries that I have made in a good long while. Go out of your way to experience this film.
4/4
The glamour and gilded beauty of the 1950's are beautifully captured in one of the best whodunit films that I have ever seen. An impossibly complex script weaves together three cops of different backgrounds, motives, and styles to hunt down the murders of six people in a diner, including a recently disgraced officer. Layer upon layer of increasingly complicated narrative brings these men into a world of prostitution, drugs, corruption, and ruthless violence, as well as closer to a dangerous and shocking truth about their own world of L.A.P.D. politics.
Guy Pearce stars as Edmund Exley, the new golden boy of the force trying to live up to the legend that was his father--and he does a pretty bang-up job of it. With him (more against him maybe) is Bud White (Russell Crowe), the bully of the force with a buzz cut, a raging temper, and a passionate stance against violence towards women. Also there is Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey), a skeezy hero of their precinct who spends his time working with the editor of Hush-Hush Magazine (Danny DeVito ) to take down law breaking celebrities, though he views the work as his 15 minutes of fame. These unlikely partners are forced together by circumstance when the facts around the case don't add up, pinning the wrap on three black teens whose only crimes were drugs and sodomy.
Bud becomes involved with high end prostitute who works for a pimp whose girls all look like movie stars. This Veronica Lake lookalike (played with striking resemblance by Kim Basinger) has motives of her own, and is certainly not the femme fatale that she might portray. Don't judge too quickly though, this is complex performance of a complex woman whose connections might be too much for her to handle. Is her pimp behind the murders? Why does there always seem to be a strange third party? And who would gain from killing cops and gangsters?
This film, like Goodfellas, is not a period piece, though at first glance it might suggest it is. This film was so exciting to me because it is obvious that those involved with the making of this picture lived and breathed its inspiration. Much the same that Chinatown did in the 70's, this film has taken the content and the style of the time and has reinterpreted it for the mid-90's audience. It did not try to copy the acting, directing, etc. of the noir films of the 40's and 50's. Instead the 1950's were recreated and fueled with the gritty realism, and blistering pace that a mob movie of our generation might be more inclined to do. It was a film inspired by its predecessors, but not enslaved to their concept, and it therefore created something entirely new.
This movie is bloody, brutal, and best of all it is unflinching--even though its audience might. There were moments of extreme tension released with such riveting, explosive acting and action, that I could not help but be swept away by this film. It crept under my skin slowly, but a third of the way in I was hooked, and with a pace that built to a crescendo and one of the best shootouts that I have even seen, I finished the film and immediately wanted to see it again. It was three steps ahead of me at all times, but I didn't care because it had reeled me in hook, line, and sinker.
Everything about this movie was stellar from its Oscar worthy acting, to its tremendous directing, fabulous sets, beautiful, smoggy, rust colored palate, and its sensational script. This is without a doubt one of my new favorite films, and one of the most exciting, cinematic discoveries that I have made in a good long while. Go out of your way to experience this film.
4/4
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Grant. Stewart. Hepburn. Legends of their days converging to create a gem, screwball comedy worthy of all of their names. Its wit and timing have made it a classic of its genre, and will surely please anybody with half a brain.
Katharine Hepburn plays Tracy of the Lord's family, one of the richest in the area, and whose marriage to the common man, George Kittredge, is making a splash among all of the reporters in the big city. It sucks for them, cuz she ain't havin' none of them at her party. Fiercely anti-press, she has shut off herself and her family from the journalists and reporters, namely those from Spy Magazine.
Little does she know that her ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant)--who left her life with one swift physical blow--has information about the Lord family, and with assistance from Macaulay Conner, a reporter, and Elizabeth Imbry, a photographer, he is able to weasel his way back into the household and the heart of Tracy. James Stewart and Ruth Hussey play Conner and Liz (respectfully of course), both middle class, working types who are great artists, who sell out to their financial chains, and crash the wedding--well, the day before rather--of socialites whom they cannot stand.
It's a secret, surely, but Tracy isn't so dumb. In fact she is quite the opposite. Repeatedly touted as an a statue, a goddess, a queen, and in my eyes an idol, she is something to be worshiped and revered as opposed to loved. She is a creature so far from a normal man that nothing escapes her. How hard it must have been to cast such a woman. Had this movie been made at any other moment in time other than when Hepburn was still young, beautiful, and filled with such vitality (not that it dwindled, but...you know) then I think that this could have been an incredible bore filled with mediocrity.
The story turns into a love quadrangle as Tracy is pulled between her current fiance, the love of her life, and the new, intellectual charmer. Meanwhile there is false identity, and champagne-fueled, pre-wedding party that keeps the story lively and full of spunk. The first half was slow and tedious, and was only redeemed at the midway point. Thank God for Stewart's awesome work as a drunk.
This film has a great script, but it is one of those scripts that needs the right cast in order to make it accessible, and I don't think that they could have gotten a better one. Grant does not play the funny guy in this, which was at first disappointing because he has such amazing timing, but he nevertheless did his job with the slightest nudge in the ribs to the audience. Stewart was good once he was drunk. The first half of the film he decided to do that stupid thing that he always does where he talks quietly and firmly to everyone, as though he was about to give them a passionate kiss, but he loosened up in the end and was enjoyable. As always it was the goddess Katharine who was the glue for the film. She was electric. She was magnetic with a tongue like a sword which she brandished exactly and lethally. This film is one in which any weak link would have sunk the entire picture, but they played off of one another spectacularly.
Also worth mentioning was Virginia Weilder who played Dinah, Tracy's kid sister. I have never before encountered this actress, but apparently she was the Dakota Fanning of her day, and she was hilarious as the plucky eyes and ears of the story. I laughed watching her more than any of her illustrious counterparts.
I do not believe that this movie is as good as it is made out to be; it is often regarded as a classic. It was well written, acted, and directed--mostly. The first half of the movie I though was dull and uninspired. There were good moments, but I could have easily turned it off and would not have cared. The kiss of death for a film is when it cannot seize its audience's attention, because a lesser moviegoer would absolutely have hit the power button. The end was definitely worth the wait, though.
3/4
Katharine Hepburn plays Tracy of the Lord's family, one of the richest in the area, and whose marriage to the common man, George Kittredge, is making a splash among all of the reporters in the big city. It sucks for them, cuz she ain't havin' none of them at her party. Fiercely anti-press, she has shut off herself and her family from the journalists and reporters, namely those from Spy Magazine.
Little does she know that her ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant)--who left her life with one swift physical blow--has information about the Lord family, and with assistance from Macaulay Conner, a reporter, and Elizabeth Imbry, a photographer, he is able to weasel his way back into the household and the heart of Tracy. James Stewart and Ruth Hussey play Conner and Liz (respectfully of course), both middle class, working types who are great artists, who sell out to their financial chains, and crash the wedding--well, the day before rather--of socialites whom they cannot stand.
It's a secret, surely, but Tracy isn't so dumb. In fact she is quite the opposite. Repeatedly touted as an a statue, a goddess, a queen, and in my eyes an idol, she is something to be worshiped and revered as opposed to loved. She is a creature so far from a normal man that nothing escapes her. How hard it must have been to cast such a woman. Had this movie been made at any other moment in time other than when Hepburn was still young, beautiful, and filled with such vitality (not that it dwindled, but...you know) then I think that this could have been an incredible bore filled with mediocrity.
The story turns into a love quadrangle as Tracy is pulled between her current fiance, the love of her life, and the new, intellectual charmer. Meanwhile there is false identity, and champagne-fueled, pre-wedding party that keeps the story lively and full of spunk. The first half was slow and tedious, and was only redeemed at the midway point. Thank God for Stewart's awesome work as a drunk.
This film has a great script, but it is one of those scripts that needs the right cast in order to make it accessible, and I don't think that they could have gotten a better one. Grant does not play the funny guy in this, which was at first disappointing because he has such amazing timing, but he nevertheless did his job with the slightest nudge in the ribs to the audience. Stewart was good once he was drunk. The first half of the film he decided to do that stupid thing that he always does where he talks quietly and firmly to everyone, as though he was about to give them a passionate kiss, but he loosened up in the end and was enjoyable. As always it was the goddess Katharine who was the glue for the film. She was electric. She was magnetic with a tongue like a sword which she brandished exactly and lethally. This film is one in which any weak link would have sunk the entire picture, but they played off of one another spectacularly.
Also worth mentioning was Virginia Weilder who played Dinah, Tracy's kid sister. I have never before encountered this actress, but apparently she was the Dakota Fanning of her day, and she was hilarious as the plucky eyes and ears of the story. I laughed watching her more than any of her illustrious counterparts.
I do not believe that this movie is as good as it is made out to be; it is often regarded as a classic. It was well written, acted, and directed--mostly. The first half of the movie I though was dull and uninspired. There were good moments, but I could have easily turned it off and would not have cared. The kiss of death for a film is when it cannot seize its audience's attention, because a lesser moviegoer would absolutely have hit the power button. The end was definitely worth the wait, though.
3/4
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)
A group of six sophisticates try desperately to have a meal together over the course of weeks, but for reasons real and imagined, all attempts are thwarted. This classic piece of French surrealism does not offer much more plot than that, and simply leads its viewers through one strange set of events to another.
Whether it be lunch, dinner, drinks, or tea, this sextet have the gods set against them enjoying each others company around a table. Everything ranging from a funeral ruining their appetites, to terrorists destroying their dinner table, to simply miscommunicating the day to meet, everything is thrown in to create a cerebral and at times even disturbing look at the upper crust.
Of course what fun would that be if one didn't take a jab at the well-to-do as well? Sure these people know the "proper" way to drink a martini and carve a roast, but they know nothing of tact, and it is oh so gratifying to watch them fail. Example: during Dinner #1 all of the guests leave the house because their hosts are twenty minutes late without a message. The two were having sex--literally in the bushes--like 16 year olds, and were confused when they discovered that nobody waited for them to finish. How classy is that? People are people and it is always fun to watch your betters behave like asses.
After that I really am not sure how much I understand about this film, or how much I am supposed to. It is as confusing, pointless, decadent, and backwards as its subjects, making it at once puzzling and mesmerizing. Many of the meals are fantasized, remembered, or dreamed, giving the movie a air of mystery. Was the entire thing dreamed? or fantasized? I couldn't rightly say. I will say, though, that many of these scenes were spectacularly realized, particularly the fantastical sequences. Director Luis Bunuel is an incredibly gifted director with a sharp ear for dialogue and an imagination to boot (something strangely lacking in American cinema). His pointed ideas of death scream loudly in his work, and this is no exception. His views on the afterlife are much uglier than his upbringing might suggest.
I must say that I am surprised at the actors' abilities to cope with material like this. Their is a scene where three women are trying to get a cup of tea in a noisy cafe. Sitting opposite them is a young lieutenant who asserts himself to their table. Without exchanging pleasantries he offers a weird and frightful tale from his childhood, in which the ghost of his dead mother convinced the boy to poison his father. The actresses managed to find a way to make that scene make sense to them and they handled it well. Many scenes were much the same, and required some skilled actors to keep it from becoming annoyingly pretentious.
This is a good movie to watch if you are tired of the monotonous Hollywood scene. You will find yourself watching something entirely different, for better or for worse. Don't be discouraged if you don't understand it all, I think taking pleasure in the absurdity is the point. Bon appetit!
3/4
Whether it be lunch, dinner, drinks, or tea, this sextet have the gods set against them enjoying each others company around a table. Everything ranging from a funeral ruining their appetites, to terrorists destroying their dinner table, to simply miscommunicating the day to meet, everything is thrown in to create a cerebral and at times even disturbing look at the upper crust.
Of course what fun would that be if one didn't take a jab at the well-to-do as well? Sure these people know the "proper" way to drink a martini and carve a roast, but they know nothing of tact, and it is oh so gratifying to watch them fail. Example: during Dinner #1 all of the guests leave the house because their hosts are twenty minutes late without a message. The two were having sex--literally in the bushes--like 16 year olds, and were confused when they discovered that nobody waited for them to finish. How classy is that? People are people and it is always fun to watch your betters behave like asses.
After that I really am not sure how much I understand about this film, or how much I am supposed to. It is as confusing, pointless, decadent, and backwards as its subjects, making it at once puzzling and mesmerizing. Many of the meals are fantasized, remembered, or dreamed, giving the movie a air of mystery. Was the entire thing dreamed? or fantasized? I couldn't rightly say. I will say, though, that many of these scenes were spectacularly realized, particularly the fantastical sequences. Director Luis Bunuel is an incredibly gifted director with a sharp ear for dialogue and an imagination to boot (something strangely lacking in American cinema). His pointed ideas of death scream loudly in his work, and this is no exception. His views on the afterlife are much uglier than his upbringing might suggest.
I must say that I am surprised at the actors' abilities to cope with material like this. Their is a scene where three women are trying to get a cup of tea in a noisy cafe. Sitting opposite them is a young lieutenant who asserts himself to their table. Without exchanging pleasantries he offers a weird and frightful tale from his childhood, in which the ghost of his dead mother convinced the boy to poison his father. The actresses managed to find a way to make that scene make sense to them and they handled it well. Many scenes were much the same, and required some skilled actors to keep it from becoming annoyingly pretentious.
This is a good movie to watch if you are tired of the monotonous Hollywood scene. You will find yourself watching something entirely different, for better or for worse. Don't be discouraged if you don't understand it all, I think taking pleasure in the absurdity is the point. Bon appetit!
3/4
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ed Wood (1994)
I am told that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps that goes for genius too. That would most certainly be the case for Edward D. Wood Jr., the man who saw perfection in his works Glen or Glenda, Bride of the Monster, and the incomparable Plan 9 from Outer Space, hailed as the worst film of all time. Leading an equally bizarre life filled with all sorts of amusingly strange characters, Ed Wood's story is captured in Tim Burton's loving biopic starring a never better Johnny Depp.
Before watching this film I would absolutely recommend watching at least one of his films to get a flavor of what you're dealing. I saw this movie several years ago, but it was before I had had the distinct pleasure of acquainting myself with his actual pictures. Now that I am in the know, this movie is so much more hilarious, and far more rewarding. Seeing the crazy in development is possibly better than seeing the crazy in its end results.
Wood was a young upstart with a dream of becoming the new Orson Wells of the monster movie genre. An incredibly cheerful character with more ambition than wits, he saw the strange and fantastic as romantic and beautiful, and he tried for years to let others see what he envisioned. Always tight for cash he sold out leading roles to whomever would pay--even the mentally challenged, he stole props, and even had the entire cast for a film become baptized so he could get a church to produce Plan 9. That is the mark of man who made sacrificed for his art and I tip my hat to him.
Along his journeys he roped in the buxom Vampira, the bogus fortune telling Criswell, a pre-op transexual named Bunny (a hilarious Bill Murray), the elephantine wrestler, Tor, and most importantly he befriended the drinking, smoking, swearing, morphine-addicted, 74 year old Bela Lugosi (yes he was still alive), to whom Wood developed a very close friendship with. His motley crew went to work with him getting money from anywhere and everywhere to make his horrible flicks, but funny enough nobody ever really seemed to acknowledge that his films didn't make sense. When they did he would counter with "It's realistic!"
Burton obviously loves Ed Wood. It is so apparent that everyone involved in this film had the best time with their ridiculous characters headed by a director who, like Ed Wood himself, had a vision to create something really excellent. The lighting and cinematography is superb, paying the slightest tribute to those B-horror films of the 50's, with just the right amount of melodrama and camp, without pushing it over the limits to melodramatic or campy. It is shot in glorious black and white which, rather than trying to recreate the time and feel of his movies, gives it an obvious send up of the style which is so fun.
There was terrific casting in this film. Terrific. Everyone was so spot on, and the scenes that they recreated where so perfect it was absolutely side-splitting to watch. There are so many scenes in this film which had me convulsing with laughter because even though all of the actors knew how ludicrous their characters were they played them with such conviction that the product was perfection.
Depp and Martin Landau, who gives an Oscar winning performance as Lugosi, give the best work. This is definitely my favorite Johnny Depp film because he takes chances, and is quirky without being annoyingly so. Lugosi is at once comical (especially when calling Boris Karloff a cock-sucker), and incredibly sad as a lonely old drug-addict, living off of unemployment, depressed, and forgotten. We meet him and leave him in a coffin, both times wearing a cape. He's flawless.
This is the type of film that Burton should be doing more often. I think that I speak for so many when I say that I am a little weary of the cartoonish, gothic trademark that he can't seem to shake. It would be nice to every once in a while see a product from him like this, in which Hot Topic cannot market it to 14 year old girls wearing too much eye makeup. Yes, it is still weird, yes it still has the Burton touch, but it is grounded in reality, and that makes it so much better. He is a good director with good vision, but it is time for him to grow up. I think that he needs to re-watch this film, and realize that it is in work like this that he can leave a lasting mark in the film world--though I suppose that is only if he wants to be taken seriously.
4/4
Before watching this film I would absolutely recommend watching at least one of his films to get a flavor of what you're dealing. I saw this movie several years ago, but it was before I had had the distinct pleasure of acquainting myself with his actual pictures. Now that I am in the know, this movie is so much more hilarious, and far more rewarding. Seeing the crazy in development is possibly better than seeing the crazy in its end results.
Wood was a young upstart with a dream of becoming the new Orson Wells of the monster movie genre. An incredibly cheerful character with more ambition than wits, he saw the strange and fantastic as romantic and beautiful, and he tried for years to let others see what he envisioned. Always tight for cash he sold out leading roles to whomever would pay--even the mentally challenged, he stole props, and even had the entire cast for a film become baptized so he could get a church to produce Plan 9. That is the mark of man who made sacrificed for his art and I tip my hat to him.
Along his journeys he roped in the buxom Vampira, the bogus fortune telling Criswell, a pre-op transexual named Bunny (a hilarious Bill Murray), the elephantine wrestler, Tor, and most importantly he befriended the drinking, smoking, swearing, morphine-addicted, 74 year old Bela Lugosi (yes he was still alive), to whom Wood developed a very close friendship with. His motley crew went to work with him getting money from anywhere and everywhere to make his horrible flicks, but funny enough nobody ever really seemed to acknowledge that his films didn't make sense. When they did he would counter with "It's realistic!"
Burton obviously loves Ed Wood. It is so apparent that everyone involved in this film had the best time with their ridiculous characters headed by a director who, like Ed Wood himself, had a vision to create something really excellent. The lighting and cinematography is superb, paying the slightest tribute to those B-horror films of the 50's, with just the right amount of melodrama and camp, without pushing it over the limits to melodramatic or campy. It is shot in glorious black and white which, rather than trying to recreate the time and feel of his movies, gives it an obvious send up of the style which is so fun.
There was terrific casting in this film. Terrific. Everyone was so spot on, and the scenes that they recreated where so perfect it was absolutely side-splitting to watch. There are so many scenes in this film which had me convulsing with laughter because even though all of the actors knew how ludicrous their characters were they played them with such conviction that the product was perfection.
Depp and Martin Landau, who gives an Oscar winning performance as Lugosi, give the best work. This is definitely my favorite Johnny Depp film because he takes chances, and is quirky without being annoyingly so. Lugosi is at once comical (especially when calling Boris Karloff a cock-sucker), and incredibly sad as a lonely old drug-addict, living off of unemployment, depressed, and forgotten. We meet him and leave him in a coffin, both times wearing a cape. He's flawless.
This is the type of film that Burton should be doing more often. I think that I speak for so many when I say that I am a little weary of the cartoonish, gothic trademark that he can't seem to shake. It would be nice to every once in a while see a product from him like this, in which Hot Topic cannot market it to 14 year old girls wearing too much eye makeup. Yes, it is still weird, yes it still has the Burton touch, but it is grounded in reality, and that makes it so much better. He is a good director with good vision, but it is time for him to grow up. I think that he needs to re-watch this film, and realize that it is in work like this that he can leave a lasting mark in the film world--though I suppose that is only if he wants to be taken seriously.
4/4
Monday, September 12, 2011
No Man's Land (2001)
The film ends with the line, "A trench is a trench. They are all the same." Of course they most certainly are not all the same, especially this trench, and that is the irony. Bosnia won the Foreign Language Oscar in 2002 for their wonderfully absurd yet deeply saddening presentation of the war between Bosnia and Herzegovina at the height of the conflict in 1993. It is both brutal and harsh, while being very funny in the blackest of ways, making it an incredibly effective addition to the war film category.
When I began watching the movie I was not sure who I was to be rooting for, but it turned out to be a film in which the characters were soldiers, yes, but they were people first, people pitted against one another, but never really sure what it was that they were fighting about. In our trench a Bosnian, Ciki, and a Serb, Nino, become trapped with each other between the enemies' lines. A third companion, originally though to be dead but just unconscious, awakens to find himself lying atop an active mine. Although everybody wants to leave they are forced to remain in the trench with the active mine as their enemy is insurance that none of them will get killed by opposing forces if they try to leave.
The situation becomes a worldwide spectacle as the UN and a global news station become involved. The situation turns to creating a ceasefire and trying to find a way to diffuse the mine while maintaining good rapport for the relief efforts. While things are going on on a large scale outside of the trench, in No Man's Land Ciki and Nino try to find a way to tolerate one another and keep the peace though both of them are understandably on edge. The film does a beautiful job of humanizing both characters, not choosing sides, and really trying to show the plight of the two factions. The situation is dire; they are five feet away from someone that has been conditioned to kill them, and yet they need to use each other as a life support system. It is a tricky problem that is more emotionally charged than I would have originally thought at first.
The three men in the trench give some terrific performances as the men who fight, but are so frustrated when they come to realize that it might all be for naught. Watching the movie you see clear flashes of anger and resentment from the film maker as they jab their larger message at the audience: wars are started by politicians, not by people. These men had lives, they had loved ones, they were young and too busy to care enough about the other side, or to hate enough to go to war. There were definite hints that the film makers believed the war was fostered by high up men in suits, and that makes watching these poor men in the trenches all the more disheartening.
I mentioned that this film had an absurdist streak to it, and that also revealed itself in the big picture. There was a definite humor to this film, but it was one that made me smile, and then made me slightly depressed. The leader of the group set out to help the men was Capt. Marchand, a Frenchman desperately trying to get things moving despite orders from upstairs to remain stationary. He tries so hard to get the ball rolling, but he can never find anyone who speaks French. Nobody that he meets speaks the same language, and it becomes this ongoing joke that is at once humorous as well as frustrating, as it speaks largely to the greater efforts that happened (or didn't happen, perhaps) in the case of the Bosnian War. Everyone was impotent in their actions, and that stagnation recreated the conflict between Slovenia and Croatia, so they say.
This is an interesting movie to me because right off the bat you know exactly how the movie will end. Well, maybe not exactly, but there are a list of possible outcomes that the film can take based on the situation presented: the mine explodes, the mine is defused; everyone dies, everyone lives. Then it is simply a matter of choosing the correct combination. Even knowing this the film was absorbing. There were some incredibly well done scenes, particularly those within the trench, a great script, and powerful messages. It was not gratuitously violent, but the wounds suffered were impactful--as they should be. I may not know immediately where Bosnia is on a map of Europe, but I know those men, and that is enough for me.
3.5/4
When I began watching the movie I was not sure who I was to be rooting for, but it turned out to be a film in which the characters were soldiers, yes, but they were people first, people pitted against one another, but never really sure what it was that they were fighting about. In our trench a Bosnian, Ciki, and a Serb, Nino, become trapped with each other between the enemies' lines. A third companion, originally though to be dead but just unconscious, awakens to find himself lying atop an active mine. Although everybody wants to leave they are forced to remain in the trench with the active mine as their enemy is insurance that none of them will get killed by opposing forces if they try to leave.
The situation becomes a worldwide spectacle as the UN and a global news station become involved. The situation turns to creating a ceasefire and trying to find a way to diffuse the mine while maintaining good rapport for the relief efforts. While things are going on on a large scale outside of the trench, in No Man's Land Ciki and Nino try to find a way to tolerate one another and keep the peace though both of them are understandably on edge. The film does a beautiful job of humanizing both characters, not choosing sides, and really trying to show the plight of the two factions. The situation is dire; they are five feet away from someone that has been conditioned to kill them, and yet they need to use each other as a life support system. It is a tricky problem that is more emotionally charged than I would have originally thought at first.
The three men in the trench give some terrific performances as the men who fight, but are so frustrated when they come to realize that it might all be for naught. Watching the movie you see clear flashes of anger and resentment from the film maker as they jab their larger message at the audience: wars are started by politicians, not by people. These men had lives, they had loved ones, they were young and too busy to care enough about the other side, or to hate enough to go to war. There were definite hints that the film makers believed the war was fostered by high up men in suits, and that makes watching these poor men in the trenches all the more disheartening.
I mentioned that this film had an absurdist streak to it, and that also revealed itself in the big picture. There was a definite humor to this film, but it was one that made me smile, and then made me slightly depressed. The leader of the group set out to help the men was Capt. Marchand, a Frenchman desperately trying to get things moving despite orders from upstairs to remain stationary. He tries so hard to get the ball rolling, but he can never find anyone who speaks French. Nobody that he meets speaks the same language, and it becomes this ongoing joke that is at once humorous as well as frustrating, as it speaks largely to the greater efforts that happened (or didn't happen, perhaps) in the case of the Bosnian War. Everyone was impotent in their actions, and that stagnation recreated the conflict between Slovenia and Croatia, so they say.
This is an interesting movie to me because right off the bat you know exactly how the movie will end. Well, maybe not exactly, but there are a list of possible outcomes that the film can take based on the situation presented: the mine explodes, the mine is defused; everyone dies, everyone lives. Then it is simply a matter of choosing the correct combination. Even knowing this the film was absorbing. There were some incredibly well done scenes, particularly those within the trench, a great script, and powerful messages. It was not gratuitously violent, but the wounds suffered were impactful--as they should be. I may not know immediately where Bosnia is on a map of Europe, but I know those men, and that is enough for me.
3.5/4
Saturday, September 10, 2011
The Big Sleep (1946)
Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall team up to create the classic Private-Eye film directed by Howard Hawks. It is a fun, mysterious, sexy piece of entertainment that is a bit heavy in the content, but lifted up by Bogart's mischievous detective, Philip Marlowe.
A decrepit old general--creepier then I think the writers actually intended him to be--hires Marlowe to hunt down an unknown man who is threatening to blackmail him with information about his lusty and reckless daughter, Carmen. In addition, he has been asked to keep his eye out for a very close family friend who has disappeared with a mobster's wife. As Marlowe begins to hunt the layers he peels back reveal a dirtier story with many more players than he might have imagined.
As Marlowe brings himself closer to danger he finds himself coming closer to love as well. Bacall plays Carmen's sister, Vivian, much more level-headed but equally as troublesome. The more Marlowe and Vivian try to push each other away the more they fall for one another. The two actors have excellent chemistry together and are really enjoyable to watch playing off one another.
This film is faulted by having too intricate a plot with too many supporting characters, but no real motivation for anything happening. I love Private-Eye films because the leads are always crackling with ingenuity and solving the mystery with them is loads of fun, but only when the mystery is involving. Frankly, the goals that Marlowe wanted to achieve were not interesting at all. What do I care if a millionaire is blackmailed out of a few thousand pounds? or that there is a gambling ring? or what happened to this family friend that I have yet to meet? There is plenty of violence and lots of mysterious murders, but we don't come to know them and Marlowe went too fast for me to register their importance to the story. I didn't care that they died, and that is never something good.
I still liked the movie because I love Bogart and the character that he created. He loved playing this role, and it was very apparent. When an actor enjoys what he is doing and is good at what he is creating then it makes watching him all the more entertaining. Marlowe is a speed talking, crafty, whip-smart detective who loves playing games and charming the pants off of women--both of which he does with an effortlessness that I am very jealous of. This was the Bogart of The African Queen more than it was the Bogart of The Maltese Falcon. Both are awesome, but the former gives the wink to the audience that they eat up.
I would recommend this film. I think I just need to watch it one more time, and perhaps then I'll learn why I should care.
3/4
A decrepit old general--creepier then I think the writers actually intended him to be--hires Marlowe to hunt down an unknown man who is threatening to blackmail him with information about his lusty and reckless daughter, Carmen. In addition, he has been asked to keep his eye out for a very close family friend who has disappeared with a mobster's wife. As Marlowe begins to hunt the layers he peels back reveal a dirtier story with many more players than he might have imagined.
As Marlowe brings himself closer to danger he finds himself coming closer to love as well. Bacall plays Carmen's sister, Vivian, much more level-headed but equally as troublesome. The more Marlowe and Vivian try to push each other away the more they fall for one another. The two actors have excellent chemistry together and are really enjoyable to watch playing off one another.
This film is faulted by having too intricate a plot with too many supporting characters, but no real motivation for anything happening. I love Private-Eye films because the leads are always crackling with ingenuity and solving the mystery with them is loads of fun, but only when the mystery is involving. Frankly, the goals that Marlowe wanted to achieve were not interesting at all. What do I care if a millionaire is blackmailed out of a few thousand pounds? or that there is a gambling ring? or what happened to this family friend that I have yet to meet? There is plenty of violence and lots of mysterious murders, but we don't come to know them and Marlowe went too fast for me to register their importance to the story. I didn't care that they died, and that is never something good.
I still liked the movie because I love Bogart and the character that he created. He loved playing this role, and it was very apparent. When an actor enjoys what he is doing and is good at what he is creating then it makes watching him all the more entertaining. Marlowe is a speed talking, crafty, whip-smart detective who loves playing games and charming the pants off of women--both of which he does with an effortlessness that I am very jealous of. This was the Bogart of The African Queen more than it was the Bogart of The Maltese Falcon. Both are awesome, but the former gives the wink to the audience that they eat up.
I would recommend this film. I think I just need to watch it one more time, and perhaps then I'll learn why I should care.
3/4
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
"Based upon a magazine article." Not sure that I have ever seen that scroll through the credits of a movie, but I suppose it gives credit to the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction." The film was made three years after the events that it was based on--a bank robbery turned hostage situation that kept the country glued to their television sets as everyone remembered the Attica prison riots.
Al Pacino gives one of his best performances, and my personal favorite, as Sonny, one of the two robbers (well technically three, but one left before the party began) who wants the money in order to pay for his gay lover's sex change operation. This movie is as much as character study of the emotionally disturbed man, and what brought him to the lengths that he did, as much as it is an account of the robbery itself. Pacino is a once a hero, a victim, a pariah, and an idol for the streets of New York. The crowds cheer for him as he challenges the 200 + cops, and jeer his when they learn his motives. Remember this was Stonewall New York, not legalized marriage New York, and "homosexual" was still a mental disease. The actor does a brilliant job of getting the audience and the crowd to like him and to sympathize with him, all the while keeping a gleam of psychosis barely visible.
His partner is Sal (John Cazale, The Godfather films) who is probably more mentally deranged than his leader, but is silent and watchful. I could not determine whether he was deep in thought, or just stupid, but either way the sight of him with a gun was disconcerting at least. Then there is Sonny's lover, Leon (Chris Sarandon), a weak man who believes it when he told that he is a woman trapped in a man's body. It is merely his lack of moral fiber that keeps him with Sonny.
The robbery should have gone smoothly in about 15 minutes, but instead ended being twelve hours. I am not sure if he was the first to do this, but Sonny was one of those types of people that could keep calm on the surface and when in a jam, requests a helicopter and a jet to Algeria. He doesn't snap, he recognizes the cliches and the lies of the police, and best knows how to use the media to his advantage. This movie is very much about the power that t.v. has on those that participate in the events. At one point a hostage has a chance to escape, but she powerfully declares to a camera that her place is with her girls, and she marches back indoors. She is relishing the spotlight, and is not the only one.
There is a humor to the script--in fact it is a very great humor. One of the hostages talks to her husband who calls right at the beginning of the robbery. She explains the situation, pauses, looks at Sonny and asks, "What time will you be finished?" Other times you see the women ballroom dancing, or Sonny teaching them how to shoulder a rifle in the military. But it isn't always funny. On the surface it is, yes, but each little bit reveals much about Sonny as a person. For example, he has a chubby wife, and a very zealous mother, and with both he can never get a word in edgewise. Nobody listens to him, and they wonder what drove him to marry another man. Perhaps he was not really crazy, maybe he just crumbled under the pressure. Instead of an operation for Leon, what if all he needed was a little vaca.?
Their is some great editing work, fine acting all around, a great script and a solid story. There are parts that lag, but it's almost okay. I justify them by thinking what it would be like in a little bank with no lights, no air conditioning, and a half-crazed group of women for twelve hours, and then it becomes acceptable. There are also incredibly suspenseful parts, particularly towards the end when Sonny's plan begins to fall into place. Pinch yourself and be reminded that these were true events.
Stories like this don't come around often enough. Why can we not have solid film making like this all the time? The stories are available, they happen every day. So why do we settle for cheap schlock when we have entertainment all too willing to be captured on film? Everyone likes their moment in the spotlight, so why not give it to them?
3.5/4
Al Pacino gives one of his best performances, and my personal favorite, as Sonny, one of the two robbers (well technically three, but one left before the party began) who wants the money in order to pay for his gay lover's sex change operation. This movie is as much as character study of the emotionally disturbed man, and what brought him to the lengths that he did, as much as it is an account of the robbery itself. Pacino is a once a hero, a victim, a pariah, and an idol for the streets of New York. The crowds cheer for him as he challenges the 200 + cops, and jeer his when they learn his motives. Remember this was Stonewall New York, not legalized marriage New York, and "homosexual" was still a mental disease. The actor does a brilliant job of getting the audience and the crowd to like him and to sympathize with him, all the while keeping a gleam of psychosis barely visible.
His partner is Sal (John Cazale, The Godfather films) who is probably more mentally deranged than his leader, but is silent and watchful. I could not determine whether he was deep in thought, or just stupid, but either way the sight of him with a gun was disconcerting at least. Then there is Sonny's lover, Leon (Chris Sarandon), a weak man who believes it when he told that he is a woman trapped in a man's body. It is merely his lack of moral fiber that keeps him with Sonny.
The robbery should have gone smoothly in about 15 minutes, but instead ended being twelve hours. I am not sure if he was the first to do this, but Sonny was one of those types of people that could keep calm on the surface and when in a jam, requests a helicopter and a jet to Algeria. He doesn't snap, he recognizes the cliches and the lies of the police, and best knows how to use the media to his advantage. This movie is very much about the power that t.v. has on those that participate in the events. At one point a hostage has a chance to escape, but she powerfully declares to a camera that her place is with her girls, and she marches back indoors. She is relishing the spotlight, and is not the only one.
There is a humor to the script--in fact it is a very great humor. One of the hostages talks to her husband who calls right at the beginning of the robbery. She explains the situation, pauses, looks at Sonny and asks, "What time will you be finished?" Other times you see the women ballroom dancing, or Sonny teaching them how to shoulder a rifle in the military. But it isn't always funny. On the surface it is, yes, but each little bit reveals much about Sonny as a person. For example, he has a chubby wife, and a very zealous mother, and with both he can never get a word in edgewise. Nobody listens to him, and they wonder what drove him to marry another man. Perhaps he was not really crazy, maybe he just crumbled under the pressure. Instead of an operation for Leon, what if all he needed was a little vaca.?
Their is some great editing work, fine acting all around, a great script and a solid story. There are parts that lag, but it's almost okay. I justify them by thinking what it would be like in a little bank with no lights, no air conditioning, and a half-crazed group of women for twelve hours, and then it becomes acceptable. There are also incredibly suspenseful parts, particularly towards the end when Sonny's plan begins to fall into place. Pinch yourself and be reminded that these were true events.
Stories like this don't come around often enough. Why can we not have solid film making like this all the time? The stories are available, they happen every day. So why do we settle for cheap schlock when we have entertainment all too willing to be captured on film? Everyone likes their moment in the spotlight, so why not give it to them?
3.5/4
Monday, September 5, 2011
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Stanley Kubrick's final film is a mesmerizing look at depravity and sexuality that compromises very little to fulfill the much matured and very grim view of the world that Kubrick had. Whether it is a great film or pretentious garbage is something that will only be determined by time; right now it must simply be looked at piece by piece.
Tom Cruise plays Dr. Bill Harford, a Joe Schmoe living in the lower upper-class with his wife, Alice (Nicole Kidman), and daughter in their New York apartment. After a sexually charged dinner party at a very wealthy friend's estate, a fight ensues and Bill learns that at one point Alice almost cheated on him. It rocks his world and, after making a house-call to a patient, he hits the streets wandering aimlessly. The night, he finds, has nooks and crannies filled with shadows of carnal indulgence which opens his eyes to the underbelly of his otherwise clean and sterile world.
Almost in a dream he meets strange character after strange character. The film is more like a series of small stories interwoven together, each pushing Bill to some unknown destination. He floats in and out of them taking an active role in each encounter, but never really taking too much away from them. And he shouldn't, he is not that type of person. In each scenario he comes closer and closer to physical consummation, but throughout most of the story it seems that The Kiss holds the power, and is as dirty as he will allow his hands to become.
The final destination is something entirely unexpected after viewing the first half an hour of the film--hell even the first hour. Kubrick pushes the bounds of what an audience will tolerate as high art and what is just plain ridiculous. I am not sure whether or not he succeeded. It was hypnotizing and uncomfortable to watch, and when I asked myself whether or not what I was watching could happen in reality I came up with an indecisive answer. I will not spoil the climax, but I will say that after the release of the film there were very strong rumors that Kubrick was on his way towards making a porno (porno seems like such an ugly word to associate with him, doesn't it?).
There are things that I liked about this movie which are pretty evenly counterbalanced by what I thought was amiss. Nicole Kidman gave some of her finest acting in parts of this film, but as good as she was that it how bad Cruise is. I don't know if he gave a poor perfomance, though, or he is simply a mediocre actor. I might just have prejudices against him. He is a very obvious actor who makes stupid choices, and always seems so forced. That is hard to get past when the supporting characters are each shaded with with surprising depth.
Surprisingly the writing was always forced. Nobody has conversations like Kubrick and Frederic Raphael wrote, and I think that was a major hindrance when the story itself was so extreme. If the writing is unbelievable and the story is nearly unbelievable then what is the audience supposed to take away from it? But of course the cinematic vision is undeniable--it always is with the master--and sometimes you simply have to sit back and marvel at his audacity.
While I watched this movie I began thinking about Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," and what she meant to the art world. This painting is unquestionably one of the most beloved of all time, and is pretty much universally considered one of the best paintings made. But why? If I went into a gallery not knowing her or the artist I might walk past it thinking it was a pretty picture, but maybe not thinking twice about it. It certainly doesn't compete with something like "The Last Supper," and I am sure that in their heart of hearts there are many others who would agree. So why is it held in such high esteem? It is considered da Vinci's masterpiece because he said it was so. He believed that it was his crowning achievement, and if da Vinci believed it was so then no two-bit art critic is going to say otherwise. Similarly, Kubrick said that Eyes Wide Shut was his best film. I am not sure why, but he believed it was better than A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, and Barry Lyndon. These other films are Kubrick's "The Last Supper" to me, but he found his girl with the mysterious smile. Will that make it his best picture? I hope that in 50 years I will look back and won't regret giving what may turn out to be his masterpiece a low score because I was too blind to see the genius. Like I said, only time will tell if this movie is any good.
2.5/4
Tom Cruise plays Dr. Bill Harford, a Joe Schmoe living in the lower upper-class with his wife, Alice (Nicole Kidman), and daughter in their New York apartment. After a sexually charged dinner party at a very wealthy friend's estate, a fight ensues and Bill learns that at one point Alice almost cheated on him. It rocks his world and, after making a house-call to a patient, he hits the streets wandering aimlessly. The night, he finds, has nooks and crannies filled with shadows of carnal indulgence which opens his eyes to the underbelly of his otherwise clean and sterile world.
Almost in a dream he meets strange character after strange character. The film is more like a series of small stories interwoven together, each pushing Bill to some unknown destination. He floats in and out of them taking an active role in each encounter, but never really taking too much away from them. And he shouldn't, he is not that type of person. In each scenario he comes closer and closer to physical consummation, but throughout most of the story it seems that The Kiss holds the power, and is as dirty as he will allow his hands to become.
The final destination is something entirely unexpected after viewing the first half an hour of the film--hell even the first hour. Kubrick pushes the bounds of what an audience will tolerate as high art and what is just plain ridiculous. I am not sure whether or not he succeeded. It was hypnotizing and uncomfortable to watch, and when I asked myself whether or not what I was watching could happen in reality I came up with an indecisive answer. I will not spoil the climax, but I will say that after the release of the film there were very strong rumors that Kubrick was on his way towards making a porno (porno seems like such an ugly word to associate with him, doesn't it?).
There are things that I liked about this movie which are pretty evenly counterbalanced by what I thought was amiss. Nicole Kidman gave some of her finest acting in parts of this film, but as good as she was that it how bad Cruise is. I don't know if he gave a poor perfomance, though, or he is simply a mediocre actor. I might just have prejudices against him. He is a very obvious actor who makes stupid choices, and always seems so forced. That is hard to get past when the supporting characters are each shaded with with surprising depth.
Surprisingly the writing was always forced. Nobody has conversations like Kubrick and Frederic Raphael wrote, and I think that was a major hindrance when the story itself was so extreme. If the writing is unbelievable and the story is nearly unbelievable then what is the audience supposed to take away from it? But of course the cinematic vision is undeniable--it always is with the master--and sometimes you simply have to sit back and marvel at his audacity.
While I watched this movie I began thinking about Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," and what she meant to the art world. This painting is unquestionably one of the most beloved of all time, and is pretty much universally considered one of the best paintings made. But why? If I went into a gallery not knowing her or the artist I might walk past it thinking it was a pretty picture, but maybe not thinking twice about it. It certainly doesn't compete with something like "The Last Supper," and I am sure that in their heart of hearts there are many others who would agree. So why is it held in such high esteem? It is considered da Vinci's masterpiece because he said it was so. He believed that it was his crowning achievement, and if da Vinci believed it was so then no two-bit art critic is going to say otherwise. Similarly, Kubrick said that Eyes Wide Shut was his best film. I am not sure why, but he believed it was better than A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, and Barry Lyndon. These other films are Kubrick's "The Last Supper" to me, but he found his girl with the mysterious smile. Will that make it his best picture? I hope that in 50 years I will look back and won't regret giving what may turn out to be his masterpiece a low score because I was too blind to see the genius. Like I said, only time will tell if this movie is any good.
2.5/4
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
I really like this movie but I am not sure why. I was not definite that this would be a film taking a strong stance against 1950's America, 50's culture, or 50's film making, and in the end I am not sure that it knew what it was that it was fighting against. There are rebellious youth in the film (hence the name), and I think that there simply needs to be anger and frustration for the sake of anger and frustration. I believed it though, because the muddled message(s) were delivered with unbridled passion.
James Dean gives his signature role as Jim Stark, a troubled teenage nobody whose parents move him to a new school as he beat up an student at his previous one. The reason? He was called a chicken. That seems like a silly reason, but Jim so forcefully makes it clear that he is not a chicken, has pride, wants to be a man, and wants to be absolutely nothing like his father who crumbles under his mother's will. Being the new kid is hard and Jim impresses the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
However, he also catches the eyes of two other troubled teens. There is Plato (Sal Mineo), the psychologically disturbed 16 year old child, abandoned by his parents and raised by his Mammy. Then there is Judy (Natalie Wood), a good girl with a father who hates her and who has fallen in with the toughs. It is not until after a tragic accident that the three form together to create something of a surrogate family. They create a strange relationship with each other that I do not completely understand, but there is a love and a trust between them that can only be formed when you meet someone that you know absolutely nothing about.
Jim is a very odd hero, but someone that I like very much, someone that I rooted for, and a type of person that I would like to befriend in real life. He acts out, yes, but I he doesn't seem to know why he does it. He wants to be a man, but doesn't know how, and that confusion leads him to do stupid things. The movie opens with him being taken into the police station for drunkenness where his parents come to collect him. They have a fight establishing the strong/weak relationship and Jim screams out the famous line, "You're tearing me apart!" It's the general angst that all teenagers feel at not being understood. He is also funny, and generous, and as Judy pointed out he shows affection to Plato, whom everybody else dislikes. He doesn't want to cause trouble, but he can't seem to avoid doing the wrong things.
My favorite dynamic in the film was between Jim and his father. When I think of 50's cinema there is definitely not a image of the weak father being challenged by the son, so it came as a shock. Even in 2011 there were things about this film that startled and inspired me, so I can only imagine how it was interpreted when it was released. There are fissures in the gilded world of 1955 and Rebel Without a Cause takes the time to slap it in our face. It is an aggressive film with real moments of truth amongst the melodrama, like presenting a spineless father and a selfish mother who always plays the victim, that challenges traditional interpretations of characters of 50's film.
Of course there are others that remain the same. the 50's greaser punk is something that wearies me but never seems to go away. They are always mindless and always mean for the sake of meanness which is tiresome. Most of the other adults are stupid and don't listen in the way that they ought to. I wonder if they were young once? It seems like they never are. This film is a plight for the young folk and I guess somebody has to be at fault.
The acting is terrific all around. Wood gives a heartbreaking monologue in the beginning at the police station, and Mineo's Peter Pan like qualities gave his character an unusual edge. I don't particularly agree with the character itself, it felt a bit creepy and strangely homoerotic towards Jim, but his delivery was convincing. Dean did a really great job as Jim. It was very obviously Brando inspired, but filtered in his own view it became something fresh and exciting to watch.
I did not like the last ten minutes of the film which saddened me. I felt as though there was an obligatory ending that the audience was cheated out of. It seemed obvious, but obviously the best ending. I imagine that the idea was toyed with, but that it would have created a film that was too dark for its audience and would have put an ugly stain on characters that we are supposed to care for. Nevertheless, it would have cemented what I think were the messages being delivered by the film. I guess what they did was fine, but it wasn't the greatest.
This is a film not to be missed. Its power definitely has not diminished over time.
3.5/4
James Dean gives his signature role as Jim Stark, a troubled teenage nobody whose parents move him to a new school as he beat up an student at his previous one. The reason? He was called a chicken. That seems like a silly reason, but Jim so forcefully makes it clear that he is not a chicken, has pride, wants to be a man, and wants to be absolutely nothing like his father who crumbles under his mother's will. Being the new kid is hard and Jim impresses the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
However, he also catches the eyes of two other troubled teens. There is Plato (Sal Mineo), the psychologically disturbed 16 year old child, abandoned by his parents and raised by his Mammy. Then there is Judy (Natalie Wood), a good girl with a father who hates her and who has fallen in with the toughs. It is not until after a tragic accident that the three form together to create something of a surrogate family. They create a strange relationship with each other that I do not completely understand, but there is a love and a trust between them that can only be formed when you meet someone that you know absolutely nothing about.
Jim is a very odd hero, but someone that I like very much, someone that I rooted for, and a type of person that I would like to befriend in real life. He acts out, yes, but I he doesn't seem to know why he does it. He wants to be a man, but doesn't know how, and that confusion leads him to do stupid things. The movie opens with him being taken into the police station for drunkenness where his parents come to collect him. They have a fight establishing the strong/weak relationship and Jim screams out the famous line, "You're tearing me apart!" It's the general angst that all teenagers feel at not being understood. He is also funny, and generous, and as Judy pointed out he shows affection to Plato, whom everybody else dislikes. He doesn't want to cause trouble, but he can't seem to avoid doing the wrong things.
My favorite dynamic in the film was between Jim and his father. When I think of 50's cinema there is definitely not a image of the weak father being challenged by the son, so it came as a shock. Even in 2011 there were things about this film that startled and inspired me, so I can only imagine how it was interpreted when it was released. There are fissures in the gilded world of 1955 and Rebel Without a Cause takes the time to slap it in our face. It is an aggressive film with real moments of truth amongst the melodrama, like presenting a spineless father and a selfish mother who always plays the victim, that challenges traditional interpretations of characters of 50's film.
Of course there are others that remain the same. the 50's greaser punk is something that wearies me but never seems to go away. They are always mindless and always mean for the sake of meanness which is tiresome. Most of the other adults are stupid and don't listen in the way that they ought to. I wonder if they were young once? It seems like they never are. This film is a plight for the young folk and I guess somebody has to be at fault.
The acting is terrific all around. Wood gives a heartbreaking monologue in the beginning at the police station, and Mineo's Peter Pan like qualities gave his character an unusual edge. I don't particularly agree with the character itself, it felt a bit creepy and strangely homoerotic towards Jim, but his delivery was convincing. Dean did a really great job as Jim. It was very obviously Brando inspired, but filtered in his own view it became something fresh and exciting to watch.
I did not like the last ten minutes of the film which saddened me. I felt as though there was an obligatory ending that the audience was cheated out of. It seemed obvious, but obviously the best ending. I imagine that the idea was toyed with, but that it would have created a film that was too dark for its audience and would have put an ugly stain on characters that we are supposed to care for. Nevertheless, it would have cemented what I think were the messages being delivered by the film. I guess what they did was fine, but it wasn't the greatest.
This is a film not to be missed. Its power definitely has not diminished over time.
3.5/4
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Ran (1985)
King Lear is my absolute favorite play from William Shakespeare, and one of my favorite pieces of literature in general. It looks at a family in crisis as an elderly king abdicates his throne and divides his land amongst his three daughters. But two of his daughters are conniving, don't love their father, and use verbal trickery to take away everything that the king has. His third daughter is banished for not praising Lear with flattering words, but it turns out she is the only one that truly loves him. Frustration and guilt compounds his senility and drives him mad where he then tears out of his castle and into a raging storm. As his family falls into chaos Lear, his fool, and a crazed beggar try to seek out the third daughter for protection, and to calm angry waters.
It is a masterful story, and seeing it performed is a joy. King Lear is one of the greatest characters penned in a gloomy story of the betrayal of familial bonds. Akira Kurosawa, the great Japanese auteur, reimagines this classic tale, and sets it in feudal Japan, where the old Lord Hidetora Ichimonji gives his power over to his eldest son. The tales goes very similar to Shakespeare's, but with genders reversed and much more violence. The result is an amazing feat: one of the greatest directors of all time takes one of the best known plays and remakes it into something that is fresh and interesting and bursting with imagination. It is lonely, beautiful, desolate, and above all it is a great movie-going experience.
The script is written by Kurosawa which at first made me very nervous. I was not sure whether Shakespeare would hold the same power without his own words. I learned, however, that Ran was not originally meant to be an interpretation of the play. Kurosawa spent ten years writing the script and it was only during the writing process that that was what the narrative evolved in to. His script is great on its own. When I watch a movie by him it seems that everything that he does is like a poem. Everything he writes and everything he directs is like a haiku; there are so many layers to the staccato sentences and sharp imagery that reveal themselves one at a time. It did not lose its power. His words enhance his point of view, rather, and complete that traditional Japanese aesthetic that he is so fond of.
I wondered at first why "Lear" would be something that Kurosawa would undertake. I realized that I was being stupid in not realizing that that the story is about greed, loyalty, and most importantly it is about honor. That is Kurosawa's key word, and the pieces fall into place. Lear, or in this case Hidetora, is a man scorned by one son--so he believes--and betrayed by two of the people that ought to have been the most loyal to him. His unraveling seems like the perfect spectacle to watch, and so it is interesting that he does not focus so much on the Lear character, but rather chooses to spend more time watching the two elder, evil sons, and the feuding that they do with each other trying to fight for land and power.
When he does choose to focus on Hidetora it is really special. Tatsuya Nakadai was much younger than the character is supposed to be, and I generally regard Lear as the type of character that should only be attempted by the oldest and best of classically trained actors, but hell if that man did not make me stick my foot in my mouth. He gave a terrific performance that was both respectful of the material as well as over the top, but never once did it become cartoonish (despite his pancake makeup). There were half a dozen other strong performances, but if you are going to look at one look at this one, because a lot of young actors could take some notes on physicality by watching this guy.
The locations and sets are beautiful. They were the perfect backdrops for the two battle sequences. Ugh...if Kurosawa was only allowed to do one thing in his entire life I would wish it to be choreographing battle sequences. There is nobody else that has ever worked in cinema that could do it better than he. For some reason, when I watch big battles in films like The Lord of the Rings, or Saving Private Ryan, or so many others, I feel a strange disconnect from the characters and the action. Maybe because everything seems so rehearsed and far too smooth. When I watched the battles in Ran there was a sense a dread in seeing those men in the their armor sloshing their way through the mud carrying unwieldy spears. They look like real men who are afraid of death, but charge anyway because they have pride. That pride would not stop them from flinching, though, if a sword barely missed them. That flinch makes it real, and Kurosawa new that. There is nothing polished about them, and the choreography seems broad which makes it seem so much more dangerous, and therefore that much more terrifying. They are beautiful, terrible, and really bloody which is really awesome.
This is a great film, and is my favorite of his work--though Seven Samurai is the better film. There is something so sad and powerful about the final shot of the movie that still haunts me. It is a movie to be watched and adored by fans of war films, cowboy films, old literature, and costume dramas alike. Watch and adore, please.
4/4
*P.S. Hero pays lots of homage to this film.
It is a masterful story, and seeing it performed is a joy. King Lear is one of the greatest characters penned in a gloomy story of the betrayal of familial bonds. Akira Kurosawa, the great Japanese auteur, reimagines this classic tale, and sets it in feudal Japan, where the old Lord Hidetora Ichimonji gives his power over to his eldest son. The tales goes very similar to Shakespeare's, but with genders reversed and much more violence. The result is an amazing feat: one of the greatest directors of all time takes one of the best known plays and remakes it into something that is fresh and interesting and bursting with imagination. It is lonely, beautiful, desolate, and above all it is a great movie-going experience.
The script is written by Kurosawa which at first made me very nervous. I was not sure whether Shakespeare would hold the same power without his own words. I learned, however, that Ran was not originally meant to be an interpretation of the play. Kurosawa spent ten years writing the script and it was only during the writing process that that was what the narrative evolved in to. His script is great on its own. When I watch a movie by him it seems that everything that he does is like a poem. Everything he writes and everything he directs is like a haiku; there are so many layers to the staccato sentences and sharp imagery that reveal themselves one at a time. It did not lose its power. His words enhance his point of view, rather, and complete that traditional Japanese aesthetic that he is so fond of.
I wondered at first why "Lear" would be something that Kurosawa would undertake. I realized that I was being stupid in not realizing that that the story is about greed, loyalty, and most importantly it is about honor. That is Kurosawa's key word, and the pieces fall into place. Lear, or in this case Hidetora, is a man scorned by one son--so he believes--and betrayed by two of the people that ought to have been the most loyal to him. His unraveling seems like the perfect spectacle to watch, and so it is interesting that he does not focus so much on the Lear character, but rather chooses to spend more time watching the two elder, evil sons, and the feuding that they do with each other trying to fight for land and power.
When he does choose to focus on Hidetora it is really special. Tatsuya Nakadai was much younger than the character is supposed to be, and I generally regard Lear as the type of character that should only be attempted by the oldest and best of classically trained actors, but hell if that man did not make me stick my foot in my mouth. He gave a terrific performance that was both respectful of the material as well as over the top, but never once did it become cartoonish (despite his pancake makeup). There were half a dozen other strong performances, but if you are going to look at one look at this one, because a lot of young actors could take some notes on physicality by watching this guy.
The locations and sets are beautiful. They were the perfect backdrops for the two battle sequences. Ugh...if Kurosawa was only allowed to do one thing in his entire life I would wish it to be choreographing battle sequences. There is nobody else that has ever worked in cinema that could do it better than he. For some reason, when I watch big battles in films like The Lord of the Rings, or Saving Private Ryan, or so many others, I feel a strange disconnect from the characters and the action. Maybe because everything seems so rehearsed and far too smooth. When I watched the battles in Ran there was a sense a dread in seeing those men in the their armor sloshing their way through the mud carrying unwieldy spears. They look like real men who are afraid of death, but charge anyway because they have pride. That pride would not stop them from flinching, though, if a sword barely missed them. That flinch makes it real, and Kurosawa new that. There is nothing polished about them, and the choreography seems broad which makes it seem so much more dangerous, and therefore that much more terrifying. They are beautiful, terrible, and really bloody which is really awesome.
This is a great film, and is my favorite of his work--though Seven Samurai is the better film. There is something so sad and powerful about the final shot of the movie that still haunts me. It is a movie to be watched and adored by fans of war films, cowboy films, old literature, and costume dramas alike. Watch and adore, please.
4/4
*P.S. Hero pays lots of homage to this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)