There is a universality to humor that I think sometimes gets overlooked for the sake of political correctness or because a comedian might be afraid of being offensive. The point of humor is to offend; it is taking pleasure at the expense of someone or something else without exception. Boiling any joke down to its bare form involves one object being humiliated and a person feeling superior for that reason. There is sometimes a fear that a joke will cross a line from being hilarious to simply being cruel. Perhaps such a line does exist--after all, we don't normally laugh at jokes about child soldiers or genocide (people make Jewish jokes, though I never think they are any good)--but I don't normally feel that the lines we draw with our modern humor have any relevance, and their simple state of being takes the joy out of comedy in general, i.e. jokes on race, mental disabilities, etc.
"Death at a Funeral" is gifted in its disregard for the boundaries that society has placed on comedic films, and fortunately does not cross the hilarious-cruelty line. It stays firmly in the former section. Any film whose premise is centered about a funeral home at the burial of a family patriarch must necessarily push the boundaries of what is considered to still be "good form". Not only is this film good form and funny, it's smart funny, and that's difficult to achieve on any level.
In some ways this is a typical dysfunctional family film where the members who were scattered to the winds must suddenly reconvene for a common purpose. It's usually a wedding or a funeral, as it is here, and their different eccentricities cause mayhem before everyone realizes that they love each other, as they do here. In that sense, the movie is fairly formulaic, but that's comedy; a man is walking down the street, he slips on a banana peal, he breaks his ass.
The film is far more clever than a movie like this should be, however, and I don't believe credit is due to anyone but its writer, Dean Craig. The dialogue isn't exceptional and the comedy is not character based, but the situations, the ridiculousness piled on ridiculousness, gets to a point so extreme that it's almost inspiring. From secret, gay, midget lovers, to naked LSD trips, to old person poop on your hands, it certainly pulls out all of the stops while still keeping the plot grounded in reality.
That last point is its true golden quality. Anybody can write a story about a hangover where you wake up with Mike Tyson's tiger in your bathroom, but not everyone can come up with a story where two people can believably be put into the same coffin together, unbeknownst to the members of the family. That is serious comedic talent, and a talent that had me genuinely laughing hard.
Comedy is about shock value as much as it is about anything else. Tyler Perry apparently remade this (and I'm sure he did quite well at the box office), but is it comedy if it's nothing new? If we know what the punchline is it still funny? This shouldn't become a tirade against Perry, but he was the most well paid person in entertainment last year, even though he simply regurgitated something that was only funny at one time. It seems to me that if we love to laugh our money might be better off going to people like this Dean Craig who pushes the boundaries of comedy and succeeds, instead of a man who panders to his very select audience and gets away with bastardizing the art of humor. Something to think about...unless you're watching a "Madea" movie, then you're probably not thinking about anything.
3.5/4
Friday, September 7, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Rubber (2010)
A car tire named Robert mysterious awakens in the California desert, and with newly discovered psychokinetic powers wreaks havoc on a small town. An incompetent police force tries to track him down and destroy him, but the death toll continues to climb.
Why does a mute tire gain consciousness, and why further does he decide he likes the taste of destruction? The film will tell you there's no reason. It will, in fact, tell you that what you are watching has no reason at all and that it isn't particularly good. I would agree with that and go further to say that it isn't any good at all.
In a way I find the prospect of a reasonless film intriguing. As one character makes very clear, there are all sorts of things in movies which have no purpose at all and are simply there in order to make the movie more interesting. What I do no approve of, though, is being talked down to as though I weren't smart enough to figure out that that is what the filmmakers were trying to do all along. We are literally told by a man playing a police officer that the film we will be watching is without reason, and to my understanding that means it's pointless.
If, on the other hand, it had not said anything and had simply let us watch a B-film monster spoof only at the end to realize that director Quentin Dupieux had played an elaborate joke on the audience by creating a film entirely in homage to this concept, then I might have a lot of respect for this little indie film. Instead it decided to patronize its audience and then give us an ugly little story anyway.
I quite like Robert. Watching him discover his existence and his enjoyment at blowing up birds, rabbits and peoples' heads is actually endearing in a morbid way, and if he weren't killing things I might draw something of a parallel between him and Wall-E. The basic story isn't so awful, after all it's been done hundreds of times before. Everyone likes a good, cheesy monster movie, even one where the director tries too hard.
Where things go horribly wrong is a very confusing subplot where this entire story is a movie being played out for a live audience. They sit in the desert with binoculars commenting on all of the things that the real audience should be figuring out for themselves. It goes further into what I'm guessing was supposed to be some poorly thought out conspiracy or something--I really have no idea--but that is the basic gist of it. We sit there essentially watching ourselves, hearing our own thoughts told to us by bad actors and I began to realize it's because Dupieux didn't have enough ideas to make a feature-length film with any substance.
Had this been a 30 minute movie entirely about Robert's story without the stupid gimmicks and bad in-jokes it might have been an interesting attack on the audience and especially other filmmakers. As it happens, it was a dull, exhausting exercise on my patience that frankly made me more angry than inspired by their over-wrought artiness. I've wanted to see this film for a long time and it was one of the biggest disappointments I've had in recent memory.
0/4
Why does a mute tire gain consciousness, and why further does he decide he likes the taste of destruction? The film will tell you there's no reason. It will, in fact, tell you that what you are watching has no reason at all and that it isn't particularly good. I would agree with that and go further to say that it isn't any good at all.
In a way I find the prospect of a reasonless film intriguing. As one character makes very clear, there are all sorts of things in movies which have no purpose at all and are simply there in order to make the movie more interesting. What I do no approve of, though, is being talked down to as though I weren't smart enough to figure out that that is what the filmmakers were trying to do all along. We are literally told by a man playing a police officer that the film we will be watching is without reason, and to my understanding that means it's pointless.
If, on the other hand, it had not said anything and had simply let us watch a B-film monster spoof only at the end to realize that director Quentin Dupieux had played an elaborate joke on the audience by creating a film entirely in homage to this concept, then I might have a lot of respect for this little indie film. Instead it decided to patronize its audience and then give us an ugly little story anyway.
I quite like Robert. Watching him discover his existence and his enjoyment at blowing up birds, rabbits and peoples' heads is actually endearing in a morbid way, and if he weren't killing things I might draw something of a parallel between him and Wall-E. The basic story isn't so awful, after all it's been done hundreds of times before. Everyone likes a good, cheesy monster movie, even one where the director tries too hard.
Where things go horribly wrong is a very confusing subplot where this entire story is a movie being played out for a live audience. They sit in the desert with binoculars commenting on all of the things that the real audience should be figuring out for themselves. It goes further into what I'm guessing was supposed to be some poorly thought out conspiracy or something--I really have no idea--but that is the basic gist of it. We sit there essentially watching ourselves, hearing our own thoughts told to us by bad actors and I began to realize it's because Dupieux didn't have enough ideas to make a feature-length film with any substance.
Had this been a 30 minute movie entirely about Robert's story without the stupid gimmicks and bad in-jokes it might have been an interesting attack on the audience and especially other filmmakers. As it happens, it was a dull, exhausting exercise on my patience that frankly made me more angry than inspired by their over-wrought artiness. I've wanted to see this film for a long time and it was one of the biggest disappointments I've had in recent memory.
0/4
Monday, September 3, 2012
A Christmas Carol (2009)
Those who know me well enough know of my love for the works of Charles Dickens. Those who know me even better could tell you that I have a Christmas tradition of reading A Christmas Carol on either Christmas Eve or the big day itself. The story is grim and dark, but not without the charm of any Dickens story. I have seen most every film version, and as with any retelling I have my favorites. I can't say that Disney's latest adaptation is among my top choices and I'm not sure that I would watch it again, but is at the very least an interesting new look at the classic tale.
We all know the story (or should!): the miserly and most unpleasant humbug of a man, Ebenezer Scrooge, toils away on Christmas Eve. He rebuffs the spirit of the season, attacks carolers, charitable workers and even his own nephew. Upon returning home late in the night, he is visited by the ghost of his old partner at his collection house, Jacob Marley, who warns him that his soul will be damned if he doesn't change his miserable ways. In order to guide him on a path of altruism, Scrooge is haunted by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come who guide him through his life to show where he went wrong with humanity.
There has always been a creepy atmosphere to this story. Dickens is known as a man of the people, whose works tend to reflect the conditions of an industrial but socially underdeveloped London. However, what he writes has always felt to me to a unobtrusive and almost distant look at poverty and the toils of the working class. It never gets in the way of his stories and only ever seems to slowly creep into the back of the reader's mind. Disney's version, however, makes the socio-economic conditions of the time all too relevant.
The film is entirely computer generated which gave the filmmakers enormous liberty when designing the world in which Scrooge would inhabit. What they chose was a sooty, drab landscape full of shadows. The people walking the streets are almost flinchingly ugly with their rotting teeth, sunken cheeks and hollow eyes. They seem to smell through the screen and their poverty is evident. When Scrooge turns away the poor his actions become all the more reprehensible for it.
There is no denying that the film is startling in its beauty. The characters, though CGI, all seem to resemble their voice actors. Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and especially Colin Firth translate so well because one can see the actual person behind the technology. The voice acting is wonderful as well. I'm not sure that I would have chosen Carrey as Scrooge, but I do find it impressive that he not only did the main character, but the three ghosts as well. They all sounded great, though I did think his Mancunian accent sounded a bit off...
What I disliked about the film was the lack of joy that I got from it. It isn't supposed to be a happy story necessarily--in fact, it should be quite the opposite. But what it should have that the other versions have and that the book has is a celebration of the day and the happiness gotten from friends and family at Christmas. Instead, the characters that Dickens made so vibrant were dulled and unappealing. Their festivities did not seem all too enjoyable, and certainly not nice enough to make Scrooge remorseful.
A Christmas Carol is a particularly tricky story to navigate through film, because in a matter of three nights we need to see Scrooge renounce his entire life and choose to become a better person. Not only does he have to do this, but it needs to seem genuine. Not all of them do this, and this version completely failed as well. As we travel through Scrooge's life he seems particularly distant and therefore the growth of the character seems forced. We reach the end of the movie and it seems as though he is generous simply because he is a vain person fearful of death. There was no closure for the audience and therefore the film is not a success as a storyteller.
Although Robert Zemeckis had plenty of interesting ideas for his version, his visual flair made the film too dark to find the beauty of Christmas and helping one's fellow man which is what the story is all about.
2/4
We all know the story (or should!): the miserly and most unpleasant humbug of a man, Ebenezer Scrooge, toils away on Christmas Eve. He rebuffs the spirit of the season, attacks carolers, charitable workers and even his own nephew. Upon returning home late in the night, he is visited by the ghost of his old partner at his collection house, Jacob Marley, who warns him that his soul will be damned if he doesn't change his miserable ways. In order to guide him on a path of altruism, Scrooge is haunted by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come who guide him through his life to show where he went wrong with humanity.
There has always been a creepy atmosphere to this story. Dickens is known as a man of the people, whose works tend to reflect the conditions of an industrial but socially underdeveloped London. However, what he writes has always felt to me to a unobtrusive and almost distant look at poverty and the toils of the working class. It never gets in the way of his stories and only ever seems to slowly creep into the back of the reader's mind. Disney's version, however, makes the socio-economic conditions of the time all too relevant.
The film is entirely computer generated which gave the filmmakers enormous liberty when designing the world in which Scrooge would inhabit. What they chose was a sooty, drab landscape full of shadows. The people walking the streets are almost flinchingly ugly with their rotting teeth, sunken cheeks and hollow eyes. They seem to smell through the screen and their poverty is evident. When Scrooge turns away the poor his actions become all the more reprehensible for it.
There is no denying that the film is startling in its beauty. The characters, though CGI, all seem to resemble their voice actors. Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and especially Colin Firth translate so well because one can see the actual person behind the technology. The voice acting is wonderful as well. I'm not sure that I would have chosen Carrey as Scrooge, but I do find it impressive that he not only did the main character, but the three ghosts as well. They all sounded great, though I did think his Mancunian accent sounded a bit off...
What I disliked about the film was the lack of joy that I got from it. It isn't supposed to be a happy story necessarily--in fact, it should be quite the opposite. But what it should have that the other versions have and that the book has is a celebration of the day and the happiness gotten from friends and family at Christmas. Instead, the characters that Dickens made so vibrant were dulled and unappealing. Their festivities did not seem all too enjoyable, and certainly not nice enough to make Scrooge remorseful.
A Christmas Carol is a particularly tricky story to navigate through film, because in a matter of three nights we need to see Scrooge renounce his entire life and choose to become a better person. Not only does he have to do this, but it needs to seem genuine. Not all of them do this, and this version completely failed as well. As we travel through Scrooge's life he seems particularly distant and therefore the growth of the character seems forced. We reach the end of the movie and it seems as though he is generous simply because he is a vain person fearful of death. There was no closure for the audience and therefore the film is not a success as a storyteller.
Although Robert Zemeckis had plenty of interesting ideas for his version, his visual flair made the film too dark to find the beauty of Christmas and helping one's fellow man which is what the story is all about.
2/4
Sunday, September 2, 2012
All About Eve (1950)
At the midpoint of the film, and unknown actress reads in an audition and is what one critic calls "a revelation"; she is fire and she is music. I expect that when "All About Eve" premiered it was something of a revelation itself. Watching it now for the umpteenth time it is still revelatory to me, something new and exciting and fresh, exploring and pushing the boundaries of what a perfectly selected cast of superb actors can do for film. The characters talk of fire and music as they breathe flames and concertos right through the screen. Over 60 years have passed since it was filmed, but like Bette Davis it has aged gracefully and only deepened in emotion.
There is a particular group of people who will find this film a masterpiece, and those are the same people that the actors play. They are the elite, bourgeois, theatre-type crowd who talk in flowery language and only attack through the written word. This is a movie of the politics of the stage and the corrupting power of fame. For those people--such as myself--who embrace the theatre, this is a perfectly thrust sword into the guts of the manipulators and the passive-aggressives who will do whatever is necessary to keep themselves center stage.
Bette Davis gives her finest performance as Margo Channing, an aging great dame of the theatre whose life suddenly becomes all about Eve. Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) is a young, porcelain, upstart woman whose troubled past lead her to Margo. Disarmed by her breathy voice, sad story and genuine desire to love and help, Margo invites Eve to live with her and act as her personal secretary. Things are not all they seem, though, as soon it becomes clear that Eve has motives of her own. Margo's other assistant Birdie (Thelma Ritter) is the only one who can see the cracks of Eve's carefully molded mask.
The film appears to both love and hate the theatre and those who fill it. The men, who are writers, directors, producers, are mere wisps of people caught in the orbit of titanic women. They try to involve themselves in the politics of producing plays, but up against the forces of Eve, Margo, and their friend Karen (Celeste Holm) they merely blend into the background. These women are petty, jealous, self-absorbed creatures of the night who relish in applause and a good word penned by the venomous critic Addison DeWitt (George Sanders). The spend their time smoking, drinking and sharpening their fangs. That is "All About Eve", and it is brilliant.
It is written so beautifully and acted with such vitality that we almost forgive how ugly the characters are. Davis and Baxter battling opposite each other, slicing each other with Joseph Mankiewicz's dialogue, create tension that is riveting and breathtaking. At times it feels as though we are watching a stage performance, but we are gifted with the ability to see the subtleties of their craft which would go amiss otherwise.
Davis especially towers above her peers, playing a wounded and insecure star whose light may be fading. She is no longer her own person, but a caricature of herself dressed as a great and humble talent. She is put into plays because she is Margo Channing, but knowing she has reached 40 has made her hostile and unforgiving. It is said that Davis was channeling Talullah Bankhead when she acted Margo, but it seems clear to me that she was simply channeling Bette Davis. The result is remarkable, on par with anything Katharine Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman or Meryl Streep have done at their peaks.
Baxter is no less interesting. She is soft-spoken, adoring and lovely. I am not sure whether the acting would be difficult or easy when playing a character so completely false. When she does have to "act" and be "dramatic" it is sublime, and if the character was a difficult one for an actor then she was absolutely wonderful.
Sanders as DeWitt is the only man of the film worth mentioning (the others were all good, but equally unremarkable as far as the story is concerned). It is very clear Mankiewicz hates critics, as I'm sure most filmmakers do, and DeWitt has to be one of the most horrible of them all. Posh, slightly effeminate and too cunning for his own good, this is the man who makes or breaks a show when he sees it. He savors his own articulate prowess and destroys simply because he can. Together with Eve he is villain of the highest and most believable caliber.
It is a very rare thing to see a piece of art so perfect that one can watch it time and again and still see its greatness. It is even rarer to see it more than once and find new greatness. That is this film's gift. Nothing dies in the theatre and like it, "All About Eve" will not die. It is a landmark in cinematic history, and benchmark for actors. The film is a colossal force of feminine talents, about women and for them. This is a wonderful movie experience and one of the greatest of all films.
4/4
There is a particular group of people who will find this film a masterpiece, and those are the same people that the actors play. They are the elite, bourgeois, theatre-type crowd who talk in flowery language and only attack through the written word. This is a movie of the politics of the stage and the corrupting power of fame. For those people--such as myself--who embrace the theatre, this is a perfectly thrust sword into the guts of the manipulators and the passive-aggressives who will do whatever is necessary to keep themselves center stage.
Bette Davis gives her finest performance as Margo Channing, an aging great dame of the theatre whose life suddenly becomes all about Eve. Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) is a young, porcelain, upstart woman whose troubled past lead her to Margo. Disarmed by her breathy voice, sad story and genuine desire to love and help, Margo invites Eve to live with her and act as her personal secretary. Things are not all they seem, though, as soon it becomes clear that Eve has motives of her own. Margo's other assistant Birdie (Thelma Ritter) is the only one who can see the cracks of Eve's carefully molded mask.
The film appears to both love and hate the theatre and those who fill it. The men, who are writers, directors, producers, are mere wisps of people caught in the orbit of titanic women. They try to involve themselves in the politics of producing plays, but up against the forces of Eve, Margo, and their friend Karen (Celeste Holm) they merely blend into the background. These women are petty, jealous, self-absorbed creatures of the night who relish in applause and a good word penned by the venomous critic Addison DeWitt (George Sanders). The spend their time smoking, drinking and sharpening their fangs. That is "All About Eve", and it is brilliant.
It is written so beautifully and acted with such vitality that we almost forgive how ugly the characters are. Davis and Baxter battling opposite each other, slicing each other with Joseph Mankiewicz's dialogue, create tension that is riveting and breathtaking. At times it feels as though we are watching a stage performance, but we are gifted with the ability to see the subtleties of their craft which would go amiss otherwise.
Davis especially towers above her peers, playing a wounded and insecure star whose light may be fading. She is no longer her own person, but a caricature of herself dressed as a great and humble talent. She is put into plays because she is Margo Channing, but knowing she has reached 40 has made her hostile and unforgiving. It is said that Davis was channeling Talullah Bankhead when she acted Margo, but it seems clear to me that she was simply channeling Bette Davis. The result is remarkable, on par with anything Katharine Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman or Meryl Streep have done at their peaks.
Baxter is no less interesting. She is soft-spoken, adoring and lovely. I am not sure whether the acting would be difficult or easy when playing a character so completely false. When she does have to "act" and be "dramatic" it is sublime, and if the character was a difficult one for an actor then she was absolutely wonderful.
Sanders as DeWitt is the only man of the film worth mentioning (the others were all good, but equally unremarkable as far as the story is concerned). It is very clear Mankiewicz hates critics, as I'm sure most filmmakers do, and DeWitt has to be one of the most horrible of them all. Posh, slightly effeminate and too cunning for his own good, this is the man who makes or breaks a show when he sees it. He savors his own articulate prowess and destroys simply because he can. Together with Eve he is villain of the highest and most believable caliber.
It is a very rare thing to see a piece of art so perfect that one can watch it time and again and still see its greatness. It is even rarer to see it more than once and find new greatness. That is this film's gift. Nothing dies in the theatre and like it, "All About Eve" will not die. It is a landmark in cinematic history, and benchmark for actors. The film is a colossal force of feminine talents, about women and for them. This is a wonderful movie experience and one of the greatest of all films.
4/4
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Rope (1948)
The Master of Suspense weaves us a lackluster yawn of a film about two young socialites who murder a classmate of theirs, then stow the body in the middle of their living room in which they hold a dinner party. The synopsis caught my attention, but the execution was abysmally dull. With possibly only a couple of drops of suspense this is perhaps the weakest film by Alfred Hitchcock that I have yet to see.
A morality question is posed to the audience: Do the ethics of right and wrong apply to the intellectually superior? These two young men believe themselves to be in a class of men above others. They commit the perfect murder because their "inferior" classmate is inferior, then gloat about it by trying to perfect the crime by rubbing the noses of the man's friends and family in it, unbeknownst to them. So, is there a superior man, and is it justified to get rid of those who stall the progress of civilization?
I might have been more interested in the writer's answers to these questions had Hitchcock chosen a less insufferable cast. John Dall and Farley Granger play Brandon and Phillip, our two murderers and party hosts. Brandon is the mastermind of the operation, an unfeeling, smarmy mistake of a person whose smugness leads him to reckless behavior. Phillip is more of his lackey who immediately regrets his actions when the deed is done.
Dall is the most prominent blemish in the film. The script is adapted by Patrick Hamilton's play which continually describes Brandon as charming. Dall seemed to interpret this "charm" as sleaziness; no sophisticate in his right mind would waste his time with someone so cold, calculating and obviously manipulative as this guy. Smugness for him was not so much a state of being as it was a character trait adopted by the actor. I was aware I was watching a performance as I could read every thought on the actor's face. Dall didn't listen to his fellow actors and simply waited for his queues so he could belch out his lines and saunter to his next mark.
James Stewart is Rupert, whose relation to the boys I'm still unclear about--I think he might be a professor or headmaster of sorts. Rupert is a man of logic and philosophy whose calculating eye proves to be their inevitable downfall. I've never imagined Stewart as anything more than a bumbling oaf, possibly due to that funny speech thing he has, or maybe it's his physique. In any case, he should never be the suave, smart hero, and his pairing opposite Dall is an ugly train wreck. Stewart overacts like he does when he tries to be dramatic.
One notable contribution that this film made was its one shot take. I was so busy focusing on my dislike of Dall that I didn't realize that there wasn't a cut for almost half an hour. The film takes place in one room and its easy adaptability from the stage made it a perfect candidate for Hitchcock's trick. It certainly proved less distracting and more thoughtfully done than other films which would employ this in the future.
Despite the interesting premise and Hitchcock's flair for the unexpected, I found that even at a brisk 80 minutes there wasn't enough substance here to keep me interested. We spend all of our time waiting for someone to open the damn chest that the body is hidden in, while slugging through useless subplots that the fluff up the story. It's not funny, not very well acted and by the time the secret is outed I couldn't care less whether they got away with the crime or not. The only crime I cared about was that an hour and half of my time had been stolen.
1.5/4
A morality question is posed to the audience: Do the ethics of right and wrong apply to the intellectually superior? These two young men believe themselves to be in a class of men above others. They commit the perfect murder because their "inferior" classmate is inferior, then gloat about it by trying to perfect the crime by rubbing the noses of the man's friends and family in it, unbeknownst to them. So, is there a superior man, and is it justified to get rid of those who stall the progress of civilization?
I might have been more interested in the writer's answers to these questions had Hitchcock chosen a less insufferable cast. John Dall and Farley Granger play Brandon and Phillip, our two murderers and party hosts. Brandon is the mastermind of the operation, an unfeeling, smarmy mistake of a person whose smugness leads him to reckless behavior. Phillip is more of his lackey who immediately regrets his actions when the deed is done.
Dall is the most prominent blemish in the film. The script is adapted by Patrick Hamilton's play which continually describes Brandon as charming. Dall seemed to interpret this "charm" as sleaziness; no sophisticate in his right mind would waste his time with someone so cold, calculating and obviously manipulative as this guy. Smugness for him was not so much a state of being as it was a character trait adopted by the actor. I was aware I was watching a performance as I could read every thought on the actor's face. Dall didn't listen to his fellow actors and simply waited for his queues so he could belch out his lines and saunter to his next mark.
James Stewart is Rupert, whose relation to the boys I'm still unclear about--I think he might be a professor or headmaster of sorts. Rupert is a man of logic and philosophy whose calculating eye proves to be their inevitable downfall. I've never imagined Stewart as anything more than a bumbling oaf, possibly due to that funny speech thing he has, or maybe it's his physique. In any case, he should never be the suave, smart hero, and his pairing opposite Dall is an ugly train wreck. Stewart overacts like he does when he tries to be dramatic.
One notable contribution that this film made was its one shot take. I was so busy focusing on my dislike of Dall that I didn't realize that there wasn't a cut for almost half an hour. The film takes place in one room and its easy adaptability from the stage made it a perfect candidate for Hitchcock's trick. It certainly proved less distracting and more thoughtfully done than other films which would employ this in the future.
Despite the interesting premise and Hitchcock's flair for the unexpected, I found that even at a brisk 80 minutes there wasn't enough substance here to keep me interested. We spend all of our time waiting for someone to open the damn chest that the body is hidden in, while slugging through useless subplots that the fluff up the story. It's not funny, not very well acted and by the time the secret is outed I couldn't care less whether they got away with the crime or not. The only crime I cared about was that an hour and half of my time had been stolen.
1.5/4
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Contagion (2011)
A doorknob. A menu. A credit card. A bowl of peanuts. A handrail. An empty glass. We unconsciously come into contact with a multitude of objects and people carrying bacteria and viruses that transfer oh so easily. A member of the CDC tells us that we touch our faces tens of thousands of times a day and never even realize it. I touched my face twice writing this first paragraph only to catch myself doing it after it was done.
"Contagion" is a brilliantly paced thriller about the spread of a deadly epidemic whose final death toll ends in the millions. What starts as a single American carrier who contracted the illness from a diseased pig ends up across the globe. These types of films are the scariest to me because they're real. Sure, movies like "28 Days Later" touch a nerve because their near-plausibility is amplified by "gotcha" moments, but a movie like this is all the more terrifying because it doesn't rely on make-up, CGI or a weird premise to get to us. All it has to do is explain biology.
It's classified a thriller because it's a race against the clock. Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet play members of the Center for Disease Control who must contend with an ever-mounting number of contractions and fatalities and must try to find a cure before statistics can beat their science. We know how this goes: rumors and scare-mongering lead to stereotypical skeptics talking about funds and logistics, while reporters bring up N1H1 and how the health organizations were over-prepared for a non-emerging crisis. But that is in the early days.
A month later the nurses are on strike, false prophets are making money from quack drugs and there is rioting in the streets over food. What the film accomplishes so wonderfully is never breaking the sense of realism that it begins with. Its pace begins with a slight tremor, but never mounts to anything more than a rumble. There is no explosion of mass confusion and violence that a lesser filmmaker might choose to do. It's observant and quiet. The bonds we form with our characters are never more than a toe into their lives before we move on to something else.
There are faces that feature more prominently than others. Members of the CDC are shown more frequently some other people; Matt Damon plays a man grieving over the death of his wife and son while trying to keep his daughter protected; Marion Cotillard is a doctor held hostage by a village in hopes of obtaining the vaccine; Jude Law is particularly interesting as a sensationalist blogger out to expose the lies of the government. None of these people, however, are what makes the story. In the grand scope of the film they are simply pawns in a 7 billion person game of chess, and their faces begin to look more plastic as the story goes on.
A disease film could choose to focus on the global implications of the disaster or to center in on the human aspects. I could criticize this movie for not taking one of these routes and exploring it more fully, but I won't. Director Steven Soderbergh has played a balancing act that I think has worked very effectively. I am a Darwinist and a Hobbesian, so any film where I can observe the breakdown of our "society" gets props from me. What happens when a vaccine runs out? Or a relief truck is emptied? Or the police are too busy to check on a murder? That's what fascinates me, and "Contagion" tries to peer in at all of these questions.
All in all, this is a well-acted and well-constructed horror film for the modern age. You may find yourself standing a bit further apart from people after you finish watching and that's the whole point. By the way, I touched my face another six times...
3/4
"Contagion" is a brilliantly paced thriller about the spread of a deadly epidemic whose final death toll ends in the millions. What starts as a single American carrier who contracted the illness from a diseased pig ends up across the globe. These types of films are the scariest to me because they're real. Sure, movies like "28 Days Later" touch a nerve because their near-plausibility is amplified by "gotcha" moments, but a movie like this is all the more terrifying because it doesn't rely on make-up, CGI or a weird premise to get to us. All it has to do is explain biology.
It's classified a thriller because it's a race against the clock. Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet play members of the Center for Disease Control who must contend with an ever-mounting number of contractions and fatalities and must try to find a cure before statistics can beat their science. We know how this goes: rumors and scare-mongering lead to stereotypical skeptics talking about funds and logistics, while reporters bring up N1H1 and how the health organizations were over-prepared for a non-emerging crisis. But that is in the early days.
A month later the nurses are on strike, false prophets are making money from quack drugs and there is rioting in the streets over food. What the film accomplishes so wonderfully is never breaking the sense of realism that it begins with. Its pace begins with a slight tremor, but never mounts to anything more than a rumble. There is no explosion of mass confusion and violence that a lesser filmmaker might choose to do. It's observant and quiet. The bonds we form with our characters are never more than a toe into their lives before we move on to something else.
There are faces that feature more prominently than others. Members of the CDC are shown more frequently some other people; Matt Damon plays a man grieving over the death of his wife and son while trying to keep his daughter protected; Marion Cotillard is a doctor held hostage by a village in hopes of obtaining the vaccine; Jude Law is particularly interesting as a sensationalist blogger out to expose the lies of the government. None of these people, however, are what makes the story. In the grand scope of the film they are simply pawns in a 7 billion person game of chess, and their faces begin to look more plastic as the story goes on.
A disease film could choose to focus on the global implications of the disaster or to center in on the human aspects. I could criticize this movie for not taking one of these routes and exploring it more fully, but I won't. Director Steven Soderbergh has played a balancing act that I think has worked very effectively. I am a Darwinist and a Hobbesian, so any film where I can observe the breakdown of our "society" gets props from me. What happens when a vaccine runs out? Or a relief truck is emptied? Or the police are too busy to check on a murder? That's what fascinates me, and "Contagion" tries to peer in at all of these questions.
All in all, this is a well-acted and well-constructed horror film for the modern age. You may find yourself standing a bit further apart from people after you finish watching and that's the whole point. By the way, I touched my face another six times...
3/4
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Bridesmaids (2011)
There is something to be said for a film, even if it's flawed, if it does its best to break out of conventional stereotypes. Such is the case here, where the audience gets to see an unabashed portrait of flawed, funny, gross women in a not so sappy chick-flick. Diaphragms, bowel movements, pill-popping and hungry bears are just some of the stupid and hilarious antics used here that proves that women can be just as funny as men.
SNL's Kristen Wiig co-wrote and stars as Annie, a single, middle-aged, failed cupcake baker who lives with a couple of creepy, English siblings and whose life has stalled. Everywhere she turns people are getting married and settling down, and they seem to be looking at her confusedly as she is not. When her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) becomes engaged and asks Annie to be the maid of honor, it seem that this is simply one more nail in her coffin of loneliness.
A conventional story would have Annie fall in love with Lillian's fiance, but Wiig is far too clever for that. Instead, Annie discovers that Lillian has a potential new best friend, the beautiful, rich, well-connected and perfect Helen (Rose Byrne). Annie's hapless failings at organizing the bachelorette party and the wedding lead to the wedging in of Helen. It becomes a film of high school types jealousies.
"Bridesmaids" is by the same producers as "The Hangover" and threatens to enter territory oddly similar. An odd mash-up of women as the other bridesmaids who take a Vegas road trip gives that moneymaking deja vu feeling, but the film works in spite of itself. The gags are strong, the writing at times incredibly sharp and the film has more than its fair share of fine comedic performances.
Wiig, in particular, shines as a hot mess of a woman whose fear of success leads her to riotously hilarious consequences. Melissa McCarthy as the loud-mouthed and outspoken soon to be sister-in-law of Lillian is also particularly funny. Besides that, the other actors--though not nearly as humorous--are all quite good. Chris O'Dowd plays an Irish cop and Annie's possible love interest (why am I even saying possible? The film doesn't stretch that much), and Byrne is also very capable.
Despite an at times painfully funny first two-thirds, the film reaches some very dark places in the latter portion of the film when Annie reaches a downward spiral of bad events. It leads our characters to some very troubled places and then does not give enough time to pull itself out. With a final couple of scenes that rely more on gimmick than actual comedy I left the film more upset than uplifted. Relationships aren't made and broken so quickly and neither is a laugh. Set up then punchline, as opposed to set up, punch, then punchline. That's not funny.
However, there are still enough jokes in here for me to strongly recommend this film. I blush to admit that the bout of food poisoning made me giggle endlessly, but I guess that was what they were going for and they succeeded. I'm sure that there is more than enough in here to give you a "Hangover"-style good time.
3/4
SNL's Kristen Wiig co-wrote and stars as Annie, a single, middle-aged, failed cupcake baker who lives with a couple of creepy, English siblings and whose life has stalled. Everywhere she turns people are getting married and settling down, and they seem to be looking at her confusedly as she is not. When her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) becomes engaged and asks Annie to be the maid of honor, it seem that this is simply one more nail in her coffin of loneliness.
A conventional story would have Annie fall in love with Lillian's fiance, but Wiig is far too clever for that. Instead, Annie discovers that Lillian has a potential new best friend, the beautiful, rich, well-connected and perfect Helen (Rose Byrne). Annie's hapless failings at organizing the bachelorette party and the wedding lead to the wedging in of Helen. It becomes a film of high school types jealousies.
"Bridesmaids" is by the same producers as "The Hangover" and threatens to enter territory oddly similar. An odd mash-up of women as the other bridesmaids who take a Vegas road trip gives that moneymaking deja vu feeling, but the film works in spite of itself. The gags are strong, the writing at times incredibly sharp and the film has more than its fair share of fine comedic performances.
Wiig, in particular, shines as a hot mess of a woman whose fear of success leads her to riotously hilarious consequences. Melissa McCarthy as the loud-mouthed and outspoken soon to be sister-in-law of Lillian is also particularly funny. Besides that, the other actors--though not nearly as humorous--are all quite good. Chris O'Dowd plays an Irish cop and Annie's possible love interest (why am I even saying possible? The film doesn't stretch that much), and Byrne is also very capable.
Despite an at times painfully funny first two-thirds, the film reaches some very dark places in the latter portion of the film when Annie reaches a downward spiral of bad events. It leads our characters to some very troubled places and then does not give enough time to pull itself out. With a final couple of scenes that rely more on gimmick than actual comedy I left the film more upset than uplifted. Relationships aren't made and broken so quickly and neither is a laugh. Set up then punchline, as opposed to set up, punch, then punchline. That's not funny.
However, there are still enough jokes in here for me to strongly recommend this film. I blush to admit that the bout of food poisoning made me giggle endlessly, but I guess that was what they were going for and they succeeded. I'm sure that there is more than enough in here to give you a "Hangover"-style good time.
3/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)