Was actually only 2 movies this weekend as the third movie from Netflix still hasn't arrived yet. Netflix, being their awesome selves, told me why beforehand, so it's all good.
Owning Mahowny -
Phillip Seymour Hoffman is overrated. You heard me. He is overrated. Hoffman is like Jim Jarmusch, a banner-carrier for the independent film scene, and as such he is a darling for the critics. They gush over him. Any little performance he does they go gaga over, and it pisses me off. Is he a good actor? Yes. Is he hotter than fresh shit in winter? No.
Now. That being said, he did a great job in this film. He plays a schlub, and he does so extremely well. The film itself is interesting. Mahownys gambling addiction doesn't spiral out of control as would be expected. Instead, it just inflates to astounding proportions. His embezzlement just keeps getting bigger and bigger, but not so big that it seems to move outside himself. His personality remains the same despite his exploits. It's not like a crack addict. It's not like watching a person descend into madness or insanity or desperation. It's watching a person become sharpened, like a knife. His purpose becomes further and further defined until. Gambling becomes his purpose, the destination for his life, his reason to exist. That moment of win or loss, that's his life, but it doesn't throw everything else out. He still works his job. He...tries...to get along with his girlfriend. But over it all is the gambling, to the point of absurdity. It's an interesting and unusual characterization.
Some other random points. 1980's Canada is an ugly place, and a unpleasant setting. It's the 80's. And Canada. Put together. Minnie Driver was woefully miscast in her part. This is not a woman that should be put in a poodledog blonde wig. The music and sound was incredible. Kudos to those folks.
All in all, it's about what you'd expect from an independent film. Emphasis on characterization and mood over plot narrative. But a quality film with a couple great comedic moments.
Grade: B
The Big Blue -
One of the earliest films from acclaimed french director and producer Luc Besson (of La Femme Nikita, Leon: the Professional, the Fifth Element fame). I had an ex-girlfriend that really liked this movie, plus I like Luc Besson so I decided to give it a try.
I think Besson must've not really developed his style at this point in his career because the film has decidedly standard french influences. A narrative that moves in fits and starts. Molasses slow pacing. Some absurd dialogue and really cheap juxtaposition tricks. Many of these things disappeared in Besson's later works. On top of that you have the 80's pseudoelectronica music in the background which pisses me off to no end. I hate that music. Thank god that went out of fashion.
Despite all that, this is a really good film. I was very worried at the start that Jean Reno would be playing the "villian". I love Jean Reno. He's freaking awesome. But despite the fact that he was the main competition for the protagonist, and that he has certain character flaws, he wasn't a villian. The dynamic between him and the protagonist diver was very interesting. They were competitors, rivals to a certain extent, but also friends and confidants. They shared a world that they approached perhaps in different ways, but it was still their world, one they understood and that outsiders didn't, which created a decided bond. It was all very subtle and very well done.
The love story involving Patricia Arquette was not fully developed, but I'm not sure it was meant to be. I think it was there for multiple purposes which can be confusing to the watcher. On the one hand it set up the conflict in the protagonist Jacques, the desire between a dream world and the real world. But the purpose for Arquettes character Joanna is very different. I think it's meant to highlight the baser instincts of humanity. Perhaps even to symbolize the human world, highlighted in her desire to have a baby, and how hard the human world is in the way Jacques has a hard time relating. Their relationship, despite their mutual attraction, is far from easy. Which is all about his conflict. You have the real world with Joanna, that while real is also very base. It's difficult. They love, but they fight. On the other hand you have his dream world beneath the waves. Which does he choose?
The cinematography is, of course, gorgeous. I mean, it's kind of hard to screw up shooting water. It looks good pretty much no matter what you do to it. But Besson does for water what David Lean did for sand in Lawrence of Arabia.
The ending surprised the hell out of me. I never saw it coming the way it did. I like it, but it's not an ending that you can find any sort of resolution in. You don't go "wow, I didn't see that coming, but I like it." It leaves you feeling vaguely unsettled, which I think it is supposed to. The only word I can think of to describe it is: poetic.
Grade: B+
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
April 18-20, 2008
Was not a banner weekend for movies.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back -
I would not go so far as to say I am a Kevin Smith fan. I enjoyed Clerks. I enjoyed Mallrats. I enjoyed Dogma. Never saw Chasing Amy or Clerks II though I am lead to believe they are enjoyable. But I don't hold the raving, frothing at the mouth fandom that others keep Kevin Smith in as a spokesman of my generation/sub-culture. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was bad. It was. This film was nothing more than an excuse to string together cameos from all his other films (aka fanservice) with a bunch of references to other (better) films, all tied together with gross out humor and dick jokes. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't like gross out humor. A fart is not a punchline. Shoving a drink cup over an erection is not funny. They are poor excuses for humor. This film was a mistake. Most of the time I did not laugh, much of the time I did laugh I immediately felt guilty about it, and there were remarkably few times I genuinely laughed without reservation. As for entertainment value? Meh. The characters of Jay and Silent Bob are interesting, but perhaps not interesting enough to carry a film. There was little coherence to the film, it was more a reason to get a bunch of people Kevin Smith likes together again to hang out. Which may be fun to make, but does not make for good watching.
On the list of Kevin Smith films, this should go at the bottom.
Grade: D+
The Breed -
I'm.....not sure why I added this to my Netflix list. I'm sure there must have been a reason, but what that reason was I cannot remember. The basic premise is this: vampires are a genetic offshoot of humans (aka, a separate Breed) and in the near future have chosen to reveal themselves to the "government" in the hopes of being integrated into society. They have immense physical strength and regenerative powers, but other parts of the mythology are incorrect. For example, they have little problem with sunlight and a stake through the heart or garlic won't do much. Only an immediately lethal wound will kill them (aka taking the head off or blowing them up). They have a synthetic substitute for blood, so they don't actually prey on people any more.
I think I know what the director was trying to do. I think the director was using these "nonviolent vampires" as a metaphor for a misunderstood race of people subject to hatred and bigotry for poor reasons. Basically racism. Which isn't a bad idea, in that it's an interesting take on vampires and a potentially intriguing allegory. At the heart of the film it's a political thriller, and for the middle third of the film it's actually quite engaging.
But here's the problem. The heart of the film, the political thriller about the vampire allegory, is completely BURIED under a mishmash of references and styles taken from dozens of different films. On top of the two genres already mentioned (vampires, political thrillers), the film also tries to incorporate film noir, Terry Gilliam surrealist visuals, Orwellian dystopian government, bondage club PVC clothing, an inexplicable Matrix-inspired fight sequence, and a metaphor to Nazi Germany that isn't just heavy-handed, it's fucking beaten over your head. In other words, it's a complete mess. You have to wear waders to get through all the styles to actual point of the film. It's....amateurish. Which is sad.
The acting is pretty bad all around. Bokeem Woodbine is so wooden that a cardboard cutout of him would have seemed lifelike by comparison. He was trying to be the hardboiled noir detective, and it just wasn't working. Adrian Paul (aka Duncan MacLeod of the clan MacLeod) was pretty good. He did the best he could with the material he was given. He has a good screen presence, and was working the tiny mustache. The hissing was a bit much, but it's a vampire film so what are you going to do. Why is it that vampires have to hiss? I don't get it.
Nice try, but swing and a miss.
Grade: C-
Where the Buffalo Roam -
A more broad telling of the history between Hunter S. Thompson (Bill Murray) and Doctor Gonzo (Peter Boyle) taken from various Thompson writings. Now, it's impossible to view or critique this film without comparing it to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Which is too bad, because I think for the time it was pretty well done. Like The Depp did later, Bill Murray spent some time with Thompson to learn about him, pick up the voice mannerisms and such. And he does a pretty good job. Some times it's uneven but when he's calling people "swine" you really feel the Thompson there. Boyle was an interesting choice as Dr. Gonzo, but he does a decent enough job.
Both the strength and the weakness of the film is that it's main focus is not the gonzo lifestyle, but the interaction between Thompson and Gonzo. It's the strength because it's an interesting facet that is not really examined much when it comes to Thompson. It's the weakness because it's not explored nearly to the depth that it should have been. The film is presented essentially as a series of vignettes about Thompson (taken from the writings) where Dr. Gonzo weaves in and out of the narrative seemingly at random. He shows up, things happen, he disappears. It really should have been much stronger.
In total, it's a passable film, but inferior to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (which I immediately watched afterwards), and probably only worth watching if you are curious about A) Hunter S. Thompson and B) Bill Murray playing Hunter S. Thompson. And the ending was so trite it made me want to retch. Terrible terrible TERRIBLE ending.
Grade: C
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back -
I would not go so far as to say I am a Kevin Smith fan. I enjoyed Clerks. I enjoyed Mallrats. I enjoyed Dogma. Never saw Chasing Amy or Clerks II though I am lead to believe they are enjoyable. But I don't hold the raving, frothing at the mouth fandom that others keep Kevin Smith in as a spokesman of my generation/sub-culture. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was bad. It was. This film was nothing more than an excuse to string together cameos from all his other films (aka fanservice) with a bunch of references to other (better) films, all tied together with gross out humor and dick jokes. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't like gross out humor. A fart is not a punchline. Shoving a drink cup over an erection is not funny. They are poor excuses for humor. This film was a mistake. Most of the time I did not laugh, much of the time I did laugh I immediately felt guilty about it, and there were remarkably few times I genuinely laughed without reservation. As for entertainment value? Meh. The characters of Jay and Silent Bob are interesting, but perhaps not interesting enough to carry a film. There was little coherence to the film, it was more a reason to get a bunch of people Kevin Smith likes together again to hang out. Which may be fun to make, but does not make for good watching.
On the list of Kevin Smith films, this should go at the bottom.
Grade: D+
The Breed -
I'm.....not sure why I added this to my Netflix list. I'm sure there must have been a reason, but what that reason was I cannot remember. The basic premise is this: vampires are a genetic offshoot of humans (aka, a separate Breed) and in the near future have chosen to reveal themselves to the "government" in the hopes of being integrated into society. They have immense physical strength and regenerative powers, but other parts of the mythology are incorrect. For example, they have little problem with sunlight and a stake through the heart or garlic won't do much. Only an immediately lethal wound will kill them (aka taking the head off or blowing them up). They have a synthetic substitute for blood, so they don't actually prey on people any more.
I think I know what the director was trying to do. I think the director was using these "nonviolent vampires" as a metaphor for a misunderstood race of people subject to hatred and bigotry for poor reasons. Basically racism. Which isn't a bad idea, in that it's an interesting take on vampires and a potentially intriguing allegory. At the heart of the film it's a political thriller, and for the middle third of the film it's actually quite engaging.
But here's the problem. The heart of the film, the political thriller about the vampire allegory, is completely BURIED under a mishmash of references and styles taken from dozens of different films. On top of the two genres already mentioned (vampires, political thrillers), the film also tries to incorporate film noir, Terry Gilliam surrealist visuals, Orwellian dystopian government, bondage club PVC clothing, an inexplicable Matrix-inspired fight sequence, and a metaphor to Nazi Germany that isn't just heavy-handed, it's fucking beaten over your head. In other words, it's a complete mess. You have to wear waders to get through all the styles to actual point of the film. It's....amateurish. Which is sad.
The acting is pretty bad all around. Bokeem Woodbine is so wooden that a cardboard cutout of him would have seemed lifelike by comparison. He was trying to be the hardboiled noir detective, and it just wasn't working. Adrian Paul (aka Duncan MacLeod of the clan MacLeod) was pretty good. He did the best he could with the material he was given. He has a good screen presence, and was working the tiny mustache. The hissing was a bit much, but it's a vampire film so what are you going to do. Why is it that vampires have to hiss? I don't get it.
Nice try, but swing and a miss.
Grade: C-
Where the Buffalo Roam -
A more broad telling of the history between Hunter S. Thompson (Bill Murray) and Doctor Gonzo (Peter Boyle) taken from various Thompson writings. Now, it's impossible to view or critique this film without comparing it to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Which is too bad, because I think for the time it was pretty well done. Like The Depp did later, Bill Murray spent some time with Thompson to learn about him, pick up the voice mannerisms and such. And he does a pretty good job. Some times it's uneven but when he's calling people "swine" you really feel the Thompson there. Boyle was an interesting choice as Dr. Gonzo, but he does a decent enough job.
Both the strength and the weakness of the film is that it's main focus is not the gonzo lifestyle, but the interaction between Thompson and Gonzo. It's the strength because it's an interesting facet that is not really examined much when it comes to Thompson. It's the weakness because it's not explored nearly to the depth that it should have been. The film is presented essentially as a series of vignettes about Thompson (taken from the writings) where Dr. Gonzo weaves in and out of the narrative seemingly at random. He shows up, things happen, he disappears. It really should have been much stronger.
In total, it's a passable film, but inferior to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (which I immediately watched afterwards), and probably only worth watching if you are curious about A) Hunter S. Thompson and B) Bill Murray playing Hunter S. Thompson. And the ending was so trite it made me want to retch. Terrible terrible TERRIBLE ending.
Grade: C
Monday, April 14, 2008
April 11-13, 2008
Wasn't sure I'd make it through all the movies this weekend, but I did. These reviews may not be the most thorough in the world, but tough.
Sweet and Lowdown -
This is a fictional biopic by Woody Allen about a jazz guitarist in the thirties. I should preface this review by saying that I like Woody Allen. It seems popular these days to bag on Woody Allen, an admittedly his films can be hit or miss. He himself confessed to not seeing many of his movies all the way through, just bailing on them when he becomes disinterested. But he can do some brilliant things. I prefer his comedies over his dramas, though Manhattan was a wonderful film, and Crimes and Misdemeanors appeals to my nihilism.
Anyways, I'm rapidly growing sick of this biopic thing. I never liked them much to begin with, and now they are becoming Oscar fodder. Even this "mockumentary" was only slightly tolerable on that front. But this isn't a Christopher Guest mockumentary, so don't get your hopes up. I always feel that the purpose of a biopic should be to expose the nuts and bolts of a persons life such that it reveals something about the way everyone works. To use one persons life as a mirror for the rest of us. This movie fails in that. It's a character study of an admittedly interesting person. We're presented with the character of Emmet Ray, an egotistical, self-important, womanizing, drunk, pimping musician. In almost every way he is despicable. Except, just when you think he's an absolutely worthless character, we're given moments of sweetness. Like the way he likes to watch trains, or the way he idolizes, worships and is fragile as glass towards Django Reinhardt. He also likes to go to the dump to shoot rats with his .45, take that for what you will. And, of course, above all is the fact that he produces the most amazing music, second only to Django. So we're presented with this contradiction, a horrible person that can make beauty, but it doesn't illuminate anything about our own lives.
A couple times the film tries to make this connection between emotional availability and artistic creation. That the reason Ray isn't as good as Django is because he's emotionally closed off, but this hypothesis isn't developed in the film at all. So really, this movie is simply the portrayal of a well-fleshed out character, but to no purpose. The cinematography is pretty good, the music is great, and even Sean Penn is tolerable. Allen makes a couple allusions to other films. The character of Hattie and Ray's relationship with her is very much pulled out of Fellini's La Strada, but I consider La Strada one of Fellini's weaker films, so meh. And he does a retelling of an episode with multiple different versions ala Rashomon, which was cute. But overall, this film didn't have the emotional impact it could have.
Grade: C
Harlem Nights -
I rented this movie because I have a friend that really likes it. I should've known better. This movie was bad. Bad bad bad bad bad. It was written, directed and starred Eddie Murphy. Perhaps it's no surprise then that the writing was absolutely atrocious, the directing mediocre, and Murphy's role was horribly executed. I haven't forgiven Eddie Murphy for Dr. Doolittle. It's reported that Murphy made this film because he always wanted to star in a period piece. Therefore the sheer volume of anachronisms is astounding. The vocabulary, the speech mannerisms, even the style of money in the film, all completely out of place. And the social structure of the film was completely unrealistic. The main afterhours nightclub in the film, in Harlem mind you, shows and even mix of black and white people, all mingling happily. While perhaps that's the way we want it, in 1930's Harlem that is NOT how it would've been. I don't think the Cotton Club was even integrated at that point.
Now, as with most movies, it's not without its positive points. First off, Richard Pryor. This movie is mainly an ensemble film, an excuse to get a great cast together. At the top of that list was Richard Pryor. It was so good to see him again, and he did a great job with the role he had. RIP Richard. The music was done by Herbie Hancock, so overall that was pretty good too. And it did have the classic line: "I've got a girl who's pussy is so good, if you threw it up in the air it would turn into sunshine."
Other than that, unredeemable film.
Grade: D-
Angels and Insects -
Um, er, um.....er um....yeah. This is why I could never been a professional critic. I have no idea how to approach this film, other than "it was weird".
Ok, let's start from the top. A young, common-born naturalist/scientist returns from a trip to the Amazon and marries into a wealthy Victorian family. From there, not a lot happens until the end, when it goes weird. But I was riveted to the film all the way through. The title refers to an exchange between the head of the family, a Reverend who also dabbles in natural sciences. He talks about how when he was young he was taught to believe in God, and all the 'bidness' of the Bible, but now he's taught to believe in Darwinism, and how the concepts seem to fight each other. How the world is changing from a superstitious school of thought towards a more scientific one. Which is a fascinating theme, but one not explored in the film at all.
What I think this film really is about is human behavior. The representation of insect behavior in the film really highlights how strange human behavior can be sometimes. Unlike many stories about Victorian England which portrays the lifestyle as something quaint, the representation of the Victorian lifestyle in this film is surreal, gothic and ultimately creepy. Which I LOVE. I hate Victorians, and I love this angle on them (if my friend James reads this, it's directed squarely at you, pal). Viewed from the appropriate platform, some of the Victorian behavior is just plain bizarre, and the film does a good job of showing that. There is not a lot of direct connection between the insect behavior (specifically the study of ants) and the behavior of the people in the film, it's more that paying attention to the ant behavior makes you more aware of the human behavior, which kind of goes haywire at the end. In another sense, the Angels in the title refers to the way we wish we could behave, and the Insects the baser way we actually do behave.
So I liked this film, but for long stretches it seems to be just a study in Victorian style without much purpose, so it can get confusing.
Grade: B-
Sweet and Lowdown -
This is a fictional biopic by Woody Allen about a jazz guitarist in the thirties. I should preface this review by saying that I like Woody Allen. It seems popular these days to bag on Woody Allen, an admittedly his films can be hit or miss. He himself confessed to not seeing many of his movies all the way through, just bailing on them when he becomes disinterested. But he can do some brilliant things. I prefer his comedies over his dramas, though Manhattan was a wonderful film, and Crimes and Misdemeanors appeals to my nihilism.
Anyways, I'm rapidly growing sick of this biopic thing. I never liked them much to begin with, and now they are becoming Oscar fodder. Even this "mockumentary" was only slightly tolerable on that front. But this isn't a Christopher Guest mockumentary, so don't get your hopes up. I always feel that the purpose of a biopic should be to expose the nuts and bolts of a persons life such that it reveals something about the way everyone works. To use one persons life as a mirror for the rest of us. This movie fails in that. It's a character study of an admittedly interesting person. We're presented with the character of Emmet Ray, an egotistical, self-important, womanizing, drunk, pimping musician. In almost every way he is despicable. Except, just when you think he's an absolutely worthless character, we're given moments of sweetness. Like the way he likes to watch trains, or the way he idolizes, worships and is fragile as glass towards Django Reinhardt. He also likes to go to the dump to shoot rats with his .45, take that for what you will. And, of course, above all is the fact that he produces the most amazing music, second only to Django. So we're presented with this contradiction, a horrible person that can make beauty, but it doesn't illuminate anything about our own lives.
A couple times the film tries to make this connection between emotional availability and artistic creation. That the reason Ray isn't as good as Django is because he's emotionally closed off, but this hypothesis isn't developed in the film at all. So really, this movie is simply the portrayal of a well-fleshed out character, but to no purpose. The cinematography is pretty good, the music is great, and even Sean Penn is tolerable. Allen makes a couple allusions to other films. The character of Hattie and Ray's relationship with her is very much pulled out of Fellini's La Strada, but I consider La Strada one of Fellini's weaker films, so meh. And he does a retelling of an episode with multiple different versions ala Rashomon, which was cute. But overall, this film didn't have the emotional impact it could have.
Grade: C
Harlem Nights -
I rented this movie because I have a friend that really likes it. I should've known better. This movie was bad. Bad bad bad bad bad. It was written, directed and starred Eddie Murphy. Perhaps it's no surprise then that the writing was absolutely atrocious, the directing mediocre, and Murphy's role was horribly executed. I haven't forgiven Eddie Murphy for Dr. Doolittle. It's reported that Murphy made this film because he always wanted to star in a period piece. Therefore the sheer volume of anachronisms is astounding. The vocabulary, the speech mannerisms, even the style of money in the film, all completely out of place. And the social structure of the film was completely unrealistic. The main afterhours nightclub in the film, in Harlem mind you, shows and even mix of black and white people, all mingling happily. While perhaps that's the way we want it, in 1930's Harlem that is NOT how it would've been. I don't think the Cotton Club was even integrated at that point.
Now, as with most movies, it's not without its positive points. First off, Richard Pryor. This movie is mainly an ensemble film, an excuse to get a great cast together. At the top of that list was Richard Pryor. It was so good to see him again, and he did a great job with the role he had. RIP Richard. The music was done by Herbie Hancock, so overall that was pretty good too. And it did have the classic line: "I've got a girl who's pussy is so good, if you threw it up in the air it would turn into sunshine."
Other than that, unredeemable film.
Grade: D-
Angels and Insects -
Um, er, um.....er um....yeah. This is why I could never been a professional critic. I have no idea how to approach this film, other than "it was weird".
Ok, let's start from the top. A young, common-born naturalist/scientist returns from a trip to the Amazon and marries into a wealthy Victorian family. From there, not a lot happens until the end, when it goes weird. But I was riveted to the film all the way through. The title refers to an exchange between the head of the family, a Reverend who also dabbles in natural sciences. He talks about how when he was young he was taught to believe in God, and all the 'bidness' of the Bible, but now he's taught to believe in Darwinism, and how the concepts seem to fight each other. How the world is changing from a superstitious school of thought towards a more scientific one. Which is a fascinating theme, but one not explored in the film at all.
What I think this film really is about is human behavior. The representation of insect behavior in the film really highlights how strange human behavior can be sometimes. Unlike many stories about Victorian England which portrays the lifestyle as something quaint, the representation of the Victorian lifestyle in this film is surreal, gothic and ultimately creepy. Which I LOVE. I hate Victorians, and I love this angle on them (if my friend James reads this, it's directed squarely at you, pal). Viewed from the appropriate platform, some of the Victorian behavior is just plain bizarre, and the film does a good job of showing that. There is not a lot of direct connection between the insect behavior (specifically the study of ants) and the behavior of the people in the film, it's more that paying attention to the ant behavior makes you more aware of the human behavior, which kind of goes haywire at the end. In another sense, the Angels in the title refers to the way we wish we could behave, and the Insects the baser way we actually do behave.
So I liked this film, but for long stretches it seems to be just a study in Victorian style without much purpose, so it can get confusing.
Grade: B-
Monday, April 7, 2008
April 4-6, 2008
So recently in my other blog I made a post about three awesome movies I had seen. I liked putting that post together because it helped me organize my thoughts on those movies. I also mentioned how I watch three movies I rent from Netflix every weekend. So I got the idea for this blog. Basically writeups, great or small, on the movies I saw over the weekend. I can't say this blog will be particularly entertaining as it will be essentially movie reviews, but it'll help me and it costs nothing. So there we are. And perhaps months from now I'll be able to parlay it into a successful side career of a film reviewer and ditch this whole science gig. So anyways, on with the reviews.
Kill Bill, Vol 2. -
I'm coming to the opinion that Quentin Tarantino shouldn't be allowed near a movie camera. I saw this film described as "inventive". Well, it IS inventive at times, but it also is juvenile at times. And those two times seem to clash discordantly. Lots of the black and white filmed sequences are quite beautiful and well crafted. But then they are followed up by the "school role call" scene and I want to smack someone. The Kill Bill films are such a mishmash, incoherent goulash of genres and styles it almost makes me seasick. Sure, it can be fun to mix things, and I know he is paying homage to film styles he loves, but you just can't put them all in the same film.
Tarantino really is quite overrated, in my opinion. I know that will be unpopular with my readership, but he is. Ok, Pulp Fiction was well crafted. You will notice how the style of the various segments were internally consistent. But everyone went "oooooo look, non-linear storytelling, how avant garde!" Hate to tell you folks, but he's not the first person to think of it. And Reservoir Dogs was basically Pulp Fiction part II, just with more blood and nihilism. Not that I think these are bad films, just that they aren't all that everyone makes them out to be.
Back to Kill Bill Vol. 2. Two things really pull this film up from "mindlessly annoying" to "tolerable" for me. One, the acting job done by Uma Thurman. I'm not a big Uma Thurman fan. But I do admit she did quite a good job with her role, really imbuing a scripted two dimensional character with a third dimension. Kudos Ms. Thurman. The other thing? David Carradine being his awesome self. He was so fantastic as Bill in this movie, I almost started rooting for him. I was like, "damn, he's a pretty good father. I hope they works things out!"
Grade: C+
Glengarry Glen Ross -
I can see why so many people love this film. First off, it's written by David Mamet, so you know it's going to have interesting and well crafted characters in addition to sparkling if not slightly-unrealistic dialogue. The directing is....I think the best word to describe it is "sweaty", which is a good thing. It has a lot of noir-ish tendencies, with stark black and white framing, lots of action at night, lots of rain. It gives the feeling that everything is damp and oppressive, which is perfect for the tone of the film. The cast is an astounding assemblage of talent. And, I mean this truly, I simply cannot find a superlative good enough to describe the acting. It was uniformly heavenly. It was a little disconcerting to hear Jack Lemmon swearing so profusely, but it was perfect for the character. The actors didn't dig into their parts, they didn't wear them, or air them with subtlety. The actors BECAME their parts. I am in awe...AWE...of the acting of this film. I read where actors that didn't filming to be done on days still showed up on set just to watch other actors ply their craft. I can see why.
Yet, one thing really dampened this film for me. It was about salesmen. The protagonists were salesmen. They were supposed to represent the plight of the common working man, just trying to get through the day with a paycheck. But they were salesmen. To say I dislike salesmen is a vast understatement. I despise salesmen. I loathe them. I spit bile at them. They are parasitic leeches who's sole purpose is to convince me to do something I inherently don't want to do, to strip away my free will. I find them completely unsympathetic people. Therefore, I found it difficult to empathize with them (or as my film teacher would call it, suturing) when all I wanted to do is rip their throats out with my teeth.
Grade: B
Stranger Than Fiction -
I very much enjoyed this film. I went out and bought this film. But I'm not going to say that it is a good film. What do I mean by good? I realize this is a subjective term, but I will define a good film as one that I expect people with two brain cells to rub together will enjoy. A sort of universal enjoyability. What do you know, that's a word. Anyways, this film isn't good in that sense. The story is stilted at times, and lacks a sort of internal questioning; it takes too much for granted. The acting is uneven, particularly by Emma Thompson which is very disappointing considering that at this point she is probably my favorite actress. And let's not overlook the cognitive dissonance that arises from Will Ferrell playing a restrained and undertoned role. Don't get me wrong, he does a damn fine job with it, far better than I expected, but this is Will Ferrell we're talking about. He should be running around in his underwear, not playing a role with restraint. It's just confusing. You are going to have to get past these things to enjoy the film. But here's how you can do it.
For one, Maggie fucking Gyllenhaal. She is so rapidly climbing up the wall of my estimation it's scary. First her amazing turn in Secretary which I've already gushed on. Now this movie, where she plays a very minor character but does it with such depth and compassion. It would've been very easy to just mail this role in as a cliche, but she doesn't. Two, Dustin Hoffman being Dustin Hoffman. Nuff said. Three, and most importantly, the subtlety.
While the particulars of the plot mechanics stand out to most people, when you boil it down the story is as old as the hills. Milquetoast faced with the prospect of his demise suddenly rediscovers and reaffirms the glory and beauty of life. I was expecting the cliched things that come from this sort of plot. But they didn't really show up, not in force. Will Ferrells character, the milquetoast, does rediscover life. He does change. But he doesn't become a new person. He starts out a quiet, socially inept person, but then becomes a quiet, socially inept person with a quiet, socially inept zest for life. For example, one of his dreams is to learn how to play the guitar. So he goes out and buys a guitar. But he doesn't suddenly become a rocker or anything. He quietly and patiently teaches himself to play one song. Another example. He wants to woo the love interest. But he doesn't sweep her up in his arms and recite love poetry or bend her over backwards with a kiss. He makes a small, kind gesture, perfectly fitting with his person. It's such a subtle bit of characterization. He doesn't suddenly become this outgoing, extroverted bon vivant. He's still the same shy, quiet person, but now he's trying new things in a shy, quiet way. It's the most realistic vision of this kind of personal change I've seen. I have to give Will Ferrell credit. I was impressed as hell.
The ending was a bit "oh..well then. Ok." But it sort of fits with the story in a cutesy meta-sense. So yeah, I won't say it's a good film, but I really really liked it. It appealed to my person.
Grade: B-
Kill Bill, Vol 2. -
I'm coming to the opinion that Quentin Tarantino shouldn't be allowed near a movie camera. I saw this film described as "inventive". Well, it IS inventive at times, but it also is juvenile at times. And those two times seem to clash discordantly. Lots of the black and white filmed sequences are quite beautiful and well crafted. But then they are followed up by the "school role call" scene and I want to smack someone. The Kill Bill films are such a mishmash, incoherent goulash of genres and styles it almost makes me seasick. Sure, it can be fun to mix things, and I know he is paying homage to film styles he loves, but you just can't put them all in the same film.
Tarantino really is quite overrated, in my opinion. I know that will be unpopular with my readership, but he is. Ok, Pulp Fiction was well crafted. You will notice how the style of the various segments were internally consistent. But everyone went "oooooo look, non-linear storytelling, how avant garde!" Hate to tell you folks, but he's not the first person to think of it. And Reservoir Dogs was basically Pulp Fiction part II, just with more blood and nihilism. Not that I think these are bad films, just that they aren't all that everyone makes them out to be.
Back to Kill Bill Vol. 2. Two things really pull this film up from "mindlessly annoying" to "tolerable" for me. One, the acting job done by Uma Thurman. I'm not a big Uma Thurman fan. But I do admit she did quite a good job with her role, really imbuing a scripted two dimensional character with a third dimension. Kudos Ms. Thurman. The other thing? David Carradine being his awesome self. He was so fantastic as Bill in this movie, I almost started rooting for him. I was like, "damn, he's a pretty good father. I hope they works things out!"
Grade: C+
Glengarry Glen Ross -
I can see why so many people love this film. First off, it's written by David Mamet, so you know it's going to have interesting and well crafted characters in addition to sparkling if not slightly-unrealistic dialogue. The directing is....I think the best word to describe it is "sweaty", which is a good thing. It has a lot of noir-ish tendencies, with stark black and white framing, lots of action at night, lots of rain. It gives the feeling that everything is damp and oppressive, which is perfect for the tone of the film. The cast is an astounding assemblage of talent. And, I mean this truly, I simply cannot find a superlative good enough to describe the acting. It was uniformly heavenly. It was a little disconcerting to hear Jack Lemmon swearing so profusely, but it was perfect for the character. The actors didn't dig into their parts, they didn't wear them, or air them with subtlety. The actors BECAME their parts. I am in awe...AWE...of the acting of this film. I read where actors that didn't filming to be done on days still showed up on set just to watch other actors ply their craft. I can see why.
Yet, one thing really dampened this film for me. It was about salesmen. The protagonists were salesmen. They were supposed to represent the plight of the common working man, just trying to get through the day with a paycheck. But they were salesmen. To say I dislike salesmen is a vast understatement. I despise salesmen. I loathe them. I spit bile at them. They are parasitic leeches who's sole purpose is to convince me to do something I inherently don't want to do, to strip away my free will. I find them completely unsympathetic people. Therefore, I found it difficult to empathize with them (or as my film teacher would call it, suturing) when all I wanted to do is rip their throats out with my teeth.
Grade: B
Stranger Than Fiction -
I very much enjoyed this film. I went out and bought this film. But I'm not going to say that it is a good film. What do I mean by good? I realize this is a subjective term, but I will define a good film as one that I expect people with two brain cells to rub together will enjoy. A sort of universal enjoyability. What do you know, that's a word. Anyways, this film isn't good in that sense. The story is stilted at times, and lacks a sort of internal questioning; it takes too much for granted. The acting is uneven, particularly by Emma Thompson which is very disappointing considering that at this point she is probably my favorite actress. And let's not overlook the cognitive dissonance that arises from Will Ferrell playing a restrained and undertoned role. Don't get me wrong, he does a damn fine job with it, far better than I expected, but this is Will Ferrell we're talking about. He should be running around in his underwear, not playing a role with restraint. It's just confusing. You are going to have to get past these things to enjoy the film. But here's how you can do it.
For one, Maggie fucking Gyllenhaal. She is so rapidly climbing up the wall of my estimation it's scary. First her amazing turn in Secretary which I've already gushed on. Now this movie, where she plays a very minor character but does it with such depth and compassion. It would've been very easy to just mail this role in as a cliche, but she doesn't. Two, Dustin Hoffman being Dustin Hoffman. Nuff said. Three, and most importantly, the subtlety.
While the particulars of the plot mechanics stand out to most people, when you boil it down the story is as old as the hills. Milquetoast faced with the prospect of his demise suddenly rediscovers and reaffirms the glory and beauty of life. I was expecting the cliched things that come from this sort of plot. But they didn't really show up, not in force. Will Ferrells character, the milquetoast, does rediscover life. He does change. But he doesn't become a new person. He starts out a quiet, socially inept person, but then becomes a quiet, socially inept person with a quiet, socially inept zest for life. For example, one of his dreams is to learn how to play the guitar. So he goes out and buys a guitar. But he doesn't suddenly become a rocker or anything. He quietly and patiently teaches himself to play one song. Another example. He wants to woo the love interest. But he doesn't sweep her up in his arms and recite love poetry or bend her over backwards with a kiss. He makes a small, kind gesture, perfectly fitting with his person. It's such a subtle bit of characterization. He doesn't suddenly become this outgoing, extroverted bon vivant. He's still the same shy, quiet person, but now he's trying new things in a shy, quiet way. It's the most realistic vision of this kind of personal change I've seen. I have to give Will Ferrell credit. I was impressed as hell.
The ending was a bit "oh..well then. Ok." But it sort of fits with the story in a cutesy meta-sense. So yeah, I won't say it's a good film, but I really really liked it. It appealed to my person.
Grade: B-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
