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-