The Cat's Meow -
Fictionalized account of the murder of Thomas Ince by William Randolph Hearst on his boat and the beginnings of the cover-up. The story itself was recounted in the film RKO 281 that I reviewed before. My main interest in this film was some of the casting. Particularly Eddie Izzard as Charlie Chaplin. But for the most part I found the acting mostly meh. Cary Elwes did a decent job of Thomas Ince and Jennifer Tilly was ok as Louella Parsons. Joanna Lumley was good as Elinor Glyn. But Kirsten Dunst did not play a good Marion Davies (neither did Melanie Griffith for that matter, no one has done a good job as Marion Davies). I preferred James Cromwells W.R Hearst to Edward Herrmann's. And then there is Eddie Izzard.
I really like Eddie Izzard. I have all his comedy albums and they kill me. I think he's fucking hysterical. But...but...he did a piss poor job as Chaplin. For surprising reasons. He gave a very naturalistic performance of Chaplin, which for the vast majority of people would be good. But not for Chaplin. All the archival footage and documentaries of Chaplin I have seen indicate he was a very prim and proper person in his demeanor. Very uptight and prone to speaking with flowery language. I.e. not very natural. Maybe I'm in a minority of not liking Izzards performance because I actually am well versed with Chaplin, but I was not happy. It was odd casting choice and I wanted to see how it played out. It didn't.
The film, for the most part, is pretty inoffensive. It's just kind of there.
Grade: C
Spirited Away -
Some people consider this Miyazaki's masterpiece. I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I loved this film and I thought it was brilliant. I just don't think it's as good as Princess Mononoke. And the main difference is in the characterization. The characters in Princess Mononoke were so fully rounded, so developed, they felt real. I loved, I absolutely loved, how there weren't any real villians in that film. Oh sure, the woman gunmaker was killing forest gods, but she took in and took care of lepers. She wasn't evil, it was just a clash of societies. That was missing in Spirited Away. The crone was evil, her twin sister was good. It was all black and white and I didn't like that, mainly because I know Miyazaki can do better. As such, I think one of the most interesting characters was No Face. Sure, he acted evil when he got inside the bathhouse, but as Sen points out, he just goes crazy, he's not really bad. In a different situation he's quite kind.
And some of the plot points were iffy. The twin sister? The sudden realization of who Haku is? Too convenient.
But that's pretty much the only flaws there. The animation was nothing short of breathtaking. There were times I sat there just looking at the backgrounds. I mean, there were steps, just plain old steps, but they were painted with 4 different shades of green. Every single shot was like a painting, full of beautiful color and delicate intricacy. You just don't see that in animation. That level of care. It was gorgeous to behold.
Grade: A
Escape from L.A. -
The sequel to the cult film Escape from New York. I've seen the original. Even reviewed it here. As I said it doesn't do much for me, but I can appreciate it on a certain level. It was a nice combination of kitsch and cult. Escape from LA? It's bad. Very very bad. It has a lot of the kitsch, but none of the cult. It was not made with any grace, or class, or care. The production values were crap, the special effects were embarassing even for 1996. The plot was a combination of rehashing the originals sets with incomprehensible bullshit. The action setpieces were either bland and boring, or so rediculous to make me want to spit. I literally said, out loud, several times "what the fuck?" The social commentary, necessary for any film of this genre, was more than heavyhanded. The oppressive theocracy, the Beverly Hills doctor, the agent. A sledgehammer would've been more subtle.
I'm astonished they got the cast they did. I recognized nearly everyone in the opening credits. Stacy Keach, Michelle Forbes, Bruce Campbell, Pam Grier, Valeria Golino. Steve Buscemi. Peter Fonda? Peter fucking Fonda. Who had probably the worst role in the film.
Much like the first film, it did manage to redeem itself a little at the end with a stunning bit of nihilism on the part of Snake. I liked that. Didn't like anything else.
Grade: F
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
"Who watches the watchmen?"
I wanted to get my thoughts down on Watchmen, as it's sort of been a thing with me lately. Some of you may find my comments heretical. Tough.
I'm sure people are aware of the furor the movie created. All the hullabaloo of trying to get it made, how it's been in pre-production for 20 years, various people taking stabs it it, who owns the rights to make it and so forth. It was news in the movie-centric circles which I tend to inhabit, so I became aware of the project. I also became aware of it from the various GP people, who know both comic books and literature, which this "graphic novel" seems to straddle. With the approach of the film, I wanted to become familiar with the material, so I determined to read the comic book first. Fortunately for me, my mothers boyfriend sent me a care-package with a copy included; he knew my mother wanted to see the film with me when I came up for Easter.
I had some difficulties approaching the comic. I'll continue to use the word "comic" since I know some of this readership gets uppity at the use of "graphic novel". Personally, I don't care. But that's besides the point. The difficulty in approaching the comic came from two opposing sources. On the one hand, I had reports upon reports that this comic book was the greatest thing since Jesus invented sliced bread. Everyone said the comic was seminal work, that it had been named as one of Time magazine's top 100 novels of the twentieth century, and so forth. Even coming from those aforementioned friends was a universal lauding of the material. This obviously set up HUGE expectations, to which reality can hardly come close. On the other hand, I had recently read an interview with the author Alan Moore that showed him to be, in short, a complete and utter asshole. Granted, this doesn't preclude him from being a good writer, it's often the case assholes make good artists (sadly). But it did generally make me not want to like the comic, though another interview I read with the artist Dave Gibbons ameliorated that some, as he seems like a real nice guy. In addition to these problems are the fact that, simply, I'm not a comic book fan. I went through short period of it when I was young, about the time Spawn came out (I wonder if my Spawn #1 is worth anything?), but it didn't last. It's not my thing. It's not that they are an unworthy medium, certainly not. I just don't like them. The artwork itself was problematic as I preferred the more modern Todd Mcfarlane slick artistic style, whereas Watchmen was in an older style.
However, all problems aside, I read it. My thoughts? Did it live up to expectations? Certainly not, that would have been impossible. Was it the single most important piece of literature from the twentieth century? Not even close. Was it good? Yes, it was good. I liked it.
Now, I think there are two reasons that the comic wasn't as earth-shattering for me as it was for others. For one, it has aged. Obviously the story draws heavily on the Cold War sentiments of the time. At my age, I only caught the tail end of the Cold War; I have only vague memories of the time. To an even younger audience, I think that vibe would be completely lost. But this is only a minor criticism. The second is the major. What the comic does very well is to take superhero mythology and turn it on its head. As one reviewer called it, it "deconstructs" the superhero. As I mentioned before, I am not a comic book fan. Unlike my friends, I am not steeped in the comic book mythology. I couldn't tell you what character belongs in the DC universe versus the Marvel universe. I don't know all the different backstories for each hero. I couldn't tell you the lineage of artists. For those that live in those worlds, a realistic and critical analysis of what it actually would mean to be a costumed superhero could be earth-shattering. The story would force them to re-evaluate those mythologies they breath. For me, it's just an interesting angle. Would would the world really be like if it had superheroes? What would cause someone to actually be one? What would be the repercussions? These are fantastic questions, and worthy of discussion and meditation. But they don't destroy my thought structure. Because of my...ambivalence? Apathy? Personal preferences against the comic book medium, I've always been able to come at their individual mythologies from a more objective position. This has allowed me to A) call out when a particularly backstory or plot point was utterly ridiculous, which happens all to often, not surprising given that the stories are serialized over decades much like a soap opera, and B) often force me to defend Superman to modern audiences that favor Batman. Not that I don't like Batman, I think The Dark Knight was one of the best films in years simply for Heath Ledgers performance, but the Superman mythology is a fascinating one if viewed from the proper angle. And angle that never seems to make into the films, to my displeasure.
I can't comment too much on the artwork of the comic. As a non-purveyor of comics, I mainly read the text bubbles and only gloss over the art, though occasionally something will grab my eye. What about the writing? The writing was...odd. In some places it was actually quite bad, particularly in dialogue. There were some cringe-worthy exchanges. But then there were other places. I found the writing shone in the small pieces at the end of the chapters, the places where there were excerpts from Under the Hood or the essay from Dan Drieberg. Those pieces were amazingly written. Astoundingly written. They each had a different voice, one that corresponds well the person presenting it, properly researched when necessary, and often thought-provoking.
Anyways, I finished reading the comic shortly before Easter and found myself that weekend seeing the 10:20 showing of Watchmen with my mother. What is sad, what is truly sad, is that I am part of the 0.00000001% of the population willing to give this film a fair shake. Most of the people going to see it expect to see a typical comic book movie, ala Spiderman, and one thing is for certain, this is not a stereotypical comic book movie. Most of those moviegoers are aghast at how "graphic" it is (read: bloody and showing a penis). What they don't mention is how they are intimidated by the fact that the story is not simplistic. It is a mature story, a complicated story, and the film does not dumb down the plot. As my mother put it, you have to pay attention all the way through, or you are going to get lost. In this case, my reading the comic beforehand helped. But I like the fact that the film was not streamlined for a dumber audience. I like it when films challenge us.
While those mainstream moviegoers are the majority of the audience with a negative reaction, there is also the smaller but significant subpopulation of people that are familiar with the original comic and simply won't see the film, or see it but hate it out of their loyalty to the source material. Perhaps they don't even know the source material, but know that it's an adaptation and won't see it because of that. Which I think is a shame. I have no such aversion to adaptations. Is a movie ever as good as the book? Well, that depends on your definition of "good", but in a colloquial sense, no. It can never be. They are two entirely different kind of media. A book has an immense amount room that allows for subplots, characterization, huge story arcs. A movie, by the definition of the format, simply doesn't have the room to fit all that in. I realize that. But it doesn't mean the film adaptation is without merit. Once one realizes that films cannot have the same depth of content as books, one can still enjoy the film itself so long as it still meets the criteria of what one defines as a good movie. Is the story tight and interesting? Are the characterizations both realistic and fully-realized? Above all, are you entertained?
It is for these reasons that I say the Watchmen movie was a damn good movie, and it's a shame it has done as poorly as it has.
Does the film have everything from the comic? No, of course not, there isn't the room. But all the major points are hit, and as far as I can tell there are no major holes in the story. The major "change" to the plot at the end, is not only completely understandable, but it makes so much sense with the internal logic of the themes in the comic that I'm surprised they didn't go that direction in the first place. I'm being evasive about the major change because I don't want to tread into spoilers.
Are the characters realistic and fully realized? In my impression, they are even more realistic and realized in the film than in the comic. The portrayal of Dan Drieberg was incredibly well done. And I understood Jon's "revelation" much more from the viewing than the reading, which I had to do several times in the comic just to get it. The acting all around was great. Malin Ackerman did a great job as Laurie, the guy they got to play the Comedian hit the part just right, and the actor portraying Rorschach was just perfect. I can't even tell you why, except that he was just so Rorschach-y.
Was I entertained? Incredibly so. The 2 hour 43 minute runtime passed like a flash.
Not that the film doesn't have problems. Almost every film has problems. Two of the casting choices were questionable. The first being that of Veidt. They did some weird things with Veidt, such as trying to emphasize his potential homosexuality. Not that that is a problem, but in consequence they cast an actor that is a narrow-shouldered slip of a thing. In the comic Veidt is the perfect specimen of a male, broad-shouldered and ripped. The change did not do Veidt justice. The second was the casting for Sally Jupiter. They went with a younger woman so she could play the flashback sequences, and just did make up for the present day scenes. Not only was the makeup completely unbelievable, but her acting was also terrible. It was the most ham-fisted, horrible casting choice I think I have ever seen. When you talk about something pulling you out of your suspension of disbelief, this is it. There was also a minor change to the story involving Rorschach and the abductor that I feel was far too blunt. They should have left it the way it was originally.
Additionally, the movie was more "asskick-y" than the comic. Meaning, fight sequences were emphasized more. Not that this is a surprise. The film is billed as an action film and the director was Zack Snyder, the director of 300. But sometimes it seemed they were doing action for the sake of action. For instance, when Dan and Laurie get jumped in the alley. Now, that fight scene happens in the comic, but in the film it was a thing. It was in-depth and much more violent. Then there was the scene of those two fighting their way through a prison hallway. It was straight out of 300. I mean STRAIGHT out of 300. Not only was it shot in the same Zack Snyder style (slow motion movements followed by a fast-motion movement, rinse and repeat), but the action was the two combatants fighting from the left side of the screen to the right, working through a steady-stream of assailants. Does this sound familiar? Please Mr. Snyder, tell me you aren't a one-trick pony.
I should make mention of Dr. Manhattan. First off, kudos for not backing off the nudity aspect. I think that is an important part of his characterization and disconnection from humanity. But what I want to comment on is the visual aspect. It's hard to describe exactly what I mean, but Dr. Manhattans movements are almost mechanical. His head will jerk to a sudden stop, his lips will move but the rest of his face will remain perfectly still. Under most circumstances, this would bother me. I would say that's some rather disappointing special effects. But in this circumstance, it works. It really works. It serves as a visual reminder of how he is no longer human.
What this ungodly long blog post boils down to is this: I thought Watchmen was a damn good movie, and I think if you give it a chance, you will too. I await the DVD so I can add it to my collection post haste.
So who watches the watchmen? I do. Maybe you should too.
I wanted to get my thoughts down on Watchmen, as it's sort of been a thing with me lately. Some of you may find my comments heretical. Tough.
I'm sure people are aware of the furor the movie created. All the hullabaloo of trying to get it made, how it's been in pre-production for 20 years, various people taking stabs it it, who owns the rights to make it and so forth. It was news in the movie-centric circles which I tend to inhabit, so I became aware of the project. I also became aware of it from the various GP people, who know both comic books and literature, which this "graphic novel" seems to straddle. With the approach of the film, I wanted to become familiar with the material, so I determined to read the comic book first. Fortunately for me, my mothers boyfriend sent me a care-package with a copy included; he knew my mother wanted to see the film with me when I came up for Easter.
I had some difficulties approaching the comic. I'll continue to use the word "comic" since I know some of this readership gets uppity at the use of "graphic novel". Personally, I don't care. But that's besides the point. The difficulty in approaching the comic came from two opposing sources. On the one hand, I had reports upon reports that this comic book was the greatest thing since Jesus invented sliced bread. Everyone said the comic was seminal work, that it had been named as one of Time magazine's top 100 novels of the twentieth century, and so forth. Even coming from those aforementioned friends was a universal lauding of the material. This obviously set up HUGE expectations, to which reality can hardly come close. On the other hand, I had recently read an interview with the author Alan Moore that showed him to be, in short, a complete and utter asshole. Granted, this doesn't preclude him from being a good writer, it's often the case assholes make good artists (sadly). But it did generally make me not want to like the comic, though another interview I read with the artist Dave Gibbons ameliorated that some, as he seems like a real nice guy. In addition to these problems are the fact that, simply, I'm not a comic book fan. I went through short period of it when I was young, about the time Spawn came out (I wonder if my Spawn #1 is worth anything?), but it didn't last. It's not my thing. It's not that they are an unworthy medium, certainly not. I just don't like them. The artwork itself was problematic as I preferred the more modern Todd Mcfarlane slick artistic style, whereas Watchmen was in an older style.
However, all problems aside, I read it. My thoughts? Did it live up to expectations? Certainly not, that would have been impossible. Was it the single most important piece of literature from the twentieth century? Not even close. Was it good? Yes, it was good. I liked it.
Now, I think there are two reasons that the comic wasn't as earth-shattering for me as it was for others. For one, it has aged. Obviously the story draws heavily on the Cold War sentiments of the time. At my age, I only caught the tail end of the Cold War; I have only vague memories of the time. To an even younger audience, I think that vibe would be completely lost. But this is only a minor criticism. The second is the major. What the comic does very well is to take superhero mythology and turn it on its head. As one reviewer called it, it "deconstructs" the superhero. As I mentioned before, I am not a comic book fan. Unlike my friends, I am not steeped in the comic book mythology. I couldn't tell you what character belongs in the DC universe versus the Marvel universe. I don't know all the different backstories for each hero. I couldn't tell you the lineage of artists. For those that live in those worlds, a realistic and critical analysis of what it actually would mean to be a costumed superhero could be earth-shattering. The story would force them to re-evaluate those mythologies they breath. For me, it's just an interesting angle. Would would the world really be like if it had superheroes? What would cause someone to actually be one? What would be the repercussions? These are fantastic questions, and worthy of discussion and meditation. But they don't destroy my thought structure. Because of my...ambivalence? Apathy? Personal preferences against the comic book medium, I've always been able to come at their individual mythologies from a more objective position. This has allowed me to A) call out when a particularly backstory or plot point was utterly ridiculous, which happens all to often, not surprising given that the stories are serialized over decades much like a soap opera, and B) often force me to defend Superman to modern audiences that favor Batman. Not that I don't like Batman, I think The Dark Knight was one of the best films in years simply for Heath Ledgers performance, but the Superman mythology is a fascinating one if viewed from the proper angle. And angle that never seems to make into the films, to my displeasure.
I can't comment too much on the artwork of the comic. As a non-purveyor of comics, I mainly read the text bubbles and only gloss over the art, though occasionally something will grab my eye. What about the writing? The writing was...odd. In some places it was actually quite bad, particularly in dialogue. There were some cringe-worthy exchanges. But then there were other places. I found the writing shone in the small pieces at the end of the chapters, the places where there were excerpts from Under the Hood or the essay from Dan Drieberg. Those pieces were amazingly written. Astoundingly written. They each had a different voice, one that corresponds well the person presenting it, properly researched when necessary, and often thought-provoking.
Anyways, I finished reading the comic shortly before Easter and found myself that weekend seeing the 10:20 showing of Watchmen with my mother. What is sad, what is truly sad, is that I am part of the 0.00000001% of the population willing to give this film a fair shake. Most of the people going to see it expect to see a typical comic book movie, ala Spiderman, and one thing is for certain, this is not a stereotypical comic book movie. Most of those moviegoers are aghast at how "graphic" it is (read: bloody and showing a penis). What they don't mention is how they are intimidated by the fact that the story is not simplistic. It is a mature story, a complicated story, and the film does not dumb down the plot. As my mother put it, you have to pay attention all the way through, or you are going to get lost. In this case, my reading the comic beforehand helped. But I like the fact that the film was not streamlined for a dumber audience. I like it when films challenge us.
While those mainstream moviegoers are the majority of the audience with a negative reaction, there is also the smaller but significant subpopulation of people that are familiar with the original comic and simply won't see the film, or see it but hate it out of their loyalty to the source material. Perhaps they don't even know the source material, but know that it's an adaptation and won't see it because of that. Which I think is a shame. I have no such aversion to adaptations. Is a movie ever as good as the book? Well, that depends on your definition of "good", but in a colloquial sense, no. It can never be. They are two entirely different kind of media. A book has an immense amount room that allows for subplots, characterization, huge story arcs. A movie, by the definition of the format, simply doesn't have the room to fit all that in. I realize that. But it doesn't mean the film adaptation is without merit. Once one realizes that films cannot have the same depth of content as books, one can still enjoy the film itself so long as it still meets the criteria of what one defines as a good movie. Is the story tight and interesting? Are the characterizations both realistic and fully-realized? Above all, are you entertained?
It is for these reasons that I say the Watchmen movie was a damn good movie, and it's a shame it has done as poorly as it has.
Does the film have everything from the comic? No, of course not, there isn't the room. But all the major points are hit, and as far as I can tell there are no major holes in the story. The major "change" to the plot at the end, is not only completely understandable, but it makes so much sense with the internal logic of the themes in the comic that I'm surprised they didn't go that direction in the first place. I'm being evasive about the major change because I don't want to tread into spoilers.
Are the characters realistic and fully realized? In my impression, they are even more realistic and realized in the film than in the comic. The portrayal of Dan Drieberg was incredibly well done. And I understood Jon's "revelation" much more from the viewing than the reading, which I had to do several times in the comic just to get it. The acting all around was great. Malin Ackerman did a great job as Laurie, the guy they got to play the Comedian hit the part just right, and the actor portraying Rorschach was just perfect. I can't even tell you why, except that he was just so Rorschach-y.
Was I entertained? Incredibly so. The 2 hour 43 minute runtime passed like a flash.
Not that the film doesn't have problems. Almost every film has problems. Two of the casting choices were questionable. The first being that of Veidt. They did some weird things with Veidt, such as trying to emphasize his potential homosexuality. Not that that is a problem, but in consequence they cast an actor that is a narrow-shouldered slip of a thing. In the comic Veidt is the perfect specimen of a male, broad-shouldered and ripped. The change did not do Veidt justice. The second was the casting for Sally Jupiter. They went with a younger woman so she could play the flashback sequences, and just did make up for the present day scenes. Not only was the makeup completely unbelievable, but her acting was also terrible. It was the most ham-fisted, horrible casting choice I think I have ever seen. When you talk about something pulling you out of your suspension of disbelief, this is it. There was also a minor change to the story involving Rorschach and the abductor that I feel was far too blunt. They should have left it the way it was originally.
Additionally, the movie was more "asskick-y" than the comic. Meaning, fight sequences were emphasized more. Not that this is a surprise. The film is billed as an action film and the director was Zack Snyder, the director of 300. But sometimes it seemed they were doing action for the sake of action. For instance, when Dan and Laurie get jumped in the alley. Now, that fight scene happens in the comic, but in the film it was a thing. It was in-depth and much more violent. Then there was the scene of those two fighting their way through a prison hallway. It was straight out of 300. I mean STRAIGHT out of 300. Not only was it shot in the same Zack Snyder style (slow motion movements followed by a fast-motion movement, rinse and repeat), but the action was the two combatants fighting from the left side of the screen to the right, working through a steady-stream of assailants. Does this sound familiar? Please Mr. Snyder, tell me you aren't a one-trick pony.
I should make mention of Dr. Manhattan. First off, kudos for not backing off the nudity aspect. I think that is an important part of his characterization and disconnection from humanity. But what I want to comment on is the visual aspect. It's hard to describe exactly what I mean, but Dr. Manhattans movements are almost mechanical. His head will jerk to a sudden stop, his lips will move but the rest of his face will remain perfectly still. Under most circumstances, this would bother me. I would say that's some rather disappointing special effects. But in this circumstance, it works. It really works. It serves as a visual reminder of how he is no longer human.
What this ungodly long blog post boils down to is this: I thought Watchmen was a damn good movie, and I think if you give it a chance, you will too. I await the DVD so I can add it to my collection post haste.
So who watches the watchmen? I do. Maybe you should too.
Monday, September 29, 2008
In Memoriam
We here at The Three Movie Weekend (we meaning me) would like to take a moment to mourn the passing of a cinematic legend. This weekend Paul Newman died due to lung cancer.
When following the progression of cinema, one of the ways to demarcate (and there are many) different eras in cinema history is by the style of the major actors of the time. There was a period where Chaplin was the main draw, and his was the style of the day. There there was the Golden Age of Hollywood where we had the likes of Bogart, Cagney, Stewart, Grant, Gable, etc. Legends and incredible actors, but their style was very stilted, very much derived from the stage and not realistic. Then that style was changed towards much more realistic characterizations with the coming of Marlon Brando. He revolutionized the way actors acted. Yet his revolution may have been short lived were it not for a second generation of realistic actors that firmly entrenched the style. Actors like Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Steve Mcqueen and, yes, Paul Newman. Of that generation, Paul Newman was the giant. He was larger than life and as big a draw as any of the actors already mentioned. His popularity at it's height cannot be underestimated. But in the case, his popularity was just a small reflection of his actual talent. Some actors you can tell just dig into their roles. They find out every little thing about the characters and truly absorb them as people. Newman didn't do that, or at least didn't seem to do that. His acting was natural, almost effortless. He didn't have to work for it, or at least didn't seem to. His roles looked as natural on him as feathers on a duck. As Kevin Spacey recently remarked:
"An era just ended. Paul Newman was a great humble giant. He said it was all down to luck, but the rest of us know it was his talent, wit and generous heart that made him the star he was."He should be an example to the acting profession because he seemed to have had his ego surgically removed."
Do you doubt Newman's impact or his cinematic legacy? Let us look down his filmography shall we? One of his first major roles, Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. Even censored as this film was from the original play, the emotional impact of the film is intense. And just by using subtlety and craft Newman was able to maintain the homosexual undertones of his character in a time (1958) when that subject would NEVER be allowed to be mentioned in a major motion picture. I wondered about that aspect of his character as I watched the film, and it wasn't until later when I read that theme was much more blatant in the original play did I realize how artfully Newman kept that portion of the character in.
His amazing turn as Eddie Felson in The Hustler where he stood his ground against the amazing screen presence of George C. Scott (though really it's the few scenes with Jackie Gleason that steal the show). And there is one of the best films all time. Hud. I had the privilege of watching Hud on the big screen at the Classic City Film Festival. I had seen and loved the film before, but seeing it again on the big screen was just something special. You want acting? Go watch the scenes between Newman and tragically underrated actress Patricia Neal. Two thirds of the communication between them is not spoken.
I also want to mention an incredibly strange film Newman did called The Outrage. It was a Western remake of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon in which Paul Newman plays a mexican bandito. Remakes of Kurosawa as westerns are almost standard (The Magnificent Seven/The Seven Samurai, A Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo), but this one is just weird. Unless someone points out the fact that the bandito is Paul Newman you would never recognize him.
Then Newman hit his own personal golden age in the late 60's and early 70's. He made three huge films, the first two of which have had immense impacts on the popular culture of America. I'm speaking of Cool Hand Luke, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting. Of those three, the most brilliant film in terms of acting and impact is, far and away, Cool Hand Luke. If you watch only one Paul Newman picture, watch Cool Hand Luke. It's gritty, realistic, lighthearted, depressing, and all points in between. Portions have entered into popular culture. "What we've got here, is...failure...to communicate." "Shaking the bush, boss." "Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand." "Why you got to go and say fifty eggs for?" "Oh they broke me, but I didn't stay broke." This picture is, in a world, brilliant.
Newman continued to work steadily throughout his entire life. There was perhaps the first loser comedy, Slapshot. There was his reprise of Eddie Felsom in The Color of Money for which he won his best actor academy award (though likely it was more for his career instead of this particular role). There was The Verdict, which is in my Netflix list. There's The Hudsucker Proxy, The Road to Perdition, Message in a Bottle, and even doing a voice in the Pixar movie Cars just two years ago. He only officially retired in 2007 to fight against the cancer.
On then there are his charitable works, of which I am only just learning about now. For example, the food company Newmans Own, which is nationally stocked in grocery stores, uses all it's profits for charity. Think about that. Think about it. That's like asking Kraft to donate all it's profits to charity. That's an insane amount of money. He also set up a charitable foundation to fight drug abuse when his only son died of an accidental drug overdose.
I want to emphasize a word I've used several times in this entry. Giant. That's what Paul Newman was. He was a giant. Not only in the movie industry, but in the world. He used his talent not to gain fame but to create beautiful and tragic things. Fame came from that. And he used that fame for a greater good. Most of us live small lives. A few of us live lives that are larger than we are, and become dwarfed by them. A scant few of us live the lives of giants and walk among smaller men as weeds. And then there was Paul Newman. Rest in peace, Mr. Newman. Our lives are better for having been in contact with yours.
When following the progression of cinema, one of the ways to demarcate (and there are many) different eras in cinema history is by the style of the major actors of the time. There was a period where Chaplin was the main draw, and his was the style of the day. There there was the Golden Age of Hollywood where we had the likes of Bogart, Cagney, Stewart, Grant, Gable, etc. Legends and incredible actors, but their style was very stilted, very much derived from the stage and not realistic. Then that style was changed towards much more realistic characterizations with the coming of Marlon Brando. He revolutionized the way actors acted. Yet his revolution may have been short lived were it not for a second generation of realistic actors that firmly entrenched the style. Actors like Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Steve Mcqueen and, yes, Paul Newman. Of that generation, Paul Newman was the giant. He was larger than life and as big a draw as any of the actors already mentioned. His popularity at it's height cannot be underestimated. But in the case, his popularity was just a small reflection of his actual talent. Some actors you can tell just dig into their roles. They find out every little thing about the characters and truly absorb them as people. Newman didn't do that, or at least didn't seem to do that. His acting was natural, almost effortless. He didn't have to work for it, or at least didn't seem to. His roles looked as natural on him as feathers on a duck. As Kevin Spacey recently remarked:
"An era just ended. Paul Newman was a great humble giant. He said it was all down to luck, but the rest of us know it was his talent, wit and generous heart that made him the star he was."He should be an example to the acting profession because he seemed to have had his ego surgically removed."
Do you doubt Newman's impact or his cinematic legacy? Let us look down his filmography shall we? One of his first major roles, Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. Even censored as this film was from the original play, the emotional impact of the film is intense. And just by using subtlety and craft Newman was able to maintain the homosexual undertones of his character in a time (1958) when that subject would NEVER be allowed to be mentioned in a major motion picture. I wondered about that aspect of his character as I watched the film, and it wasn't until later when I read that theme was much more blatant in the original play did I realize how artfully Newman kept that portion of the character in.
His amazing turn as Eddie Felson in The Hustler where he stood his ground against the amazing screen presence of George C. Scott (though really it's the few scenes with Jackie Gleason that steal the show). And there is one of the best films all time. Hud. I had the privilege of watching Hud on the big screen at the Classic City Film Festival. I had seen and loved the film before, but seeing it again on the big screen was just something special. You want acting? Go watch the scenes between Newman and tragically underrated actress Patricia Neal. Two thirds of the communication between them is not spoken.
I also want to mention an incredibly strange film Newman did called The Outrage. It was a Western remake of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon in which Paul Newman plays a mexican bandito. Remakes of Kurosawa as westerns are almost standard (The Magnificent Seven/The Seven Samurai, A Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo), but this one is just weird. Unless someone points out the fact that the bandito is Paul Newman you would never recognize him.
Then Newman hit his own personal golden age in the late 60's and early 70's. He made three huge films, the first two of which have had immense impacts on the popular culture of America. I'm speaking of Cool Hand Luke, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting. Of those three, the most brilliant film in terms of acting and impact is, far and away, Cool Hand Luke. If you watch only one Paul Newman picture, watch Cool Hand Luke. It's gritty, realistic, lighthearted, depressing, and all points in between. Portions have entered into popular culture. "What we've got here, is...failure...to communicate." "Shaking the bush, boss." "Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand." "Why you got to go and say fifty eggs for?" "Oh they broke me, but I didn't stay broke." This picture is, in a world, brilliant.
Newman continued to work steadily throughout his entire life. There was perhaps the first loser comedy, Slapshot. There was his reprise of Eddie Felsom in The Color of Money for which he won his best actor academy award (though likely it was more for his career instead of this particular role). There was The Verdict, which is in my Netflix list. There's The Hudsucker Proxy, The Road to Perdition, Message in a Bottle, and even doing a voice in the Pixar movie Cars just two years ago. He only officially retired in 2007 to fight against the cancer.
On then there are his charitable works, of which I am only just learning about now. For example, the food company Newmans Own, which is nationally stocked in grocery stores, uses all it's profits for charity. Think about that. Think about it. That's like asking Kraft to donate all it's profits to charity. That's an insane amount of money. He also set up a charitable foundation to fight drug abuse when his only son died of an accidental drug overdose.
I want to emphasize a word I've used several times in this entry. Giant. That's what Paul Newman was. He was a giant. Not only in the movie industry, but in the world. He used his talent not to gain fame but to create beautiful and tragic things. Fame came from that. And he used that fame for a greater good. Most of us live small lives. A few of us live lives that are larger than we are, and become dwarfed by them. A scant few of us live the lives of giants and walk among smaller men as weeds. And then there was Paul Newman. Rest in peace, Mr. Newman. Our lives are better for having been in contact with yours.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Small hiatus
Not getting many movies watched in the past couple weeks, due a combination of getting my new cat and myself being sucked into the world of World of Warcraft PvP. Rest assured, the Three Movie Weekend will return. I've watched one movie, just need to get the other two done. Not that there is any real demand. All....three....of my loyal readers will manage without it, I'm sure.
Monday, August 11, 2008
August 8-10, 2008
High Fidelity -
It's probably considered some sort of hipster sin that I hadn't seen this movie. A lot of people assume I am just like the guys in the film. I'm not. I know a couple people just like them, but I am not. I do not have the comprehensive knowledge of music. My musical tastes are somewhat limited. I dabble in genres, but most of the time I stick to the ones I like. It just so happens that those genres aren't necessarily mainstream. Now, if we were talking movies, that'd be an entirely different matter...
I liked the film. It's clever. It's witty. It knows it will appeal to a specific crowd and it doesn't care. John Cusack does a good job, though it is odd to see him acting so manic after seeing him act subdued in a number of films. But he pulls it off well, jumping in the bed, orating at the camera, ranting. The supporting cast is kind of blase. The woman that played Laura was good and Jack Black was almost tolerable. I don't like Jack Black. I'm sorry, but I find him annoying as all shit. There was, as would be expected, some damn fine music. But just as the record store is compared to a porn shop in terms of a targeted fetish consumer group, this film is the same way. It's appeal will be directly proportional to how appealing you find hanging out in a record store discussing albums.
On the up side, it has tons of Chicago flavor. Cusack knows how to bring out the best of Chicago.
Grade: B-
Rushmore -
I like Wes Anderson films. I do. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums and I found lots of redeeming value in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I realize Wes Anderson isn't for everyone. He has a particular tongue in cheek style. It's like everyone is acting with a poker face and what they say has little bearing on what their face is saying. It's like watching a smart person intentionally acting dumb to get a laugh. This works for me, but I could understand how some people wouldn't like it. It's high-brow low-brow comedy. As such, his films are even more niche-targeted than High Fidelity. Fortunately for me, I belong in that niche.
While this film does have the characteristic Wes Anderson feel, it's too much of the Wes Anderson feel. The characters are overly quirky, instead of middling quirky. In other words, Anderson learned to tone it down in his later films.
The story went interesting places, places I did not expect it to go. In that, I was pleased. Bill Murray was awesome, as should be expected. However the pace of the film and any emotional involvement with the characters was off-kilter. It was entertaining, but I'd watch some of Anderson other films instead.
Grade: B-
Wonder Boys -
Michael Douglass' bad day turns into a bad week. But seriously folks....
Michael Douglass plays a professor at a liberal arts university. He wrote a novel 7 years ago that was a hit and a brilliant piece of literature. He hasn't written anything since. He smokes pot, cheats on his wife with the Chancellors wife, has one student lusting for him, drives an ugly-ass car and is basically slowly disintegrating. Into his life comes another one of his students, a reclusive angsty fuck that also just happens to be a brilliant writer. The two writers share three days of hell, learn about themselves and each other and their place in the blah blah blah.
While there are many unusual things that happen in this film, it is not a plot driven piece. It is character driven. It is how the characters act, react and interact that drive the film forward. As such, it was a rousing success. The characters are incredibly well written. They are flawed. Humanly flawed. Almost Charlie Kaufman humanly flawed. Changes that happen to the characters are minor, subtle, and derive from within. Along with the characters I cannot but mention the cast. This film has one HELL of a cast that dig into their parts with relish. Michael Douglass, Tobey Maguire, Frances McDormand, Robert Downey Jr., Katie Holmes (who looks hot as fire), Rip Torn and even a small part played by one Mr. Alan Tudyk of Firefly fame.
This film also appeals to me on two other levels. For one, it is set in academia. It portrays a very realistic reality of the underside of academia. Those parties where the faculty get together and there's booze and food and all sorts of overly intelligent discussion intermixed with swearing and crudeness? Yeah, that happens. I've been there. That's sort of where my life is heading. I actually kind of enjoy it, but I do admit it's weird. Secondly, it deals with writing. As most people that (supposedly) read this blog do belong to a little writing group, it's something that we can relate to. The film deals in part with the despair that comes from writing. The desire to create something beautiful conflicting with the actual ability to do so. When I write sometimes I feel like I'm trying to paint the Sistine Chapel with a box of crayons. You want to create something amazing, but every attempt feels childish and amateurish. It also deals with the crude reality of writing. Fact of the matter is that writing is a pretty shitty job. You are only as good as what you publish, and one book can't carry you forever.
I think writing is sort of like being a punker or making a zombie film. You never can call yourself a writer, and anyone who does is missing the forest for the trees. A writer just writes. They write because they have to, and it's nothing more of a big deal than that. I also don't think I'm a writer. A real writer can't stop, never stops. It's like being a professional athlete or musician. The best ones, the ones that make it, have not only the talent but the drive and determination to see it all the way. I may have talent, but the drive is lacking. Story of my life.
Enough of that shit. Point is, damn good movie. Damn good movie. Except for the ending. The ending wasn't bad per se, but it was a little too pat. A little too cute. A little too wrapped up in a nice bow. We are dealing with frayed people here, the ending should be frayed too.
Grade: A-
It's probably considered some sort of hipster sin that I hadn't seen this movie. A lot of people assume I am just like the guys in the film. I'm not. I know a couple people just like them, but I am not. I do not have the comprehensive knowledge of music. My musical tastes are somewhat limited. I dabble in genres, but most of the time I stick to the ones I like. It just so happens that those genres aren't necessarily mainstream. Now, if we were talking movies, that'd be an entirely different matter...
I liked the film. It's clever. It's witty. It knows it will appeal to a specific crowd and it doesn't care. John Cusack does a good job, though it is odd to see him acting so manic after seeing him act subdued in a number of films. But he pulls it off well, jumping in the bed, orating at the camera, ranting. The supporting cast is kind of blase. The woman that played Laura was good and Jack Black was almost tolerable. I don't like Jack Black. I'm sorry, but I find him annoying as all shit. There was, as would be expected, some damn fine music. But just as the record store is compared to a porn shop in terms of a targeted fetish consumer group, this film is the same way. It's appeal will be directly proportional to how appealing you find hanging out in a record store discussing albums.
On the up side, it has tons of Chicago flavor. Cusack knows how to bring out the best of Chicago.
Grade: B-
Rushmore -
I like Wes Anderson films. I do. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums and I found lots of redeeming value in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I realize Wes Anderson isn't for everyone. He has a particular tongue in cheek style. It's like everyone is acting with a poker face and what they say has little bearing on what their face is saying. It's like watching a smart person intentionally acting dumb to get a laugh. This works for me, but I could understand how some people wouldn't like it. It's high-brow low-brow comedy. As such, his films are even more niche-targeted than High Fidelity. Fortunately for me, I belong in that niche.
While this film does have the characteristic Wes Anderson feel, it's too much of the Wes Anderson feel. The characters are overly quirky, instead of middling quirky. In other words, Anderson learned to tone it down in his later films.
The story went interesting places, places I did not expect it to go. In that, I was pleased. Bill Murray was awesome, as should be expected. However the pace of the film and any emotional involvement with the characters was off-kilter. It was entertaining, but I'd watch some of Anderson other films instead.
Grade: B-
Wonder Boys -
Michael Douglass' bad day turns into a bad week. But seriously folks....
Michael Douglass plays a professor at a liberal arts university. He wrote a novel 7 years ago that was a hit and a brilliant piece of literature. He hasn't written anything since. He smokes pot, cheats on his wife with the Chancellors wife, has one student lusting for him, drives an ugly-ass car and is basically slowly disintegrating. Into his life comes another one of his students, a reclusive angsty fuck that also just happens to be a brilliant writer. The two writers share three days of hell, learn about themselves and each other and their place in the blah blah blah.
While there are many unusual things that happen in this film, it is not a plot driven piece. It is character driven. It is how the characters act, react and interact that drive the film forward. As such, it was a rousing success. The characters are incredibly well written. They are flawed. Humanly flawed. Almost Charlie Kaufman humanly flawed. Changes that happen to the characters are minor, subtle, and derive from within. Along with the characters I cannot but mention the cast. This film has one HELL of a cast that dig into their parts with relish. Michael Douglass, Tobey Maguire, Frances McDormand, Robert Downey Jr., Katie Holmes (who looks hot as fire), Rip Torn and even a small part played by one Mr. Alan Tudyk of Firefly fame.
This film also appeals to me on two other levels. For one, it is set in academia. It portrays a very realistic reality of the underside of academia. Those parties where the faculty get together and there's booze and food and all sorts of overly intelligent discussion intermixed with swearing and crudeness? Yeah, that happens. I've been there. That's sort of where my life is heading. I actually kind of enjoy it, but I do admit it's weird. Secondly, it deals with writing. As most people that (supposedly) read this blog do belong to a little writing group, it's something that we can relate to. The film deals in part with the despair that comes from writing. The desire to create something beautiful conflicting with the actual ability to do so. When I write sometimes I feel like I'm trying to paint the Sistine Chapel with a box of crayons. You want to create something amazing, but every attempt feels childish and amateurish. It also deals with the crude reality of writing. Fact of the matter is that writing is a pretty shitty job. You are only as good as what you publish, and one book can't carry you forever.
I think writing is sort of like being a punker or making a zombie film. You never can call yourself a writer, and anyone who does is missing the forest for the trees. A writer just writes. They write because they have to, and it's nothing more of a big deal than that. I also don't think I'm a writer. A real writer can't stop, never stops. It's like being a professional athlete or musician. The best ones, the ones that make it, have not only the talent but the drive and determination to see it all the way. I may have talent, but the drive is lacking. Story of my life.
Enough of that shit. Point is, damn good movie. Damn good movie. Except for the ending. The ending wasn't bad per se, but it was a little too pat. A little too cute. A little too wrapped up in a nice bow. We are dealing with frayed people here, the ending should be frayed too.
Grade: A-
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
August 1-3, 2008
Short reviews, cause I'm tired.
Klute -
Very much an early 70's piece, filled with the brutal minimalist style of the period. Story-wise it's somewhat predictable, but still intriguing nonetheless. Jane Fonda won an Academy Award for her portrayal of the high class prostitute. I will say her performance was pretty damn good. Donald Sutherland, who usually plays quirky interesting characters played something of a blank slate here. There wasn't much to his character, but it plays well off of Fonda's spiritedness. Plus Sutherland was able to portray this Jimmy Stewart "Aw schucks" vibe, which really worked. Roy Scheider plays a great slimeball. We miss you, Roy.
Overall, decent but not superlative.
Grade: B-
Five Easy Pieces -
The film that made Jack Nicholson a star. He plays a young man from a musical family, a talented pianist, who splits from his family and works on oil rigs and other odd jobs. Spends his nights drinking, being unfaithful to his girlfriend played by Karen Black, and being a general bastard. He learns his father is ill and returns home. Clash of two societies and the conflict of Nicholsons lifestyles.
Mostly a character study that doesn't know what genre it wants to belong to. The first and last thirds are dramatic. The middle third is comedic. The entire thing feels like a made for TV movie. Fairly disappointing overall, with a Spanking the Monkey/Leap of Faith ending, that does seem to work. Still, it's one of those films that reminds you that Nicholson can freaking ACT. Damn he's good.
Grade: C
Falling Down -
Michael Douglass has a very, very bad day.
I was very pleased with the story-telling, much of the details were subtly introduced. Douglass is great as this borderline protagonish. He's not a hero, but he's not an anti-hero either. He's a "bad man" that you identify with, which is scary and awesome.
His progress through LA makes me think it's loosely based on some ancient tale, ala The Warriors, but I have no proof of that. It also feels like a game, as he keeps upgrading his weapons as he goes. The B story with Robert Duvall was as subtly told, but not nearly as interesting.
SPOILER: I generally don't like films that kill off the main character at the end. I've talked about this before. It's usually a cop out, meaning the writer can't think of a better way to end it. But it worked it. It was philosophically appropriate.
On a strange note, as I was watching this film I noticed something weird. As it turns out, Douglass' mother, played by Lois Smith, also played Nicholsons sister in Five Easy Pieces. Just a strange collision of the film world in my weekend.
Grade: B+
Klute -
Very much an early 70's piece, filled with the brutal minimalist style of the period. Story-wise it's somewhat predictable, but still intriguing nonetheless. Jane Fonda won an Academy Award for her portrayal of the high class prostitute. I will say her performance was pretty damn good. Donald Sutherland, who usually plays quirky interesting characters played something of a blank slate here. There wasn't much to his character, but it plays well off of Fonda's spiritedness. Plus Sutherland was able to portray this Jimmy Stewart "Aw schucks" vibe, which really worked. Roy Scheider plays a great slimeball. We miss you, Roy.
Overall, decent but not superlative.
Grade: B-
Five Easy Pieces -
The film that made Jack Nicholson a star. He plays a young man from a musical family, a talented pianist, who splits from his family and works on oil rigs and other odd jobs. Spends his nights drinking, being unfaithful to his girlfriend played by Karen Black, and being a general bastard. He learns his father is ill and returns home. Clash of two societies and the conflict of Nicholsons lifestyles.
Mostly a character study that doesn't know what genre it wants to belong to. The first and last thirds are dramatic. The middle third is comedic. The entire thing feels like a made for TV movie. Fairly disappointing overall, with a Spanking the Monkey/Leap of Faith ending, that does seem to work. Still, it's one of those films that reminds you that Nicholson can freaking ACT. Damn he's good.
Grade: C
Falling Down -
Michael Douglass has a very, very bad day.
I was very pleased with the story-telling, much of the details were subtly introduced. Douglass is great as this borderline protagonish. He's not a hero, but he's not an anti-hero either. He's a "bad man" that you identify with, which is scary and awesome.
His progress through LA makes me think it's loosely based on some ancient tale, ala The Warriors, but I have no proof of that. It also feels like a game, as he keeps upgrading his weapons as he goes. The B story with Robert Duvall was as subtly told, but not nearly as interesting.
SPOILER: I generally don't like films that kill off the main character at the end. I've talked about this before. It's usually a cop out, meaning the writer can't think of a better way to end it. But it worked it. It was philosophically appropriate.
On a strange note, as I was watching this film I noticed something weird. As it turns out, Douglass' mother, played by Lois Smith, also played Nicholsons sister in Five Easy Pieces. Just a strange collision of the film world in my weekend.
Grade: B+
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
July 18-20, 2008
Stigmata -
Funny story about Stigmata. I actually went to see it when it came out in the theaters, with my sister. We got about halfway through the film when a fire broke out in the building somewhere. We had to evacuate. I don't think anyone got hurt, but we never got to see the rest of the film. So that's why I rented this, I wanted to see how it ended.
This movie actually reminded me a lot of Jacob's Ladder. They are sort of derived from the same place. SPOILERS AHEAD. Start with a fact. A little known fact that is A) controversial, B) hushed up and C) has broad range appeal. In Jacob's Ladder it was that the US Government experimented on its own troops in the Vietnam War. In Stigmata it's that an ancient scroll was discovered that could very well be Jesus' own Gospel, his own words, and it has been denied by the Catholic church. Start with that fact, then build a story that is tangential to that fact. Not a story about those facts, but a story about people that were affected by those facts. In one case it's a soldier that was killed by his comrades under the influence of the drug and and the subsequent happenings as he dies. In the other, it's a young woman that becomes by possessed by the spirit of a priest that translated the scroll and the happenings as the spirit is determined that the gospel become public.
About the movie, it was a decent flick. Lots of the imagery was well done and things were done to an appropriately yet not over-the-top level. The music was interesting, I saw that the soundtrack was done by Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins fame. The story was intriguing enough. That acting was decent. I really like Patricia Arquette and she made a decent showing here. Gabriel Byrne is like a slightly more lively William Hurt. His acting style is more of a mirror, a blank slate. He's generally not strong enough to carry a film on his own, but he's great at having other actors play off of him. The quality of his performance is usually dictated by the performance of the actors opposite him. In this case I think Arquette and Byrne played off each other well.
This is sort of a "small" film, like Jacob's Ladder. The world it creates is small. There are only a few characters, only a few locations, and it creates the feeling that the film could be contained in a small glass globe. Not like a movie based on a play, that has a different feel. But, because the film is a "small" film (and note that has nothing to do with size of production, but just a feel) it has a tendency to get into a niche in your mind and kind of hang out there. Like a seed in a sidewalk crack or a pip in between your teeth. It'll stick in there, most of the time not discreetly, but every once in a while it'll pop out.
On a side note, I wonder how Gabriel Byrne's sitcom did.
Grade: B
Blade II -
Sequel to the B movie action flick Blade. I was interested in the film partially because it was directed by Guillermo Del Toro, celebrated director of Pan's Labyrinth, the Hellboy movies, and upcoming blockbusters The Hobbit and....sigh....The Hobbit II (don't get me started). I'm not familiar with Del Toro's work, so I wanted to start getting a feel for it.
I actually like the first Blade. It had this neat sort of indy-film feel to it. It was an action film about vampires, sure, but it had some artsy edges to it. Not overblown, but nicely accented. And it was serious, it took itself seriously which is really the only way these types of films can work. Making something intentionally campy is a recipe for disaster. I wish Mr. Del Toro had realized that.
Whereas the original Blade was artsy and dark and serious, this film is just dumb. The plot, what little there is of it, is silly and not developed at all. Some of the plot points were ridiculous. Resurrecting Whistler? Fuck you, I don't think so. The acting was either wooden or extreme (with the exception of the awesome Ron Perlman, who is awesome). The set design looked like the guy who designed sets for the 60's Batman TV show became a goth and watched the Matrix 14 times. Rooms with pipes of blood creating pools of more blood? An underground rave with leatherclad goths? Where was Morpheus, eh?
Obviously this is an action movie, so it is supposed to be carried by the strength of the action scenes. It wasn't. The action scenes were carbon copy Matrix style, aka no originality, and much of the action style was done simply to look cool. I hate that. I want it to look cool because it works with the natural flow of the fighting, not because you pause the damn film as Blade catches his sunglasses. It's like a bunch of thirteen year old boys held Woo Ping at gunpoint and forced him to choreograph the fights the way they wanted it.
As always, the film does have a redeeming point or two. There were a couple good laughs. And there was Leonor Varela, who could be best described by "humina humina humina humina humina."
Let's hope this was a fluke by Mr. Del Toro, though I don't hold much hope. My understanding is that his major criticism is that he's all style, no substance, and if he fucks up The Hobbit there will be blood. And frankly, I don't trust anyone that wants to make a sequel to the Hobbit created with their own material. Why? Why must you do this to me?
Grade: D
Resident Evil -
I rented this.....because? I have no idea. Seemed like the thing to do. I never played the games.
Based on the first 10 minutes of this film I had some hope for it. It actually had a very creepy and well done prelude, and the opening of actual main arc had a very good video game feel to it. You are thrown into a world where shit is going on and you don't know a damn thing. You are given a very important task with comrades, figure it out as you go along, and the truth will be revealed to you through a series of flashbacks until it all makes sense.
Then things went downhill.
I thought there was going to be some hint of a plot. There wasn't. None. Period. Zip. Zilch. The plot of this film made Blade II's plot look like Hamlet. I'll give you the whole plot. Giant evil corporation makes evil virus that turns people into zombies, said virus gets loose in a facility. Military needs to go inside and take care of it, then get back out in three hours. That's it. There you go, you've seen the movie.
This movie is supposed to be carried by the awesome badassedness of Milla Jovovich. Milla Jovovich is absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film, and she is indeed badass. I think. Fact of the matter is, we don't even see her do anything remotely badass until FIFTY MINUTES INTO THE FILM. And that is just one small thing. In fact, there is very little of Ms. Jovovich being badass at all. She shoots a couple things, smacks some things in the head with an axe, and that's it. This film needed her to be an asskicker, and she wasn't given the opportunity to kick much ass, outside of a few puppies. No, all the action was done by the military unit, who are as interesting as staring at beige carpeting. The most intriguing character was the unit commander, who seemed very cool, and they killed him off within a half hour. Even Michelle Rodriguez wasn't that entertaining.
The film sucked. The acting sucked, the action sucked, the plot didn't exist, the sets were rediculous, the production values were weak, the special effects were atrocious. I had to double check to make sure it wasn't an Uwe Boll film. The only redeeming part of the film was the end. Partly because it was over. Partly because it had the trademark horror film ending. Just when you think everything was going to be ok, the shit hits the fan, you are left with a vision of the world even more hopeless than before, and the door is wide open for a sequel. It was nice to see something in this film executed correctly.
Grade: F
Funny story about Stigmata. I actually went to see it when it came out in the theaters, with my sister. We got about halfway through the film when a fire broke out in the building somewhere. We had to evacuate. I don't think anyone got hurt, but we never got to see the rest of the film. So that's why I rented this, I wanted to see how it ended.
This movie actually reminded me a lot of Jacob's Ladder. They are sort of derived from the same place. SPOILERS AHEAD. Start with a fact. A little known fact that is A) controversial, B) hushed up and C) has broad range appeal. In Jacob's Ladder it was that the US Government experimented on its own troops in the Vietnam War. In Stigmata it's that an ancient scroll was discovered that could very well be Jesus' own Gospel, his own words, and it has been denied by the Catholic church. Start with that fact, then build a story that is tangential to that fact. Not a story about those facts, but a story about people that were affected by those facts. In one case it's a soldier that was killed by his comrades under the influence of the drug and and the subsequent happenings as he dies. In the other, it's a young woman that becomes by possessed by the spirit of a priest that translated the scroll and the happenings as the spirit is determined that the gospel become public.
About the movie, it was a decent flick. Lots of the imagery was well done and things were done to an appropriately yet not over-the-top level. The music was interesting, I saw that the soundtrack was done by Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins fame. The story was intriguing enough. That acting was decent. I really like Patricia Arquette and she made a decent showing here. Gabriel Byrne is like a slightly more lively William Hurt. His acting style is more of a mirror, a blank slate. He's generally not strong enough to carry a film on his own, but he's great at having other actors play off of him. The quality of his performance is usually dictated by the performance of the actors opposite him. In this case I think Arquette and Byrne played off each other well.
This is sort of a "small" film, like Jacob's Ladder. The world it creates is small. There are only a few characters, only a few locations, and it creates the feeling that the film could be contained in a small glass globe. Not like a movie based on a play, that has a different feel. But, because the film is a "small" film (and note that has nothing to do with size of production, but just a feel) it has a tendency to get into a niche in your mind and kind of hang out there. Like a seed in a sidewalk crack or a pip in between your teeth. It'll stick in there, most of the time not discreetly, but every once in a while it'll pop out.
On a side note, I wonder how Gabriel Byrne's sitcom did.
Grade: B
Blade II -
Sequel to the B movie action flick Blade. I was interested in the film partially because it was directed by Guillermo Del Toro, celebrated director of Pan's Labyrinth, the Hellboy movies, and upcoming blockbusters The Hobbit and....sigh....The Hobbit II (don't get me started). I'm not familiar with Del Toro's work, so I wanted to start getting a feel for it.
I actually like the first Blade. It had this neat sort of indy-film feel to it. It was an action film about vampires, sure, but it had some artsy edges to it. Not overblown, but nicely accented. And it was serious, it took itself seriously which is really the only way these types of films can work. Making something intentionally campy is a recipe for disaster. I wish Mr. Del Toro had realized that.
Whereas the original Blade was artsy and dark and serious, this film is just dumb. The plot, what little there is of it, is silly and not developed at all. Some of the plot points were ridiculous. Resurrecting Whistler? Fuck you, I don't think so. The acting was either wooden or extreme (with the exception of the awesome Ron Perlman, who is awesome). The set design looked like the guy who designed sets for the 60's Batman TV show became a goth and watched the Matrix 14 times. Rooms with pipes of blood creating pools of more blood? An underground rave with leatherclad goths? Where was Morpheus, eh?
Obviously this is an action movie, so it is supposed to be carried by the strength of the action scenes. It wasn't. The action scenes were carbon copy Matrix style, aka no originality, and much of the action style was done simply to look cool. I hate that. I want it to look cool because it works with the natural flow of the fighting, not because you pause the damn film as Blade catches his sunglasses. It's like a bunch of thirteen year old boys held Woo Ping at gunpoint and forced him to choreograph the fights the way they wanted it.
As always, the film does have a redeeming point or two. There were a couple good laughs. And there was Leonor Varela, who could be best described by "humina humina humina humina humina."
Let's hope this was a fluke by Mr. Del Toro, though I don't hold much hope. My understanding is that his major criticism is that he's all style, no substance, and if he fucks up The Hobbit there will be blood. And frankly, I don't trust anyone that wants to make a sequel to the Hobbit created with their own material. Why? Why must you do this to me?
Grade: D
Resident Evil -
I rented this.....because? I have no idea. Seemed like the thing to do. I never played the games.
Based on the first 10 minutes of this film I had some hope for it. It actually had a very creepy and well done prelude, and the opening of actual main arc had a very good video game feel to it. You are thrown into a world where shit is going on and you don't know a damn thing. You are given a very important task with comrades, figure it out as you go along, and the truth will be revealed to you through a series of flashbacks until it all makes sense.
Then things went downhill.
I thought there was going to be some hint of a plot. There wasn't. None. Period. Zip. Zilch. The plot of this film made Blade II's plot look like Hamlet. I'll give you the whole plot. Giant evil corporation makes evil virus that turns people into zombies, said virus gets loose in a facility. Military needs to go inside and take care of it, then get back out in three hours. That's it. There you go, you've seen the movie.
This movie is supposed to be carried by the awesome badassedness of Milla Jovovich. Milla Jovovich is absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film, and she is indeed badass. I think. Fact of the matter is, we don't even see her do anything remotely badass until FIFTY MINUTES INTO THE FILM. And that is just one small thing. In fact, there is very little of Ms. Jovovich being badass at all. She shoots a couple things, smacks some things in the head with an axe, and that's it. This film needed her to be an asskicker, and she wasn't given the opportunity to kick much ass, outside of a few puppies. No, all the action was done by the military unit, who are as interesting as staring at beige carpeting. The most intriguing character was the unit commander, who seemed very cool, and they killed him off within a half hour. Even Michelle Rodriguez wasn't that entertaining.
The film sucked. The acting sucked, the action sucked, the plot didn't exist, the sets were rediculous, the production values were weak, the special effects were atrocious. I had to double check to make sure it wasn't an Uwe Boll film. The only redeeming part of the film was the end. Partly because it was over. Partly because it had the trademark horror film ending. Just when you think everything was going to be ok, the shit hits the fan, you are left with a vision of the world even more hopeless than before, and the door is wide open for a sequel. It was nice to see something in this film executed correctly.
Grade: F
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
