January 27, 2005
The Night of the Hunter
The Night of the Hunter, a the only credited film by actor Charles Laughton with a screenplay by James Agee (based on a book by Davis Grubb) is remarkable for primarily one reason: the performance of Robert Mitchum as disturbed preacher Harry Powell. Dressed in a black suit and hat, with "love" tattooed across the fingers on one hand and hate on the other, he is an unstoppable, unpredictable horrific force, and for that The Night of the Hunter shines through as a classic.
The story centers around two children, noble little John Harper and his younger sister, the doll-faced Pearl. One day, their father Ben comes home with thousands of dollars he has robbed from a bank and begs them to hide it. He is then caught by the police and hanged, leaving only his wife Willa to take care of the children. While in prison, Ben had met with a preacher named Harry Powell, who has a disturbed sense of moral justice. After failing to get information about the money out of Ben, Powell then decides to go after the mother and children. When it becomes clear that she knows nothing, he begins to hound the children. Soon, Willa gets in the way and he kills her.
The children run away and are taken in by a loving elderly woman who has adopted several other children. But Powell is hot on their trail, and a confronation late at night brings ruin for one party.
The story itself is at times suspenseful and at othertimes a bit long-winded and drifty. For example, after the children are attacked by the preacher, they set off down the river rather than alerting the authorities. Granted, children are stupid, but it still seems unlikely that they'd simply mum up about it all and get away. Meanwhile, the failure of their uncle, who discovers the mother in the lake, to tell anything about her is questionable. In addition, the scenes in which we see the children interacting with their new family, both before and after the confrontation scene, are a bit too Rockwellian in their apple pie charm.
In between this fat is a very engaging and suspenseful story about a preacher with a twisted set of values, who clearly believes that he is correct not sinning. The idea that such a seemingly harmless person could embody pure evil is disturbing. Furthermore, he simply keeps on coming at them, an unstoppable force. An excellent shot is of Powell on a horse on the very top of a hill, almost painted on the horizon as he walks slowly toward them. He moves slow, but he'll eventually catch up, and this implied confidence is an excellent suspense device.
The children were written to be a little annoying, especially Pearl who always seems on the verge of telling Powell the whereabouts of the money. However, great performances by all, from Willa as a newly converted religious devout, to the unmatchable Robert Mitchum.
The world they live in is somewhat unreal. Roger Ebert excuses this as intentional - that Laughton was trying to create this saccharine existence to then disrupt it with the unholiness of the preacher. However, I think it goes overboard, and the more removed from reality it is, the less impact the suspense carries. The world is eventually divided into the safe country homes and the dangerous, neon sign-filled city streets, and the parrallel is a bit laughable.
Ultimately, the film is about the suspense and not the bits in between, and if you can ignore those, you'll be fine. Furthermore, the end scene, in which John mistakes Powell for his father, is particularly intriguing, as it indicates a strong subtext of hurt and anxiety that he has been unable to overcome.
3 Hate-filled stars / 4 stars
Posted by nick at 11:04 PM | Comments (1)
January 24, 2005
The Amityville Horror (1979)
Not much to say about The Amityville Horror, which purports to show the 20-day house haunting. The scares are pretty much a combination of open windows and breezes mixed in with false alarms. Basically, it shows no imagination whatsoever, and while I'm sure the filmmakers excuse this as sticking with the source material, the source material is FAR from what resulted on celluloid. Entire subplots never even happened. And while the bleeding walls were neat, the floating head in the basement was incredibly lame, like a lame-ass effect from an old genie movie. Ugh. Avoid this Shining-Meets-Exorcist rip-off at all costs.
1.5 stars / 4 stars
Posted by nick at 07:53 PM | Comments (0)
Westworld (1973)
Apparently, tonight was James Brolin night, as I noticed after renting this and The Amityville Horror that both contained the firm-jawed Christian Bale look-alike.
Westworld was a disappointment, though it's pretty clear how writer/director Michael Crichton eventually picked up the pieces for Jurassic Park. The story is about a series of three resorts in the middle of nowhere that recreate various historical periods using robots as actors. Three, to be specific: a cowboy world, a midieval world, and a roman world. Everything goes in the world: murder, sex, food, etc. At a thousand bucks a day, its considered the ultimate fantasy vacation.
If you've seen The Simpsons episode where they go to Itchy & Scratchy Land, and the robots all turn evil, you've pretty much already seen this movie. In fact, The Simpsons did it better, funnier, more quickly, and had a better ending. The story here focuses on two vacationers, mustacheoed Peter Martin (Richard Benjamin) and experienced gun slinger John Blain (James Brolin) who talks Peter Martin through the ropes.
It's a neat premise, but the film mainly falls flat after the initial excitement dies away. At first, Peter Martin's enthusiasm is infectious as he takes in his share of gun duels, barroom fights, and prostitute sex. Then, the story is left to take over and it pretty much generates countless upon countless unanswered questions that all indicate the three worlds were not particularly well thought out. Just a smattering: So the world isn't open at night, when the scientists go out and round up the bodies? If they're so keen on no guests getting hurt, what happens when two guests start fighting each other in a barroom brawl? How can they possibily focus on so many different storylines at once? When the scientists cut the power, is it really believable that 1) they can't get the electric doors open and 2) die of asphyxiation? What happened to all the robots after the initial killing spree? I mean, it seems to only be unstoppable Robot Gunslinger played by Yul Bynner. And why, when Martin discovers the underground tunnel system that connects the villages, aren't there any exits? I mean the scientists have to come to work each day, right? Is there really just a single control room in the entire place?
And so it all falls apart. A slight backstory about Martin's divorce is mentioned, but it's pretty much useless. Everyone and everything is completely forgotten until it's just a cat and mouse chase between Martin and the Robot, and then the film ends abruptly. Potential premise, terrible execution.
2.5 stars / 4 stars
Posted by nick at 07:41 PM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2005
Vertigo
Vertigo is frequently referred to as Hitchcock's most complicated and deep film, and having seen a good majority of his corpus, I have to agree. It's a thriller, a mystery, and a love story rolled into one film, which works well more often than not, but leaves something to be desired for me. I'm having trouble saying exactly what.
The beginning of the film is typical Hitchcock fare - a stylized chase across an obviously fake rooftop leaves a police officer dead and Jimmy Stewart hanging on for dear life. Stewart learns that he has a fear of heights, and thus quits the force (this is the first question I had about an element which seemed forced - how often do heights come into play for a police officer?). He spends some time with his female friend, with whom he was once engaged but was broken off. An old friend hires him then to keep an eye on his wife, who appears to be possessed by the spirit of a dead woman.
Stewart follows the woman, played by Kim Novak, around town until he saves her life. He falls in love with her, but she seems bent on dying in the same way that the spirit that haunts her did many years ago. She eventually does commit suicide, and Stewart drifts into total despair. He begins searching everywhere for likenesses and reminders of her, and soon finds a woman who is her resemblance. He begins to force the woman to dress like her, and and do her hair like her.
Spoilers! But this journal is for Nick. We are then presented with a montage that suggests that Kim Novak was all part of an elaborate scheme to kill Stewarts' friends wife. Novak posed as her to give an alibi for insanity, then did the ol' switcheroo when it was time for the actual wife today. Novak was then expected to disappear, but Stewart had still managed to find her.
Anyway, one night, after they seem together and in love (though he doesn't knwo her true identity), she puts on a jewel once worn by the spirit who she was supposedly possessed by. Stewart realizes this, and forces her back to the scene of the murder, where she ultimately meets her demise.
This was an easy, easy out for Hitchcock, in my opinion. I mean, Jesus, the woman creates an airtight case for being the dead spirit, then creates an airtight case for NOT being the spirit, then screws it all up by wearing the one single most important gem? More questions: whatever happens to the old college flame? There is a very interesting subplot that develops, then dies out to be forgotten. Are we left to assume that Stewart simply left her in the dust? Ah well, that's Jimmy.
The actual possession seems like a really, really stretch of a way to set up an alibi. I mean, it works, but it's also somewhat unbelievable that someone would go to such weird lengths to get away with the murder.
However, I see what Hitchcock was going for, and in that regard, I'm with him - that a woman involved in a murder con unfortunately falls in love with the man she should conning. There were excellent elements to the film - the beginning is very lyrical as Stewart follows Novak from place to place, and it almost lulls you into a sleep. The picture is almost angellicaly hazy, as the whites take on a comforting, soft glow. And this is all perfect for that crucial, shocking moment when she plunges into the bay.
One of my biggest problems with Hitchcock was his famous boast that he treated actors like cattle. Ultimately, he was more concerned with screen placement then anything else, and this is unfortunate because it is then up to the actors to pull of good performances with little direction from ... well, their director. Sometimes, great performanes get by, such as the quirky Norman Bates of Psycho. Character actors are also allowed to get in there, such as the standard villain prototype, and the cop/sheriff figure. However, I feel that his females often come off as the exact same person. Always super elegant to the point of artificiality. Kim Novak reminds me of Janet Leigh reminds me of Tippi Hedren reminds me of Eva Marie Saint. Meanwhile the men are left to play themselves. Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant play Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant. Firm-jawed do-gooders always in suits with carefully combed hair.
The colors of this film are very intriguing, but I also have to admit I'm not a fan of Technicolor, as it always feels like I'm looking at pictures from a color magazine of the 1950's. I almost wish I could see what the film would be if shot on modern day stock, as I believe the true vision could come about.
I think there is a superb film in here, but I think it gets a bit lost and muddled with so many different elements. I don't think it's Hitchcock's masterpiece. The ending, above all, gets rid of the problem rather than trying to deal with it, leaving us in almost hte same place we were 20 minutes prior.
***/****
(three out of four stars)Posted by nick at 12:01 AM | Comments (1)
January 19, 2005
All Quiet on the Western Front
The older the film, the more you have to prepare your mind to enjoy it. For example, if I'm about to watch an old German silent film, I have to turn on intellectual mode and make a lot of excuses for the unavoidable shortcomings due to its infant place in the evolution of film. What is wonderful about All Quiet on the Western Front is that little of that need be done. It is an absolutely brilliant, beautiful, revolutionary film from start to finish.
It blows me away that the film was made in 1930. How was this possible? How was such amazing war cinematography even conceived of when the first talkie, The Jazz Singer, had only come out three years prior? The sound track is absolutely amazing, and to listen to it in a full volume surround sound theater would be incredible.
Another rarity is the fact that it openly questions war. Few films of the preceding 1920's did such a thing, and certainly not (to my knowledge) to the scope of All Quiet. The story begins in Germany while a parade for soldiers is underway. Inside a classroom, a teacher instills a sense of rabid patriotism inside his students, who all decide to go out and fight. This is perfectly shot by having huge picture windows behind the teacher as the uproarious parade goes by. The classmates all join, and we focus on them more as a group than on any single person.
At first the war is a bit of a joke. One vignette tells the story of how the cadettes get sick of their seargent, who seems to derive pleasure from seeing them wallow in the mud and run endless training courses. One night, while he is walking home drunk, he is suddenly attacked by the cadettes, who wrap him in a sheet then clobber him (reminiscent of the attack on Gomer Pyle in Full Metal Jacket).
Then they go out on the first night in battle, and as they run through the dark trenches, an explosion occurs, blinding a comrade. The man screams that he's blind, clutching his bleeding eyes and dropping to his knees. Meanwhile, the virgin soldiers simply stare wide-eyed. No one told them about this part.
While the film takes place during World War I, it could certainly be any war (I couldn't help but think of the soldiers currently stationed in Iraq, and how they would view this film). And it also could be any army. I didn't pay much attention at the beginning, and thought it was the British army due to an early credit. When I realized it was the German army, it didn't matter. The only time sides are mentioned is when a few soldiers talk absent-mindedly about why such a war would occur in the first place. Otherwise, they could be British, Americans, Spanish, French - whoever. The participants don't matter, the location doesn't matter. War is war, and war is always the same.
There are numerous moments in this film that come full circle, when a lesser filmmaker would've simply forgotten to grow a seed into fruition. The butterfly sequence is of course pivotal, but so is the transition from general to a man who can't remember his own name. Wonderful stuff.
The cinematography is amazing, especially the stuff during war. When a machine gunner takes out wave after wave of oncoming soldiers, the camera moves through the lines of falling men, then cuts rapidly back and forth to the gunner causing it to happen. Brilliant.
This is, without question, one of the best war films I have ever seen, and that exists. Saving Private Ryan seems like a sappy outing compared to All Quiet. Full Metal Jacket spends too much time on initiation into the war, and not enough on the important part. Ultimately, All Quiet also has scope going for it. Eventually, it is clear that the war will simply continue, with no end in sight. Long after all the students are dead and a new group has replaced them, the fighting will continue.
****/****
(ENTHUSIASTIC four stars out of four stars)
Posted by nick at 02:29 AM | Comments (0)
January 18, 2005
Kinsey
Kinsey is exactly the reason why I really dislike biopics, and why I have no desire to see Ray or Beyond the Sea or any other biopics coming along anytime soon. In a nutshell: the problem with biopics is that the question comes along: why not make a documentary? Why are we making a narrative feature film about someone's life? The negatives are obvious: the version will ultimately be heavily watered down, forced into a three act structure, contain countless scenes, dialogue, and people that never existed in the person's life, and ultimately make real life seem like the movies - which it clearly isn't.
What do we gain? Two things: 1) whoever really loves the person in question enough to make a movie gets his basic message distributed to the masses, who are then inspired for two hours before they hit McDonalds, and 2) there's room for a bunch of monologues by people who are ahead of their time given to people far behind the times. Again, I say why not make a documentary? As a writer, why stuck to facts that you still go out of your way to stretch? Ultimately, the worst thing for me is that it's almsot crucial that everone in the audience constantly be thinking: "i can't believe this happened!" And this is what bugs me most.
It didn't happen - at least, not in the way it's being presented.
So there's my bias, it's on the table, and it's amazing how Kinsey was exactly as I predicted it would be. We see a bunch of scenes that never happened in sexologist Brock Kinsey's life, his rise to fame, his downfall, and finally, his come uppance. The End. Really not much to say about the plot anymore than I could describe a riveting movie about the Titanic sinking (sans a love story) because we all know it. It's more on the performances, writing, and cinematography that everything matters.
And in that department, only Liam Neeson really shines, because he really inhabits the character. At times, I think his motivation gets past him a bit, and he becomes a bit to insisting about the scientific legitimacy of his work when as an audience member, you are wondering a tad. The rest of the cast falls short for one of two reasons. On the one hand, there are the people against Kinsey due to their Puritanical views, such as a professor played by Tim Curry or Kinsey's preacher/father, John Lithgow. In these cases, it is PAINFULLY obvious that the actors do not fully understand who their characters could hold their beliefs, and thus come off as charicatures of Bible thumpers and stodgy classical educators. Meanwhile, those on Kinsey's side also lack motivation, such as his wife, Laura Linney, who I think is often faking her understanding of why her character would be with Kinsey. Same goes for Peter Sarsgaard and the rest of his assistants, who begin to sleep with each other and stuff gets weird.
In the end, the bad guys are too weak and cliched, and the good guys too unbelievable due to lack of motivation. Once in a while, Kinsey's character fully shines through, but really, this is Bill Condon on a soap box using a dumbed down means to deliver his message to the masses. Good? Bad? All I know is that if you think he and his wife went around looking at trees and talking about their roots, you're nuts.
I'm giving it 2.5 stars (out of four) - tho if you push me, i MIGHT jack it up to 3 for over-all competence.
Posted by nick at 12:31 AM | Comments (1)
January 16, 2005
Jules et Jim
I just saw my first Francois Truffaut movie, and like most European character-driven pieces, it's difficult to judge on first viewing. Also, the fact that it's a renowned work, a Tuffaut film, and in a foreign language all serve to bias my opinion somewhat. In addition, not knowing anything about the context, the films that influenced it, and the films that were in turn influenced by it hurts as well.
In other words, I enjoyed it, but moreso on that "how interesting" level than outward sheer filmic enjoyment. It's the story of a pair of friends, Jim and Jules (French and Austrian, respectively) who are inseperable. Then a woman named Catherine enters their lives, and while she initially goes out with and later marries Jules, it is clear she loves both and eventually goes back and forth with each. And in this manner, her personality changes to suit her respective lover. Ultimately, she cannot decide, and brings everyone to destruction with her.
I just read the following in a review: "Set during the advent of World War I, Jules and Jim is an allegorical film about the turmoil between French nationalism and the German occupation of World War II. As with the characters' doomed love triangle, the film is a scathing indictment of a country led to ruin by lack of conviction and feigned neutrality."
Interesting. Necessary to understand the film? Clearly alegory should always be secondary to the story being told, unless the alegory is so painfully obvious as to be the story itself. Not to compare the two, but people keep talking about the allegory of The Village to the war on terror, and I think it's a secondary arguement to a shitty, shitty story.
Ultimately for me, it was a lyrical film that seems to deserve closer viewing for the more complex matters it alludes to. However, I think too much whimsy and free-floating direction turn me off too much to give it a second glance anytime soon.
****/*****
four/five starsPosted by nick at 04:46 AM | Comments (1)
October 15, 2004
The Deer Hunter, Deliverance
I'm quite annoyed because the mailman shoved The Deer Hunter into my box, bending it enough to ruin the disc. So I got about halfway through the film, then had to shut it off and report it broken. Second copy finally came today, and I was able to finish it.
If someone described the film to me, it really wouldn't seem like the type of thing I'd like. The first hour delves into a bunch of hometown middle-America blue collar workers who work in a mill (played by De Niro, Walken, and John Cazale [Fredo of the Godfather] who was dying of bone cancer during the shoot]. The second hour deals with the disaster that was Vietnam, and the third as De Niro returns and tries to pick up the pieces.
The first hour of the film is more or less concerned with a single day or two, in fact - preping for a wedding, the wedding, the wedding party, and then a hunting trip. All seemingly insignificant events that are much needed in this film. Then we cut to De Niro, who is already in Nam in a POW camp with Walken. Funny how we have just spent an hour on an "unimportant" wedding, then skipped over travel, training, and battle only to arrive at the prison camp. But really, this is what matters: seeing the everyday life of middle America kids and then watching it get smashed to pieces in an underwater cage. The many Russian Roulette matches are classic, and supposedly upped the number of such deaths in the US after the film's release.
Overall, a great film, and I think it's funny that director Michael Cimono's next film, Heaven's Gate, is totally unmentioned on the DVD. Considered one of the greatest disasters in film history, it was the film that put United Artists out of business. Way to go, Mike!
I also watched Deliverance, finally, and while I enjoyed it, I think the hype kind of ruined it. I was very surprised to see both the banjo scene and the rape scene occur within the first half hour of the film. Both are, er, classic in their own ways. And the cinematography was wonderful - lots of earthy greens, browns, and whites. Ultimately, though, I'm not a huge fan. They say when you write a screenplay, each event should be more devastating than the last, and this script seems to follow that to a T. But on the other hand, it almost comes off as mechanical. The bad just keeps on getting worse and worse until ... they are faced with a moral dilemma, and Jon Voight gets to go home and have nightmares. It was good ... I just suppose I already had the movie in my head. And that's a tough standard to live up to.
Posted by nick at 12:22 AM | Comments (0)
October 11, 2004
Primer
I frequently say that the fundamental necessity for any film is first and foremost, ABOVE ALL ELSE (can I stress this anymore?!) a good story. And in this sense, Primer, which opened this past weekend, is a very interesting case. Most films are lacking in their story. With Primer, a very rich story is in place - it is how it is told that raises questions.
Primer is the story of two white-collar engineers who live in a random suburb and spend most of their time tinkering in their garage. Then, one day, they build a box (which, I have since learned, is intended to remove an object placed inside from Earth's gravitational pull - but you don't need to know this). Soon, they learn that the box is capable of much, much more than that. It is, in effect, a time machine. Soon, they build a bigger box. Then they build two boxes. Then they put boxes inside boxes.
I very much enjoyed Primer on the whole, but I don't think I could defend this at the end of the day. Not that I need to. Even 30 years after 2001 came out, people still complain that they don't get it, that it's too technical, or that it asks too much of the viewer. For the person with these types of complaints, Primer would probably make their head explode. The film opens with a lot of meetings between the two main characters as they talk about their invention. The dialogue is supposedly real, and intriguing if you can follow along, boring if you can't. Those that can't (including my roommate) walked out of the movie, and that is justifiable. I'm quite sure the director realized this would happen.
But once the film takes off, it opens up an infinite web of possibilities. It allows your imagination to go wild with ideas, and this is in part why it's such a great film. My theory on the strange love people have for Donnie Darko is that it's 1) a mystery and 2) a mystery without a conclusion - meaning that whatever you want to be right is right, except that it's always possible that you're wrong. My problem with Donnie Darko is that the logic is very facile and pointless at the end of the day. In Primer, it's the opposite. The mystery is open-ended and yet closed, and the logic is extremely intense and fascinating. As a story, it's somewhat like taken Momento and rather than presenting it backwards, putting all the scenes in a bag, shaking it up, and letting the contents fall out. Sort of.
Everything in the film serves the story - the characters, the acting, the cinematography, etc. This could be successfully argued as a downside to the film, but again, it feld like it melded with the story well. And because the story was so rich, anything that would normally stand out as lacking in another film can be ignored here. The mystery is one for the modern age, and I've been thinking about it ever since.
Go see the film. Really, go see it, but make sure you see it at a theater where another movie you'd like to see is playing. That way, if you go in and realize the film isn't for you, you can walk out. If you like it, you can thank me later. This is the most serious and realistic time travel movie you've ever seen. Me, I would've done it differently. With Primer on the hyper-realism side and Back to the Future on the escapist-fantasy side, I would have been somewhere in the middle. But that's me, and I have a lot of respect for the director, who shot the film for $7,000 on Super 16.
I can't promise you'll like it, but I enjoyed it very much.
Posted by nick at 03:19 AM | Comments (0)
October 08, 2004
M*A*S*H*
I'm not going to write M*A*S*H* with all those little stars for the rest of this entry. I would if I felt it deserved it, but it doesn't.
My feelings on the movie are mixed (as many critics' seem to be). For the positive, I think that a lot of the performances are wonderful, and this is probably the only film I've ever seen with Donald Sutherland in which I've enjoyed his performance (as Hawk-Eye Pierce with the trademark whistle). Many of the other characters play their performances as memorably, and part of the success is that they treat this farce on a level of reality despite the general goofiness.
The film feels like a series of situation comedies strung together, and it is no question why it eventually led to a successful TV show. You could probably split the film into four 30 minute episodes quite easily. As a comedy, it is straight Altman. Lots of stuff that was clearly improved, a very very very loose structure, some funny parts and a lot more jokes that simply crash and burn. My favorite Altman movies are the ones where he sticks to a set structure and dialogue, and puts his genious into that. I loathe Nashville and the only saving grace for MASH were its performances and comedy.
The movie, as you probably know, ends with a football game for the last 20 minutes. I realize that back in the day, this was probably cutting edge satire - go to see a war movie, and the part of the film where the chief battle should occur is occupied by a football game between different army units. Satire or not, it's a lame ending that doesn't bookend anything. In fact, the movie doesn't move forward at all. It's simply amusing situation after amusing situation. Again, maybe this is cutting social satire for the time - go away to war, and end up boozing and fucking your way through it. It's an amusing joke, but one that doesn't require 2 hours to tell.
There are some natural comparisons to be made. Catch-22 (the book) is far superior in every way, because there is just as much general zaniness, but there is also structure and forward movement. Whereas Pierce is the same guy from beginning to end doing zany screwball antics at the camp, Yossarian changes very much over the course of the book. And in the end, Catch-22 delivers a much stronger message about war with just as much (if not more) insanity.
Apocalypse Now is a film that readily comes to mind, and one that I believe is far superior. The zaniness and insanity is more subdued, but the same point Altman is making is made much more forcefully with Apocalypse Now. Dr. Strangelove also has the same wackiness as MASH, but with an actual story and structure which make for a much better movie.
On its own, MASH is a film with great performances and a lot of what comedians would describe as bits set on the backdrop of the Korean war. The philosophy behind the film, while harsh, is also very shallow, which is unfortunate because so much more could have been done.
As a professor of mine once said, Altman has made about 40 movies, and about 3 of them are good. My experience is that which three you think are good depends on the story. I like Gosford Park (hated it the first time I saw it), The Player, and Three Women. The first two have a required tighter structure; the third is pretty out there, but then again, I'm a fan of Persona and Mulholland Drive.
Oh yes. And I despise the Altman zoom.
Posted by nick at 11:32 AM | Comments (1)
October 07, 2004
Rashomon, All The President's Men
Rashomon is a wonderful film, and the fact that everyone is aware that it is a wonderful film makes me not want to write about it, because I feel like there's absolutely nothing new that could possibly be said after half a century of theorists and critics writing about it. It really shows how a relative storyline can only be effective if it serves some sort of underlying theme. Hero, the 2002 Chinese film that just got released, is a failure in my mind because the whole "what is real, what is not" is just a stupid jigsaw puzzle. You might as well not watch the movie till the very end, when the "correct" version of events is finally revealed. Whereas in Rashomon, each story serves a purpose, a greater theme, a more important cause. Each character tells his version for a reason, that all comes back to a central point elaborated upon at the very end. Excellent stuff.
*****/***** (five of five stars)
All The President's Men - I saw this because I'm getting geared up to see Primer this weekend, and the director/writer says over and over in interviews that he was most influenced by this movie starring Redford and Hoffman. I've never read the famous book, but the film does a great version of taking you through their journalistic pursuits at a whirlwind speed. I see what the Primer director is after - event after event without letting up, without giving you a chance to really stop and breathe and think about what's going on, and that could either be good or bad. See, when a movie is based primarily on reality, I often wonder why a narrative fiction was chosen over a documentary. Because this is so close to recent events and the truth that accompanies them, it's hard to imagine that everything took place exactly as presented. And because the film doesn't do much to imbibe it with any philosophical deeper levels that would come with a fictional account, it's mostly a historical fiction piece with event after event. The acting was great, and some of the scenes were cool - who doesn't remember Deep Throat in the parking lot? The ending threw me a bit - just ending with a bunch of newspaper articles being typed up rather than showing the events. I have a feeling that the director feels that we already know the ending to the story, and don't need to see it. But I think we do need to see it - especially us young 'uns who weren't around to remember it! I want to see Woodward and Bernstein have their come-uppance; I want to see Nixon get impeached through newsreel footage; I want to see them win the Pulitzer! I understand the decision, but I'm not big on it.
**** / ***** (four out of five stars)
Next up: Mash, The Deer Hunter, and Deliverance (hell, I just don't think it's right that so many people reference scenes out of this movie without having seen it!!).
Posted by nick at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)
October 03, 2004
Four Movies
I've seen four movies over the last few days. I just started up my NetFlix account again, so that accounts for two of them.
Central Station - After going to see Motorcycle Diaries with my boss and listening to the director and actors do a Q and A after, I decided that I really needed to see the film which he is best known for. Central Station is a road movie, and I must say that I generally hate hate hate road movies. There is too much room to put in a lot of shit that doesn't actually matter, and the character growth usually takes place in a few choice moments, regardless of many other scenes that have proceeded. I wasn't into Central Station at first, but the acting of the female protagonist is just too perfect not to pull you in before too long. I can't believe she lost the Oscar to a certain actress in a certain movie with Ben Affleck. Travesty!! The movie really comes together as you learn more about the woman's personality, and see her trying to come out of the shell she has holed herself up in. The last moments are, of course, entirely unpredictable and very sad. I enjoyed it overall, and I really loved the constant blue skies with puffy white clouds, which reminds me of a painter whose name slips my mind.
Touch of Evil - I'm not a huge Orson Welles fan. Years ago, it was a travesty for any film student to admit that. Then it was commonplace. Now it's somewhere in the middle. I can watch Citizen Kane about once a year, but that's all for me. I honestly think that many of the innovations had very little to do with film theory and everything to do with a man who was very, very good at thinking outside the box. After everyone went crazy over it, he realized that he could stuff a boatload of theory into all his stylistic choices, leading to such movies as Touch of Evil. Certain scenes are brilliant, some performances are memorable, but overall I find the film to be convolluted and meandering. Stylistic as hell, sure, but something feels missing from it. Not that I'll ever speak ill of the opening 2 minutes!
Shaun of the Dead - Hilarious, funny, great stuff and exactly what I was hoping for, and a little more. The end 20 minutes or so gets a little too action-ey over comedy, which prevents it from being totally perfect, but a great little romp through zombie land. This of course is akin to Abbott and Costello Meet (Frankenstein/Dracula/etc.) in signaling the end of the relevance of the zombie movie once and for all. The best that anyone can get in the future will be homages (already started with the Dawn of the Dead remake), and while 28 Days Later was neat, I'm not a huge fan. Zombies have been done to death. Time to make up some new monsters.
The Forgotten - This movie is so ludicrously stupid EXCEPT for one of the coolest, freakiest special effects I've seen in a while. There are aliens involved, of course, and the manner in which they suck people into outer space - literally, right off the ground! - was freakin' scary as fuck. I think it had to do with the fact that there is simply no way to stop it when it happens. We as people are completely defenseless, and though the logic behind it was totally stupid, it was still scary. Also, the lead alien's face was sort of scary.
Rashomon next. I can't believe it's taken me so long to see this movie.
Posted by nick at 11:44 PM | Comments (0)
September 30, 2004
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
I watched The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, by John Huston and starring Humphrey Bogart. Man, never realized that was Bogey on the cover in the beard and cowboy hat. It was a great film for the most part, and it touches on a very basic human sentiment: greed. In the film, Bogart and two others go gold mining in the mountains of Mexico. They strike it rich, but Bogey ultimately lets greed get to his brain. He begins to rabidly suspect his fellow miners of plots to take his gold, and it ultimately leads to his doom.
This in turn led to a great idea, which I will keep to myself, which would essentially combine this with Reservoir Dogs. Lots of tension, lots of basic human emotions, and a great ending. It's funny, because the ending to the short film is what I assumed would happen in Sierra Madre, and didn't. And honestly, I wish it had, because I think it's better than what happened. It's funny when one piece of art inspires you far more than what the actual art accomplishes. NOT to say that I am superior to John Huston. Never would say that.
There were a few shots in the film that I really was intrigued by. When the Mexicans approached the camp with blades unsheathed, for example. Also, when the Mexican whore walks by and your eye is simply forced to look at her. Oh, and it was totally surprising when the seemingly nice prospecter was buying drinks, then suddenly smacked Bogart in the fact. Excellent stuff.
But I really like the idea I got out of this, and it might just turn out to be my short film. We'll see ...
Posted by nick at 01:48 AM | Comments (0)