Don't read too far into the title of this post - I thought this movie was very good. Not excellent. It gets a little sloppy in and directly after the 2nd act's conclusion. But, and with all things considered (Ben Affleck directing and the casting of his own brother) the film is very solid and features one of the more somber and satisfying conclusions I have ever seen. The movie ends on such a fantastic note that it overshadows all that came before and really reflects how strong the filmmaking is from top to bottom. This movie earns the right to ask a very difficult question at its end.
The movie is about the kidnapping of a child , and deals with the abuse of children as a means to defining them for the rest of their lives. Tough, right? This is very serious subject matter and Affleck does not shy away from it.
What makes the film successful, though, is the way that Boston truly becomes a character in the movie. Affleck knows the terrain well and drapes the movie in all things Boston. Is doesn't hurt that he gets a handful of very good performances. Ed Harris is solid, if typical, as an uber-intense cop with a hard-on for abusive or neglectful parents. Morgan Freeman makes what is essentially an extended cameo as the head of a department for the Boston PD. Michelle Mongahan in on hand as the sturdy female sidekick/lover, but she isn't given much to do.
The two strongest performances come from Casey Affleck as a tough guy with something to prove and Amy Ryan as the kidnapped girl's mother. Ryan, in particular, is great. You hate her, but she is absolutely fantastic and leaves a lasting impression. There's a nomination here for her.
Casey Affleck has come a long way this year, with his award-caliber role in The assassination of Jesse James. Here, he is different; confident, honest, and sporting something resembling a little man's complex. He is very good here and shows a lot of confidence with actors that should blow him off the screen, but don't.
The kicker, though, is this film's ending, and the division it can cause. It asks a truly difficult question and refuses to take a side. What is RIGHT and what is Morally right. The answer, you may find, could tell you something about yourself and it depends almost entirely on personal belief. The ending takes Gone Baby Gone from thriller to a serious probe of the human condition.
Monday, November 5, 2007
American Gangster: Uh, Blah?
I had a sneaking suspicion that this would happen. The trailers hadn't impressed me too much and there was something about Ridley Scott's considerable skill being attached to gritty, american gangster flick.
Let me say this right now: American Gangster has nothing on The Godfather, Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, Casino, Training Day, Serpico, Prince of the City, King of the City, Hard Eight, or many of the other fantastic crime dramas out there. It especially doesn't even come close to HEAT, that monumental Michael Mann masterpiece that it tries so hard to emulate. In fact, HEAT is so far above American Gangster that it almost shocked me how much better that film is, even 12 years later.
American Gangster is sort of a lame duck with underwritten characters and a Denzel Washington who seems a little disinterested with his role. Its odd, because Washington's performance should be towering and imposing, but it comes off as muted and almost too dialed down. The movie wants him to be a menacing, charismatic Lord of Harlem, and it wants the audience to love him for it. At the the same time, they give us a really strong character in Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) who is all integrity and hard work, who is really the story's best character. You give us two characters, opposite sides of the law (like Heat) and we follow both as they circle one another - the difference being that HEAT's two leads were fascinating, well-matched, and extremely flawed. In American Gangster, you don't get that tension because the stories seem too independent of one another and neither character is so dynamic. It is bizarre. It is a misfire.
I really liked Crowe here, though his performance in 3:10 to Yuma was better. In fact, Crowe in 3:10 is what Denzel in AG should have been. His scene at the end with Washington is good, but not great, and not emotionally satisfying. The scene between Pacino and De Niro in Heat was so strong because both were so well-matched, and they respected each other despite being on opposite sides of the law. You never get that sense of mutual respect because, morally, Crowe is head and shoulders above Washington. There is no mutual insight here.
In Heat, in that famous, pivotal scene, you really get insight into these two characters, and you see how dangerously similar they are, how in another life, they may have been friends. But, the reality is that one will probably have to kill the other. In American Gangster, there is nothing approaching that level of depth.
Overall, AG is not a bad film, but it is nowehere the achievement it could have been. I revisited the original article that the film was based on, and the article was much more exciting and rewarding. I wonder if they had developed a framing device to wrap around the narrative, something playing off of the article, would the film have been stronger?
A few side notes: Cuba Gooding Jr. has about 5 minutes of screen time and is GREAT. It is a nice, small return to form for Gooding Jr. He has one scene - arguably the films best, in which he and Washington square off, and I'll be damned if Gooding doesn't go toe-to-toe for the 2 minutes. I miss Gooding Jr.
You know, movies like this sometimes depend on small, eccentric characters to make the lasting impressions. It is more often than not the sprawling crime epics are defined by their smaller, supporting moments and performances. American Gangster's supporting players are not that memorable. Aside from Gooding Jr. there is one other character who sticks out - Josh Brolin's Det. Trupo. The film goes to considerable lengths to establish him as the film's real antagonist and he is completely hissable. You really want him to be in the movie more because once he shows up, he finally commands some tension, and creates the type of excitement and division in the audience that these movies are supposed to do.
Th flick is entertaining, but in the canon of great crime thrillers, of which there are probably 20, American Gangster is found wanting.
Let me say this right now: American Gangster has nothing on The Godfather, Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, Casino, Training Day, Serpico, Prince of the City, King of the City, Hard Eight, or many of the other fantastic crime dramas out there. It especially doesn't even come close to HEAT, that monumental Michael Mann masterpiece that it tries so hard to emulate. In fact, HEAT is so far above American Gangster that it almost shocked me how much better that film is, even 12 years later.
American Gangster is sort of a lame duck with underwritten characters and a Denzel Washington who seems a little disinterested with his role. Its odd, because Washington's performance should be towering and imposing, but it comes off as muted and almost too dialed down. The movie wants him to be a menacing, charismatic Lord of Harlem, and it wants the audience to love him for it. At the the same time, they give us a really strong character in Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) who is all integrity and hard work, who is really the story's best character. You give us two characters, opposite sides of the law (like Heat) and we follow both as they circle one another - the difference being that HEAT's two leads were fascinating, well-matched, and extremely flawed. In American Gangster, you don't get that tension because the stories seem too independent of one another and neither character is so dynamic. It is bizarre. It is a misfire.
I really liked Crowe here, though his performance in 3:10 to Yuma was better. In fact, Crowe in 3:10 is what Denzel in AG should have been. His scene at the end with Washington is good, but not great, and not emotionally satisfying. The scene between Pacino and De Niro in Heat was so strong because both were so well-matched, and they respected each other despite being on opposite sides of the law. You never get that sense of mutual respect because, morally, Crowe is head and shoulders above Washington. There is no mutual insight here.
In Heat, in that famous, pivotal scene, you really get insight into these two characters, and you see how dangerously similar they are, how in another life, they may have been friends. But, the reality is that one will probably have to kill the other. In American Gangster, there is nothing approaching that level of depth.
Overall, AG is not a bad film, but it is nowehere the achievement it could have been. I revisited the original article that the film was based on, and the article was much more exciting and rewarding. I wonder if they had developed a framing device to wrap around the narrative, something playing off of the article, would the film have been stronger?
A few side notes: Cuba Gooding Jr. has about 5 minutes of screen time and is GREAT. It is a nice, small return to form for Gooding Jr. He has one scene - arguably the films best, in which he and Washington square off, and I'll be damned if Gooding doesn't go toe-to-toe for the 2 minutes. I miss Gooding Jr.
You know, movies like this sometimes depend on small, eccentric characters to make the lasting impressions. It is more often than not the sprawling crime epics are defined by their smaller, supporting moments and performances. American Gangster's supporting players are not that memorable. Aside from Gooding Jr. there is one other character who sticks out - Josh Brolin's Det. Trupo. The film goes to considerable lengths to establish him as the film's real antagonist and he is completely hissable. You really want him to be in the movie more because once he shows up, he finally commands some tension, and creates the type of excitement and division in the audience that these movies are supposed to do.
Th flick is entertaining, but in the canon of great crime thrillers, of which there are probably 20, American Gangster is found wanting.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Mad Dog and Glory: Bill Murray's Best and Great Tough Guy Talk
It took me a long while to get around to writing this - things have been very busy at work.
I revisited this movie about 2 weeks ago and I forgot just how quirky and funny it is. Seriously. This is one that nobody talks about...ever. You never get in a film-centric discussion where out of the blue somebody says, " oh my god, do you remember Mad Dog and Glory. Fucking great, man." Nobody says that. Not about this flick.
Well, consider the stars aligned and the clouds parted because this movie is just that - fucking great. Its not perfect. I think the score is lame, distractingly so, and the ending leaves something to be desired because the movie forgets its most fascinating relationship, choosing instead to focus on a different one.
What works, though, is a fantastic script with some really great dialogue. Richard Price, the screenwriter, has written some great Tough Guy flicks with nice street-wise dialogue. This is no different, except, for the characters. This flick is all about its characters and that is a remarkably refreshing thing. Price apparently fell in love with 4 characters here and writes the bejesus out of them; giving them some of the best tough-guy talk and interactions that I think I have ever heard/seen.
The problem, though, is that one pivotal character - the Glory of the title (Uma Thurman) doesn't really have a place in the story. She gets left behind amidst all the tough-guy posturing and bonding.
The story is as follows: Mad Dog (Robert De Niro) is a forensics specialist for the Chicago PD. He is a real puss - the nickname is joke, get it? He aspires to be a photographer, lives alone, and is afraid to confront his neighbor's (Kathy Bates) abusive boyfriend. He's a huge softie. His best friend is his partner, a real Irish pisser played by David Caruso.
Well, one night, while buying gum, he thwarts an attempted robbery and murder of notorious gangster, Frank Milo (Bill Murray). Feeling that he is in Mad Dog's debt, Frank befriends him and brings him to his club, where he performs lousy standup, but everyone laughs because they're scared of him.
These initial scenes of De Niro and Murray trying to become friends, despite being on opposite sides of the law, are fantastic. You can see that despite their differences, they want to be friends and they really listen to one another. Their rapport is fantastic and funny - its like the scene in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles when Steve Martin and John Candy wake up in bed together, all nuzzled up against one another. They're thankful for the good sleep, but disgusted they're cuddling so closely.
Next, to further ingratiate himself to De Niro, Murray provides him with some company - Glory, for an entire week. Well, you can guess what happens; Glory and Mad Dog fall in love and Mad Dog has to test the strength of his budding friendship with vicious mobster Murray.
The love story fails, in my opinion. Glory is not a convincing character and I didn't really care about her or whether she sticks around in the end. What I cared about was Murray and De Niro's relationship, and how De Niro's pussy character sort of awakens to the tough guys around him.
Murray has a henchman in the film, Harold, who is another of the 4 great characters. His timing with some of the film's best lines in impeccable.
Caruso has a few good scenes, but one in particular stands out and, I think, might be the best example of tough-guy talk that I have ever seen. In this scene, Caruso is at a bar and sees Mad Dog's neighbor with a serious black eye - her hulking, abusive, asshole boyfriend is sitting next to her. Now, Caruso is considerably smaller than this guy, but it doesn't matter. He takes out his pistol and hands it to Mad Dog. "Hold This," he says. Then, he strolls over to the boyfriend and proceeds to intimidate, ridicule, and embarrass this guy with some of the best posturing in the history of film. It is a great scene.
Lastly, though, I want to say that this is Bill Murray's greatest performance. I know that he has given quite a few good ones recently, but here he is PERFECT. He is funny, endearing, menacing, and pathetic all at once. This was a performance that should have been recognized by an Academy that loves playing against type. Murray walks away with this film - he is great here.
"Cross me and your life becomes a raging sea." - Frank Milo
I revisited this movie about 2 weeks ago and I forgot just how quirky and funny it is. Seriously. This is one that nobody talks about...ever. You never get in a film-centric discussion where out of the blue somebody says, " oh my god, do you remember Mad Dog and Glory. Fucking great, man." Nobody says that. Not about this flick.
Well, consider the stars aligned and the clouds parted because this movie is just that - fucking great. Its not perfect. I think the score is lame, distractingly so, and the ending leaves something to be desired because the movie forgets its most fascinating relationship, choosing instead to focus on a different one.
What works, though, is a fantastic script with some really great dialogue. Richard Price, the screenwriter, has written some great Tough Guy flicks with nice street-wise dialogue. This is no different, except, for the characters. This flick is all about its characters and that is a remarkably refreshing thing. Price apparently fell in love with 4 characters here and writes the bejesus out of them; giving them some of the best tough-guy talk and interactions that I think I have ever heard/seen.
The problem, though, is that one pivotal character - the Glory of the title (Uma Thurman) doesn't really have a place in the story. She gets left behind amidst all the tough-guy posturing and bonding.
The story is as follows: Mad Dog (Robert De Niro) is a forensics specialist for the Chicago PD. He is a real puss - the nickname is joke, get it? He aspires to be a photographer, lives alone, and is afraid to confront his neighbor's (Kathy Bates) abusive boyfriend. He's a huge softie. His best friend is his partner, a real Irish pisser played by David Caruso.
Well, one night, while buying gum, he thwarts an attempted robbery and murder of notorious gangster, Frank Milo (Bill Murray). Feeling that he is in Mad Dog's debt, Frank befriends him and brings him to his club, where he performs lousy standup, but everyone laughs because they're scared of him.
These initial scenes of De Niro and Murray trying to become friends, despite being on opposite sides of the law, are fantastic. You can see that despite their differences, they want to be friends and they really listen to one another. Their rapport is fantastic and funny - its like the scene in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles when Steve Martin and John Candy wake up in bed together, all nuzzled up against one another. They're thankful for the good sleep, but disgusted they're cuddling so closely.
Next, to further ingratiate himself to De Niro, Murray provides him with some company - Glory, for an entire week. Well, you can guess what happens; Glory and Mad Dog fall in love and Mad Dog has to test the strength of his budding friendship with vicious mobster Murray.
The love story fails, in my opinion. Glory is not a convincing character and I didn't really care about her or whether she sticks around in the end. What I cared about was Murray and De Niro's relationship, and how De Niro's pussy character sort of awakens to the tough guys around him.
Murray has a henchman in the film, Harold, who is another of the 4 great characters. His timing with some of the film's best lines in impeccable.
Caruso has a few good scenes, but one in particular stands out and, I think, might be the best example of tough-guy talk that I have ever seen. In this scene, Caruso is at a bar and sees Mad Dog's neighbor with a serious black eye - her hulking, abusive, asshole boyfriend is sitting next to her. Now, Caruso is considerably smaller than this guy, but it doesn't matter. He takes out his pistol and hands it to Mad Dog. "Hold This," he says. Then, he strolls over to the boyfriend and proceeds to intimidate, ridicule, and embarrass this guy with some of the best posturing in the history of film. It is a great scene.
Lastly, though, I want to say that this is Bill Murray's greatest performance. I know that he has given quite a few good ones recently, but here he is PERFECT. He is funny, endearing, menacing, and pathetic all at once. This was a performance that should have been recognized by an Academy that loves playing against type. Murray walks away with this film - he is great here.
"Cross me and your life becomes a raging sea." - Frank Milo
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
In Defense of Steven Seagal
He cannot act, okay. I get it. Guess what, neither could John Wayne. Sorry, old-timers, but John Wayne, The Duke, could not act especially well. What he could do was exude presence, milk his physicality, his 6'4 build, and become the center of whatever universe he occupied. Steve McQueen was similar in that he wasn't much of actor, just an Entity of Cool, a Black and White poster in waiting. If you've seen Bullitt, if you've seen The Getaway, then you know that he was supercool. We have our variations of this too; I think Bruce Willis is more about presence, as well as Harrison Ford. Well, Ford had fantastic timing in just about everything he did, plus, he had this way of always seeming dogged and on the verge of getting beat. People like that. At least, they do now and they did when DIe Hard was released and Indiana Jones survived the Temple of Doom.
There was, however, a brief period where Invincible Karate Stars rose from the EAST , or were taught by educators from the East, to take over our multiplexes. You remember them:
Chuck Norris
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Steve Seagall
Wesley Snipes
Ralph Macchio
Alright, so Macchio doesn't count but the other four, well, they're iconic aren't they. Sure, they've been relegated to the Direct-to-Video markets, but there was a time when they were producing awesome, action/chop-your-face flicks. Of all of them, Snipes is probably the one with the most success, and the more durable career, though he has been making lots of garbage, he is easily the most accomplished actor of the group.
But, people seem to forget what Seagall was. Seagall couldn't act at all. I mean, he had zero ability, zero ability to act anything but badass. Yea, that's right, badass. I mean, think about it; did you ever doubt for one second that Seagall would kick serious ass? Of course not. But, did you ever see him come up against someone where you doubted for one, miniscule moment that he might not win? See, the other guys fought some hard battles. Remember Van Damme in Death Warrant? He was getting his lunch handed to him by The Sandman. What about Snipes? He came up against a pretty formidable villain in PASSENGER 57 (highly nderrated actio flick).
Seagall, you ask? I don't know that he ever broke a sweat with the heavies he was dispatching. There is one scene that completely sums up Seagall: Out for Justice (1991), Seagall shakes down a bar and finds, basically, a line of goons waiting for their shot at him. You've got all the usual suspects here - The HUGE Guy, the guy who eats the Cue Ball, the Guy with Tattoos, the Slick guy with a gun, and then the weapons experts. Sometimes the weapons expert has knives or guns, but this guy uses sticks. Actually, I think they were pool cues. And he wields these sticks like a fucking olympian. Here's the kicker, though - when it is his turn to enter the ring against Seagall, guess what his name turns out to be? Guess what the other, downed fighters call him? STICKS. I shit you not. They call him Sticks. So, Sticks comes out to fight Seagall and Seagall beats the hell out of him. Like, its not a problem at all for him to destroy this guy's face. It never was a problem for Seagall and that's why I believe he was a badass. Let's take a peak:
Above The Law: Tries to be a hard-edged Cop Flick, but Seagall works everyone with ease. He even gets tortured, but to no avail
Out For Justice: His most ridiculous movie. His name is Gino in it. Okay?
Marked For Death: Pretty badass flick with a pretty badass villain. If ever you might doubt Seagall, this is it.
Under Siege: Uh huh. One of the best action films of all time.
See, he ain't so bad. In fact, I suggest right here and now that Seagall's career will be resurrected at some point, and we will all root for his fat ass.
There was, however, a brief period where Invincible Karate Stars rose from the EAST , or were taught by educators from the East, to take over our multiplexes. You remember them:
Chuck Norris
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Steve Seagall
Wesley Snipes
Ralph Macchio
Alright, so Macchio doesn't count but the other four, well, they're iconic aren't they. Sure, they've been relegated to the Direct-to-Video markets, but there was a time when they were producing awesome, action/chop-your-face flicks. Of all of them, Snipes is probably the one with the most success, and the more durable career, though he has been making lots of garbage, he is easily the most accomplished actor of the group.
But, people seem to forget what Seagall was. Seagall couldn't act at all. I mean, he had zero ability, zero ability to act anything but badass. Yea, that's right, badass. I mean, think about it; did you ever doubt for one second that Seagall would kick serious ass? Of course not. But, did you ever see him come up against someone where you doubted for one, miniscule moment that he might not win? See, the other guys fought some hard battles. Remember Van Damme in Death Warrant? He was getting his lunch handed to him by The Sandman. What about Snipes? He came up against a pretty formidable villain in PASSENGER 57 (highly nderrated actio flick).
Seagall, you ask? I don't know that he ever broke a sweat with the heavies he was dispatching. There is one scene that completely sums up Seagall: Out for Justice (1991), Seagall shakes down a bar and finds, basically, a line of goons waiting for their shot at him. You've got all the usual suspects here - The HUGE Guy, the guy who eats the Cue Ball, the Guy with Tattoos, the Slick guy with a gun, and then the weapons experts. Sometimes the weapons expert has knives or guns, but this guy uses sticks. Actually, I think they were pool cues. And he wields these sticks like a fucking olympian. Here's the kicker, though - when it is his turn to enter the ring against Seagall, guess what his name turns out to be? Guess what the other, downed fighters call him? STICKS. I shit you not. They call him Sticks. So, Sticks comes out to fight Seagall and Seagall beats the hell out of him. Like, its not a problem at all for him to destroy this guy's face. It never was a problem for Seagall and that's why I believe he was a badass. Let's take a peak:
Above The Law: Tries to be a hard-edged Cop Flick, but Seagall works everyone with ease. He even gets tortured, but to no avail
Out For Justice: His most ridiculous movie. His name is Gino in it. Okay?
Marked For Death: Pretty badass flick with a pretty badass villain. If ever you might doubt Seagall, this is it.
Under Siege: Uh huh. One of the best action films of all time.
See, he ain't so bad. In fact, I suggest right here and now that Seagall's career will be resurrected at some point, and we will all root for his fat ass.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Introducing Michael Clayton
I like genre flicks. I like movies movies that don't pretend to be anymore than what they are; horror, action, science-fiction, courtroom drama, serial killer thrillers, and cop movies - I like all those genres and I can point to hundreds of examples of each that are excellent films.
There is something to be said for the practice of taking a formula and shining it until its glossy sheen almost disguises it as something entirely different. That would be the case with MICHAEL CLAYTON, George Clooney's new legal thriller that looks and feels like a standard Legal Drama, but has been made with such care and intelligence, that it almost feels like its transcending that genre to become something more. A message flick? Perhaps, though I think the film's director and writer, Tony Gilroy, would sneer if people thought this movie was delivering a message of any sort. Its too cynical and diabolical to be strictly a message movie.
Like all legal dramas, this one is talky, but nobody here is given to speech making. People talk, but its about business, about spinning, about making and losing money. I love movies where the filmmakers have a particular ear for the profession they're portraying. Michael Clayton has a hell of an ear. There is a lot of corporate speak, a lot of talk about legal issues, dividing lines, things like that.
But, again, this movie isn't about a larger issue. Its about Michael Clayton and George Clooney is very good here. Much better than he ever was in Syriana. Clooney is an actor that I really like - I think there is a place for him in movies like this, movies that Michael Douglas made in the late 80's and early to mid-nineties. He's got that masculine, intelligent, authoritative thing that Douglas used to have, where you think the guy could handle anything, but spend a moment really listening to him and you sense the turmoil brewing beneath the surface.
I like how Clooney changes here. The movie is about a personal shift for him, but Clooney never makes it overly obvious that Clayton is changing and its a credit to Tony Gilroy that Clayton's great discovery is not that he's a bad person, its that he is who he is - Tigers cannot change their stripes, but they can do the right thing from time to time.
I really liked this movie. Its the most entertaining movie I've seen this season. Its not the best, but it is an incredibly polished exercise that leads to a lot of familiar places. It doesn't insult the audience's intelligence, but notice its small details and little ways in which it hooks you. Notice how its a legal thriller with no real interest in "The Case" itself. The movie doesn't have a lot to say about the legal system, instead, its more of a movie about people and their careers - how people ARE their jobs.
This is a common theme of Michael Mann films, which this reminded me of. All of Mann's films are about doing a job, being your career, and fuck everything else. I like the theme of people living that lifestyle, but breaking away from it. Even if its as subtle as it is in Michael Clayton.
There is something to be said for the practice of taking a formula and shining it until its glossy sheen almost disguises it as something entirely different. That would be the case with MICHAEL CLAYTON, George Clooney's new legal thriller that looks and feels like a standard Legal Drama, but has been made with such care and intelligence, that it almost feels like its transcending that genre to become something more. A message flick? Perhaps, though I think the film's director and writer, Tony Gilroy, would sneer if people thought this movie was delivering a message of any sort. Its too cynical and diabolical to be strictly a message movie.
Like all legal dramas, this one is talky, but nobody here is given to speech making. People talk, but its about business, about spinning, about making and losing money. I love movies where the filmmakers have a particular ear for the profession they're portraying. Michael Clayton has a hell of an ear. There is a lot of corporate speak, a lot of talk about legal issues, dividing lines, things like that.
But, again, this movie isn't about a larger issue. Its about Michael Clayton and George Clooney is very good here. Much better than he ever was in Syriana. Clooney is an actor that I really like - I think there is a place for him in movies like this, movies that Michael Douglas made in the late 80's and early to mid-nineties. He's got that masculine, intelligent, authoritative thing that Douglas used to have, where you think the guy could handle anything, but spend a moment really listening to him and you sense the turmoil brewing beneath the surface.
I like how Clooney changes here. The movie is about a personal shift for him, but Clooney never makes it overly obvious that Clayton is changing and its a credit to Tony Gilroy that Clayton's great discovery is not that he's a bad person, its that he is who he is - Tigers cannot change their stripes, but they can do the right thing from time to time.
I really liked this movie. Its the most entertaining movie I've seen this season. Its not the best, but it is an incredibly polished exercise that leads to a lot of familiar places. It doesn't insult the audience's intelligence, but notice its small details and little ways in which it hooks you. Notice how its a legal thriller with no real interest in "The Case" itself. The movie doesn't have a lot to say about the legal system, instead, its more of a movie about people and their careers - how people ARE their jobs.
This is a common theme of Michael Mann films, which this reminded me of. All of Mann's films are about doing a job, being your career, and fuck everything else. I like the theme of people living that lifestyle, but breaking away from it. Even if its as subtle as it is in Michael Clayton.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
1987 Dead-Bang: Don Johnson, What?
People don't rent movies with Don Johnson on the cover. Nobody strolls down the aisles of a rental store looking for Don Johnson movies or even pick up a DVD that has Don Johnson on its cover. This is why the guy did Nash Bridges (read: garbage) for years - because he had no film career. Never.
Now, I'm not ragging on the guy. I personally think that he could possibly, maybe, perhaps be slightly underrated. I could be killed for saying that. People have killed for less.
I have virtually no basis for saying that he is underrated...except, well, for GUILTY AS SIN, where he plays a perfectly good villain, in fact, quite a good, nasty SOB. Some people might say he overacts, but I think he does incredibly well in that film and overwhelms, completely, Rebecca De Mornay, when she was still considered an actress and not just boobs.
Another example of a solid Don Johnson is this little flick - DEAD BANG. Here is a really good, rock-hard cop thriller that is astoundingly well-directed by a master of the action genre, John Frankenheimer. He directed the original Manchurian Candidate, Ronin, The French Connection 2 (read: spectacular sequel) and Grand Prix. This guy can handle taut, realistic action sequences. He wrote the book.
The movie stars Don Johnson as a dogged, alcoholic cop (is there another kind), who finds himself on the trail of some vicious white supremacists. On top of his alcholism, he has a clear rage issue and a divorce from a wife who rarely allows him to see his kids. All he has is his job and Frankenheimer goes to great lengths not to glorify it like other cop flicks - Johnson's cop clearly makes very little money, has nothing outside of his job (ie: personal relationships, hobbies) aside from the bottle. His is a shit existence. So, when he finds a case, he works it to death.
This particular case takes him all over the country and into middle-America where he joins forces, reluctantly, with a buttoned-up FBI agent played by William Forsythe. They really hate each other, but come to respect one another, as these things go. The difference is; theirs is strictly a professional respect, as they could never really be friends, a la Lethal Weapon or 48hrs. Johnson curses up a storm and truly offends Forsythe and their interactions, with rage-fueled Johnson, are really funny.
But, what makes this one unique are the tiny details that Frankenheimer includes: Johnson not getting wire transfers to pay for his trips, Johnson having to REALLY answer to his superiors, Johnson bullying a psychiatrist, and in the film's classic scene - Johnson, severely hungover, puking all over a suspect while he interrogates him. Its gross and hilarious because Movie Cops don't get so hungover they puke on suspects after a footchase. Well, in this movie, they do.
Now, I'm not ragging on the guy. I personally think that he could possibly, maybe, perhaps be slightly underrated. I could be killed for saying that. People have killed for less.
I have virtually no basis for saying that he is underrated...except, well, for GUILTY AS SIN, where he plays a perfectly good villain, in fact, quite a good, nasty SOB. Some people might say he overacts, but I think he does incredibly well in that film and overwhelms, completely, Rebecca De Mornay, when she was still considered an actress and not just boobs.
Another example of a solid Don Johnson is this little flick - DEAD BANG. Here is a really good, rock-hard cop thriller that is astoundingly well-directed by a master of the action genre, John Frankenheimer. He directed the original Manchurian Candidate, Ronin, The French Connection 2 (read: spectacular sequel) and Grand Prix. This guy can handle taut, realistic action sequences. He wrote the book.
The movie stars Don Johnson as a dogged, alcoholic cop (is there another kind), who finds himself on the trail of some vicious white supremacists. On top of his alcholism, he has a clear rage issue and a divorce from a wife who rarely allows him to see his kids. All he has is his job and Frankenheimer goes to great lengths not to glorify it like other cop flicks - Johnson's cop clearly makes very little money, has nothing outside of his job (ie: personal relationships, hobbies) aside from the bottle. His is a shit existence. So, when he finds a case, he works it to death.
This particular case takes him all over the country and into middle-America where he joins forces, reluctantly, with a buttoned-up FBI agent played by William Forsythe. They really hate each other, but come to respect one another, as these things go. The difference is; theirs is strictly a professional respect, as they could never really be friends, a la Lethal Weapon or 48hrs. Johnson curses up a storm and truly offends Forsythe and their interactions, with rage-fueled Johnson, are really funny.
But, what makes this one unique are the tiny details that Frankenheimer includes: Johnson not getting wire transfers to pay for his trips, Johnson having to REALLY answer to his superiors, Johnson bullying a psychiatrist, and in the film's classic scene - Johnson, severely hungover, puking all over a suspect while he interrogates him. Its gross and hilarious because Movie Cops don't get so hungover they puke on suspects after a footchase. Well, in this movie, they do.
Monday, October 8, 2007
In the Valley of Elah
Let me just get this out of the way; Tommy Lee Jones is the shit. I know that he has a great year of flicks lined up, what with this and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, but damn, this guy has given some superb performances.
JFK: Jones steals the film as the cunning Clay Shaw
Under Siege: One of the great villains - took the film to another level
The Missing: Saved the film from being awful
The Fugitive: His definitive, amazing, Historical performance as a dogged hunter who begins to identify with his prey.
Here, though, in ELAH, Jones gives a career definer. We have seen a number of very physical performances this year - acting that requires much more than the proper voice inflection or suggestion - no, these performances rely on body language, movement, the way that an actor carries himself.
Here, Jones internalizes everything and I don't think I've ever seen an actor's face reflect so much pain so effectively. Watching the film, you worry that he might explode, and you hope that he might allow himself some type of catharsis because there is no way that one man can hold so much emotion inside.
I should point this out now: Jones' performance is easily the best I've seen this year. I know that I raved about Viggo's and Pitt's in their respective films, but honestly, Tommy Lee Jones leaves them so far behind that there's no point in comparing them.
Picture Tommy Lee Jones giving a great performance, one that you liked (The Fugitive), now, imagine that great piece of acting multiplied by infinity, because that is the quality of acting we are seeing here. I thought those other two actors were great, but if we were to talk Oscar Race, Jones would win without losing any votes to the others.
You're rolling your eyes, right?
Its true. I would also like to heap some praise on Charlize Theron. I have loved Charlize Theron since 2 Days in the Valley. I have wanted her to be my wife since The Italian Job. She is very good in Elah. Not nearly as good as MONSTER, or as grandstanding as NORTH COUNTRY, but she is incredibly solid here as she underplays her role fantastically. Her and Jones work well off one another. I feel like Theron has the career that Ashley Judd might have had.
Lets talk about Paul Haggis now. Everyone knows that he wrote and directed CRASH - a very good movie. Not great, but very solid. He also wrote the great MILLION DOLLAR BABY. In fact, I think his major directorial influence must be Clint Eastwood of MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Here, he uses the same cinematographer as Eastwood and achieves the same stark, plain, and contained atmosphere of that film. The movie is full of shadows and dark corners, lit and unlit faces.
His script is very good. I don't know a screenwriter who so cleanly sets up his films, defines the A,B, and C plots, and ties them up as well as Haggis.
Up to a point, Haggis has a great film going. The film never overplays itself by making it an elaborate mystery, a thriller, or an anti-war flick (which it is).
Then, at the exact point when the film should end, it doesn't and Haggis makes a colossal miscalculation that goes a long way towards spoiling the entire movie.
Out of nowhere, Haggis cues some manipulative pop-song in an effort to draw tears, much like he did in CRASH, and the movie falls dead. The audience is totally drawn out of the plight and the movie destroys a lot of what it has accomplished.
I still liked the film very much, but if ever a film cried out to not end with a pop song, The Valley of Elah is it. I highly recommend it, though, and if you want to see truly great, subtle, masterful acting - see Tommy Lee Jones here.
JFK: Jones steals the film as the cunning Clay Shaw
Under Siege: One of the great villains - took the film to another level
The Missing: Saved the film from being awful
The Fugitive: His definitive, amazing, Historical performance as a dogged hunter who begins to identify with his prey.
Here, though, in ELAH, Jones gives a career definer. We have seen a number of very physical performances this year - acting that requires much more than the proper voice inflection or suggestion - no, these performances rely on body language, movement, the way that an actor carries himself.
Here, Jones internalizes everything and I don't think I've ever seen an actor's face reflect so much pain so effectively. Watching the film, you worry that he might explode, and you hope that he might allow himself some type of catharsis because there is no way that one man can hold so much emotion inside.
I should point this out now: Jones' performance is easily the best I've seen this year. I know that I raved about Viggo's and Pitt's in their respective films, but honestly, Tommy Lee Jones leaves them so far behind that there's no point in comparing them.
Picture Tommy Lee Jones giving a great performance, one that you liked (The Fugitive), now, imagine that great piece of acting multiplied by infinity, because that is the quality of acting we are seeing here. I thought those other two actors were great, but if we were to talk Oscar Race, Jones would win without losing any votes to the others.
You're rolling your eyes, right?
Its true. I would also like to heap some praise on Charlize Theron. I have loved Charlize Theron since 2 Days in the Valley. I have wanted her to be my wife since The Italian Job. She is very good in Elah. Not nearly as good as MONSTER, or as grandstanding as NORTH COUNTRY, but she is incredibly solid here as she underplays her role fantastically. Her and Jones work well off one another. I feel like Theron has the career that Ashley Judd might have had.
Lets talk about Paul Haggis now. Everyone knows that he wrote and directed CRASH - a very good movie. Not great, but very solid. He also wrote the great MILLION DOLLAR BABY. In fact, I think his major directorial influence must be Clint Eastwood of MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Here, he uses the same cinematographer as Eastwood and achieves the same stark, plain, and contained atmosphere of that film. The movie is full of shadows and dark corners, lit and unlit faces.
His script is very good. I don't know a screenwriter who so cleanly sets up his films, defines the A,B, and C plots, and ties them up as well as Haggis.
Up to a point, Haggis has a great film going. The film never overplays itself by making it an elaborate mystery, a thriller, or an anti-war flick (which it is).
Then, at the exact point when the film should end, it doesn't and Haggis makes a colossal miscalculation that goes a long way towards spoiling the entire movie.
Out of nowhere, Haggis cues some manipulative pop-song in an effort to draw tears, much like he did in CRASH, and the movie falls dead. The audience is totally drawn out of the plight and the movie destroys a lot of what it has accomplished.
I still liked the film very much, but if ever a film cried out to not end with a pop song, The Valley of Elah is it. I highly recommend it, though, and if you want to see truly great, subtle, masterful acting - see Tommy Lee Jones here.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Changing Lanes: Underrated, Undervalued
I was toying with the idea of employing a new weekly post called "Unfounded." Cool, right? It would deal with films that I think are fantastic, but for some reason went unnoticed by the mainstream.
It happens every year.
A film will be released to either good/mediocre reviews, I'll see it, love it, and find no other admirers for me to share my opinions with. Sometimes these films are embraced by critics or the Oscars, a la The Insider (a movie i will write about soon), and sometimes they're huge successes initially, but fade away.
This movie, CHANGING LANES, it is a fucking great movie - the best movie of 2002. I stick by this remark. I think I have only seen the movie once in its entirety - I do that because I can love a movie so much on a first viewing that I don't want to tarnish the first-impression by nit-picking it to death. That does not mean that the movie won't stand up to repeat viewings.
When I saw this movie, it gave me everything I seemed to be looking for in a film at that very moment: smart people saying smart things about honesty, integrity, character, and life. The movie isn't filled with grand setpieces or manipulative suspense - no - this one has these quietly powerful moments where every character gets a moment to say something important, these little speeches which ultimately define who they are and what they stand for. They're sort of jaw-dropping because these characters really stop and really try to articulate their feelings, not necessarily with eloquence, but with the words they have at their disposal in their respective vocabularies. I mean, look at this:
" It's like you go to the beach. You go down to the water. It's a little cold. You're not sure you want to go in. There's a pretty girl standing next to you. She doesn't want to go in either. She sees you, and you know that if you just asked her her name, you would leave with her. Forget your life, whoever you came with, and leave the beach with her. And after that day, you remember. Not every day, every week... she comes back to you. It's the memory of another life you could have had. Today is that girl"
See, people may or may not really talk like this - it doesn't matter - because of how the scene is filmed and how the entire movie builds up to this moment of insight - and sometimes just the ability to say how you're feeling, no matter how abstract - sometimes thats enough to settle old scores.
I love that about this movie because every relationship comes to a turning point that hinges on total and complete honesty.
The ending might be a big false note, but the movie up till that point is a knockout.
It happens every year.
A film will be released to either good/mediocre reviews, I'll see it, love it, and find no other admirers for me to share my opinions with. Sometimes these films are embraced by critics or the Oscars, a la The Insider (a movie i will write about soon), and sometimes they're huge successes initially, but fade away.
This movie, CHANGING LANES, it is a fucking great movie - the best movie of 2002. I stick by this remark. I think I have only seen the movie once in its entirety - I do that because I can love a movie so much on a first viewing that I don't want to tarnish the first-impression by nit-picking it to death. That does not mean that the movie won't stand up to repeat viewings.
When I saw this movie, it gave me everything I seemed to be looking for in a film at that very moment: smart people saying smart things about honesty, integrity, character, and life. The movie isn't filled with grand setpieces or manipulative suspense - no - this one has these quietly powerful moments where every character gets a moment to say something important, these little speeches which ultimately define who they are and what they stand for. They're sort of jaw-dropping because these characters really stop and really try to articulate their feelings, not necessarily with eloquence, but with the words they have at their disposal in their respective vocabularies. I mean, look at this:
" It's like you go to the beach. You go down to the water. It's a little cold. You're not sure you want to go in. There's a pretty girl standing next to you. She doesn't want to go in either. She sees you, and you know that if you just asked her her name, you would leave with her. Forget your life, whoever you came with, and leave the beach with her. And after that day, you remember. Not every day, every week... she comes back to you. It's the memory of another life you could have had. Today is that girl"
See, people may or may not really talk like this - it doesn't matter - because of how the scene is filmed and how the entire movie builds up to this moment of insight - and sometimes just the ability to say how you're feeling, no matter how abstract - sometimes thats enough to settle old scores.
I love that about this movie because every relationship comes to a turning point that hinges on total and complete honesty.
The ending might be a big false note, but the movie up till that point is a knockout.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
"Look at my red hands and my mean face..."
I suggest that Brad Pitt is a good actor, one who challenges himself only sometimes. I thought he was very good in SEVEN. I thought he was funny in SNATCH - a movie that ages horribly. I thought he was terrific in TWELVE MONKEYS. Aside from these flicks, I have a hard time recommending any of his other roles - that includes Fight Club and Babel.
I think he is a moody actor; brooding, introspective, contemplative. It is hard for actors like this to find meaty roles, especially when they're a sex symbol of Pitts caliber. An actor like this needs to find roles that exploit their celebrity, play off of their larger than life persona, and give the actor a chance to brood, to act with their eyes, body language and sexuality.
Pitt has found the PERFECT role in a near perfect film. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is not a small miracle or a minor masterpiece - this film is an epic accomplishment; it is gritty, raw, beautiful, poetic, lyrical, and occasionally mesmerizing. It exists somewhere between historically accurate and fabled history - that exact place where a legend is born. Technically, it reminds you of a western that John Cassavetes might have made - or something Robert Altman did make with McCabe and Mrs. Miller.
The movie has a dream-like quality, most of which is due to the STUNNING cinematography, which restores the western to its iconic roots. Every shot seems carefully modulated to enhance the film's moody, dazed sensation. I can honestly say that this is one of the single most beautiful films I have ever seen.
Everyone knows the story, so I won't talk too much about plot except to say that Robert Ford(Casey Affleck - shockingly good) worms his way into the James Gang, lead by Frank and Jesse James. He is obsessed with the James' celebrity and spends most of the movie trying to get close to Pitt's western icon.
Pitt, well, Pitt's performance is not unlike the excellent Viggo Mortensen performance I reviewed last week - it feeds off his physicality, his sheer presence. The difference with Pitt's role is that he is truly unnerving sometimes. He enters a room and sort of floats around, taking control the space. There is one scene, where he interrogates a member of his gang whom he suspects has betrayed him - Jesse James was paranoid and capable of sudden, vicious violence - in this scene, Pitt acts with his eyes, solely his eyes, and you can sense all that he is capable of in that very moment and Andrew Domanik (director) lets his camera linger on Pitt's face, lets him think, and the tension grows as we read his mind.
That's something I love about this film. People complain of its length and its self-indulgence, but this film features people who think, who just sit and contemplate their actions, their lives - people really do this. Andrew Domanik allows his characters to think and that's something Cassavetes would do, although some of his characters didn't have the capacity to think, which was typically their downfall.
Something tells me that this will be another amazing film that goes unnoticed, perhaps even at awards time. That is a shame because here is a film so well crafted that it will immediately shoot up the lists of my ALL-TIME great list. It really is that good and Pitt really is that good. Its one of those SCARFACE roles or John Belushi roles, where just the image of him allowing snakes to coil around his arm will be inconic.
I hope people don't miss this one. I know it is long and slow to develop, but the care and skill on display here is top-notch - perhaps GREATNESS has truly been achieved. This is what I was referring to when I said that a film cannot be judged solely by the genre it is working within - this, so far this year, has been the best film I've seen.
I think he is a moody actor; brooding, introspective, contemplative. It is hard for actors like this to find meaty roles, especially when they're a sex symbol of Pitts caliber. An actor like this needs to find roles that exploit their celebrity, play off of their larger than life persona, and give the actor a chance to brood, to act with their eyes, body language and sexuality.
Pitt has found the PERFECT role in a near perfect film. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is not a small miracle or a minor masterpiece - this film is an epic accomplishment; it is gritty, raw, beautiful, poetic, lyrical, and occasionally mesmerizing. It exists somewhere between historically accurate and fabled history - that exact place where a legend is born. Technically, it reminds you of a western that John Cassavetes might have made - or something Robert Altman did make with McCabe and Mrs. Miller.
The movie has a dream-like quality, most of which is due to the STUNNING cinematography, which restores the western to its iconic roots. Every shot seems carefully modulated to enhance the film's moody, dazed sensation. I can honestly say that this is one of the single most beautiful films I have ever seen.
Everyone knows the story, so I won't talk too much about plot except to say that Robert Ford(Casey Affleck - shockingly good) worms his way into the James Gang, lead by Frank and Jesse James. He is obsessed with the James' celebrity and spends most of the movie trying to get close to Pitt's western icon.
Pitt, well, Pitt's performance is not unlike the excellent Viggo Mortensen performance I reviewed last week - it feeds off his physicality, his sheer presence. The difference with Pitt's role is that he is truly unnerving sometimes. He enters a room and sort of floats around, taking control the space. There is one scene, where he interrogates a member of his gang whom he suspects has betrayed him - Jesse James was paranoid and capable of sudden, vicious violence - in this scene, Pitt acts with his eyes, solely his eyes, and you can sense all that he is capable of in that very moment and Andrew Domanik (director) lets his camera linger on Pitt's face, lets him think, and the tension grows as we read his mind.
That's something I love about this film. People complain of its length and its self-indulgence, but this film features people who think, who just sit and contemplate their actions, their lives - people really do this. Andrew Domanik allows his characters to think and that's something Cassavetes would do, although some of his characters didn't have the capacity to think, which was typically their downfall.
Something tells me that this will be another amazing film that goes unnoticed, perhaps even at awards time. That is a shame because here is a film so well crafted that it will immediately shoot up the lists of my ALL-TIME great list. It really is that good and Pitt really is that good. Its one of those SCARFACE roles or John Belushi roles, where just the image of him allowing snakes to coil around his arm will be inconic.
I hope people don't miss this one. I know it is long and slow to develop, but the care and skill on display here is top-notch - perhaps GREATNESS has truly been achieved. This is what I was referring to when I said that a film cannot be judged solely by the genre it is working within - this, so far this year, has been the best film I've seen.
Amazing Year For Movies
Here's some insight into me: I LOVE movies and because I love them so much, I tend to give every movie the benefit of the doubt...initially. Typically, I can find a way to enjoy every movie that I see; search out the positives, the things that a movie does well. I try and look at a movie according to what kind of genre-example its making - if its a horror film, then I look at its skill in terrifying me, or if its a twisty courtroom flick, then how well can it blindside me with its suprises? Sometimes, though, films cannot be defined by their genre, no, sometimes a film can feature such a higher quality of execution; be it writing, directing, acting, or just the ability to entertain, that it immediately becomes a classic.
Now, at first, when I exit a theater, I have my initial reaction, which I usually call my brother with. Nine times out of ten, my initial response is one of overwhelming praise because I simply enjoy going to the movies so much. Its my drug of choice. Pauline Kael called this "getting durnk on movies," which pretty much makes me an alcoholic. So, once I come down from that initial buzz, I think a little more clearly about a movie's true success.
With that out of the way, let met consider that almost every review that I've written so far has been positive. At first, I wondered if that was because I'm so partial to the movie-going experience that it doesn't really matter if the movie's good or not? Then, I realized that filmgoers everywhere might be experiencing something very special this year, something not unlike a phenomenon. Could it be that we are experiencing the GREATEST YEAR for films in quite some time. Perhaps ever? I think there is a strong case to be made here because the quality of the filmmaking that I have seen so far this year has been astounding, and the year is far from over, especially in regard to movies. I've already seen The Bourne Ultimatum, Into The Wild, The Lookout, Knocked Up, The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford, Once, and Eastern Promises. And I know just how much there is to look forward too - notably THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Paul T. Anderson's new film, which some are already calling one of the greatest films ever - even comparing it to Citizen Cane?
I suspect that I may eat my words at the end of year, especially if some of these flicks don't pan out. As it is, though, where we stand right now - this year could be historical.
Now, at first, when I exit a theater, I have my initial reaction, which I usually call my brother with. Nine times out of ten, my initial response is one of overwhelming praise because I simply enjoy going to the movies so much. Its my drug of choice. Pauline Kael called this "getting durnk on movies," which pretty much makes me an alcoholic. So, once I come down from that initial buzz, I think a little more clearly about a movie's true success.
With that out of the way, let met consider that almost every review that I've written so far has been positive. At first, I wondered if that was because I'm so partial to the movie-going experience that it doesn't really matter if the movie's good or not? Then, I realized that filmgoers everywhere might be experiencing something very special this year, something not unlike a phenomenon. Could it be that we are experiencing the GREATEST YEAR for films in quite some time. Perhaps ever? I think there is a strong case to be made here because the quality of the filmmaking that I have seen so far this year has been astounding, and the year is far from over, especially in regard to movies. I've already seen The Bourne Ultimatum, Into The Wild, The Lookout, Knocked Up, The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford, Once, and Eastern Promises. And I know just how much there is to look forward too - notably THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Paul T. Anderson's new film, which some are already calling one of the greatest films ever - even comparing it to Citizen Cane?
I suspect that I may eat my words at the end of year, especially if some of these flicks don't pan out. As it is, though, where we stand right now - this year could be historical.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Oldie, but Goodie: INNERSPACE
Oh man, this one takes me back. Far back. I LOVED this movie as a kid. It had everything that a child looks for in their movies; excitement, wonder, cool technology, fun special-effects, and lead actors that even a kid could relate too.
Dennis Quaid and Martin Short invest so much energy into this movie that you can't help but join the fun. This is easily martin Short's finest hour on the big-screen. Sure, he's been funny before, but never this likable. He, very simply, is fantastic as the protagonist of this movie.
Quaid probably has the more difficult part, but his natural charisma carries the day.
Here's the plot and GET THIS: Tuck Pendelton (Quaid) plays a a reckless, disgraced test pilot who has fallen on hard times via booze, and a failed relationship with reporter - Meg Ryan! As the movie open, Tuck has become the lead pilot for a top-secret experiment that involves him being miniaturized along with a small, jet-powered capsule, and injected into a bunny rabbit. The idea is that Tuck will pilot this capsule through the bunny and science will evolve with this stunning technology.
Complications ensue. A group of rogue scientists looking to steal the technology, break into the lab, knock-out everybody, a wild bicycle vs. BMW chase follows, and somehow the miniaturized Quaid ends up inside of Martin Short's meek, hypochondriac, grocery store cashier.
This is truly a wild movie. The plot gets even thicker, with Short essentially being piloted by Quaid, as Quaid radios instruction and emotional support, while Short performs all manner of death-defying stunts. It is very cool. And Short even gets to form a romantic relationship with Ryan, as he falls in love with her - much to the chagrin of Quaid on the inside.
Things get really wild when an other capsule - with a Terminator-like villain - is injected into Short and a battle royale unfolds with Quaid.
What amazes me is the way that the movie finds new ways to be creative.The plot continues to add complications, solutions, characters, and humor. It is impossible to get bored or even frustrated because the leads are so damn likable. The special effects are amazing and hold up quite well today, too.
I cannot recommend this movie enough.
Dennis Quaid and Martin Short invest so much energy into this movie that you can't help but join the fun. This is easily martin Short's finest hour on the big-screen. Sure, he's been funny before, but never this likable. He, very simply, is fantastic as the protagonist of this movie.
Quaid probably has the more difficult part, but his natural charisma carries the day.
Here's the plot and GET THIS: Tuck Pendelton (Quaid) plays a a reckless, disgraced test pilot who has fallen on hard times via booze, and a failed relationship with reporter - Meg Ryan! As the movie open, Tuck has become the lead pilot for a top-secret experiment that involves him being miniaturized along with a small, jet-powered capsule, and injected into a bunny rabbit. The idea is that Tuck will pilot this capsule through the bunny and science will evolve with this stunning technology.
Complications ensue. A group of rogue scientists looking to steal the technology, break into the lab, knock-out everybody, a wild bicycle vs. BMW chase follows, and somehow the miniaturized Quaid ends up inside of Martin Short's meek, hypochondriac, grocery store cashier.
This is truly a wild movie. The plot gets even thicker, with Short essentially being piloted by Quaid, as Quaid radios instruction and emotional support, while Short performs all manner of death-defying stunts. It is very cool. And Short even gets to form a romantic relationship with Ryan, as he falls in love with her - much to the chagrin of Quaid on the inside.
Things get really wild when an other capsule - with a Terminator-like villain - is injected into Short and a battle royale unfolds with Quaid.
What amazes me is the way that the movie finds new ways to be creative.The plot continues to add complications, solutions, characters, and humor. It is impossible to get bored or even frustrated because the leads are so damn likable. The special effects are amazing and hold up quite well today, too.
I cannot recommend this movie enough.
Into The Wild
What a sad movie. I was truly saddened by this film when its credits began to role. I am surprised at myself for saying so, too, as I found myself slightly uninvolved in the film's first hour.
I realized, though, that's how Sean Penn (director) wanted me to feel.
You don't like Emile Hirsch very much in this movie. You admire his drive and his resourcefulness, but you hate his irrationality and you question his sanity.
I, personally, aside from the character, didn't like the choice of Hirsch for the part. He seemed too young, too fresh-faced. I think a Ryan Gosling may have destroyed a part like this. As is, though, Hirsch does well to carry the film.
Everyone knows the story; Chris McCannlis graduates college, drops everything, and decides to hitchhike across the country to Alaska, where he plans to live off the land. Along the way, he meets various characters, all of whom help him in some way. All of whom, Chris helps in some way.
What's great about all of these characters, Specifically the ones portrayed by Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, and Hal Holbrook, is that they all see through Chris. They are all wiser than he and they all know what he is searching for, but are wise enough to know that he is searching in all of the wrong places.
I don't really know what to write about this movie. It affected me on a very primal level - some place between wonder and reality, some place between growing-up and being a grownup. You can relate to Chris' urge to extricate himself from the things of man because you know the innocence of that dream - a deserted island with nothing but coconuts and sand. However, in Chris' case, you know that there is nothing innocent about it - his vision comes from pain and anger. He wants to go because he has no idea how else to address the betrayal he feels from his parents, especially his father.
The movie is a great, great tragedy.
I must say, however, that I was touched almost to tears by two segments. One being a quiet scene between Catherine Keener and Hirsch, where Keener speaks about her own son, and you can sense that she knows all the mistakes she made with her own child, but can't bare to talk about them. It is great acting.
The other is the entire last act of the movie, when Hal Holbrook turns up as a sympathetic, lonely old man who takes Chris in. Hal Holbrook breaks your heart. Plain and simple. Every line is invested with a sense of want, need, and love. I suspect that we are seeing an Oscar-nominee here in Holbrook because this is the finest acting he has ever done. When he asks his final, devastating request of Chris, it is hard to not feel emotionally walloped.
See it. I think it needs to be seen. Good luck, though.
I realized, though, that's how Sean Penn (director) wanted me to feel.
You don't like Emile Hirsch very much in this movie. You admire his drive and his resourcefulness, but you hate his irrationality and you question his sanity.
I, personally, aside from the character, didn't like the choice of Hirsch for the part. He seemed too young, too fresh-faced. I think a Ryan Gosling may have destroyed a part like this. As is, though, Hirsch does well to carry the film.
Everyone knows the story; Chris McCannlis graduates college, drops everything, and decides to hitchhike across the country to Alaska, where he plans to live off the land. Along the way, he meets various characters, all of whom help him in some way. All of whom, Chris helps in some way.
What's great about all of these characters, Specifically the ones portrayed by Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, and Hal Holbrook, is that they all see through Chris. They are all wiser than he and they all know what he is searching for, but are wise enough to know that he is searching in all of the wrong places.
I don't really know what to write about this movie. It affected me on a very primal level - some place between wonder and reality, some place between growing-up and being a grownup. You can relate to Chris' urge to extricate himself from the things of man because you know the innocence of that dream - a deserted island with nothing but coconuts and sand. However, in Chris' case, you know that there is nothing innocent about it - his vision comes from pain and anger. He wants to go because he has no idea how else to address the betrayal he feels from his parents, especially his father.
The movie is a great, great tragedy.
I must say, however, that I was touched almost to tears by two segments. One being a quiet scene between Catherine Keener and Hirsch, where Keener speaks about her own son, and you can sense that she knows all the mistakes she made with her own child, but can't bare to talk about them. It is great acting.
The other is the entire last act of the movie, when Hal Holbrook turns up as a sympathetic, lonely old man who takes Chris in. Hal Holbrook breaks your heart. Plain and simple. Every line is invested with a sense of want, need, and love. I suspect that we are seeing an Oscar-nominee here in Holbrook because this is the finest acting he has ever done. When he asks his final, devastating request of Chris, it is hard to not feel emotionally walloped.
See it. I think it needs to be seen. Good luck, though.
Eastern Promises
I actually wrote this post once, but my computer decided to fuck me by going batshit and losing the entire post. So, I don't really feel like writing the entire thing again, but let me assure you that the original post was witty, eloquent, and convincing, as is typical of all my posts.
I believe that I began by saying, "a lot has happened in the 2 weeks since I've posted. I no doubt have disappointed all 5 of my readers, but I am determined to win their hearts with a slew of new posts this weekend." That's how I began and I intend to keep my word about about a complete renewal here. So, let me begin with David Cronenberg's minor masterpiece, EASTERN PROMISES.
Question 1: Did I attend a Variety-sponsored screening? YES
Question 2: Cronenberg and writer Steve Knight (surprise) present? YES
Question 3: Did I direct a question at both, which both of whom answered? HELL YES
Question 4: Can you hear their response anywhere? YES. HERE: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=videoBC&bcpid=1079069523&bclid=1112164013&bctid=1184470637
EASTERN PROMISES is a small-scale, intimate gangster film that turns out to be less about gangsters than it is about people. This movie is driven by its characters. Its as if Steve Knight came up with four characters whom he loved and made a list of behaviours indigenous to them and built a plot that reacts solely to those behaviours. It could not have been too hard with the quality of these characterizations.
I don't want to say too much, for I'd hate to ruin the simplistic story by revealing the subtle, yet important twists. Suffice to say, that this is a story of 4 people and the ways in which they surprise themselves and one another by being more than they initially appear.
That's not to say they're all Keyser Soze.
The plot synopsis: Naomi Watts plays a midwife delivering the child of a dying, 14 yr old drug addict. She becomes determined to track down the girl's origins and her brief investigation leads her to a family-oriented restaurant run for Russian patriarch, Armin Mueller Stahl. Populating the dark corners of the restaurant are Stahl's son - Vincet Cassell, and his trusted, ice-cool Driver, played by ice-cool Viggo Mortensen. It all is a front for the Russian mafia, which is not a revelation of any sort.
This is all I will say of the plot. As for the performances, well, all are solid, but one, and really only one, is AMAZING. Viggo Mortensen gives a masterclass on underplaying cool, slick, calculating, vicious, stoic, and sensitive all at once. This is one of those iconic, poster-worthy performances that people will be talking about forever. Its a star turn. Something, and I hate to say it, but something that Brand may have done or something that Bogart did. He never tries to do so, but Viggo completely dominates the screen when he is there. Sometimes, he does so from the back or the left, or anywhere but the center of the shot. As I said, this is top-flight acting.
Now, the scene everybody is already talking about - The Bathhouse Knockdown dragout. Here is a fight scene whose blows land with an impact everyone in the audience will feel. Yes, Viggo is naked, but that only enhances the stakes, as he has nothing to hide behind. It is easily one of the greatest fight scenes every captured on film and that's all I will say.
Did I like this more than "A History of Violence?" I don't know. I think this is the better story, but that one featured the surprising, Oscar-caliber cameo by William Hurt - some of the best acting I have ever seen.
Go see EASTERN PROMISES and decide for yourself. Cross your fingers that Viggo and Cronenberg continue this relationship.
I believe that I began by saying, "a lot has happened in the 2 weeks since I've posted. I no doubt have disappointed all 5 of my readers, but I am determined to win their hearts with a slew of new posts this weekend." That's how I began and I intend to keep my word about about a complete renewal here. So, let me begin with David Cronenberg's minor masterpiece, EASTERN PROMISES.
Question 1: Did I attend a Variety-sponsored screening? YES
Question 2: Cronenberg and writer Steve Knight (surprise) present? YES
Question 3: Did I direct a question at both, which both of whom answered? HELL YES
Question 4: Can you hear their response anywhere? YES. HERE: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=videoBC&bcpid=1079069523&bclid=1112164013&bctid=1184470637
EASTERN PROMISES is a small-scale, intimate gangster film that turns out to be less about gangsters than it is about people. This movie is driven by its characters. Its as if Steve Knight came up with four characters whom he loved and made a list of behaviours indigenous to them and built a plot that reacts solely to those behaviours. It could not have been too hard with the quality of these characterizations.
I don't want to say too much, for I'd hate to ruin the simplistic story by revealing the subtle, yet important twists. Suffice to say, that this is a story of 4 people and the ways in which they surprise themselves and one another by being more than they initially appear.
That's not to say they're all Keyser Soze.
The plot synopsis: Naomi Watts plays a midwife delivering the child of a dying, 14 yr old drug addict. She becomes determined to track down the girl's origins and her brief investigation leads her to a family-oriented restaurant run for Russian patriarch, Armin Mueller Stahl. Populating the dark corners of the restaurant are Stahl's son - Vincet Cassell, and his trusted, ice-cool Driver, played by ice-cool Viggo Mortensen. It all is a front for the Russian mafia, which is not a revelation of any sort.
This is all I will say of the plot. As for the performances, well, all are solid, but one, and really only one, is AMAZING. Viggo Mortensen gives a masterclass on underplaying cool, slick, calculating, vicious, stoic, and sensitive all at once. This is one of those iconic, poster-worthy performances that people will be talking about forever. Its a star turn. Something, and I hate to say it, but something that Brand may have done or something that Bogart did. He never tries to do so, but Viggo completely dominates the screen when he is there. Sometimes, he does so from the back or the left, or anywhere but the center of the shot. As I said, this is top-flight acting.
Now, the scene everybody is already talking about - The Bathhouse Knockdown dragout. Here is a fight scene whose blows land with an impact everyone in the audience will feel. Yes, Viggo is naked, but that only enhances the stakes, as he has nothing to hide behind. It is easily one of the greatest fight scenes every captured on film and that's all I will say.
Did I like this more than "A History of Violence?" I don't know. I think this is the better story, but that one featured the surprising, Oscar-caliber cameo by William Hurt - some of the best acting I have ever seen.
Go see EASTERN PROMISES and decide for yourself. Cross your fingers that Viggo and Cronenberg continue this relationship.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Death Proof & Tarantino
So yea, I love Tarantino flicks. I love them. I truly believe that PULP FICTION is the finest American film ever made. At any given time, I can watch that movie in its entirety. I can flip it on at any point in its running time and watch it the rest of the way through, loving every second of it. There are so many things to discover in it, so many elements to rediscover that you just sit back and marvel at its quality, its sense of humor, its deconstruction of "time" as it pertains to film.
Then there is the dialogue. Tarantino always writes great language, but Pulp Fiction takes things to a new plateau. Every character has something to say and a unique way to say it. Every conversation is like a tennis match, and when Travolta says, "Goddamn, that's a pretty good fuckin' milkshake," you smile because it sounds so perfect. He interweaves profanity as poetically as Mamet, if not more so, and uses repetition, slang, and pop-culture references to create his own universe, where even low-life scumbags are articulate.
I'm not sure that he can do wrong. I sometimes question his loyalty to Robert Rodriguez, a stylist who can't tell a story half as well as Tarantino, but I really think he makes amazing movies.
He has an energy, an over-the-top glee in his filmmaking that makes you think Tarantino is behind the camera laughing his ass off at what he's getting away with. Now, I know that he borrows elements from many other movies, but he is paying homage, not stealing, and everybody references some form of pop-culture when they tell a joke or a story. He's a junior Mad Scientist, just throwing different elements into the pot, stirring, and producing a Fizzy Volcano for a class presentation that wows all the kids.
I love JACKIE BROWN. I LOVE, absolutely LOVE the Kill Bill Saga. RESERVOIR DOGS? Amazing. TRUE ROMANCE (he wrote) contains a scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken that ranks up there with anything he's done. FROM DUSK TILL DAWN? Yea, it kind of sucked, thanks to the Rodriguez factor, but the first forty mintutes are vintage Quentin.
And now, Taratino is back with DEATH PROOF - his own grindhouse version of a slasher flick - and it feels like our boy has come home. This movie contains so much energy, so much infectious fucking energy, that you cannot help but listen and smile. Tarantino is clearly having some of the most fun he's had with a script - the exchanges here are perfect. There is one in particular, a scene where Kurt Russell (awesome) imitates John Wayne, and you can't see where he's going with the punchline, you can't predict what he will say next, but how he wraps it up is so amazing that you immediately want to hear it again. I suggest that this short sequence is up there with WALKEN VS. HOPPER and the entire BONNIE SITUATION portion of Pulp Fiction (hands down, Tarantino's finest hour).
I don't want to ruin this movie for anyone. I think it can appeal to anybody who sees it. It is violent, as these type usually are, but it is done with so much style, so much consideration and with such wit, that I immediately could list it up there near my favorites.
By the way; I'm a freak. When I watch this movie with friends, nobody understands the references to VANISHING POINT. Nobody knows the importance of the CHARGER. I saw VANISHING POINT when I was like ten on ENCORE. When you can really pick out Tarantino's references, you know that you're a freak.
Then there is the dialogue. Tarantino always writes great language, but Pulp Fiction takes things to a new plateau. Every character has something to say and a unique way to say it. Every conversation is like a tennis match, and when Travolta says, "Goddamn, that's a pretty good fuckin' milkshake," you smile because it sounds so perfect. He interweaves profanity as poetically as Mamet, if not more so, and uses repetition, slang, and pop-culture references to create his own universe, where even low-life scumbags are articulate.
I'm not sure that he can do wrong. I sometimes question his loyalty to Robert Rodriguez, a stylist who can't tell a story half as well as Tarantino, but I really think he makes amazing movies.
He has an energy, an over-the-top glee in his filmmaking that makes you think Tarantino is behind the camera laughing his ass off at what he's getting away with. Now, I know that he borrows elements from many other movies, but he is paying homage, not stealing, and everybody references some form of pop-culture when they tell a joke or a story. He's a junior Mad Scientist, just throwing different elements into the pot, stirring, and producing a Fizzy Volcano for a class presentation that wows all the kids.
I love JACKIE BROWN. I LOVE, absolutely LOVE the Kill Bill Saga. RESERVOIR DOGS? Amazing. TRUE ROMANCE (he wrote) contains a scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken that ranks up there with anything he's done. FROM DUSK TILL DAWN? Yea, it kind of sucked, thanks to the Rodriguez factor, but the first forty mintutes are vintage Quentin.
And now, Taratino is back with DEATH PROOF - his own grindhouse version of a slasher flick - and it feels like our boy has come home. This movie contains so much energy, so much infectious fucking energy, that you cannot help but listen and smile. Tarantino is clearly having some of the most fun he's had with a script - the exchanges here are perfect. There is one in particular, a scene where Kurt Russell (awesome) imitates John Wayne, and you can't see where he's going with the punchline, you can't predict what he will say next, but how he wraps it up is so amazing that you immediately want to hear it again. I suggest that this short sequence is up there with WALKEN VS. HOPPER and the entire BONNIE SITUATION portion of Pulp Fiction (hands down, Tarantino's finest hour).
I don't want to ruin this movie for anyone. I think it can appeal to anybody who sees it. It is violent, as these type usually are, but it is done with so much style, so much consideration and with such wit, that I immediately could list it up there near my favorites.
By the way; I'm a freak. When I watch this movie with friends, nobody understands the references to VANISHING POINT. Nobody knows the importance of the CHARGER. I saw VANISHING POINT when I was like ten on ENCORE. When you can really pick out Tarantino's references, you know that you're a freak.
Monday, September 10, 2007
3:10 To Yuma
As I suspected, Ebert was right. This is a great western. Better than TOMBSTONE and possibly better than UNFORGIVEN.
3:10 TO YUMA does so much right that it is difficult to talk about because of the sheer quantity of things that I could discuss; the acting, the writing, the directing - everything feels top notch. As you watch the movie, you realize that a lot of thought has gone into the production - not so much the settings or the action sequences, but the characters and the way that they're portrayed. It is a credit to the writing that each character is so precisely defined, each with their own quirks and principals - never really straying from them - showing the type of consideration not associated with the genre or a big studio film. Nothing that these characters do happens at the convenience of the plot. Sure, during the climax it is possible to contend that Crowe's motivations are foggy - I assure you that they are not.
A brief overview: Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a downtrodden rancher with two boys and a wife who isn't bored as much as she is uncertain of her husband's patriarchal ability . He has a bum leg from his days fighting in the war and is in danger of losing his farm to the fast-expanding railroad and mounting debt. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a ferocious outlaw whose gang has just robbed the railroad for the thirtieth time, leaving only one survivor - MacElroy (Peter Fonda), a bounty hunter who has a history with Crowe.
When Crowe is captured, Bale agrees, for a price, to help transport him to a train depot so that he can be taken to his execution. Needless to say, things to do not go according to plan. Crowe's gang, led by Charly Prince (gonzo Ben Forster) is hot on the trail and killing everything in sight.
I'd like to pause just for a second to marvel at the scary insanity of Ben Forster. He was creepy in HOSATGE, opposite Bruce Willis, but in 3:10 he is in a different stratosphere. This is the way that cold-blooded should be played and be sure to observe him closely in two scenes; one is near the beginning where he assures Crowe that he will be close by, hoping that Crowe needs him as much as he needs Crowe. The second comes near the end - you'll know which - you can see the disbelief in his eyes, exactly when his heart breaks.
There is much that I have left out. Things like Crowe's quiet scene with a mysterious barmaid or his seductive questioning of Bale's wife (Gretchen Mol), or Bale's son, who figures heavily into the proceedings.
What is amazing about 3:10 is that every character is an immovable object - they have their principals, morals, goals, and they rarely stray from them. You could argue that Crowe changes, but I'd disagree. It was always in his character to do what he does. He is a cold-blooded, ruthless killer, but he is also incredibly intelligent. He has ridden with the worst of men, killed countless people, and yet, he philosophizes about religion and human frailty, draws sketches, and contemplates his actions. People expect a heartless outlaw to be heartless, but when the outlaw is this intelligent, you cannot know what to expect and as the movie unfolds, various people are taken back by Crowe's thoughtfulness.
Bale is different. There are expectations for a person like him too, but he never knew just how low they were and how far he is from exceeding them. He is steadfast in his principals and loyal to his family, but you sense that everything he is doing is for himself, as if purpose finally dawned on him. This is where the writing and acting rise above genre standards; Bale acts so much with his eyes. His character says little, but there is an exhaustion in his eyes, like he's been living a lie or hasn't really been living at all. The movie goes through great pains to establish that Bale's family and his farm are important, but you sense that Bale has always wanted to do something unequivocal and in Wade, he has found his catalyst.
Setups like this can make for great cinema. Two smart, strong, and evenly matched adversaries going at it. The difference here - and what separates 3:10 - is that neither character has a bloodlust for the other. Neither is eager to kill the other because they find each other so fascinating. They circle one another, test for weaknesses, and find an equal.
As it is with so many enemies, these two might have been friends in another life.
Then again, who knows?
3:10 TO YUMA does so much right that it is difficult to talk about because of the sheer quantity of things that I could discuss; the acting, the writing, the directing - everything feels top notch. As you watch the movie, you realize that a lot of thought has gone into the production - not so much the settings or the action sequences, but the characters and the way that they're portrayed. It is a credit to the writing that each character is so precisely defined, each with their own quirks and principals - never really straying from them - showing the type of consideration not associated with the genre or a big studio film. Nothing that these characters do happens at the convenience of the plot. Sure, during the climax it is possible to contend that Crowe's motivations are foggy - I assure you that they are not.
A brief overview: Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a downtrodden rancher with two boys and a wife who isn't bored as much as she is uncertain of her husband's patriarchal ability . He has a bum leg from his days fighting in the war and is in danger of losing his farm to the fast-expanding railroad and mounting debt. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a ferocious outlaw whose gang has just robbed the railroad for the thirtieth time, leaving only one survivor - MacElroy (Peter Fonda), a bounty hunter who has a history with Crowe.
When Crowe is captured, Bale agrees, for a price, to help transport him to a train depot so that he can be taken to his execution. Needless to say, things to do not go according to plan. Crowe's gang, led by Charly Prince (gonzo Ben Forster) is hot on the trail and killing everything in sight.
I'd like to pause just for a second to marvel at the scary insanity of Ben Forster. He was creepy in HOSATGE, opposite Bruce Willis, but in 3:10 he is in a different stratosphere. This is the way that cold-blooded should be played and be sure to observe him closely in two scenes; one is near the beginning where he assures Crowe that he will be close by, hoping that Crowe needs him as much as he needs Crowe. The second comes near the end - you'll know which - you can see the disbelief in his eyes, exactly when his heart breaks.
There is much that I have left out. Things like Crowe's quiet scene with a mysterious barmaid or his seductive questioning of Bale's wife (Gretchen Mol), or Bale's son, who figures heavily into the proceedings.
What is amazing about 3:10 is that every character is an immovable object - they have their principals, morals, goals, and they rarely stray from them. You could argue that Crowe changes, but I'd disagree. It was always in his character to do what he does. He is a cold-blooded, ruthless killer, but he is also incredibly intelligent. He has ridden with the worst of men, killed countless people, and yet, he philosophizes about religion and human frailty, draws sketches, and contemplates his actions. People expect a heartless outlaw to be heartless, but when the outlaw is this intelligent, you cannot know what to expect and as the movie unfolds, various people are taken back by Crowe's thoughtfulness.
Bale is different. There are expectations for a person like him too, but he never knew just how low they were and how far he is from exceeding them. He is steadfast in his principals and loyal to his family, but you sense that everything he is doing is for himself, as if purpose finally dawned on him. This is where the writing and acting rise above genre standards; Bale acts so much with his eyes. His character says little, but there is an exhaustion in his eyes, like he's been living a lie or hasn't really been living at all. The movie goes through great pains to establish that Bale's family and his farm are important, but you sense that Bale has always wanted to do something unequivocal and in Wade, he has found his catalyst.
Setups like this can make for great cinema. Two smart, strong, and evenly matched adversaries going at it. The difference here - and what separates 3:10 - is that neither character has a bloodlust for the other. Neither is eager to kill the other because they find each other so fascinating. They circle one another, test for weaknesses, and find an equal.
As it is with so many enemies, these two might have been friends in another life.
Then again, who knows?
Friday, September 7, 2007
3:10, Ebert, and a Great Weekend for Flicks
Every friday morning, I arrive at work a little early so that I may sit down, drink some bean, and read all of Roger Ebert's reviews for the weekend's slate of new movies. I've done this for as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I would come home from school and read the USA Today's reviews, but have since realized that they just aren't as good as Ebert's. Plus, during his health absence last year, I missed him. Nobody writes better reviews than Ebert. Nobody. Period. He never condescends, never uses "industry" terms, and he always writes in a way that suggests a conversation he might have with a group of eager, young filmgoers.
I realized today just how much I missed him when I read his review for "3:10 To Yuma," to which he gave 4 out of 4 stars. When Ebert awards a film 4 stars (and he hates his star scale, forced upon him by the suits at the Times), it is a time to stand and take notice. He doesn't do it too often, and his tastes may not always be mine, but when he dishes out 4 stars, I have to to give the film a chance and view it through my own, 4-star lenses because Ebert said so.
Speaking of taste, Ebert pretty much dictated my taste in film, save, of course, for his unfavorable review of the original DIE HARD - a review I took personally for many years. I think if Ebert were to revisit this, he would reward it with a more positive review, especially with some of the awful action franchises since.
When I say that he dictated my tastes, let me explain: Ebert LOVES intelligent characters who are true to themselves - not the plot. If a character in a film does something which is only in service of the plot, and not something that seems true to the textures of their character, then Ebert jumps all over it. More than anything, though, Ebert loves when two well-developed, intelligent characters square off, be it in an action film, a drama, or a horror film, and he finds tremendous pleasure in it and even writes his best reviews about it. I think Ebert's love of intelligent characters stems from his love of literature, where a character's motivations are under a much tighter microscope because literature typically unfolds much more deliberately.
So, when a movie takes time to develop two characters, give them a definitive voice, and allows them to interact, it truly is a pleasure and I share Ebert's enthusiasm for it.
In his 3:10 review, he writes a passage that truly gets me excited about the film. It reminded me of his review for "Collateral," one of my favorite flick of the past 10 years. Actually, maybe what Ebert wrote reminded me of my own feelings about Collateral, but what's the difference. In his review, Ebert writes:
"Locked in the hotel room, surrounded by death for one or the other, the two men begin to talk. Without revealing anything of the plot, let me speculate that each has found the first man he has met in years who is his equal in conversation. Crowe and Bale play this dialogue so precisely that it never reveals itself for what it really is, a process of mutual insight."
This is high praise and the type of criticism that I've come to love from Ebert. It gets me excited for this movie and makes me even more happy that Hollywood is taking the time to develop big studio flicks that still observe character development. You'll hear me say this all the time, but there is truly nothing better in film than when two intelligent, well-defined characters square off because by that time, the audience will have invested something in each of them and when that scene comes, where the characters come to understand one another, its amazing.
I realized today just how much I missed him when I read his review for "3:10 To Yuma," to which he gave 4 out of 4 stars. When Ebert awards a film 4 stars (and he hates his star scale, forced upon him by the suits at the Times), it is a time to stand and take notice. He doesn't do it too often, and his tastes may not always be mine, but when he dishes out 4 stars, I have to to give the film a chance and view it through my own, 4-star lenses because Ebert said so.
Speaking of taste, Ebert pretty much dictated my taste in film, save, of course, for his unfavorable review of the original DIE HARD - a review I took personally for many years. I think if Ebert were to revisit this, he would reward it with a more positive review, especially with some of the awful action franchises since.
When I say that he dictated my tastes, let me explain: Ebert LOVES intelligent characters who are true to themselves - not the plot. If a character in a film does something which is only in service of the plot, and not something that seems true to the textures of their character, then Ebert jumps all over it. More than anything, though, Ebert loves when two well-developed, intelligent characters square off, be it in an action film, a drama, or a horror film, and he finds tremendous pleasure in it and even writes his best reviews about it. I think Ebert's love of intelligent characters stems from his love of literature, where a character's motivations are under a much tighter microscope because literature typically unfolds much more deliberately.
So, when a movie takes time to develop two characters, give them a definitive voice, and allows them to interact, it truly is a pleasure and I share Ebert's enthusiasm for it.
In his 3:10 review, he writes a passage that truly gets me excited about the film. It reminded me of his review for "Collateral," one of my favorite flick of the past 10 years. Actually, maybe what Ebert wrote reminded me of my own feelings about Collateral, but what's the difference. In his review, Ebert writes:
"Locked in the hotel room, surrounded by death for one or the other, the two men begin to talk. Without revealing anything of the plot, let me speculate that each has found the first man he has met in years who is his equal in conversation. Crowe and Bale play this dialogue so precisely that it never reveals itself for what it really is, a process of mutual insight."
This is high praise and the type of criticism that I've come to love from Ebert. It gets me excited for this movie and makes me even more happy that Hollywood is taking the time to develop big studio flicks that still observe character development. You'll hear me say this all the time, but there is truly nothing better in film than when two intelligent, well-defined characters square off because by that time, the audience will have invested something in each of them and when that scene comes, where the characters come to understand one another, its amazing.
COP. Golden Oldie.
I have found very few people who have actually seen this movie. From what I understand, the flick had a very short theatrical life in 1987 and even struggled to find much of an audience once on video. That's a shame because it features a fantastic performance by James Woods as a dogged, morally corrupt LA police detective chasing down a particularly nasty serial killer; one whose MO can be traced back to thirty or so murders.
I don't know that the movie itself is even that great; it actually makes you feel a little dirty following around such a morally bankrupt "protagonist," but James Woods is so goddamn magnetic. He's wound-up like '80s stockbroker, only more self-absorbed and coked out of his mind.
Let's stop for a moment to consider James Woods. Here is a guy whose performances vary only slightly from one to the next, and it shows, but it doesn't matter because he invests every single character he plays with an infectious manic energy. This guy should be first in line for every major villain role available. He's that good. He projects intelligence by talking circles around anybody he shares a scene with - talking so fast, with such intensity, that you're sort of worried he might explode. For prime examples of James Woods' talent, check out SALVADOR, GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI, THE HARD WAY (really great here), AGAINST ALL ODDS, THE SPECIALIST (watch him walk off with this godawful movie like he doesn't know its fucking bad).
In COP, he is more than combustible and you sit back awaiting his demise at his own hands, but it doesn't really come. He tracks this killer with such ferocity that it becomes his singular vision to hunt this villain down. He's like an animal looking for that morsel of food which might stave off starvation, but its not desperation, its a maniacal drive. You realize that in hunting all of these criminals and investigating these terrible acts, his psyche has really been altered. This is not scenery chewing and you don't really root for him like you might a Dirty Harry, no, you worry about this guy and the people around him because you'd hate to see others go down with his ship.
There are two scenes that define this movie: One involves Woods, home late one night, divorced from his family, but tucking his young daughter into bed. She asks him to tell her a story and Woods tells her of a brutal case that he's been working on, much to the chagrin of his ex-wife. At first, its a funny scene, but then you realize that this guy wouldn't know a fairy-tale if he were in it and this might be the only story he knows.
The second scene, and it is the film's last, might contain the greatest closing line in the history of film and I'm not exaggerating. Seriously, I am not just getting pumped up in writing this or anything like that - it's really an amazing line and a shocking ending. It perfectly sums up the character and once you get past the badassness of it and consider its implications, you realize just how sick our "protagonist" might be, a sort of depression sets in because you know that you've spent two hours following around a sociopath.
But that line, woooo, it's a piece of work and Woods, well, Woods will have a spot on the Under appreciated List that I'm working on as we speak.
I don't know that the movie itself is even that great; it actually makes you feel a little dirty following around such a morally bankrupt "protagonist," but James Woods is so goddamn magnetic. He's wound-up like '80s stockbroker, only more self-absorbed and coked out of his mind.
Let's stop for a moment to consider James Woods. Here is a guy whose performances vary only slightly from one to the next, and it shows, but it doesn't matter because he invests every single character he plays with an infectious manic energy. This guy should be first in line for every major villain role available. He's that good. He projects intelligence by talking circles around anybody he shares a scene with - talking so fast, with such intensity, that you're sort of worried he might explode. For prime examples of James Woods' talent, check out SALVADOR, GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI, THE HARD WAY (really great here), AGAINST ALL ODDS, THE SPECIALIST (watch him walk off with this godawful movie like he doesn't know its fucking bad).
In COP, he is more than combustible and you sit back awaiting his demise at his own hands, but it doesn't really come. He tracks this killer with such ferocity that it becomes his singular vision to hunt this villain down. He's like an animal looking for that morsel of food which might stave off starvation, but its not desperation, its a maniacal drive. You realize that in hunting all of these criminals and investigating these terrible acts, his psyche has really been altered. This is not scenery chewing and you don't really root for him like you might a Dirty Harry, no, you worry about this guy and the people around him because you'd hate to see others go down with his ship.
There are two scenes that define this movie: One involves Woods, home late one night, divorced from his family, but tucking his young daughter into bed. She asks him to tell her a story and Woods tells her of a brutal case that he's been working on, much to the chagrin of his ex-wife. At first, its a funny scene, but then you realize that this guy wouldn't know a fairy-tale if he were in it and this might be the only story he knows.
The second scene, and it is the film's last, might contain the greatest closing line in the history of film and I'm not exaggerating. Seriously, I am not just getting pumped up in writing this or anything like that - it's really an amazing line and a shocking ending. It perfectly sums up the character and once you get past the badassness of it and consider its implications, you realize just how sick our "protagonist" might be, a sort of depression sets in because you know that you've spent two hours following around a sociopath.
But that line, woooo, it's a piece of work and Woods, well, Woods will have a spot on the Under appreciated List that I'm working on as we speak.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
David Cronenberg...Finally
I was never partial to David Cronenberg. I loved THE FLY, in fact, I think it is a classic that holds up considerably well - especially the ending, which still packs an emotional wallop. Aside from it, however, I never took to his films. I thought VIDEOROME could have been much better than it was - a pastiche of very cool ideas and gross effects. SCANNERS is merely ok. For some reason, the movie misses out on all of the huge potential that it has. CRASH truly feels like a porno. Its an uncomfortable movie, it plays uncomfortably - yes, I realize that is its point, but it's not particularly enjoyable on any level (except as a porno). Sure, THE FLY is uncomfortable too, as it plays as an AIDS parable, but it has many cool sci-fi elements that endear it to fans of the life and it also has two compelling characters strongly played by Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum. Goldblum in particular delivers a great performance, one that would be listed on an All-Time Most Under-Appreciated List, were one to be composed. Perhaps I will do that next week.
Aside from THE FLY, I didn't like much about his movies, that is, until, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE hit the screens. I love that movie. I strongly considered it the best film of that year - by far. Viggo Mortensen was fantastic. Marion Bello was amazing and snubbed at the Oscars. But, it was William Hurt, armed with 10 minutes of screen time, who absolutley dominated the film. He was incredible: funny, charming, and creepy. He invests every line with a certain kind of zest that you just don't see as often in acting anymore. It's a real pro's performance. Don't get me wrong, though, the star of that flick was Cronenberg. He was incredibly subdued in his directing - really letting the story and acting play out, while subtly mocking the perverse fascination with grotesque violence - and the suggestion that some problems can only be solved via violent, decisive action.
Now, he is coming back with EASTERN PROMISES and the film's trailer looks completely awesome. Viggo plays a Russian mobster. Naomi Watts plays a midwife. The flick looks like a continuation of the world Cronenberg created in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, just a little less Capraesque. Its a noir and that's a genre that Cronenberg must love because all of his films are variations of it.
So, the whole point here is to tell everyone that Cronenberg is going to be here in NYC, presenting his new flick, and doing a Q&A with the audience. I cannot tell you how amazing I think this will be and I intend on sitting front row. I can guarantee a review of the movie next week, probably thursday or friday.
Rumor has it that Mortensen has a 10-minute fight scene in a bathhouse that is supposedly one of the most brutal fights ever committed to film. I'm pumped here because Cronenberg seems to have entered into that point of his career where he has found a pronounced style to work with and within, a la the Eastwood of late. I'm hoping he and his muse, Mortensen, continue this trend.
Aside from THE FLY, I didn't like much about his movies, that is, until, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE hit the screens. I love that movie. I strongly considered it the best film of that year - by far. Viggo Mortensen was fantastic. Marion Bello was amazing and snubbed at the Oscars. But, it was William Hurt, armed with 10 minutes of screen time, who absolutley dominated the film. He was incredible: funny, charming, and creepy. He invests every line with a certain kind of zest that you just don't see as often in acting anymore. It's a real pro's performance. Don't get me wrong, though, the star of that flick was Cronenberg. He was incredibly subdued in his directing - really letting the story and acting play out, while subtly mocking the perverse fascination with grotesque violence - and the suggestion that some problems can only be solved via violent, decisive action.
Now, he is coming back with EASTERN PROMISES and the film's trailer looks completely awesome. Viggo plays a Russian mobster. Naomi Watts plays a midwife. The flick looks like a continuation of the world Cronenberg created in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, just a little less Capraesque. Its a noir and that's a genre that Cronenberg must love because all of his films are variations of it.
So, the whole point here is to tell everyone that Cronenberg is going to be here in NYC, presenting his new flick, and doing a Q&A with the audience. I cannot tell you how amazing I think this will be and I intend on sitting front row. I can guarantee a review of the movie next week, probably thursday or friday.
Rumor has it that Mortensen has a 10-minute fight scene in a bathhouse that is supposedly one of the most brutal fights ever committed to film. I'm pumped here because Cronenberg seems to have entered into that point of his career where he has found a pronounced style to work with and within, a la the Eastwood of late. I'm hoping he and his muse, Mortensen, continue this trend.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Hatchet? Golden Age of Horror? Are you serious?
There was this enormous resurgence in the popularity of horror films in the past few years, but it has since quelled. Credit SAW and the TCM remake for stimulating this spike in horror interest. It seems to happen every few years as horror sort of redefines/resurrects itself in a once popular form. Remember the self-reflexive teeny-bopper flicks of the late nineties, of which only Scream and Scream 2 seem to have aged well? I, personally, consider SCREAM to be a fantastic film - probably the best, most intelligent wink-wink, nod-nod horror film that I can remember. Also, I LOVE the opening sequence and still find it scary to this day. Had the film been able to maintain that sense of dread throughout, it might have really made history, instead of just mocking it. I also think that the flick has one of most well-maintained whodunits in a long time. It gives you so many possible suspects and presents a decent case for all of them. I thought that throughout the series, it did a nice job of suggesting that any of the series mainstays (David Arquette, Courtney Cox) could have been a killer throughout.
As always, I digress. Sorry if you've stopped reading already. I'm getting to it all.
I've heard a lot of talk about HATCHET. I've heard that its the hotness, plain and simple. Harry Knowles wrote a really cool review from the theatre, as he observed the audience, which I think is the best gauge of a film's success. Apparently, the audience absolutely ATE this film up. Then, in the hype, everyone started calling it a "throwback" and a "return to old-school horror." I can appreciate that. I also appreciate the eye-popping gore that everyone is talking about, and the flick's sense of humor, and its knowledge of the genre. I really haven't heard a bad thing yet.
Here's my dilemma, though:
I haven't seen the movie, but I intend to this weekend in NYC. I HATE that everyone is calling this old-school horror. HATE IT. It makes me resent the movie. Golden Age? Fuck that! There was a time in the early eighties when slasher films were churned out like nobody's business. FRIDAY THE 13TH sort of cornered the market. It sucked. Sorry, lovers of Jason and Mrs. Voorhees, but the movies sucked. They were not scary, just over-the-top bloody. Now, I can be a gorehound, though I think Saw III took it to new heights, but those movies in the early eighties generally sucked. THE BURNING? That sucked. THE PROWLER? Sucked. FRIDAY sequels - sucked too. Besides, HALLOWEEN started all of this in '78, and it wasn't gory, just fucking scary as hell. If you really want to get literal, BLACK CHRISTMAS came years before Halloween and was a pretty decent example of the genre it basically created. I also liked TERROR TRAIN and found it to be pretty creepy too. There's A Nightmare on Elm Street, but that's not really the same thing, is it? Although, it regressed to become it.
That's old-school horror. Taking nothing but atmoshpere and film technique and churning out a really visceral experience. SAW? That flick had the worst acting since TROLL 2. It piled on twists and turns in an effort to appear witty, but it was just stupid. Danny Glover did not come out well at all. I swear that people must realize how bad that movie really was. TCM remake? That was a bad movie that had nothing but a gonzo R. Lee Earney playing himself...again. It was brutal and that's about all I can say, aside from jessica Biel's jeans and tanktop.
I just don't see how 80's slasher flicks are the "Old-School" horror? I really don't. If those are the standard that every horror film released is judged by, then every new horror flick will be considered amazing. Seriously. I hear this "golden age" shit all of the time.
So, I will try to go to Hatchet with an open mind, though it does resemble Venom by trailer. And I will update on my reaction.
As always, I digress. Sorry if you've stopped reading already. I'm getting to it all.
I've heard a lot of talk about HATCHET. I've heard that its the hotness, plain and simple. Harry Knowles wrote a really cool review from the theatre, as he observed the audience, which I think is the best gauge of a film's success. Apparently, the audience absolutely ATE this film up. Then, in the hype, everyone started calling it a "throwback" and a "return to old-school horror." I can appreciate that. I also appreciate the eye-popping gore that everyone is talking about, and the flick's sense of humor, and its knowledge of the genre. I really haven't heard a bad thing yet.
Here's my dilemma, though:
I haven't seen the movie, but I intend to this weekend in NYC. I HATE that everyone is calling this old-school horror. HATE IT. It makes me resent the movie. Golden Age? Fuck that! There was a time in the early eighties when slasher films were churned out like nobody's business. FRIDAY THE 13TH sort of cornered the market. It sucked. Sorry, lovers of Jason and Mrs. Voorhees, but the movies sucked. They were not scary, just over-the-top bloody. Now, I can be a gorehound, though I think Saw III took it to new heights, but those movies in the early eighties generally sucked. THE BURNING? That sucked. THE PROWLER? Sucked. FRIDAY sequels - sucked too. Besides, HALLOWEEN started all of this in '78, and it wasn't gory, just fucking scary as hell. If you really want to get literal, BLACK CHRISTMAS came years before Halloween and was a pretty decent example of the genre it basically created. I also liked TERROR TRAIN and found it to be pretty creepy too. There's A Nightmare on Elm Street, but that's not really the same thing, is it? Although, it regressed to become it.
That's old-school horror. Taking nothing but atmoshpere and film technique and churning out a really visceral experience. SAW? That flick had the worst acting since TROLL 2. It piled on twists and turns in an effort to appear witty, but it was just stupid. Danny Glover did not come out well at all. I swear that people must realize how bad that movie really was. TCM remake? That was a bad movie that had nothing but a gonzo R. Lee Earney playing himself...again. It was brutal and that's about all I can say, aside from jessica Biel's jeans and tanktop.
I just don't see how 80's slasher flicks are the "Old-School" horror? I really don't. If those are the standard that every horror film released is judged by, then every new horror flick will be considered amazing. Seriously. I hear this "golden age" shit all of the time.
So, I will try to go to Hatchet with an open mind, though it does resemble Venom by trailer. And I will update on my reaction.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
To Live and Die in L.A.
Every week, I've decided, this blog will recognize an "oldie, but goodie." I hope that I can choose some more obscure titles, titles that may not be obscure to cinephiles, like myself, but could be new discoveries for the everyday, normal filmgoer.
There's no real criteria for a flick that qualifies it as an oldie, but goodie - it just has to be old in some sense of the word, say, at least 10-15 years - and I will offer my humble commentary on it in hope that it will convince someone revisit it or see it for the very first time. I realize that some people might just hate the flicks I choose and I don't really care. See the flick, hate it, and write me to tell me about it. Maybe I will be swayed.
Before I start, I would like to consider the word "old" as it relates to movies. Personally, my cutoff age for a flick to be considered old is around 40 years. When talking to my friends or co-workers, old becomes 10, 15, maybe 20 years. I've discovered that some people simply will not watch movies that are much older than those ages. Except, perhaps, movies that they coveted when they were children. Movies like LABYRINTH, THE GOONIES, and INDIANA JONES. Sometimes people will reference GREMLINS or ET, but generally, I never hear people go much further back, even when I talk about JAWS, RAGING BULL, and ORDINARY PEOPLE. I don't know why people may feel this way, but movies of the seventies are amazing. I mean, I can't even begin to start a list, as there are just too damn many to consider. I urge people to check out flicks remastered on DVD. It is worth it.
Anyway, on to this minor classic from 1985 - TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A.. I think this is the coolest fucking title in all of moviedom. I really do. I mean, you just cannot plug in any other name and achieve the same effect. To Live and Die in Chicago. Blah. Fuck that. To Live and Die in New York. are you serious? And I live in New York. Its not the same. Life and death just can't seem to coexist in the same breath with a city like they can with LA.
People who have heard of TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA have probably heard about it because of the car chase that the flick is built around - and it is a damn fine car chase - but the movie works for other reasons too. It has a super creepo villain played by Willem Dafoe, who likes to bang androgynous chicks all decked-out in leather. He plays a counterfeiter who only seems to work while listening to Tangerine Dream. He is cold-blooded as hell. The flick also has a HERO who is potentially more nasty than the villain and he is played with cocky, almost abrasive confidence by William Petersen. I mean, the guy calls everybody "amigo." How mid-eighties, badass cop is that?
The movie is dark, but filmed with an eye for "Miami Vice" neon-lit settings, and it has a very stark, Michael Mann vibe to it. In fact, Mann, who is friends with William Friedkin (director of LA and The French Connection, and The Exorcist) accused Friedkin of stealing story concepts for LA. The flick play a little like an extended Miami Vice episode, but much dirtier and much more violent. The film has almost no redeeming characters. There's something fascinating about watching a film populated only by the ultra-sleazy. Its like walking on the wild side because you eventually have to root for someone and everyone here is nasty, so, in essence, you become an advocate to the sleaze-fest.
Anyway, the flick has a cool plot. Petersen plays a CIA agent trying to bust Dafoe for counterfeiting and for killing his partner, who was (shocker) days away from retirement. He doesn't have the backing of the CIA, so Peterson goes rogue with his new, young, awe-struck partner, and decides to rip off a drug smuggler of some cash in order to set up a deal with Dafoe. Little does he realize that the smuggler is an undercover FBI agent - who dies in the robbery, which leads to the AMAZING car chase - and Petersen is basically on the run. Cool stuff.
So, check out the movie. Some people absolutely hate it. I love it. Hated it at first, but love it now.
There's no real criteria for a flick that qualifies it as an oldie, but goodie - it just has to be old in some sense of the word, say, at least 10-15 years - and I will offer my humble commentary on it in hope that it will convince someone revisit it or see it for the very first time. I realize that some people might just hate the flicks I choose and I don't really care. See the flick, hate it, and write me to tell me about it. Maybe I will be swayed.
Before I start, I would like to consider the word "old" as it relates to movies. Personally, my cutoff age for a flick to be considered old is around 40 years. When talking to my friends or co-workers, old becomes 10, 15, maybe 20 years. I've discovered that some people simply will not watch movies that are much older than those ages. Except, perhaps, movies that they coveted when they were children. Movies like LABYRINTH, THE GOONIES, and INDIANA JONES. Sometimes people will reference GREMLINS or ET, but generally, I never hear people go much further back, even when I talk about JAWS, RAGING BULL, and ORDINARY PEOPLE. I don't know why people may feel this way, but movies of the seventies are amazing. I mean, I can't even begin to start a list, as there are just too damn many to consider. I urge people to check out flicks remastered on DVD. It is worth it.
Anyway, on to this minor classic from 1985 - TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A.. I think this is the coolest fucking title in all of moviedom. I really do. I mean, you just cannot plug in any other name and achieve the same effect. To Live and Die in Chicago. Blah. Fuck that. To Live and Die in New York. are you serious? And I live in New York. Its not the same. Life and death just can't seem to coexist in the same breath with a city like they can with LA.
People who have heard of TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA have probably heard about it because of the car chase that the flick is built around - and it is a damn fine car chase - but the movie works for other reasons too. It has a super creepo villain played by Willem Dafoe, who likes to bang androgynous chicks all decked-out in leather. He plays a counterfeiter who only seems to work while listening to Tangerine Dream. He is cold-blooded as hell. The flick also has a HERO who is potentially more nasty than the villain and he is played with cocky, almost abrasive confidence by William Petersen. I mean, the guy calls everybody "amigo." How mid-eighties, badass cop is that?
The movie is dark, but filmed with an eye for "Miami Vice" neon-lit settings, and it has a very stark, Michael Mann vibe to it. In fact, Mann, who is friends with William Friedkin (director of LA and The French Connection, and The Exorcist) accused Friedkin of stealing story concepts for LA. The flick play a little like an extended Miami Vice episode, but much dirtier and much more violent. The film has almost no redeeming characters. There's something fascinating about watching a film populated only by the ultra-sleazy. Its like walking on the wild side because you eventually have to root for someone and everyone here is nasty, so, in essence, you become an advocate to the sleaze-fest.
Anyway, the flick has a cool plot. Petersen plays a CIA agent trying to bust Dafoe for counterfeiting and for killing his partner, who was (shocker) days away from retirement. He doesn't have the backing of the CIA, so Peterson goes rogue with his new, young, awe-struck partner, and decides to rip off a drug smuggler of some cash in order to set up a deal with Dafoe. Little does he realize that the smuggler is an undercover FBI agent - who dies in the robbery, which leads to the AMAZING car chase - and Petersen is basically on the run. Cool stuff.
So, check out the movie. Some people absolutely hate it. I love it. Hated it at first, but love it now.
Monday, August 27, 2007
1-18-08
Alright. I know this date, which has been doubling as a title, is being talked to death. I know that every blogger who keeps tabs on film development sites (ie Aintitcool and darkhorizons) has been addressing JJ Abrams new film, especially its viral marketing campaign that launched famously with a preview ahead of Transformers, for quite some time. Similarly, The Dark Knight has been identified as a user of the viral design as well. I want to take moment to heap some praise on Abrams' grand scheme.
I LOVE this campaign. Is it possible that I love this campaign because I have an infatuation with Abrams' show LOST? Yes, one, more than likely, influences the other. Is it possible to love 1-18-08's campaign, but feel something close to indifference for The Dark Knight's efforts? I've been trying to differentiate between my love for Abrams as an entertainer and my love for the Viral Marketing schematic. But, again, one influences the other.
Abrams is an entertainer. A showman. His campaign leans more towards the showmanship that a magician displays during the course of an act. There is buildup, sustained tension, red herrings, and a final revelatory release. Abrams uses all of those, illusions, and a sense of the sublime to create a world that involves his audiences, a pliable reality that they can interact with. 1-18-08's website is a perfect example.
Initially, it just contained pictures, which prompted hours of study, as people looked for visual clues, hoping that something lined up or inverted. Then, some lucky Joe figured out that the pictures flipped over and contained messages written on the back. Today, I found out that if you listen to the site for 6 minutes, you will hear the roar of the creature. All of these little discoveries make the audience feel like they're making these discoveries themselves, as if they're in on the whole Magic trick with Abrams. He utilizes web, movie theatres, print, and word-of-mouth. It truly is immersing and ingenious.
Yes, I LOVE it.
It reminds me of the way that Spielberg slowly builds to the reveal of the shark in JAWS. He hints at the Sharks capacity for wicked damage, at its monstrous size throughout the film's entirety. And in a small, subliminal way, the audience's fear creeps up on them as their imaginations fire-up images of just how big the beast could be.
Nobody knows exactly what is going on with 1-18-08, but they can't say that Abrams hasn't been working overtime to fire their imaginations and drop hints of the film's secrets.
I LOVE this campaign. Is it possible that I love this campaign because I have an infatuation with Abrams' show LOST? Yes, one, more than likely, influences the other. Is it possible to love 1-18-08's campaign, but feel something close to indifference for The Dark Knight's efforts? I've been trying to differentiate between my love for Abrams as an entertainer and my love for the Viral Marketing schematic. But, again, one influences the other.
Abrams is an entertainer. A showman. His campaign leans more towards the showmanship that a magician displays during the course of an act. There is buildup, sustained tension, red herrings, and a final revelatory release. Abrams uses all of those, illusions, and a sense of the sublime to create a world that involves his audiences, a pliable reality that they can interact with. 1-18-08's website is a perfect example.
Initially, it just contained pictures, which prompted hours of study, as people looked for visual clues, hoping that something lined up or inverted. Then, some lucky Joe figured out that the pictures flipped over and contained messages written on the back. Today, I found out that if you listen to the site for 6 minutes, you will hear the roar of the creature. All of these little discoveries make the audience feel like they're making these discoveries themselves, as if they're in on the whole Magic trick with Abrams. He utilizes web, movie theatres, print, and word-of-mouth. It truly is immersing and ingenious.
Yes, I LOVE it.
It reminds me of the way that Spielberg slowly builds to the reveal of the shark in JAWS. He hints at the Sharks capacity for wicked damage, at its monstrous size throughout the film's entirety. And in a small, subliminal way, the audience's fear creeps up on them as their imaginations fire-up images of just how big the beast could be.
Nobody knows exactly what is going on with 1-18-08, but they can't say that Abrams hasn't been working overtime to fire their imaginations and drop hints of the film's secrets.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Brilliant As They Are Ruthless
Taken from the trailer of the original "Die Hard" in 1988, "they're as Brilliant as they are ruthless," is a line used to describe the film's villains, lead by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman). I remembered the line as I was watching the most recent Die Hard -yes, I'm talking about Die Hard 4 again - and observing how fucking lame the villain was. Now, this is nothing against Timothy Olyphant, who was twice as menacing in "The Girl Next Door," as a porn magnet, but I suspect my true beef is with the writers and director of Die Hard 4. For whatever reason, the studio chose to saddle the flick with a PG-13 rating and, I think, as a consequence, Olyphant was commanded to rope in his performance. He couldn't have been less formidable. I don't know that he wouldn't have been more appropriate in a Cody Banks flick. I suppose he was trying to smolder under his icy exterior, but all I got was a bored Timothy Olyphant deeply pissed he couldn't let loose with more verve and hate. It takes a considerable amount of hate to plan and execute his diabolical design. Jon McClane, in any normal Die Hard flick, would Windex the fucking windows with this guy's ass.
With that said, let us consider the original Die Hard. You have John McClane, hero extraordinaire, taking on Hans Gruber, the standard of hissable villains. Make no mistake about it; the original Die Hard works well for many reasons, but its biggest assets is Hans Gruber. Gruber was smart, savvy, and capable of sudden, explosive action. He shot and killed at least two people in cold blood. He rarely got rattled and could produce a nice quip with fantastic timing. He was a mean bastard and secretly, deep down, you kind of wanted him to succeed. That is the secret to a great villain - the audience has to secretly, almost subconsciously, root for the villain, or, in other words, thoroughly love to hate him.
Think of Hannibal Lecter. Disgusting cannibal? Maybe? Also, a brilliant doctor and manipulator with an intellect far superior to those around him. You love him. When he walks away at the end of "Silence of the Lambs," you think, "damn, he got away. That's fucking cool. Creepy, but cool." Everyone thought that, which is why the character was brought back in many more movies. That is why Hopkins took home the Oscar for 10 minutes of screen time.
Darth Vader, you ask? Nowhere near as witty or realistic, but every bit as cool visually. His costume, his deep, speaker-filtered breathing, his father-stature. He was like God.
The greatest villain of all time? Well, many people have different preferences. There are almost too many great villains to count. Henry Fonda in "Once Upon a Time in the West," Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet," Jack Nicholson in every other movie he was doing for a while. And yet, for my money, I would not hesitate to list Tim Roth in "Rob Roy," at the top of my list. I have no doubt that this performance is the nastiest piece of work to ever oppose a protagonist. To look at him, you'd see a man of tiny stature, a fop, with an acidic tongue that you might think compensates for his lack of physical prowess. Bullshit. The man is more deadly with his sword than anything else he might have in his arsenal. He murders, steals, rapes, and lies his way throughout the movie. I don't think that I have ever wanted a villain to suffer through a nasty comeuppance more than I did with Roth in this movie. Just go to IMDB and look at the memorable quotes uttered by this vile sonofabitch. To see him uttering them on screen is all the more amazing.
Again, I'm certain that everyone has a favorite villain. I'm partial to Hans Gruber and John Malkovich in "In the Line of Fire," too. I also think that Gene Hackman in "Unforgiven" is a real fucker, albeit a fucker in a land of fuckers. Still, I don't know that any of them hold a candle to Roth in "Rob Roy." Just rent it and see.
I felt compelled to write this all down because I have seen a real lack of memorable villains in recent times. Even in the new "Casino Royale." The Bourne movies seem to survive without a great antagonist through the sheer physicality of the productions, but I think you will see more attention paid to villains in the near future. I hear that "3:10 to Yuma" features a great psycho in Ben Foster. He was creepy in Hostage too. So, I await that.
There is an old rule of thumb: Bond flicks are only as good as their villains. I believe this is true. I also believe it should be the standard that all thrillers should be held at. Compelling villains more often than not equate to a compelling struggle.
Anyone remember Edward Norton in "Primal Fear?" I rest my case.
With that said, let us consider the original Die Hard. You have John McClane, hero extraordinaire, taking on Hans Gruber, the standard of hissable villains. Make no mistake about it; the original Die Hard works well for many reasons, but its biggest assets is Hans Gruber. Gruber was smart, savvy, and capable of sudden, explosive action. He shot and killed at least two people in cold blood. He rarely got rattled and could produce a nice quip with fantastic timing. He was a mean bastard and secretly, deep down, you kind of wanted him to succeed. That is the secret to a great villain - the audience has to secretly, almost subconsciously, root for the villain, or, in other words, thoroughly love to hate him.
Think of Hannibal Lecter. Disgusting cannibal? Maybe? Also, a brilliant doctor and manipulator with an intellect far superior to those around him. You love him. When he walks away at the end of "Silence of the Lambs," you think, "damn, he got away. That's fucking cool. Creepy, but cool." Everyone thought that, which is why the character was brought back in many more movies. That is why Hopkins took home the Oscar for 10 minutes of screen time.
Darth Vader, you ask? Nowhere near as witty or realistic, but every bit as cool visually. His costume, his deep, speaker-filtered breathing, his father-stature. He was like God.
The greatest villain of all time? Well, many people have different preferences. There are almost too many great villains to count. Henry Fonda in "Once Upon a Time in the West," Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet," Jack Nicholson in every other movie he was doing for a while. And yet, for my money, I would not hesitate to list Tim Roth in "Rob Roy," at the top of my list. I have no doubt that this performance is the nastiest piece of work to ever oppose a protagonist. To look at him, you'd see a man of tiny stature, a fop, with an acidic tongue that you might think compensates for his lack of physical prowess. Bullshit. The man is more deadly with his sword than anything else he might have in his arsenal. He murders, steals, rapes, and lies his way throughout the movie. I don't think that I have ever wanted a villain to suffer through a nasty comeuppance more than I did with Roth in this movie. Just go to IMDB and look at the memorable quotes uttered by this vile sonofabitch. To see him uttering them on screen is all the more amazing.
Again, I'm certain that everyone has a favorite villain. I'm partial to Hans Gruber and John Malkovich in "In the Line of Fire," too. I also think that Gene Hackman in "Unforgiven" is a real fucker, albeit a fucker in a land of fuckers. Still, I don't know that any of them hold a candle to Roth in "Rob Roy." Just rent it and see.
I felt compelled to write this all down because I have seen a real lack of memorable villains in recent times. Even in the new "Casino Royale." The Bourne movies seem to survive without a great antagonist through the sheer physicality of the productions, but I think you will see more attention paid to villains in the near future. I hear that "3:10 to Yuma" features a great psycho in Ben Foster. He was creepy in Hostage too. So, I await that.
There is an old rule of thumb: Bond flicks are only as good as their villains. I believe this is true. I also believe it should be the standard that all thrillers should be held at. Compelling villains more often than not equate to a compelling struggle.
Anyone remember Edward Norton in "Primal Fear?" I rest my case.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
For ONCE
It has just dawned on me that the audiences of America (small as they may be, in this case) have already seen next year's Academy Award winner for Best Picture. Now, I know that most people who read this couldn't care less about the Oscars, and in some cases, consider them to be the kiss-of-death for small films that attract a cult following, only to become overexposed and lose their flave of the month status. I've seen it happen many times, most recently with "Crash" and "Little Miss Sunshine." The latter, I believe, is extremely overrated. The former? Well, I saw it on opening night, with almost nobody in the theatre, and walked out, moved. I know many people who felt exactly the same way until months later, when cynical critics started crying "preachy," and "syrupy."
Anyway, I digress, but its my blog, so I'm allotted a few digressions, rants, and in-your-faces.
The film, which is smaller than either of the two I mentioned - in budget and cast - is "Once." Here, I am saying it now, that this film will definitely be in the mix come next February when it is time to nominate the finalists for the big prize. This film is truly special. I mean that. I hate musicals. Hate them! I find them awkward on the screen, awkward and almost unpleasant in the way that everything is designed around the musical set-pieces and not the storyline or the characters. Its like watching a bad action flick, where it is just a series of sequences strung together by a flimsy story. All success depends on style or strength of direction. Mostly, though, I think they're damn boring.
Then, I discovered Once, which isn't a musical per se, but a love story fueled organically by a mutual love of music. And the music, well, the music is pretty fucking good. Good enough that I picked out a few favorites from the soundtrack on iTunes.
I don't really know why I find the film to be so fantastic. Maybe its the fact that it seems to do so much with so little. Maybe its the fact that I discovered it on a small, one-screen theatre amidst a summer of bombastic, Hollywood blockbusters. Maybe, just maybe, its because the film is about two normally fucked-up individuals who come into one another's orbit, realize that they have a mutual love of music, and through that, they come to love each other. Its here that the film becomes a small miracle because these two people, they don't fall into eachother's arms or wait till it rains to share a moment, no, instead, these two people are the walking-wounded and choose not cloud something so pure with the banality of casual sex or he said, she said bullshit. The way the film ends is really quite perfect, which is sort of contrary to the beauty of the movie, but who cares? Really?
Bottom line: see this movie. Steven Spielberg himself has called it an inspiration. Are you serious? Spielberg? Get out there, look past the marketing campaigns of the behemoths of the box office and see this one before everyone turns against it.
Anyway, I digress, but its my blog, so I'm allotted a few digressions, rants, and in-your-faces.
The film, which is smaller than either of the two I mentioned - in budget and cast - is "Once." Here, I am saying it now, that this film will definitely be in the mix come next February when it is time to nominate the finalists for the big prize. This film is truly special. I mean that. I hate musicals. Hate them! I find them awkward on the screen, awkward and almost unpleasant in the way that everything is designed around the musical set-pieces and not the storyline or the characters. Its like watching a bad action flick, where it is just a series of sequences strung together by a flimsy story. All success depends on style or strength of direction. Mostly, though, I think they're damn boring.
Then, I discovered Once, which isn't a musical per se, but a love story fueled organically by a mutual love of music. And the music, well, the music is pretty fucking good. Good enough that I picked out a few favorites from the soundtrack on iTunes.
I don't really know why I find the film to be so fantastic. Maybe its the fact that it seems to do so much with so little. Maybe its the fact that I discovered it on a small, one-screen theatre amidst a summer of bombastic, Hollywood blockbusters. Maybe, just maybe, its because the film is about two normally fucked-up individuals who come into one another's orbit, realize that they have a mutual love of music, and through that, they come to love each other. Its here that the film becomes a small miracle because these two people, they don't fall into eachother's arms or wait till it rains to share a moment, no, instead, these two people are the walking-wounded and choose not cloud something so pure with the banality of casual sex or he said, she said bullshit. The way the film ends is really quite perfect, which is sort of contrary to the beauty of the movie, but who cares? Really?
Bottom line: see this movie. Steven Spielberg himself has called it an inspiration. Are you serious? Spielberg? Get out there, look past the marketing campaigns of the behemoths of the box office and see this one before everyone turns against it.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Thank you, Paul Greengrass!
I am deeply saddened and a little embarrassed. I saw an action film this summer, took a biased point-of-view, and came out loving it, knowing deep down that it wasn't nearly as good as it could of been. Not by half. Of course, it wasn't as bad as it should have been. That film was Live Free or Die Hard. I cannot tell you how much I was looking forward to that film - the original has and always will be my favorite film of all time. It absolutely set the Action standard in 1988 and it has yet to be surpassed.
I had waited 12 years for the return of John McClane and what I got for my troubles was a watered-down shell of the character saddled with a completely inane plot and the least formidable villain of the series. It was entertaining and even cool (the car/helicopter scene was extremely well done down the line), but it was nothing compared to the previous films in the series. Nowhere close. Sorry Bruce and Co.
You have to want to root for John McClane in a Die Hard movie. He attracts you to his side because he is the everyman; the guy who loves pizza, the guy who drinks too much, the guy who can't understand his wife, the guy who would much rather be home, smoking cigarettes and bitching about the officiating in the game on TV. In Live Free or Die Hard, we get none of that.
I didn't realize any of this until last week, when I was shocked out of my bullshit, biased daze by a badass chase film - The Bourne Ultimatum. Now here is a flick that knows how to put you on your ass, stand you back up, and lay you down again because it just don't quit. I have to tell you - I think this is the best action film in forever, save, of course, for The Bourne Supremacy, which I actually preferred to Ultimatum, but for some reason don't remember appreciating as much. I have recently revisited it and decided that it was incredible, with the nastiest, twitchiest car chase that I have ever seen.
Supremacy is a minor classic and that makes Ultimatum all the more impressive because it matches Supremacy's energy with the ballsy decision to not slow down for anything. I have never seen a film interweave its story with a 2-hour long chase so seamlessly. The scenes of "downtime" are as explosively filmed as the chases.
This director, Greengrass, is for real. This son of a bitch knows how to make an action film. He knows how to film his hero, how to have him engage in hand-to-hand combat with other badasses. Most importantly, he knows how to make the audience feel like a participant. You are there, dodging every punch and kick, ducking and diving through all manner of traffic. I love his style. I cannot get enough of it. He doesn't want it to end for his hero. He wants Bourne to endure as much as is possible in order for him to win the audience over. This, in essence, is what made Die Hard so great. John McClane had to earn our respect and McTiernan put him through the Action Olympics to make sure that McClane got our attention. Greengrass, in these past two films, has done the same for Jason Bourne.
I would also like to point out, that without Greengrass and his kickass, realistic style, we never would have been graced with the ultra-cool Casino Royale, which was just filthy good. James Bond would never have recieved such a reboot had Greengrass not shown up with that car chase in Supremacy.
So, Thank You, Paul Greengrass for opening my eyes and showing me and the rest of the world what Die Hard 4 could have been. A Greengrass shot, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
