September 30, 2020
Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Cast:
George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash Fox), Bill Murray (Clive Badger), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip), Wallace Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson Silverfox), Jarvis Cocker (Petey), Wes Anderson (Stan Weasel), Robin Hurlstone (Walter Boggis), and Hugo Guinness (Nathan Bunce) Directed by Wes Anderson.
Review:
"I like to do things that are a little surrealistic but with characters who are real. So that, even if things are a little unusual, the emotions will come through anyway.”
The auteur filmmaker is one that knows and controls his style to create a distinct film of his own merit. Wes Anderson certainly has proven himself worthy of the label alongside a variety of others with his level of filmmaking. The native Texan made films from a young age - making his first films with a Super-8 camera. He liked films such as Star Wars and directors like Alfred Hitchcock, even working as a projectionist when studying philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1992, he directed a short film with friend Owen Wilson called Bottle Rocket (which he wrote with Wilson that was inspired by films like Mean Streets). A submission to the Sundance Film Festival (which James L. Brooks, upon viewing it was "dazzled" by) resulted in an opportunity to direct a feature film based on the short (with time spent re-working the script and filming) - released in 1996, it received notice but was not an audience hit. His next film in Rushmore (1998) proved more successful; after these two films, he already had one significant fan in Martin Scorsese (who called both films "very funny, but also very moving"). His subsequent films have received a good deal of notice that have made for nine released features in nearly 25 films of filmmaking. Anderson is noted for his distinct style of films, which he described as "very personal movies in a way", built with quirks in his characters and with the choices of music and look of each film, while also featuring a variety of recurring actors (such as Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Wolodarsky, and Wilson). For this film (which he co-wrote with Noah Baumbach along with serving as co-producer), it would be done in stop-motion animation with figurines that were made out of fur (with tailored clothing of fabric that he designed himself).
Sometimes a film can be just a bit more than just a fine adaptation of another work. This was based off the 1970 children's novel of the same name by Roald Dahl (who many will recognize as writer of works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The BFG, each of which I read as a child) - it was apparently the first book Anderson remembers owning. The film is mostly faithful to the novel, aside from having a focus on the relation of Mr. Fox to his family (which cut the four children to one) that expands upon the narrative (in other words, more than just a fox stealing chickens from a bunch of weirdos), in addition to a tweaking of the ending and a few added scenes. Sure, one could have the voices done in the booth, or they could have them done at a farmhouse as is the case here with such a marvelous film like this proves to be. It never wavers from delivering an interesting story with plenty of whimsy and skill with performances to go along with entertaining voices and design that make a wonderful classic worth 88 minutes. It all falls first to Clooney, who does quite well in brimming confidence that weaves interest and curiosity that generate subtle amusement fitting for that particular timing and character. Streep goes along with reserved grace that makes a well-tuned chemistry with Clooney in their scenes shared together. Schwartzman does well in generating interesting angst and smart remarks for when it is necessary that drives the film in those careful moments handled with his counterpart in E. Anderson (illustrator and author, who had made cameo appearances in his brother's films). Murray makes a few funny moments count without needing to hear too much of him badger on, while Dafoe equally makes his dandy moments count well in amusement. The film hits its stride early and never lets go in examining the nature of longing, alienation, and ultimately togetherness within a worthwhile adventure. I am dazzled by the animation of the film, as it looks quite intricate and rightly executed in creating a world of dazzling charm and palate (with a distinct lack of blues or greens) that never looks excessively gaudy or too much for enjoyment. I like the entertainment it brought to a charming work that honors the original book with its own flourish of humor and narrative for a resplendent achievement for animation alongside its era and director.
Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.
A Serious Man.
Review #1552: A Serious Man.
Cast:
Michael Stuhlbarg (Lawrence "Larry" Gopnik), Richard Kind (Arthur Gopnik), Fred Melamed (Sy Ableman), Sari Lennick (Judith Gopnik), Aaron Wolff (Danny Gopnik), Jessica McManus (Sarah Gopnik), Alan Mandell (Rabbi Marshak), Adam Arkin (Don Milgram), George Wyner (Rabbi Nachtner), and Amy Landecker (Mrs. Vivienne Samsky) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, and #1517 - The Big Lebowski)
Review:
"There were Jewish characters, but in regards to whether our background influences our film making who knows? We don't think about it. There's no doubt that our Jewish heritage affects how we see things."
It all started out with an idea for a short. The Coens envisioned a short film that would be about a conversation between a kid has with an elder rabbi that they described as a sort of "mysterious figure" after his bar mitzvah. Naturally this would spiral into Some of the characters present in the film had inspiration from people the Coens knew growing up in Minnesota (such as with Melamed's character), with this taking place in 1967 (being shot in Bloomington but set in the Coens' birthplace of St. Louis Park) that reflect their upbringing in spirituality in study as children (Ethan once described wanting to explore the "incongruity" of Jews living in the Midwest as its own "strange subculture" - interpret that however you will). This is their 14th feature film together, which like most of their previous work they also served as editor for in a decade that was their busiest and most prominent as directors/writers/editors/producers (seven in total, which ranged from crime drama to dark comedy).
Sometimes you just have a film where the amusement comes in wincing at what is going on, where certainties and perceptions are never what one might think are coming, particularly when needing answers that suit tradition. Sometimes it all comes down to having one bump in the road turning out to spiral into something way worse, as perspective gives way to irony. Paradox and ambiguity are at the forefront here in a film that reaches as darkly amusing at times, one that will likely benefit from a re-watch for those who find its mesh of fictional and autobiographical work to prove a useful fable that fits upon telling (supposedly helpful) fables of its own involving dybbuks and symbols, which go hand-in-hand with moments that range from attempts at avoid bribes/blackmail to strange neighbors. This was the first starring role in film for Stuhlbarg, who had been acting in the theater since 1992 and in minor film + TV roles since 1998. He does quite well with a role that almost seems to be an observer in his own story, capturing pathos with a well-infused sense of anguish and confusion that manages to reflect well for a viewer in what is found and not found with him to look upon without having to spelled out for us. He reflects the alienation and hollow charade that can come from the conflict of certainty versus mystery of life, one who has been described as fitting the mold of the Book of Job (a Hebrew Bible book on divine wisdom and suffering) that might as well fit into a parable for the times now, which he does with well reflection. Kind makes for an interesting creature of habit in his time on screen, one that reflects his on-screen brother with careful and distinct sad quality. Melamed utilizes his time as a greatly captured creature of smug confidence, warm to the point of overheating that makes an amusing curiosity. Lennick fits the mold of no-nonsense interest that gravitates towards said serious folks with brazen confidence. Wolff and McManus do fine as the children of their own path of life and spirit, while Wyner provides the best laugh in the whole film in a scene near the end and Landecker does well in one elusive scene. The ending is as offbeat and elusive as the mysteries that came before it, which certainly will be interesting for those who find it worthwhile to fit its revolving message of mystery without needing a direct answer (or for others something of a cypher). It is a peculiar movie, fitting best for those with prior experience with the films of the Coen brothers or for those who like something with its own way of telling a story about mystery and certainty that work itself just well enough for satisfaction in the long run.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
September 29, 2020
Inglourious Basterds.
Review #1551: Inglourious Basterds.
Cast:
Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Rain), Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus/Emmanuelle Mimieux), Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa), Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz), Michael Fassbender (Lt. Archie Hicox), Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark), Daniel Brühl (Pfc. Fredrick Zoller), Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz), Gedeon Burkhard (Corporal Wilhelm Wicki), Jacky Ido (Marcel), B. J. Novak (Pfc. Smithson "The Little Man" Utivich), Omar Doom (Pfc. Omar Ulmer), Samm Levine (Pfc. Gerold Hirschberg), and August Diehl (Dieter Hellstrom) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and #1307 - Jackie Brown)
Review:
"Some people will like Inglourious Basterds. Some people won't. But it was made with all the passion I've made everything with - except maybe my first film, which was probably made with more passion than I'll ever have again."
Doing a Quentin Tarantino film can be quite an experience, depending on one's moods for his particular style towards filmmaking that have made him an interesting auteur with ten released features in the span of over two decades, which are generally known for their handling of violence, ensemble casting and drawing upon films and other media. Tarantino spent ten years writing the film, but he apparently could not come up with an ending at first. He has stated his desire to make a spaghetti western but as a World War II film, one that could forward the war-mission subgenre with more artistic movement. Of course he also believes that the opening chapter of the film was the best thing he had written since True Romance (1993), so cut it however you like it.
It's rather amazing with all the spectacle and time built into making a 153 minute film that goes where it wants with dual stories (alongside a significant amount of dialogue spoken in Italian, French, and German) and many actors making an appearance (such as a brief nod for Rod Taylor and Mike Myers, believe it or not) that it all comes down to being remarkably average. I don't really know what I was expecting, but while I found some of it fairly enjoyable when it comes to exploitation material, other parts seem to go on for quite a bit longer than they really should and it really seems like a case of too much boldness where it needs to be less. His films are definitely ones that could desire multiple viewings, but I really didn't latch onto this one that much to really think I'll go back and just look on it again anytime soon (which is strange, since I re-watched his subsequent film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and actually liked it better than I already did, and that also is a sprawling film involving alternate history). For something that aspires for sprawling story, it really feels like two hollow ends of the same instrument. Pitt leads the film with reasoned edge, confident in exactly what is needed for someone needing to deal in blunt vengeance. Somehow, Laurent didn't really seemed to connect well here, as if somehow one desires more interest in the other structure of revenge than passiveness that really didn't make as much an impression as I might've liked, which is probably important with the whole "let's burn it all down" time spent - she might be shown as bigger-than-life, but it sure doesn't translate to a big factor of focus. Of course this could also apply to Fassbender or Kruger as well, since they both feature in a whole sequence involving accents, a guessing game, and exactly what you might expect in tedium. Waltz is the best part of the whole film, honestly. It seems strange that of a diverse grab-bag of international actors that it is the one involved in television and film since the late 1970s (in either German or English language) as a native of Austria that outranks the rest, capturing a great adversary of courteous and sardonic skill. Roth (occasional actor and director of films such as Cabin Fever) makes the most impression of the title characters, mostly because of a bravado to go with a big swing.
I have given a bit of slack to films that resonate in entertainment despite perhaps lacking in depth. For this, I just can't really give this that much to grab on because I feel that it is just okay at actually executing itself in boldness beyond a few tricks of war films past and an attempt at making revenge and action seem more than it really is. It brandishes itself in camp and fervor that does do fine with some of its sequences in generating shock or a bit of smile, and the opening sequence is at the very least a useful to set itself up on the right track. Pitt and Waltz do enough to carry a film in casual interest of sidestepping history that mostly make up for a film with flickering energy to actually land its convictions and passion it yearns to have, but it certainly could provide a curiosity for those interested in its presentation and its vision to get there.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
September 28, 2020
Gran Torino.
Review #1550: Gran Torino.
Cast:
Clint Eastwood (Walt Kowalski), Bee Vang (Thao Vang Lor), Ahney Her (Sue Lor), Christopher Carley (Father Janovich), Doua Moua (Fong "Spider"), Sonny Vue (Smokie), Elvis Thao (Hmong Gangbanger No. 1), Brian Haley (Mitch Kowalski), Brian Howe (Steve Kowalski), Geraldine Hughes (Karen Kowalski), Dreama Walker (Ashley Kowalski), Michael E. Kurowski (Josh Kowalski), John Carroll Lynch (Martin), and Chee Thao (Grandma Vang Lor) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, and #1501 - Unforgiven)
Review:
"I liked that it dealt with prejudice, that it was about never being too old to learn — we talked about that before, about always moving forward, progressing."
This was the 29th directorial effort of Clint Eastwood, a name very familiar with numerous films highlighted previously. The 2000s only continued that trend with films such as Million Dollar Baby (2004) or with his Iwo Jima duology in Flags of Our Fathers and Letter from Iwo Jima (2006). He gradually took on less roles as a star, with this being his fourth and last role in the decade (of course anyone would be glad to be over 70 and still take on roles from time to time), with this one serving as an audience favorite. The screenplay was written by first-time writer Nick Schenk with a story by him and Dave Johannson. Schenk had done some work with television (a game show, a mixed martial arts show, and comedy sketches) while working in construction and fruit truck driving that wrote his script at a bar, while Johannson sold furnaces. It was the experiences Schenk had with Hmong co-workers people at construction that inspired the main character (whose characteristics were stated by others in why it couldn't be made). However, after finding producers to help option the script and a bit of bouncing around, it found its way to Warner Brothers with Eastwood, who accepted it without apprehension - the story had only one modification made from script to to screen, which was to change the setting from Minneapolis to Detroit (for tax breaks).
In a way, this proves to be the last of a specific theme in the films of Eastwood - namely the idea of having messed with the wrong man at exactly the wrong time to do so, one who becomes an unintentional hero to those who seek out his scowl-turning tenacity. He might as well be thought of as the hodgepodge of Archie Bunker and Dirty Harry, a man of evolving sensibility towards others but also in the cycle of violence. Even a retirement from Westerns can't help shake the idea that the genre is present in those basic ideas (resembling The Shootist, in its aging fighter, aspiring ward and ultimate note on violence). Whether the film actually accomplishes its goal of said breaking away from said stuff is up to the viewer, naturally. For me, I thought it was a decent film, even if it seems a bit wedged stuck in between being a coming-of-age film involving one finding their courage or just being a confrontational one of a man against the streets infringing on his lawn. I think it actually worked a bit better when involving the Hmong culture and the parallels that come from it with family when faced with Eastwood - or at the very least what seems like their culture, since there since there was discussion over perceived inaccuracies in the film that came from writers, cast members, and crew. In any case, it is the fact that the performances are fair enough to go alongside fine production values that keep the film from seeming completely washed away in a dated capsule.
Eastwood is probably the best part of the film, in that he fits the mold of what is needed in acid-laced edge that does not so much cry for redemption as he so much softens himself from sharp prejudice to at the very least finding some sort of peace as we go along with him and his grimace, winces and all. The Hmong actors do fine, but "natural acting" without having much rehearsal to go with it can make a wooden time to see play out, because they can only go so far when faced with someone like Eastwood. Vang subsequently described the struggles associated with his performance as one that "doesn't look like stellar acting to me". He stated that he and others did not have much consulting with Eastwood, since he wanted "natural acting", so to speak while finding trouble with a character he felt was negated by the script in submissiveness; the scene with the barber is a bizarre expression of that, trying to assert just what one needs in terms of friendly exchange of insults and banter that doesn't really gel well with actually building this character up as opposed to a bit of a gag. Her makes an okay impression in accompanying Eastwood for a time in snark and culture info-giving. Carley is the only other one giving any sort of impression, and it takes a while for him to not seemingly crumble into a corncob in quivering persistence. The others seem to be there for the occasional vague moment with everything riding on the one professional star, which could have been an unwieldly time with less conviction from an actor. It all depends on how much one buys the gradual growing-bond between Eastwood and the community that goes alongside macho melodrama that bubbles itself in observation for 116 minutes that only scratches the surface of changing attitudes towards others. In that sense, it may prove a minor effort in Eastwood's extensive body of work, but it certainly has an appeal for those who find it having enough grasp on its subject to make it mean something in the end.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
September 27, 2020
The Hurt Locker.
Review #1549: The Hurt Locker.
Cast:
Jeremy Renner (Sergeant Sergeant William James), Anthony Mackie (Sergeant J. T. Sanborn), Brian Geraghty (Specialist Owen Eldridge), Guy Pearce (Staff Sergeant Matthew Thompson), Christian Camargo (Lieutenant Colonel John Cambridge), David Morse (Colonel Reed), Ralph Fiennes (Contractor Team Leader), Evangeline Lilly (Connie James), and Christopher Sayegh (Beckham) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker)
Review:
"War's dirty little secret is that some men love it. I'm trying to unpack why, to look at what it means to be a hero in the context of 21st-century combat."
The artist can come from anywhere, whether for film or beyond that, no matter how much time it takes to develop their craft or find a following with viewers. Kathryn Bigelow gradually found a place within cinema with her style of handling action cinema. She had actually started out originally striving for study in fine art (specifically painting), graduating from the San Francisco Art Institute in 1972. She spent a few years as a starving artist, being involved with conceptual art, and appearing in a few short films, but she subsequently entered Columbia University to study theory and criticism in the film program, stating film as becoming "the interchange where all these ideas were intersecting.”, and she started making her own short films with The Set-Up in 1978 (while noting the two films that opened up her landscape to film being The Wild Bunch and Mean Streets in their irreverence and intensity). Since beginning her feature career with The Loveless (1981), Bigelow has directed a variety of genres that generally deal with violence or thrills of some kind,, which resulted in a diverse quality of films that ranged from cult films like Near Dark (1987), to hit action films like Point Break (1991) to ones that did not find enough audience appeal like K-19: The Widowmaker (2002) for a career of so far ten films in a career of nearly four decades.
For this film, she wanted to do the film on her own control with less-known actors (the ones you would associate as name actors in Fiennes and Pearce are here less than ten minutes, and even less for Morse) and filming in the Middle East (which was done in Jordan), which would entail some extremely hot conditions for its crew (particularly for those wearing bomb-proof Kevlar. For me, the only thing that I was really curious about was to see how it fared in its dealings with war and the people around it in the context of its decade (particularly within world events). The film was written by Mark Boal, a journalist that previously had one of his articles turned into a film that he co-wrote with In the Valley of Elah (2007). Boal was embedded with troops and bomb squads for a time in 2004 in Iraq, and he used those observations and interviews to make the script, and he would also serve as a co-producer. What we have here is a film wrapped in tension and careful planning for people who move toward danger rather than run from it. In that sense, Renner does quite well in his reckless edge that suits the desire to stay on the pulse that feeds upon the pressure on his hands with calm conviction. Mackie goes along with well-mannered effectiveness in the simple act of trying to maintain oneself under pressure that might also resonate in some way with perspective like Renner if one thinks about it in some way. Geraghty certainly ranks as the reserved one of the main group, but he holds his own in trying to maintain one's sense of self with the unpredictability and brazen nature of what happens in these fragmented moments here. It wraps itself in modern warfare with fair conviction in capturing what is necessary in intricate experiences with our main trio of actors that resembles documentary-style filmmaking at times without becoming spectacle for the sake of it or wrapped up in fervor of too many message-making - leaving it to the viewer for better or worse. Its a fragmented film, wrapped with its trio with occasional perspective to the surroundings around them while focusing on the circumstances (and tensions) that wind them up instead. In this case, I would say it makes a good experience in ferocity for 131 minutes that captures the drive necessary in some way to carry on with its tour of service without becoming consumed in macho fervor that connects the dots in sobering interest for adrenaline-laced perspective that makes a useful curiosity for its time as a middle-ground winner.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
September 26, 2020
Rachel Getting Married.
Review #1548: Rachel Getting Married.
Cast:
Anne Hathaway (Kym Buchman), Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Buchman), Bill Irwin (Paul Buchman), Debra Winger (Abby Buchman), Tunde Adebimpe (Sidney Williams), Mather Zickel (Kieran), Anna Deavere Smith (Carol), Anisa George (Emma), and Beau Sia (Wedding Czar) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004) and #1498 - The Silence of the Lambs)
Review:
"Well, the big challenge and in a way the only challenge that I really felt was the same old challenge, you know, to try to make a good movie, to wind up the movie that worked and kind of delivered on the potential that I perceived in the script to be emotionally strong and also be funny and shed light on different stuff maybe if we got really lucky."
Jonathan Demme liked to take his time with doing films his way. He had a bona fide classic with The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and followed it with the groundbreaking legal drama involving AIDS with Philadelphia (1993) while also maintaining work in documentary filmmaking and producing films while noting his attempts to shift away from "big moviemaking" that gave him joy and stress equally in size. However, he was approached by his friend Sidney Lumet to read a script his daughter Jenny had written, and he liked the idea of doing an "independent-spirited, low-budget film." Taking the task at hand as star is Anne Hathaway, who rose to breakthrough status with films such as The Princess Diaries (2001), Brokeback Mountain (2005), and The Devil Wears Prada (2006), who is accompanied by DeWitt (star of the short-lived Standoff show and small other roles), Irwin (known for his work as a clown alongside stage and screen work), and Winger (previously featured in another family drama with Terms of Endearment (1983), which also dealt with thorny characters and tragedy).
We are talking about a film that is deliberately shot in a style described by Demme and his cinematographer as "the most beautiful home movie ever made" while including a mix of improvised dialogue and live music, after all. Technically speaking, you could say this is a wedding film for the books, because there is a sense of familiarity and interest in how much surroundings one gets to feel with something like this. On the other hand, it also could prove quite tedious as perhaps the most elaborate attempt at trying to elevate home movies and snipe fights beyond staying right where they belonged: at home or with someone who cares. It probably reflects the nature of the characters we are watching, which is meant to be portrayed as real and complicated folks - which basically comes across as trying to pedal away from being thought of as drawing from the melodrama cliché book. Or maybe it really does pull favor for those who seek its drama with thorns-on-the-side people without clear solutions. If that works into something you favor, all power to you. Besides, I doubt a film where the characters have problems and then get some of them solved is exactly a new thing either. But for me, I find it to be a case of acting over substance, where painful expression is just elusive attempts at leading the audience on by another name, a bitter expression of people fortunate enough in privilege that could very well have come out of a soap opera that happens to look different than the others because it just happens to be in your face in terms of edge and in its camera. One might as well watch group therapy play out instead.
It is the performances that keep it on some sort of path, mostly with Hathaway. She captures a vital figure of vulnerability mixed with spiked edge with a portrait of addiction as one marked with guilt and attempts at moving through the steps to build something away from vices. She cultivates interest with a role meant to be a fair challenge for an actress without succumbing to cloying antics to make it count well. DeWitt does fine in a portrait of lingering nerves and resentment that makes an interesting back-and-forth with Hathaway that makes palpable interest more so than the actual wedding taking place. Irwin and Winger are fine, although neither really are given more than brief moments to really grab drama upon for something that desperately needs more to really drive its alienation - the confrontation between Hathaway and Winger is a nice dramatic scene to chew interest upon, but the film around that needs more cohesion in actual point beyond casual venom that just reminds me of Faces (1968). I like the basic idea of confronting one's demons and also being confronted about one's own antics, with Hathaway generally keeping the film on its toes in scrappiness that could have either been its own film more so than the wedding aspects that make a 114 minute film decent rather than complete. On the whole, it is a competent film with some useful moments in frankness that almost is swept away in the margins by a fragmented story but is rescued by a dynamic Hathaway carrying along an ensemble towards being just fine to sit through, winces and all.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
September 25, 2020
Slumdog Millionaire.
Review #1547: Slumdog Millionaire.
Cast:
Dev Patel (Jamal Malik), Freida Pinto (Latika), Madhur Mittal (Salim K. Malik), Anil Kapoor (Prem Kumar), Irrfan Khan (Police Inspector), Saurabh Shukla (Police Constable Srinivas), Mahesh Manjrekar (Javed Khan), Ankur Vikal (Maman), with Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Chheda (child and teenage Jamal), Rubina Ali and Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar (child and teenage Latika), Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala (child and teenage Salim). Directed by Danny Boyle.
Review:
"I don't want to make pompous, serious films; I like films that have a kind of vivacity about them. At this time of the year you think about awards and if you want to win one you think you should make serious films, but my instinct is to make vivacious films."
Sometimes you just have to have a bit of lively entertainment to go along with interesting British cinema, or at the very least one that makes a name for themselves with certain audiences. With a variety of subjects covered in thirteen career films over a career that has spanned over 25 years, I'd say Danny Boyle has made quite a name for himself. He grew up in a working-class family that emphasized faith, but he found himself going towards drama instead of the seminary as a teenager (while becoming interested in movies as a kid with stuff like 1965's Battle of the Bulge), and he studied drama and English at Bangor University. He did a bunch of work in the theatre (where he honed himself as a director along with teaching him about the benefit of loving actors) before going along to television for the BBC. His debut film chance came when approached for the script for what became Shallow Grave (1994), which became a hit with British audiences; his next film however was even more well-noticed - the black comedy crime film Trainspotting (1996), which the British Film Institute found to be one of the best British films of the 20th century. Boyle has done a variety of genres in his career, whether in adventure (The Beach), horror (28 Days Later), or sci-fi thriller (Sunshine). In regards to this film, he was not interested initially in the idea of doing this film at first because of what he perceived to be about the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (which production company Celador had owned for a couple of years since its start in 1998 of British origin - I actually didn't know it started there before being adapted subsequently to America). However, he changed his mind when approached with the script done by Simon Beaufoy (writer of The Full Monty (1997), a favorite of Boyle and many others) that made him change his mind. Beaufoy had been approached to do a script based on Vikas Swarup's novel Q & A (which he described as "vibrant, sprawling"). Q & A was inspired in part by the scandal involving the show and British Army major Charles Ingram, who had won the top prize but was found guilty of "procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception" and lost the prize that led Swarup to the idea of if an major could be thought of as a cheater perhaps a kid from the slums could be accused of it too. There were quite a few characters lost in adaptation, most notably with the lawyer character along with a few others in the youth storyline. It was Beaufoy's yearning to shift the structure towards one unwavering narrative besides just focusing on the game show and money that led him to travel to Mumbai. It was in his visits to the slums that he found the idea to do a love story as the true crux to the film (it should be noted that Loveleen Tandan also proved a part in the film as a "co-director", going from a casting director to helping out with the sequences in India).
Sometimes the feel-good yarn just wins out. After all, who can resist such charming energy in its inevitable yarn towards hope that seems familiar without being the 200th different pastiche of rags-to-riches? What exactly is different about the type of film this is than something like Rocky (1976, also a winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture)? After all, that was a film that dwelled in a bit of rough living and someone being plucked to have a chance at making something for themselves while dealing a chance at romance and the struggles of just getting to the big event (there are obvious differences yes, but hopefully you get what I mean). Technically speaking, that film is actually less predictable than this one (at least for one who literally pretends to not think about subsequent films), but in general underdog stories are the straw that stirs the proverbial drink for those into its mood (Miracle (2004), has been watched on one particular night in February two years running precisely because of that). Maybe it is a case of the ordinary for some being quite extraordinary for others. Is it a film that deserves its various praises or critiques that range from being a riveting sort of fairy tale to patronizing, or is there something different on the surface? The way I would go by it is pretty simple: It's only a movie. Did I like what I saw in the long run of something that lasts exactly two hours? Sure, I guess I can say that. But I'll be darned if I can find much reasoning for it to be anything other than just fine that explains what all the hubbub is about. It appeals to anyone having an interest in wanting to see a feature with a type of view of a different country along with featuring Hindi dialogue for a time. Of course it also just happens to be a film that has built itself as a global phenomenon of clichés, one that seems so strangely predictable with its building of contrivances and flash of imagery that can only go so far. At least one can say there is determined actors here to make it worthwhile. Patel (known for his year-run on BBC's Skins with no prior film experience) shows himself well in resilience that makes easy to follow along with in his telling of a story/playing for something a bit different than money while basically spending a good chunk of the film sitting down. Pinto (a model who had auditioned for other films without success before drawing luck with this) doesn't exactly fare too well, although that is more because she doesn't really have much to really do besides inspiring a shadow of chemistry with our lead - it all relies on seeing the child actors to build upon the stuff that follows it, since it can only build up to the idea of a kiss for so long anyway. Mittal does fine with what is given in a rough edge that reflects the underlying foundation from earlier with some conviction, although it is up to the viewer if his last scene really sells with whatever philosophy is meant to be shown here. I found more interest with Kapoor in his arrogance and attempts with humor that bounce off Patel with thorns, even if it only could be a section of the film rather than the whole. Khan makes a fair observer to those framing sequences needed from him with patience. The child actors do fine, in that it never seems like I'm watching a maudlin story wind itself up, but it always seems like I could be watching a film about children living through tough circumstances somewhere else (Los Olvidados, perhaps for another time). It is one of those films where circumstances are the real adversary rather than just one main figure, but there never really seems to be a shadow of doubt in any conflict it tries to show because it is like a wind-up toy that goes back and forth to the points drawn out on the map. It seems way too sweet in its trail of tourism, but I see why it made the impact it made in bright charm with feel-good ambition to show a slice of life of folks trying to live without losing one's sense of self or others. Objectively, it does just enough with holding itself together without collapse, so it can be recommended for being just greater than the sum of its parts to win out in the end, for better or worse.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
There Will Be Blood.
Review #1546: There Will Be Blood.
Cast:
Daniel Day-Lewis (Daniel Plainview), Paul Dano (Eli and Paul Sunday), Kevin J. O'Connor (Henry), Ciarán Hinds (Fletcher Hamilton), Dillon Freasier (H. W. Plainview), Russell Harvard (adult H. W. Plainview), Sydney McCallister (young Mary Sunday), Colleen Foy (adult Mary Sunday), David Willis (Abel Sunday), and Hans Howes (William Bandy) Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.
Review:
"I really subscribe to that old adage that you should never let the audience get ahead of you for a second. So if the film's abrasive and wrongfoots people then, y'know, that's great. But I hope it involves an audience. If not, that's my fuck-up."
"I begin with a sense of mystery. In other words, I am intrigued by a life that seems very far removed from my own. And I have a sense of curiosity to discover that life and maybe change places with it for a while."
Anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can be a director, just ask Paul Thomas Anderson. The son of actor and horror host Ernie "Ghoulardi" Anderson, he found himself interested in making movies from a young age, doing them on video and 8mm camera while also doing writing. He made his first attempt at a true production in high school with The Dirk Diggler Story (1988), which took a mockumentary approach (Boogie Nights, released nine years later based on that material, proved his breakthrough). He did brief study at Santa Monica and Emerson College along with two days at New York University before deciding to set out on his own with work (a production assistant, mainly for television. It was during one of those experiences that he met Philip Baker Hall and told him about a short script that he believed would suit him and after his liking of the script Anderson set out to raise the funds to do what would become Cigarettes & Coffee (1993) - it received notice from festivals and got Anderson on his way to venturing into theatrical works, which resulted in movies such as Hard Eight (1996), Magnolia (1999) and Punch-Drunk Love (2002), although this has turned out to be his biggest success in terms of notice or with audiences. Similarly, anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can also be an actor, and Daniel Day-Lewis would certainly come to mind fairly early as one of those actors with reputation to spare. Born in London, Day-Lewis found interest in a variety of fields that included acting and woodworking (with one inspiration for the former being the films of Ken Loach), and he studied like other famed alumni before him at the British Old Vic Theatre School. He soon honed himself a method actor with theatre before growing to shine in film with a dedication to maintaining character that resulted in highlights such as My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), My Left Foot (1989), and The Last of the Mohicans (1992) in a career that spanned 35 years and 20 films before retirement in 2017.
The film is based in part on the 1927 novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair (Anderson stated they drew upon material from the first 150 pages), which had inspiration from the exploits of oil man Edward L. Doheny that included success in Southern California and Mexico alongside a key part in the Teapot Dome Scandal in the 1920s. Anderson found it a "great stepping-stone" in terms of helping to lend cohesive material to draw upon, which included research to cities and museums displaying pieces of oil equipment from the days of the boom while citing further inspiration in part from The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948, which he apparently watched every night during production). What we have here is a film of great physicality and loneliness, one involving a man that seems to have oil in his veins rather than blood in the way that he moves along in wheeling-and-dealing through a rise to fame, fortune, and eventually madness. Day-Lewis based his voice and characterization on recordings of famed director John Huston while also looking over letters and artifacts of the time period involving the oil boom that included reading up on Dohney. He captures something profound in predatory greatness, one more entity than man in his ultra-competitive nature and ever-growing hatred of the people that encompass him (one with no friends, lovers, or even a true son) - he dominates most of the scenes present in terms of dialogue and stature that generally works out in a performance for the ages. Dano has the interesting task of two roles, as the original actor cast for Eli (Kel O'Neill) was replaced by Anderson a few days into shooting. What could have been a gimmick used to stand out for having the same actor play different roles is instead done quite well by Dano in drawing out differences in the response to opportunity - whether that means clear-edge honesty in one brother or something devout in ambition in another. O'Connor does fine what is needed as a shadow of hope in his time spent with Day-Lewis in revealing the differences in one's humanity and what one needs from those close in some relation to them, whether that means affection or something else. This applies just as well to Freasier, who accompanies Day-Lewis as a sort of token of machinations and later a token of something else - anguish, which Harvard utilizes for his one key scene near the end to display the contrast between blood and partner as a man of the basket and his own path.
Of course no film comes without at least one caveat. It may very well prove a bit much for some audiences, in regards to its length or in its uncompromising approach to its subject matter that maintains a dour atmosphere that might seem overdone or pretentious to those who don't see with what it aims to do involving its sprawling scope as an epic with its own kind of scenery of oil. This is basically a fable involving the nature of two people aiming for success by any means necessary, even if it involves sacrifice of one's soul to get there (since we are dealing with a man of oil and a man of faith) that either will satisfy those in its reach or slip some from its sermon on the derrick. One other thing to note is its ending involving a bowling alley and a "milkshake" analogy. While I can certainly feel a chuckle out of that particular line, I do find it to be a satisfying way to close out its method of madness with proper finish in displaying the blood, sweat, and tears that could come from trying to cultivate liquid gold from the ground and beat out the competition and problems on all sides - whether that involves humiliation at needing to atone for oneself or finding oneself to be utterly removed from humanity in the basic form. It is a brutal and uncompromising look upon the nature of man with regard to power that can consume one's family or even themselves in the end, which ultimately makes a devastating winner that works for those in the mindset with patience for 158 minutes of a grand tale of oil and blood. It's an unsettling film, but it is exactly what it wants to be without consequence.
Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.
September 24, 2020
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.
Review #1545: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.
Cast:
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Andy Hanson), Ethan Hawke (Hank Hanson), Marisa Tomei (Gina Hanson), Albert Finney (Charles Hanson), Rosemary Harris (Nanette Hanson), Brían F. O'Byrne (Bobby Lasorda), Aleksa Palladino (Chris Lasorda), Michael Shannon (Dex), Tom Zolandz (Junkie), and Amy Ryan (Martha Hanson) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon)
Review:
“In drama, the characters should determine the story. In melodrama, the story determines the characters."
If one can say they directed 44 films, that would probably be enough to have pride in as a director. If one could say they had a handful of memorable movies to go alongside an Honorary Academy Award and some notice for stars that feature in those films, that would be exceedingly good to have. At the age of 83, Sidney Lumet created one last classic to serve a career filled with well-managed preparation and a vitality for storytelling with complexity and stature to go with it. Not every film of his was great, but Lumet managed to cultivate success and audience notice with films in multiple decades with films like 12 Angry Men (1957), The Pawnbroker (1964), Network (1976), and The Verdict (1982) while still keeping busy with smaller films and a soft return to television (his involvement with 100 Centre Street was his first in 40 years). The film was written by first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson, who previously worked with stage plays before being inspired by "the folly of human nature" and his study in theology to write this screenplay, which took seven years to get it made. Lumet was attracted to the script (likening it to a melodrama as opposed to just a thriller) while also making key suggestions to the plot such as having the main two actors play brothers rather than friends in order to heighten the tension. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (based on a old Irish saying) was the first and only Lumet film to be shot on high-definition video (owing to less hassle) along with being the last film that he directed before his death in 2011.
Sometimes a simple plan of robbing a mom-and-pop store for easy money and easy solutions to the problems of two brothers just doesn't go the way one expects. Or more specifically, sometimes people are just brought down by the obsessions that wreak havoc on one's soul, particularly their obsessions. What we have is a family on the verge of a breakdown in terms of morality and beyond that captures the desperation one can encounter when greed turns into guilt. I think we all reach a moment where we think about what would happen if we could just escape from our troubles, where one must try to stop themselves from having envy over how the grass looks on the other side. We look upon these people and we see them as fairly believable types reflecting upon us regardless of however many bad choices they end up making, because the simplest plans can go awry just like that turn crime dramas into tragedies. It does this by spanning through different perspectives that will occasionally crisscross a scene we saw earlier with another look, which pleases those who desire such non-linear telling for the most part. Hoffman, generally known for his variety of distinct character actor roles throughout his life, does tremendous here in pulling strong will and desperate emptiness needed to encapsulate his part of the drama needed that would have been rough putty with less talent behind it. Hawke has an equally interesting challenge with his pathetic counterpart that he still handles with a fair sense of conviction to what he needs to pull here on his end to keep up with the level of desperation required without becoming consumed in languished pity. Tomei doesn't have as much dialogue, but she does well in capturing a lack of satisfaction and aimlessness with what she has when facing Hoffman or Hawke. Finney is the last key to come together in terms of this growing spiral in terms of hardened nature that sells those carefully planned moments just right, with his one highlight being a scene of attempted reconciliation that ends with a devastatingly executed breakdown in what you see in the margins. Of the rest of the cast, Shannon does nicely in those small moments of sad intimidation for a film all about people past their prime. It generally works out for 117 minutes in winding itself up in tension and bleak situations that looks upon consequences and lost values within oneself and family that usually hits the mark in keeping up with its perspectives that all build to a mostly rewardingly bleak conclusion in what it says and doesn't say. Ultimately, I would say it proves to be an underrated classic worth looking upon with its high-strung string-pulling as Lumet's last winner.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
September 22, 2020
The Departed.
Review #1544: The Departed.
Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (William "Billy" Costigan), Matt Damon (Colin Sullivan), Mark Wahlberg (Sean Dignam), Jack Nicholson (Francis "Frank" Costello), Martin Sheen (Capt. Oliver Queenan), Ray Winstone (Arnold French), Vera Farmiga (Dr. Madolyn Madden), Alec Baldwin (Capt. George Ellerby), Anthony Anderson (Trooper Brown), Kevin Corrigan (Sean Costigan), James Badge Dale (Trooper Barrigan), and David O'Hara (Patrick "Fitzy" Fitzgibbons) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, and #1496 - Goodfellas)
Review:
"It's the only movie of mine with a plot."
There really is no such thing as too much of one director, so it only makes sense to cover another film of Martin Scorsese in yet another prime classic to represent another decade of work, with this being his 20th feature. The film is based on the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs (2002), which dealt with infiltration into a Triad as the first of three films (with the other two being done in 2002 and 2003 respectively), and it has subsequently been remade in other countries like South Korea and Taiwan, with novelist/screenwriter William Monahan tapped to write and eventually Martin Scorsese to direct (citing his love of White Heat (1949) that the script reminded him of), which was his second remake of a previous work (the other being 1991's Cape Fear).
What we have here is a cat-and-mouse game of tremendous excellence, one that carries itself with great pacing (as done by the usual Scorsese collaborator in editor Thelma Schoonmaker) that makes a 151 minute tale with dual storylines come together with great stature and blazing skill that captures its aspects of crime splendidly while also having a great look upon identity and what it means in various degrees for others. DiCaprio rolls greatly in a panic-attack kind of performance, one that wraps himself in a world all too ready to consume one in power and lose their sense of self in their identity in society, balancing that line of being a tool for both sides with the precision and excellence we expect from someone as confident in pulling off that edge as he is. Damon has a similar challenge in a role that reflects greatly in the other side of calm adversarial power, one who just as much at the mercy of his masters as DiCaprio that desires to escape this part and attain more and more within vain effort. Wahlberg (chosen after others like Denis Leary and Ray Liotta could not take the role) does fine in basing a man of bruising authority with snappy righteous timing that counters along with the main duo or Sheen & Baldwin with the right sense of rough honesty. Nicholson took on the role (after first choice Al Pacino declined) after some prodding because he was looking to play a villainous role again (equating this role to the ultimate incarnation of evil), which was inspired by real-life gangster Whitey Bulger. He does quite well in portraying someone wrapped with so much power and command that shows all the hunger and paranoia that comes from trying to keep it in check, and he clearly seems to be having a good time weaving this role together with the time he has as a twisted sort of father figure to the two main leads. Sheen does alright here with resonating authority that only needs a few connective moments with DiCaprio to make it all come together, although I do admire one small sequence with Nicholson and him in their engagement of taunting the other. Winstone follows along terrifically, doing menace with interest that never wavers whether in the foreground or background. Farmiga goes along with careful touch, operating her moments shared with DiCaprio and Damon with countering grace and capability. Baldwin is generally interesting in those little moments shared with the actual investigation.
On the whole, I enjoyed the film because of what it shows about the push for trying to be something one is not that never seems used to spread out into overuse of violence or become just a show for hammy acting to take place. It is an enjoyable movie for all the nitty-gritty ways it goes through its narrative with well enough talent on and behind the camera to elevate what could have been a standard crime film into something that grabs you every step of the way and never lets go in all the right ways. Tense, riveting, and always on the move towards something useful with a wide range of good actors, The Departed is a triumph for Scorsese, his cast, and his crew that all reaped the benefits of being the best of its year in 2006 with deserved stature.
Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.
Inside Man.
Review #1543: Inside Man.
Cast:
Denzel Washington (Detective Keith Frazier), Clive Owen (Dalton Russell), Jodie Foster (Madeleine White), Christopher Plummer (Arthur Case), Willem Dafoe (Captain John Darius), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Detective Bill Mitchell), Carlos Andrés Gómez (Steve), Kim Director (Stevie), James Ransone (Steve-O), Bernie Rachelle (Chaim), Peter Gerety (Captain Coughlin), Victor Colicchio (Sergeant Collins), and Cassandra Freeman (Sylvia) Directed by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing)
Review:
"I hope they're doing it because they love it, not because they want to be rich or famous. Not that those things can't happen, but the main reason, the focus is, "This is what I want to do for the rest of my life and I love it." Not to say that you don't want to make money, but the passion should be driven by your love for that particular thing that you're doing. "
It took long enough to get to just one Spike Lee film, so it obviously was going to be a short time before finding another one to cover as a meaningful look upon a director as interesting and progressive as he has proved throughout over 20 films directed in nearly four decades of work. Born in Atlanta, but raised in Brooklyn, Lee attended Morehouse College and New York University Tisch School of the Arts, studying mass communication and film, and he made his first short film with Last Hustle in Brooklyn (1979, inspired by the blackouts in New York City alongside block-parties involving disco that made him want to be a filmmaker) and his first student film in Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbership: We Cut Heads (released in 1983 as his thesis film that won a Student Academy Award). She's Gotta Have It (1986) and Do the Right Thing (1989) would each serve as defining points for Lee (the former as an independent success and the latter as likely one of the best films of the 1980s) in his movement to features that he has also served as writer or producer for a majority for as well doing his own documentaries (with his first being 4 Little Girls (1997) about the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing) all through his own film company in 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks.
The genesis for the film came from a first-time screenwriter in Russell Gerwitz (who studied computer science and law but worked in the retail clothing business) who was inspired by his vacations around Europe to do a film script (with five years of writing and help from Daniel M. Rosenberg), and it eventually found itself with Imagine Entertainment, with Lee being tapped to direct because of desire from Imagine to work with him (along with Ron Howard deciding to direct Cinderella Man instead). Sure, one could believe this as a potential great thriller. It obviously is very sure of itself in its tricks of the camera and plot that builds for that inevitable last turn for its climax and so on and so forth. In terms of its inspirations and attempts at a twist however, it probably ranks just as decent as The Usual Suspects (1995) in actually pulling things together to make it actually work beyond a cat-and-mouse game with misplaced mousetraps present (while also being inspired by Dog Day Afternoon (1975), which goes okay). The performances generally outweigh the way the script wants to weave its tricks and thrills, which means that it is a fine movie, but it certainly could have been a more interesting one. Washington (in his fourth collaboration with Lee) is fairly up to the task of handling his end of the proceedings with reasoned consistency as the anchor that holds everything together in tension and charm one expects from him. Owen does alright, having to balance a role with a good deal of time spent in a mask that nonetheless makes for a conniving counterpart with the goal of merely committing the perfect robbery, handling that with at least enough to make me believe most of that idea. Foster is fine in a vague kind of role that keeps her in relaxed authority fixing things behind the scenes in sequences shared either with Washington or Plummer, who slides by as a creature of privilege. Dafoe and Ejiofor do alright with their moments with Washington in the usual moments required from being on the beat with tension, even if it seems like one wants to see more of them, really. One thing that is generally different is the inclusion of post-break-in testimonials from hostages as interviewed by the police that are inserted from time to time (with their own type of lighting) in the film, which either helps the film in establishing little cues to follow or seems a bit distracting that depends on the viewer and their perception of what needs to be there in 129 minutes. Of course there's also those little moments beside a heist that are alright, such as a scene involving a kid and violent games (think of the children and how violent games affect them, oh the shock), which just inspires a "sure, uh huh" response after making sure it wasn't supposed to be amusing, alongside other things. For me, the whole film verges on how much composure and stakes actually hold up in the long run. For me, it holds itself a little too much in achieving its promises with execution to what I need to care about: I wish I really cared about this heist more than just the usual curiosity, because it tries hard to really move beyond straight thriller stuff but ultimately is just kept in standard gear but with a respectable director behind it instead. If you like what you see in its performances and see past its smokescreen to what really matters, you might find something really worthwhile for a watch, which is all that really matters.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
September 21, 2020
16 Blocks.
Review #1542: 16 Blocks.
Cast:
Bruce Willis (Det. Jack Mosley), Mos Def (Edward "Eddie" Bunker), David Morse (Det. Frank Nugent), Jenna Stern (Diane Mosley), Casey Sander (Capt. Dan Gruber), Cylk Cozart (Det. Jimmy Mulvey), David Zayas (Det. Robert "Bobby" Torres), Robert Racki (Det. Jerry Shue), Patrick Garrow (Det. Touhey), and Sasha Roiz (Det. Kaller) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, and #1452 - The Omen)
Review:
"I think as filmmakers, we all kind of reflect who we are, what we stand for, how we treat the whole relationship of motion pictures. My wife is a really great producer, and she always says to me, when you’re making a movie, and you’re hiring the director, invariably, the director’s personality comes across on the screen."
Perhaps the saying that goes right with this film is that some old habits die hard, particularly when it comes to prominent actors or directors. This is the 20th feature film directed by Donner (and first since Timeline three years prior) and as of now is his last effort as director. This is the third writing effort of Richard Wenk (Vamp (1986) and Just the Ticket (1998), which he also directed) with the original intent of also taking on directing before Donner became interested in doing the film himself. What better pairing for an action thriller than usual favorite Willis, child-actor-turned-rapper Mos Def and Morse (best known for St. Elsewhere and various character roles)? Sure, why not a film about keeping time and focus on just a few characters. Of course the film has also been compared to Clint Eastwood's The Gauntlet (1977), which from a description I read about the film involved a weary cop trying to escort a witness (a prostitute, who he falls for) to survival while dealing with trouble from cops (hence a "gauntlet" of them). I don't know if that film has its own shuffling of clichés like this film does, but then again one wonders when they will get tired of cop movies like if the talent doesn't live up to standard. But there's a simple fact that remains when it comes to films in the 20th or 21st century: it may be familiar in the faces or some of its story beats, but I generally found this to be a decent experience, one that hits the right boxes with a charming enough main trio and enough competent moves to justify its 102 minutes despite being one of Donner's most average works.
One starts easily with Willis, who certainly has had quite a progression of curiosity and charisma since his days of Moonlighting and Die Hard in the 1980s. He eventually progressed to a version of the weary cop routine in Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995, a film that either ranks as the best sequel to the original or as the silliest) and other various roles that make for an interesting way to age as an actor, which when given focus can result in something interesting. In this sense, he seems to be having a good time in making a weary role like this work with conviction. He moves on the edge with burnout that nevertheless is easy to go along with without falling into disrepair. Def (who had a few supporting roles in films like Bamboozled (2000) and Monster's Ball (2001) alongside TV work) follows along with another cliché as the motormouth accomplice, but this works itself out in that Def actually proves himself quite well in making a rapport with Willis stick with care and honesty that make a few worthy barbs and other moments that help to sell a film about trying to make change in their life stick. Morse proves a worthy enough adversary (or at least one that follows the idea of a person that we can at least believe thinks they are right without dismissing it immediately) in carefully-planned menace that generally keeps things rolling in pursuit that sells himself well without having to ham things up or become an action cliché to be ignored. On the whole, the film moves along with a reasonable pace and handling of its characters with enjoyment and patience that tries to find itself out of the muck of the genres it is in alongside burst of sentiment and just ekes out safely with at least some basic satisfaction. For me, I thought it was a fine movie, wrapped in a degree of familiarity that will either make for an alright time or will just hamper it in mediocrity. Whatever works best is the way to go, I would say.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
September 20, 2020
Little Miss Sunshine.
Review #1541: Little Miss Sunshine.
Cast:
Greg Kinnear (Richard Hoover), Steve Carell (Frank Ginsberg), Toni Collette (Sheryl Hoover), Paul Dano (Dwayne Hoover), Abigail Breslin (Olive Hoover), Alan Arkin (Edwin Hoover), Bryan Cranston (Stan Grossman), Beth Grant (Pageant Official Jenkins), Wallace Langham (Kirby), Matt Winston (Pageant MC), Julio Oscar Mechoso (Mechanic), and Dean Norris (State Trooper McCleary) Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris.
Review:
"We felt it was important not to put window dressing between the audience and the characters. We love style but there's a place for that, and sometimes you want the picture to be transparent, for the characters to come through and feel connected and not removed"
"Or distant. What interested us was making a film that was all about the performances. Just the people on that screen."
There have been quite a few film debuts featured before, but how many have their directors and writer debut in the same film? California-born Dayton and Faris both attended the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with differing interest (film school for Dayton, dance with Faris). Both met in 1978 when he filed a few of her performances. Dayton and Faris soon found opportunities to direct music videos together (alongside other things like commercials) with bands such as R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins starting in 1982, with their work receiving notice such as two Grammy Award wins. They were offered opportunities to direct films with The Mod Squad (1999) and Bad Boys II (2003) that were presented as "style-driven" but they declined (while stating that this film has a "restrained" style, with mood driving the visuals). To put it in perspective the challenge that results from first-time directors/writers trying to get their vision done, this film took nearly six years to go from an initial script by Arndt (who had worked as a script reader and assistant to Matthew Broderick before deciding to take up writing) written in May 2000 to years of shopping around production companies like Focus Features before Marc Turtletaub decided to fund the film himself (at $8 million) to be done in the span of 30 days in 2005, which would include a re-written ending weeks before release the following year.
What we have is a film made about on the fringe of a winning-obsessed culture with a couple of misfits. Not losers mind you (because loser people would just abandon others, whether family or friend), but people who undergo change in ways they couldn't imagine for themselves on a worthwhile and bitingly amusing journey, which makes for a worthy road movie that ultimately is a meaningful winner that lands a majority of its punches in misery over time. It packs itself with a cast that seems to have spent their time before filming in getting a feel for their characters as a family that lesser actors would've just made seem like clichés but are instead malleable enough for turning well-done comedy and drama. Kinnear is particularly adept at heading the film with a tremendous performance, wrapped in Type-A desperation that exemplifies a devastatingly amusing look upon the drive to be thought of as a winner at all costs in all of its pathetic turns (such as point blank talking about eating ice cream will gradually make you fat to your kid). Carell proves just as well in providing a well-wrapped sense of depression and sharp sense of irony that makes a terrific little act when paired with Dano, who has the interesting task of spending half the film in a vow of silence (which naturally makes for one great scene in the second half). Collette holds the film together as the wavering center in pragmatic conviction that shares just the right sense of calm weariness to make a dynamic performance with her own moments to contribute. Arkin does well with what he is given in the habits of a spontaneous old man with a few amusing moments in choice words that generally hit the mark (Academy Award worthy is up to your perception, however). Breslin delivers a well-spun performance filled with sunny charm and brave temperament that makes for the favorite to watch hold her own amongst the older actors in this misfit group. Cranston and others do fine in small moments, such as his turn in elevated arrogance to selling motivational speaking. The film moves at 102 minutes with level-headed patience towards pathos and its road along to a pageant that might as well be a representation of life being like a pageant in who falls in and out of the margins of what we call success and what matters most with family. Naturally it results in a biting and fairly outrageous way to close its setup that makes the hallmarks of a worthy satire that will make one wince just as much as chuckle with good reason and clarity that make a worthy film for those in the mindset for a film like this.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
September 18, 2020
King Kong (2005).
Cast:
Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)
Review:
"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."
I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.
Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience.
Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Review #1539: Good Night, and Good Luck.
Cast:
David Strathairn (Edward R. Murrow), George Clooney (Fred W. Friendly), Robert Downey, Jr (Joseph Wershba), Patricia Clarkson (Shirley Wershba), Frank Langella (William Paley), Jeff Daniels (Sig Mickelson), Tate Donovan (Jesse Zousmer), Ray Wise (Don Hollenbeck), Alex Borstein (Natalie), Thomas McCarthy (Palmer Williams), Rose Abdoo (Mili Lerner), Reed Diamond (John Aaron), Matt Ross (Eddie Scott), Grant Heslov (Don Hewitt), featuring archive footage of Joseph McCarthy, Liberace, Roy Cohn, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Directed by George Clooney (#851 - The Monuments Men and #1187 - Leatherheads)
Review:
"I'm not a snob, I like entertaining films as well. But when you do a film like this, or like Three Kings - films that get you in a bit of trouble - it's fun to open up a debate."
It helps to make a message movie if you have enough talent or know-how to get it done right, so it figures that George Clooney wanted to add directing to his foray in addition to acting. The Kentucky-born Clooney attended Northern Kentucky University and the University of Cincinnati (studying broadcast journalism with the former) before dropping out and doing odd jobs like selling shoes before being inspired to take up acting, which resulted in him getting a variety of small roles on TV and film beginning in 1984 that included stints on shows like The Facts of Life (1985-87) and Roseanne (1988-91) before hitting a breakthrough with ER (1994-99) and subsequent film work with From Dusk till Dawn (1996). This is the second film that Clooney was director for, with his debut having been Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002). Clooney also served as a co-writer with Grant Heslov (who also served as producer of the film) while being paid $1 each for acting, producing, and writing in order to help with the budget.
In theory, this could make for a pretty good civics lesson in terms of film quality. It yearns to cover a subject probably not too familiar to younger audiences in the Edward Murrow/Joseph McCarthy conflict in regards to journalism and fear in a different time for belief when it comes to the Red Scare. Granted, I am familiar with it in part because of a recent television episode I saw this year depicting McCarthy on American Experience (the one and only show on PBS currently running that I would keep with me on an island), but here we are. What we ultimately have here is an effort that looks the part and surely could teach the part...but just isn't quite as great as it really could be. I applaud the use of black-and-white (filmed in a greyscale set while done through desaturation after production for release on B&W print stock), in that it does make a modest attempt at period piece drama without looking like a desperate attempt at emulating 1950s/60s films like 12 Angry Men (1957), this much is for sure. But if I really desired a throwback to an older era in terms of style or substance, by goodness I would just watch those films in how they constructed their story instead. It yearns so desperately to be thought of as a film to ponder discussion about fear and ethics within the workplace and beyond, but it just seems lacking in fulfilling all of its desires beyond platitudes that seem too hagiographic to actually say something about Murrow beyond the obvious (which will surely rank differently with either admirers or detractors of him).
It is the idea that it could bring about holding one to honesty and being careful about what is told to us in media that is more attractive than what really gets shown, and the style + acting is the thing that braces things from collapse. Strathairn practically blends himself perfectly into the role, deftly doing well with what is given to him in capturing succinct dignity that carry the re-creation of words from the past without trouble, albeit with one significant quibble. Technically speaking, everyone else is fine, but they all fall into the same trap with Strathairn: in following along with its singular focus on its subject matter without much else room for context, the lives of the folks we are following seem practically empty in comparison, as if these people didn't have lives beyond the news. For example, Downey Jr and Clarkson's little chemistry involving them having to hide their marriage from work is an interesting one with a few little "cute" moments, but they as a whole don't contribute much else besides that to the film in terms of charm or substance. Clooney follows along the action with Strathairn fine, but there's always that sinking feeling that he will just blend into the background and you wouldn't even notice/care, as the nuance slowly morphs into something else. Langella is interesting to view, but he seems more deserving of further substance beyond carefully cut moments. Others provide jumble words about come and go fine, but one is begging for a longer focus or at least something to draw upon that doesn't feel like a point-by-point film of events.
The historical quality can prove interesting (for better or worse) to view in the classroom, particularly with its usage of vintage footage of McCarthy (which is better in some way than having an actor try to replicate him). Of course the whole part about See It Now being reduced from its regular weekly slot happened in 1955, not immediately after the McCarthy episode (which was attributed to its low ratings in prime-time, including a loss in a primary sponsor in Alcoa, as compared to his "lite fare" Person to Person, which lasted longer). The film even starts with an inaccuracy involving listing Murrow's accomplishments before he starts his speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in 1958 by listing "Harvest of Shame" - which wouldn't air for two more years (dramatic effect staging is one thing, but it really is a bit dubious when trying to stage Murrow's speech about "wires in a box" with date misremembering). The See It Now show (broadcast March 9) probably hastened McCarthy's demise, but one bigger key would be something more indirect - ABC's decision to air the hearings of McCarthy vs the U.S. Army live gavel-to-gavel beginning in April (with that key moment of asking about "having no sense of decency" being in June - if one goes by records of polling of McCarthy however, he reached his peak of opinion approval in January of 50% before dropping negative by April). Again though, it all depends on how much one can really cover of the perspectives of that time and place. In this sense, what we have here is a film that runs way too short at 93 minutes, as if the footage involving depth and awareness ran off a cliff. This isn't so much a period classic as it is one that desperately requires citations and books to run parallel with it. This is an example of a film that will either stick in one's minds as something to ponder on with worthwhile discussion on the merits that land or one that will fester in the frustration of what didn't land. Call me an iconoclast or stubborn, but this film just didn't work enough for me in freeing my quibbles with its deluge of style over substance and scope that make it any better than if one simply picked a different way to experience history and the discussion that comes with it.
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
September 16, 2020
Troy (2004).
Review #1538: Troy.
Cast:
Brad Pitt (Achilles), Eric Bana (Hector), Orlando Bloom (Paris), Diane Kruger (Helen), Brian Cox (Agamemnon), Sean Bean (Odysseus, King of Ithaca), Brendan Gleeson (Menelaus, King of Sparta), Rose Byrne (Briseis), Saffron Burrows (Andromache), Julie Christie (Thetis), Peter O'Toole (Priam, King of Troy), Garrett Hedlund (Patroclus), and John Shrapnel (Nestor) Directed by Wolfgang Petersen (#414 - Air Force One)
Review:
"The movie theater is one of the last places where we can still gather and experience something together. I don't think the desire for that magic will ever go away."
Bring on the spectacle, bring them on from all places in the world. Wolfgang Petersen gradually rose up the ranks in his native Germany through the theater (along with doing short films of his own in 1968) before studying at the Film and Television Academy in Berlin that helped him move on to television and eventually his first film feature in 1974 with One or the Other of Us. It was Das Boot (1982), his third work, that generated the most attention in his country and abroad, which The NeverEnding Story (1984) helped continue to that trend. Over the years, Petersen has made twelve films (mostly regarded as blockbusters) that have resulted in mostly fruitful successes.
What better way to try and do an epic based in some part on myth by taking out the mythological effect and striving to make an historical epic? Of course this is a loose adaptation Homer's Iliad (with the script of the film being written by David Benioff, who had done The 25th Hour two years prior), considering the fact that numerous characters don't actually die in the poem as compared to the film that condenses its Trojan War to a few weeks. Whether one eels having intervention from above is a bit silly or not, it definitely makes this film a bit strange to view through the lens of an epic, and the result is something that will either prove just fine for some and a little hollow for others. Maybe one could blame Gladiator (2000) for the idea of doing ancient epics like this with big spectacle for gladiatorial combat in ancient times and a flash of stars while taking brevity out to the toolshed to hammer repeatedly. Honestly though, there isn't anything inherently terrible about this particular movie, but it just happens to be so incredibly mediocre in pretty much every aspect, where the only thing going for it is a flash of scenery and spectacle to gaze upon. In a way, it is like seeing a large dog rumble around in the yard wearing "clothes" - it's a dopey sight, but it is probably too precious to think of as anything other than just silly. Pitt certainly looks like he tries to give his all to looking and seeming the part of the big hero (despite his subsequent reservations about the film's lack of mystery) that works in parts in trying to inspire some sort of nuance that sort of works in conviction but seems sort of lost in the shuffle of camp. Bana and Bloom come and go with about as much charm as dollar-store mannequins, where one fights the urge to look at their watch (particularly in the case of the latter, playing a bland coward). Kruger was brought in because Petersen wanted an unknown for Helen of Troy, but she never really seems that compelling to really drive drama forward to really serve as a "face that launched a thousand ships", instead seeming like a face in the crowd. Cox certainly seems to be having a grand time in being involved in a epic, and I can applaud him having bluster with a big bulky costume. Bean and Gleeson compliment things just fine in reserved moments, although it is obviously O'Toole who seems to make the most out of a paycheck-I mean appearance as a king with clarity. If I cared about what went on with this spectacle, maybe it would matter more than its ultimate result, the bastion of clichés ancient and less ancient that seems suited for irritating fans of mythology or flat-out making them yawn for all the stuff that comes out at them like a grand old cutscene. If one believes in its scope through shots in Malta and Mexico and its 163 minute odyssey through some sort of meaning in mythology, trek on and relax with where it wants to go in its bellowing of an epic for its own time. I can't give it a winning recommendation, but you can certainly draw the line in the sand for yourself for if it matters enough to seem right for you.
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.