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.

The Silence of the Lambs.

Review #1498: The Silence of the Lambs.

Cast:
Jodie Foster (Clarice Starling), Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Hannibal Lecter), Scott Glenn (Jack Crawford), Ted Levine (Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb), Anthony Heald (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Brooke Smith (Catherine Martin), Diane Baker (U.S. Senator Ruth Martin), Kasi Lemmons (Ardelia Mapp), Frankie Faison (Barney Matthews), Tracey Walter (Lamar), Charles Napier (Lt. Boyle), Danny Darst (Sgt. Tate), Alex Coleman (Sgt. Jim Pembry), Dan Butler (Roden), Paul Lazar (Pilcher), Ron Vawter (Paul Krendler), and Roger Corman (FBI Director Hayden Burke) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004))

Review:
"I realized the actual bottom line truth of doing Silence of the Lambs, something I felt when I read that book. I thought, this could be the scariest movie ever, and I wanted to make that movie. I wanted to make a Psycho caliber fucking terrifying movie."

As the first (and so far only) horror film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture, the inevitability for covering this film was high, particularly since the character of Hannibal Lecter is particularly well-known across film and novels over the years. This is adapted from Thomas Harris' novel of the same name, originally published in 1988 as the follow-up work to Red Dragon, which had been adapted into a film by Michael Mann under the name Manhunter (1986). The follow-up book Hannibal (1999) and the other book would be turned into films with Hopkins as Lecter, while the prequel Hannibal Rising (2006) would be turned to a film with Harris as screenwriter, and a Hannibal series followed a decade after that. Fitting that a horror film like this would come from an acolyte of Roger Corman (who even cameos in the film) with Jonathan Demme. He met Corman while doing publicity for Von Richthofen and Brown, and Corman was interested in Demme to do work for him at New World Pictures. The result was Angels Hard as They Come, which Demme produced and co-wrote with Joe Viola. He then directed his first work with the studio as director with Caged Heat (1974). Over the years he had a steady career of films, such as Melvin and Howard (1980), Something Wild (1986), and Married to the Mob (1988).

Despite the failure with audiences at the time of Manhunter (now regarded as a cult classic), there was still interest in turning the next Harris novel into a film, although the initial plans was apparently going to have Gene Hackman directing/starring in it (various others were considered for both lead roles, such as Sean Connery and Michelle Pfeiffer). Hopkins came about in interest because of his doctor role in The Elephant Man (1980). With a dark sense of gravitas and two killer performances from Hopkins and Foster, it is no wonder why this proves to be a great classic. It finds a balance between suspense and horror that drives through every beat and procedure with relish and entertainment. It is amazing to think about how solid of a performance Hopkins draws from such an unsavory but relentlessly fascinating presence, particularly since he only occupies a certain amount of time in the film that doesn't even run to thirty minutes. And yet here we are, still captivated and engrossed by what we see of him (such as in the numerous close-up shots of his face) as the calmest and most brilliant terrors of the human mind. On the other side of such interesting conversations is Foster, who proves quite dedicated and useful in focus of the drive for curiosity with regards to the dark parts of the human mind. She makes a resourceful presence that never seems lost within the madness. Glenn proves just as sharp in reasoned authority, while Levine rounds out the main group with creeping finesse in his lurking moments, and the others prove worthy in keeping the stakes level. On the whole, while the sequences with Hopkins and Foster are easily the most memorable of the film, the film holds up just as well in driving one in pursuit and skin-crawling with no pretensions whatsoever. The thrills can be quite entertaining like any other movie, but it is in that chase that really gives one a good jolt in their seat, and it is easy to see why this became imitated and well-known. It has a capable director in staging scenes with useful impact to go with a game cast that makes the most of their surroundings for a good time of carefully executed thrills that prove as effective nearly three decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Review #1254: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Major Bennett Marco), Meryl Streep (Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw), Liev Schreiber (Congressman Raymond Prentiss Shaw), Jon Voight (Senator Thomas Jordan), Kimberly Elise (Eugenie Rose), Vera Farmiga (Jocelyn Jordan), Jeffrey Wright (CPL Al Melvin), Simon McBurney (Dr. Atticus Noyle), Bruno Ganz (Delp), Ann Dowd (Congresswoman Beckett), Ted Levine (Colonel Howard), Miguel Ferrer (Colonel Garret), and Dean Stockwell (Mark Whiting) Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Review: 
One could say plenty about the idea of remaking classic films, particularly when it comes to one as classic as the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate. As much as one could want to deride yet another remake for the sake of remakes, the idea to try and update the Richard Condon novel for the current age does show enough promise to make things seem palpable. The original film was a neo-noir/suspense thriller that had plenty of power within its cast and other elements that inspired plenty of shock and biting satire that one would assume continues as much the second time around. The key differences between the original and this version involves updating the enemy from nefarious communists to an equally nefarious private equity firm alongside making both Shaw and his mother politicians along with one crucial twist involving the climatic assassination. In general, this film also seems more paranoid and aware of its surroundings of when it was made, which stands fairly firm even after fifteen years since its release. Those who are familiar with the work (novel or film) will see where it is going to end up, but it doesn't mean the surprises aren't still there waiting to pounce, most of which land just fine. It surely must've proved a challenge for director Jonathan Demme and writers Daniel Pyne & Dean Georgaris to try and make a follow-up worth the impact that John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod did with direction and writing the first time around. I do think that the final result is a fairly welcome one, deserving of existing alongside its predecessor as a capable if imperfect political thriller.

At least one can say the main foundation of cast members is sturdy to try and hold things together, whether they have time on screen to make a lasting impression or not. In this sense, Washington does a fine job with what is given, taking a different road from what was tasked before, showing plenty of conviction in trying to hold things together enough to grasp at the truth behind what he experienced and what hides behind with what isn't know. Streep shows plenty of fierce vigor whenever she enters the screen, whether when dealing with her on-screen son or with other forces at work, with her ruthless presence being felt handily. Schrieber handles his task without too much difficulty, where you can see the manufactured side of who he has been made to be alongside the vulnerability of what comes out at the surface that can't be meshed out. Voight and Farmiga don't have as much to do here as before, in part because of the fast-tracking that means the nomination goes without too much difficulty (with the rivalry between Voight and Streep not picking up as much steam as it probably could have). Elise's character also undergoes a bit of changes (mainly to add a bit of connective plausibility to how she just happens to be on the same train as Marco besides just being a supermarket clerk), and she does okay with being in the margins of the plot, I suppose. The other members of the cast (including a criminally underused Stockwell) do okay, with Wright making the most impression in his one scene in the beginning, a shadow of himself that serves to cast against the light of heroism shown in the initial scene. After all, the brainwashing sequences (involving an influx of science-fiction) are spread out in the film as opposed to being laid out from the get go, which does tend to work out in the film's favor without being too hokey. Maybe it isn't as subversive as it wants to really be, but at least it does reach some sort of thoughtful levels in its end. It isn't a film that will inspires many re-watches, but I would postulate that it is at least worth one look of consideration, having a cast that clings to a cynical update on what was done before with a little bit of polish and shock to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.