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: 
"Homer's work was violent and brutal and sexy and bold and powerful," he states. "It's long and it's epic, with a lot of characters - a full spectrum of bloody, beautiful elements. The material does not ask you to cut a corner here or remove something there. This is too extreme; too rough, too violent…And I suppose I have to mea culpa, because there I was, crying in the editing room, but still doing it… I've learned a lot and next time, I promise, there will be a big fight!"

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. The original version of the film was 162 minutes, while the director's cut adds 30 minutes. I saw the original version because hey, that's the DVD I had.

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.

Doctor Zhivago.

Review #1421: Doctor Zhivago.

Cast: 
Omar Sharif (Dr. Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago), Julie Christie (Lara Antipova), Geraldine Chaplin (Tonya Gromeko), Rod Steiger (Victor Ippolitovich Komarovsky), Alec Guinness (Lieutenant General Yevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago), Tom Courtenay (Pavel "Pasha" Antipov / Strelnikov), Siobhán McKenna (Anna Gromeko), Ralph Richardson (Alexander Maximovich Gromeko), Rita Tushingham (Tanya Komarova), Jeffrey Rockland (Sasha), Bernard Kay (Kuril), and Klaus Kinski (Kostoyed Amoursky) Directed by David Lean (#286 - Lawrence of Arabia)

Review: 
"Secrets are what you confide to people in the dark. I think one of the things we've lost in the cinema is intimacy. Now you see appalling things happening and high excitement, but you rarely get right into people."

If one needed to view an epic drama or romance, one could find a great argument to be made for David Lean. He was born in England to Quaker parents; he had his first experience with watching cinema at thirteen, and receiving a Brownie camera as a gift from his uncle served as a good hobby for him. He found work as an apprentice in his father's accountancy firm, but he found himself more interested in the cinema, and this led to him joining Gaumont Studios in 1927. He served in various roles for the studio such as tea and clapper boy and eventually cutting room assistant. Over the next few years, he would become chief editor at Gaumont British News before shifting to editor on film in 1939. Three years later, playwright Noël Coward gave him a chance to direct with him with the war film In Which We Serve (1942), which served him well in directing further films (which he would do through forming Cineguild Productions with cinematographer Ronald Neame and producer Anthony Havelock-Allan, which lasted from 1944 to 1949), with his next six films being adaptation of plays and novels (three of them being works from Coward), which led to noted movies like Brief Encounter (1945) and Great Expectations (1946). A perfectionist with a tendency for autocratic behavior on set, Lean would make sixteen films in a career of 42 years, receiving plenty of attention for works such as Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), and Lawrence of Arabia (1962, which like this film was written by Robert Bolt), and his final work A Passage to India (1984, which he also wrote and edited).

The film was based on the 1957 novel of the same name by Boris Pasternak, a poet whose work is noted for its long and intricate structure that span over forty years against the backdrop of an evolving Russia in the 20th century (with the poet's views on said transition being the reason for the Soviet Union opposing its publication), and the controversy over the novel meant that it could not be filmed in Russia, with a majority of filming instead being in Spain. The film runs at 200 minutes (after an original length of 197 and a restoration that occurred in the late 1990s) with the intent of something intimately romantic and epic. How much the film accomplishes in that regard is up to the viewer, and there have been plenty who encountered it, since it ranks as one of the highest grossing films of its era (behind fellow 1965 film The Sound of Music), and this film won Academy Awards in art direction, cinematography, screenplay, costume design and score. All of this window-dressing for a film held n some ways as a classic is me trying to figure out exactly why the actual experience for me was just fine at best. Can it be possible to make something that has scope and ambition to tell a long story and yet seem lacking in making a romance epic whole? The words seem to be there, and there is plenty of interesting scenery and set design to go around with acting that is generally convincing, but it doesn't seem as great as it wants to portray itself. It has a sappy seductive power that can either sweep you off your feet or make you struggle to not roll your eyes in where it (theoretically) wants to go. Thrust into a title role is Sharif, an Egyptian actor of numerous British and American productions that had approached Lean about a supporting role but ended up being cast as the lead by Lean. His performance comes off decent, where his expressive eyes seem to try and hide a passive character that has bare chemistry with everything that happens to occur around him. Christie, a British actress who rose to prominence through films like this and Darling (1965), proves adept in generating passion through chemistry with Sharif that gradually builds to something halfway meaningful, a soap opera that mutates itself into trying to be taken seriously. Chaplin, a dancer-turned-model-turned actress in her English-language debut, can only do so much with a doormat type of character, one who generates far more interest in her kindness than the others who is doomed to be the first wheel to fall off the proverbial romantic vehicle. Of the whole cast, it is method icon of volatility in Steiger that proves most interesting, as he commands your attention with his intimidating nature that serves the film well in starting and ending things without becoming too much in blustering for the sake of it. It is nice to see Guinness from time to time, even when serving as a framing device for everything around him. Courtenay rounds things out with composed rebelliousness that serves him well from time to time.

There are tough choices to make for a film like this, and in some ways the film carries those dilemmas with a right touch and other times with a heavy-handed approach. It is like a piece of art that has plenty of color and lines but seems to be missing that central focus to bring it all completely together. It proves no wonder why no one has tried to make a second theatrical adaptation of this work: For one thing, television seems more adept in covering such an expansive work like this, and it might very well be folly to think one can top the highs generated by a film as iconic as this one is - regardless of how it might land for folks like me. It is immensely flawed, but it is nevertheless something to consider as a film for the 1960s worth pondering over, whether for its sweeping images or its gestures of romance that come together for a spectacle that can help lend inspiration to audiences then as before, if one has the patience and understanding for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Demon Seed.

Review #996: Demon Seed.

Cast: 
Julie Christie (Susan Harris), Fritz Weaver (Alex Harris), Gerrit Graham (Walter Gabler), Berry Kroeger (Petrosian), Lisa Lu (Soon Yen), Larry J. Blake (Cameron), John O'Leary (Royce), and Robert Vaughn (Proteus IV) Directed by Donald Cammell.

Review: 
What better way to (belatedly) start off October but with a horror film? I honestly had planned for the review to occur later in the month, but I decided that there needed to be some kind of start, especially with the countdown. Anyways....

This was adapted from the 1973 novel of the same name by Dean Koontz (which he would later rewrite and republish 24 years later), and I certainly have to give credit to the strange and unique premise: an artificially intelligent computer imprisons a woman in order to try to make a child. The computer (which can control the lighting, temperature control, security, etc) is certainly an interesting character to watch, especially with Robert Vaughn (who was not credited for the role) doing the voice for him; there is just something about the way he speaks that is quite chilling and effective. Christie proves to be a pretty capable lead, being quite vulnerable along with watchable as well. The rest of the cast do a capable job in their roles, not being dumbed down (too much, at least) or made to be fodder. It proves to be an interesting blend of science fiction and horror, though it is hard to say that it is really a classic. It definitely is watchable, and the performances are certainly workable, but I can't really say that the film as a whole works enough to be great. It certainly doesn't plod much at a run-time of 94 minutes, earning most of its minutes while also a fairly shocking ending that serves as either the capstone of a film worth watching or a film as ridiculous as it gets with science fiction (and horror as well). It has fairly interesting imagery (for the most part) and an a fairly useful soundtrack by Jerry Fielding as well. Regardless of creepy (or offbeat) one finds the film, it manages to have enough compelling moments to deserve at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.