Showing posts with label Madeleine Stowe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Madeleine Stowe. Show all posts

January 24, 2021

The Last of the Mohicans.

Review #1631: The Last of the Mohicans.

Cast: 
Daniel Day-Lewis (Nathaniel "Hawkeye" Poe), Madeleine Stowe (Cora Munro), Russell Means (Chingachgook), Eric Schweig (Uncas), Jodhi May (Alice Munro), Steven Waddington (Major Duncan Heyward), Wes Studi (Magua), Maurice Roëves (Colonel Edmund Munro), Patrice Chéreau (General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm), Edward Blatchford (Jack Winthrop), Terry Kinney (John Cameron), Tracey Ellis (Alexandra Cameron), and Justin M. Rice (James Cameron) Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali)

Review: 
“The idea for The Last of the Mohicans came to me because I’d seen the film written by Philip Dunne when I was 3. I realized 40 years later that it had been rattling around in my brain ever since, that it was a part of me, a very important part. I just hadn’t been consciously aware of it up to that point. I also thought: there hasn’t really been an exciting epic, period film in a long, long time."

Sometimes you can't help but awe at someone's attempts at reshaping the frontier in terms of a period piece. The film is an adaptation of The Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757, written by James Fenimore Cooper in 1826. It was the second of five novels written by Cooper involving the frontiersmen Natty Bumppo, known by numerous nicknames to settlers and natives alike, one of which being "Hawkeye" - this was also chronologically the second in the series (referred to as the Leatherstocking Tales) that had adventures that spanned from 1740 to 1804 that was inspired by the real-life exploits of figures such as Daniel Boone (the capture and rescue of his daughter Jemina was fictionalized into an episode in his book) - he had his share of praise and criticism (most notably with Mark Twain, who mocked his excess), but that novel is generally referred to as his masterpiece work. There were a few previous adaptations of the stories to film, most notably with the 1936 adaptation in The Last of the Mohicans, featuring Randolph Scott as Hawkeye that was written by Philip Dunne - Dunne is credited for his screenplay in this film (right after Cooper), and each film had their clear differences to the book; a look into the details of the book when compared to the film reveals a few key differences, such as Hawkeye actually being older in the film, alongside additions and omissions such as a focus on settlers and their struggle with conscription alongside other moments spent away from the main group (such as focusing on the romance of Hawkeye and Cora rather than Cora with Uncas).

Here, we have a film where the authority of ritual become loosened and challenged by the wilderness. It has the look and gravitas needed in capturing the magic that other frontier films (shall we say Unconquered (1947), for example) that makes for a fairly useful attempt at making reactionary drama come alive for what is needed for the 1990s. It was shot in North Carolina with no expense spared to make a frontier adventure in the wilderness that had a committed Day-Lewis (in terms of actually living in the wilderness for a few months prior to shooting), a runtime of 112-117 minutes that is generally available in a revised cut (Mann had to trim it down from a planned three hours and tinkered with the film for DVD release - the 112 was the original, while the director's expanded version runs at 117) and a budget of $40 million. On the whole, it is a pretty good looking movie (as shot by Dante Spinotti in the second of films with Mann as cinematographer), one that aims for sweeping passion and excitement in the 18th century without being tied down to complete accuracy that tries to strike at the heart of forging forward in a new land with Mann's aesthetic for vivid entertainment that sticks with one for quite a while after seeing it. In a plethora of urban dramas that characterized Mann's previous work (this is his fourth feature film), one in which he wanted to do a current perspective on a complex time with intensity.

In this case, Day-Lewis certianly captures the task needed for such an earthy role. It is one that demands a resourceful actor that can play to romance and adventure needed in a film presenting a clear tapestry of athmosphere. The preparation done by Day-Lewis plays a part in how he does his performance, but it is also the striking eyes that play the key aid in how he balances his standing in where he is in when it comes to converging cultures. It is as if he reflects the soil of the frontier, reactive in what is needed. Stowe reflects the other side of frontier pursuit, an independent streak with grace that pairs quite well in romance (or the opposite feeling with Waddington) without getting lost in the land or with the action. Means and Schweig play their parts with reasoned solumn efforts despite not having as much dialogue - but they sure do help when it comes to the climax, where dialogue isn't needed to much to depict swift tension. Waddington reflects the stubborn spirit of the British well enough, one that moves by what seems proper and what seems to be needed in the wilderness. Studi plays maleficence with rightful emphasis, one that burrows his descent with edge that we can see in anyone as interested in seeing the perspective of preservation within revenge. At any rate, what we have here is an interesting piece between two genres, one that fits in the mold of adventure like a matinee film from decades ago but with the modern style and perspective that comes with the territory of forging a fresh film that takes inspiration from paintings of that era for a dazzling look to go with those weapons of the time to make a compelling narrative come alive. It plays with facts to make a useful time seem all the more interesting, and it has sat well within Mann's line of work after nearly three decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

August 22, 2020

12 Monkeys.


Review #1511: 12 Monkeys.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (James Cole), Madeleine Stowe (Kathryn Railly), Brad Pitt (Jeffrey Goines), Christopher Plummer (Dr. Leland Goines), David Morse (Dr. Peters), Jon Seda (Jose), Christopher Meloni (Lt. Halperin), Frank Gorshin (Dr. Fletcher), and Vernon Campbell (Tiny) Directed by Terry Gilliam (#1448 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Review: 
"I do want to say things in these films. I want audiences to come out with shards stuck in them. I don't care if people love my films or walk out, as long as they have a strong response."

When it comes to films that have a bit of magic realism with a particular style of imagination, Terry Gilliam is a good director to start with. He had first started with cartoons and animation, such as with Help! magazine (before it closed in 1965) before moving to Europe and eventually moving into work within television with Do Not Adjust Your Set (1968). He would do both animation and various parts for a show that would become famous in England beyond its run in television with Monty Python's Flying Circus. He would serve as the co-director with Terry Jones in his first feature with Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). He has done a fair mix of comedies, fantasies and adventures in his life, which has resulted in a share of success and clashes with meddling studio makers for films such as Time Bandits (1981), Brazil (1985), and The Fisher King (1991). This is the seventh of thirteen films by Gilliam, which is inspired by the 1962 short film La Jetee (directed and written by Chris Marker). That film told a story of time-travel experiment in a post-apocalyptic France, with travels into the past and future that was told as a still image film (except for one distinct moment) for 28 minutes. Executive producer Robert Kosberg pitched the idea of doing a film based on the short to Universal Pictures and this led to David and Janet Peoples being brought in to do the script while Gilliam was brought into the fold by Universal because of their belief in his style fitting what they needed here (with Gilliam liking the "disconcerting" story).

What we have here is a film about how nothing is ever like it seems, one that wants us ultimately to focus not on the past but instead to pay attention to what happens in the present, in all of its strange settings. With a world coming apart, one can see in this film both death and rebirth for a steady and dutiful 129 minute tale of morose but ultimately fruitful experience with a solid cast ready for the undertaking Gilliam requires in style and execution. The film jumps from time to time with a clear edge for distinguishing past from future with its use of various salvaged and acquired material that make for an unsettling future in creeping technology and even bleaker outlooks. In this sense, it should prove no wonder why Willis (in the midst of a prime career generally with action flicks) decided to do the film on a lower salary just to work with Gilliam and this role. He pulls wonders in the dreariest of requirements: a man lost in time with no future who has to discern what is and what isn't true. Willis weaves weariness and sensitivity with care to making the time go by with conviction and fine timing to fit what is needed without needing to do any tricks to the eye. Stowe follows along with rational care and a resoundingly shaky rapport with Willis that runs with pragmatic care. Pitt shows his resilience as the useful wild card in nervous rapid speech that goes with what is needed in a flickering state of chaotic agitation that makes for dazzling moments in and out of the looney bin. Plummer and Morse accompany the margins with mindful ease. In the end, what matters most is how much the narrative (which will be mostly fine to follow along with) resonates with the viewer in keeping interest with its eye on the present and future, where the pursuit isn't just the virus in front of you (or even shown to you) but instead on what it means to even have a future in the first place. Fear of the unknown can be a foreboding one, but it certainly beats knowing what is to come at all, with this working itself out in time as a carefully-cut curiosity to seek out for its beats in science fiction with a director suited for this particular story to make it right in logical rawness.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.