Change Your Image
shattenjager777
Reviews
The Way Back (2010)
The Journey Away from Communism
Note: There probably won't be any spoilers, but I'm afraid to submit a review without clicking the box. I will mark any that come up.
Peter Weir is one of the great directors in recent history, having directed three absolute masterpieces ("Dead Poets Society" (USA 1989), "The Truman Show" (USA 1998), and "Gallipoli" (Australia 1981)) and a decent number of good films alongside them. His greatest strengths as a director have been his incredible facility with leading actors that has often lead to excellent performances from surprising performers and his ability to create a backdrop in seemingly all scenes that is realistic enough to accept and yet so perfectly controlled that it paints the picture for his camera. Both of those skills are on display in "The Way Back." The film's story, while dull-sounding in the abstract, is an interesting metaphor for many countries' (though Poland is the obvious example here) long journey away from authoritarian Communism toward individual freedom. *Spoilers* We see how Communism tore down the old religions and yet rather than its return, a new, western religion is attempting to take its place. We see how the definition of "freedom" becomes so weak that the characters consider the ability to die outside prison walls "freedom" in Siberia. We see how wandering through the tightly-controlled, dangerous, cold, ruthless terrain of one type of authoritarianism in Russia shares similarities with the hot, wild, dangerous, dry terrain of another in Mongolia. We see how it's a nearly-impossible final trek through dangerous mountains of doubt, asking for help repeatedly along the way that finally brings our heroes to the lush greens of freedom. *Spoilers Over* The acting is universally excellent, highlighted by Ed Harris, Jim Sturgess, and Colin Farrell. Harris has the only dynamic character, one who begins knowing only too well the value of hiding his emotions and slowly learns that he no longer needs his mask. His performance is nothing short of amazing. Sturgess, while not playing a very dynamic part, still has plenty to sink his teeth into and hits every right note. Farrell is a scene-stealer as a vicious-but-not-stupid true criminal who doesn't know how to operate free and knows it.
Perhaps the most memorable part of the film is the score. Burkhard von Dallwitz's score in this film is one of the best I've ever heard, with an impressive combination of variety and cohesiveness and absolutely pitch-perfect emotionality for every moment.
Weir, as is his wont in later years, keeps the editing and camera work minimal. We have still camera shots with relatively little cutting throughout the film, which allows us to remain connected with the characters as they journey. There are notable exceptions in the beautiful fly-by shots of the environs that remind us just how far these men are going and the close, intense, steaming-but-still-freezing, loud environment of the mine that is shot with quicker cuts, different colors, and more close-ups. His work is stunning.
There are some problems with the film. The third act is rushed and drives home the metaphor so obviously that it's almost laughable. The journey through Siberia is a bit repetitive. But those are relatively minor flaws in a beautiful film. Peter Weir remains a genius.
The Runaways (2010)
Doesn't live up to the real-life Runaways
Musician biopics are, with very few exceptions, all the same movie: Musician works hard and becomes star. Musician's life falls apart because of drugs, sex, ego, or some combination thereof. Musician finds sudden professional and personal fulfillment and everything is rosy.
The Runaways in real life have the potential to tell a number of different stories: There's the story of the band's relationship with Svengali-like producer Kim Fowley as his marketing tactics drive the band to stardom but also help to stand in the way of the band's credibility. There's the story of Joan Jett as her band falls apart while on the verge of a breakthrough and she responds by forming her own band that made her a bigger star than she could have imagined just a few years later. There's the story of Joan Jett and Kim Fowley's vision that an all-female rock band could work and Jett's incredible perseverance to make it happen. And any of these stories could be told without too many changes to the facts.
Yet, "The Runaways" tells none of these stories. Instead, it tells the normal musician biopic story about Cherie Currie with the added "attraction" of a drawn-out build up to a bizarre sort of lesbian sex scene (if it can even be called that) between its two stars and plays fast and loose with the facts to allow that story to be the center of everything. It adds in pieces of the Kim Fowley relationship with the band and references Joan Jett's later success, but the heart of the film is Cherie Currie's story. The film also makes the odd choice of pushing Lita Ford way into the background when the truth is that her undeniable abilities as a guitarist were the band's only real element that added credibility.
The characters are so dull that little can be said of the acting, but Dakota Fanning handles the toughest role of Cherie Currie quite well, even if she is nowhere near sexy enough for Currie as written (which I think is an exaggeration of reality). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Kristen Stewart, whose performance as Joan Jett leaves much to be desired. She spends the entire movie with the same half-drugged-out look on her face and walks too stiffly and hunched, like someone self-conscious and unsure of herself while her dialogue and the story instead give the impression of someone who has guts and confidence (as is true of Joan Jett in real life). Michael Shannon's performance as Kim Fowley is bordering on over the top, but that also seems appropriate given the character. No one else really has a role to speak of.
The film doesn't really have a continuous visual style other than its love of short shots, often cutting between two or three shots in a scene that would probably be better served by being done in one shot. The real problem with this editing is that it seems as though it is done for the sole purpose of increasing Stewart's and Fanning's screen time, as anytime someone else starts to appear on screen we get a cut to a new angle so that it's again focused on only one of them, often with no logic as to why. The settings lead to a number of scenes with unusual lighting, filled with high contrasts and bright colors, but it never seems to have any dramatic purpose (save the oddly well-lit bathroom in the middle of the dark club where Jett first sees Currie).
All told, it's a pretty poor film that squanders a rich subject matter. It almost feels like the work of a fan who thinks every element is so interesting that it has to be mentioned but picks the wrong thing to say is the central element. There are a number of ways this could have been an interesting film, but none of them really got followed, which is a shame.
Six Gun (2008)
A truly awful film
There is little redeeming about this film.
The story is weak and uninteresting. Without giving any spoilers, a retired old bounty hunter-turned-rancher comes out of retirement to save his ranch with a quick, one-time job and ends up in over his head. There is not a surprise to be had and while the film runs at just over 90 minutes, that little set up is already stretched beyond the breaking point long before the end.
The characters, one and all, are one-dimensional stock characters. They range from the weathered, drunken old man called out of retirement to go back to the job he hates but knows how to perform (Tommy) to the comic relief of the idiotic young sidekick (Will) to the unfeeling, perverted saloon owner (Jake).
It's also loaded with attempts at comedy that are universally both juvenile and clichéd. There is no intentional comedy here that works.
The acting, even though the actors have little to do, is awful. Tommy Hill gives a reasonable performance as Tommy Hill and Marlene Perez is fine in a very small and simple part, but everyone else is downright awful. The worst offender is Bill Wise (ironically, the only one of this bunch with any kind of resume, holding 35 credits on the IMDb before this release), who mugs for the camera as though he is some sort of irresistibly charming comic and doesn't even bother to try to act. But he's not alone: Sue Rock is frighteningly bad--obviously checking to make sure she's at the proper cleavage level on a regular basis and giving no performance; Robert Graham is absolutely laughable in his attempt to command the screen and appear evil; and Eric Perry seems to be holding in his laughter from start to finish.
The sets are laughably fake, looking like a high school theater's attempt at an old west set. Much of the "wood" is all brand new, unscratched, un-cracked, and some of it does not even have much grain to it (and I have a sneaking suspicion that much of it was not actually wood). The trim colors on the buildings are too bright and distracting (not to mention not befitting of the era). The nature shots are mostly of a lush, forest-covered area that absolutely does not evoke the Old West.
The gunfight sequences are some of the most unintentionally hilarious things ever filmed--loaded with people who stand five feet away from the "heroes" but can't see them or miss them repeatedly and repeat after repeat of the same shot.
The lighting is all attempting to mimic natural lighting instead of trying to heighten anything dramatically, and it even often fails to do that, leading to shadows where they are inappropriate both realistically and dramatically and strange coloring that means absolutely nothing.
The music completes the picture with a mix of western clichés that are never even appropriate to the situation (i.e., there is chase music during a gunfight or comedic music during "emotional" scenes). In essence, it's a microcosm of what a mess the entire film is.
All told, this film does not even meet minimum standards of professionalism that we expect from any movie. Beyond that, it's a tangle of clichés, bad jokes, horrible acting, awful music and poor visual effects. To be avoided.
Crazy Heart (2009)
A standard musician biopic that loses its way as it goes
Musician biopics, from "Ray" to "Great Balls of Fire!," are really all the same movie. Musician gets famous, gets hooked on drugs (or just gains in ego) and becomes a jerk, falls on professional hard times, then finds his/her way to a personal salvation and immediately achieves professional success as well. Obviously, the late-life quest for redemption story is not unique to musician biopics (examples: "The Verdict," "Fearless," and "The Straight Story"). In the end, "Crazy Heart" has more in common with the latter class of redemption movies, most notably "The Wrestler," to which it bears many similarities.
The story is very simple and obvious--you can tell everything that's going to happen from a look at the poster or DVD cover--but it is fairly substantial and effective. However, the characters are not even three-dimensional enough to be called stock characters--some (Jean Craddock especially) are so patently unbelievable in their lack of dimension that I can't believe someone actually wrote them. They all have one thing that they do and that's all they do, even if they appear repeatedly. As an example, think about how many times Jean grins, sighs, then says "okay." The dialogue is also a bit off--Blake sounds awfully educated for an old musician and Tommy Sweet sounds overly sincere, to the point that he's almost as tough to take as Jean. The biggest issue here is that the final act of the movie feels like a rushed tack-on to a completed film and does not have any depth. It's just a plot device to get to an already-conceived final scene that otherwise could not exist.
The acting is generally fine, but there's also little required of anyone. Obviously, Jeff Bridges won an Oscar for this, but the truth is that he had the same expression on his face from the first shot to the last and never changed in between, just like every other "performance" of his career. His wardrobe was excellent and really conveyed his character wonderfully--it did most of the job for him. He wasn't particularly bad, because there really wasn't much for him to do. He could have looked sadder in the third act and he could have looked more panicked just before, but neither is really enough of a complaint to matter much. No one else has enough of a character for their acting even to get mentioned, even though Colin Farrell got a star entrance for the ages.
One odd aspect of the film was its composition. Throughout the entire film, Blake was constantly off-center, with seemingly no reason for it. Especially for a film that is about personal salvation, you normally want to show someone's life coming into balance by balancing the screen or else show the difficulty in that by unbalancing the screen. Scott Cooper did neither. It looked a lot like "The Wrestler," but did not have a reason for it the way that film did. It was distracting and poor technique.
However, the cinematography was quite good. The film began with low-key lighting and cool colors but changed to a much brighter lighting scheme when Tommy Sweet was around, showing us that he is the path to a brighter end for Blake. Eventually, the entire scheme warmed and brightened to show us the changes in our lead character. It wasn't terribly inventive, but it was still effective. Cooper and Barry Markowitz deserve some credit for that.
All I will say about the music is that I hate country music and this was no different. Farrell actually had a surprisingly good voice, but Bridges was not good (though far from the worst singer I've heard).
All in all, it's a pretty standard redemption movie with some major flaws. If you enjoy musician biopics, it's probably worth watching. If you enjoy country music, it's probably worth listening to. However, it's nothing special.
(500) Days of Summer (2009)
A Good Boy Meets Girl Story
I'm really going to generally avoid spoilers, but, unfortunately, the nature of this film makes it difficult to fully discuss without spoilers. The truth is that the storyline is visible five minutes in, so you shouldn't worry about them.
Romance movies can go awry easily. It's easy for them to be forced, fatalistic and silly to the point of self-parody (Which isn't a problem if you intend it, but it's often unintentional.) or depressing dirges about the futility of life and love reminiscent of a poem from a recently-single teenager. Even ignoring those issues, they usually depend heavily on the performances of the leads, so that if one of the actors isn't quite up to the task the film suffers mightily. "(500) Days of Summer" finds ways around all of the pitfalls of romances with a level of intelligence, silliness, and feeling that is truly inspired.
It's pretty much the standard American film love story. The narrator tells us this right away. (He does say "this is not a love story," but rather a "boy meets girl story.") However, even before that, the hilarious opening title cards tell us that this isn't going to be taken 100% seriously. We start out with our protagonist, Tom, in a depressed state about his recently-ended relationship and then, jumping through time throughout the relationship, we get entire arc of their relationship, from meeting to demise, and a little beyond. However, it's the way in which we move through the story, knowing the end and the beginning, that holds our attention. The device of showing us which day it is outlives its usefulness after about twenty minutes, since we're really just moving among three time frames, but the structure allows us to see the relationship's development piecemeal, so that some "mystery," so to speak, remains throughout. The ending is also both somewhat surprising and absolutely perfect.
The film's attitude of a mixture of deep emotion and pure silliness also helps it move along. When Tom is happy because he kissed Summer, we not only get him walking down the street happy, we get a full-on music video that even goes so far as to include a happy little cartoon bluebird. That scene also pays off wonderfully later when Tom finally realizes that the relationship is over and staggers into the dark streets, and our memory of that earlier instance gives it a powerful emotional punch.
As for the acting that is such a problem for so many romances, this film avoids that problem by (a) focusing on just one of the leads so that the other really doesn't have to do anything and (b) casting Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordon-Levitt has, without much fanfare, built an incredible body of work that shows him to be among the finest and most versatile actors alive, and in this film we see him trying on another new hat--being a vulnerable, insecure young man who thinks he lives in a fairy tale and then can't stand to see his sand castle get washed away. Zooey Deschanel is very pretty, but she's not a good actor. In this film, it really doesn't matter, because she has so little to do. There are a few scenes where her limitations are definitely a problem (Her final scene, her "apology" to Tom after he gets in the fight, and the first kiss scene come to mind.), but not enough to really get in the way of what is otherwise such an excellent film. The supporting performances are all fine but require little.
What little criticism I can make of the film is threefold. First, the calendar-like counting of the days really grew annoying once the time frames had been set--we knew where we were in the relationship anyway, so we didn't need that reference. Second, the narrator's presence, after introducing the story, was obtrusive and unnecessary. While we're seeing something unfold on the screen, he unnecessarily pops in to tell us what it means. This problem was most prevalent when he talked about Summer opening up her world to Tom. We could see that happening--the camera-work told us, the set told us, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt told us. We didn't need the big disembodied voice to chime in as well and it was distracting as a result. Third, Zooey Deschanel's weak performance, as mentioned above.
Overall, a truly excellent film that has enough humor to entertain people, a great ending, and excellent emotion.
Highlander (1986)
Formulaic, borderline nonsensical, and generally bad movie
"Highlander" is a movie largely about swords, special effects, time-trotting set changes, and the presence of stars Sean Connery and Queen. Its characters aren't even deep enough to be called two-dimensional, its dialogue is awful, its storyline is convoluted and at best makes half-sense, and it's extraordinarily predictable. Even the two "star" presences (and calling Queen "stars" at this time was highly questionable) are bungled to the point of destroying their positive effects.
The plot makes it easy to see how the film could spawn a cult following, numerous sequels and a television show, not to mention capturing and enthralling imaginations. Told with many flashbacks (so that the "shocking inner-city sword fighting" could open the film), the story that unfolds is that of a group of immortal beings who mysteriously appear on Earth at various times, eventually being called together to fight one another to the death for "the prize," which is meant to be a secret through the film. However, the narrative takes away any power the plot carries. The film is structured in such an obvious, formulaic manner that every event in the film can be predicted after the first ten minutes, taking away any possibility of surprise. Compounding this problem, Connery's appearance is not delayed long enough to have the impact it needs in such a small part, essentially reducing him to a typical supporting actor.
As is typically true in a mythical tale such as this, the characters are very flat and uninteresting. Connery's Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez is nothing more than a wise, affable mentor (think Yoda from "Star Wars" or Splinter from "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles") to Christopher Lambert's simple-minded, over-emotional (Has there ever been a fantasy movie hero who can't be described that way?) Connor MacLeod. All of the women in the film are the same: they love MacLeod unconditionally and seem to have no other thoughts or emotions. Clancy Brown's Kurgan is nothing more than an angry, vicious villain who enjoys killing and destruction but seemingly has no reason for his evil. This pattern holds for all characters in the film.
The acting, such as it is, is not particularly noteworthy in any way. Hampered by the two-dimensionality of their characters, none of the actors in the film does a particularly good job, though the casting of Clancy Brown and Sean Connery does have to be applauded for its appropriateness. It's difficult to imagine any other actors fitting these roles as perfectly as these actors.
Finally, no review of "Highlander" could be complete without a comment on the score. It is good, though a bit over-intrusive, especially in the "Who Wants to Live Forever" sequence. I have never been too much of a Queen fan, but "Who Wants to Live Forever" and "Princes of the Universe" are certainly among their latter-day (and perhaps career) highlights. If only Russell Mulcahy weren't attempting to use Queen as his film's star, this could have been a truly evocative score, but since he was, the score too often simply dominates the film.
Overall, "Highlander" is an almost complete disaster. The excellent casting and surprisingly strong score are the only elements that really work, and they aren't enough to make this film worth the trouble of watching. There are thousands of other films dealing with very similar subject matter in a much more artful, intelligent manner that anybody could watch anytime.
Rope (1948)
A rare case of Hitchcock's experimentation getting in the way
On the surface, "Rope" has just about everything one could ask for. It has a great, experienced director in Alfred Hitchcock. It has a wonderfully talented and charismatic star in James Stewart. It has a solid supporting cast. It even has an excellent concept and a deliciously shocking undercurrent theme. However, Hitchcock fumbles an experiment he should have abandoned early and pulls an otherwise excellent film down to merely good status.
The film is about a male couple in New York who, inspired by the philosophical teachings of an old professor of theirs, decide to commit the perfect murder and, as if that weren't enough, invite over close friends of the victim, his family, and said professor essentially to flout their crime. However, that interesting concept is severely damaged by Hitchcock's apparently last-minute decision to open the film with the murder. We are immediately placed in a position, knowing that our main characters are thrill killers, to either detach from the suspense of the upcoming cat-and-mouse game or to throw our sympathies along with these unsavory types. Seeing Phillip's conscience get to him is probably intended to push us into the second category, but the extraordinary coldness of his companion, Brandon (John Dall) makes that identification nearly impossible.
Understandably, Hitchcock considered this an ideal project for a challenge at which he took many shots throughout his career: filming in a restricted location. Since the grisly dinner party in this apartment simply drips with tension, that instinct isn't what failed Hitchcock. However, he also decided to film as closely as possible to a single take, using only one camera and only cutting or wiping in order to change film rolls. However, this need to change rolls leads to some extraordinarily heavy-handed dark screen wipes that almost feel like commercial breaks and the single camera limits the angular possibilities unnecessarily. The strongest experiments with limited sets (Hitchcock's own "Rear Window," Sidney Lumet's "12 Angry Men") have always used the tricks available to the director to make the film's look continue to vary in spite of the setting and have always ended with a relief of that confinement, but Hitchcock does neither. Indeed, the confinement is never even felt, because there is hardly a suggestion of any life beyond the windows of this apartment. Hitchcock essentially ends up with, instead of an interesting new film, an entirely un-cinematic one.
The filming technique also places extreme demands on the actors, who (thankfully) largely perform up to the task. John Dall is especially powerful, alternately alarmingly cold and incredibly charming and managing to make the film seem far more real for his presence. Meanwhile, Farley Granger is stiff and uneven in his performance. However, the real damage to the film is given by James Stewart. He seems to have absolutely no chemistry with anyone on the set, which essentially destroys part of the purpose of his character (to provide an alternate, non-evil homosexual model) and turns him into a sort of outsider detective. Taken as a detective role, Stewart's performance is definitely credible, but it appears that he is either incapable or unwilling to perform the role as intended. However, the caliber of the minor performances is high enough to largely overcome those weaknesses.
Overall, "Rope" is a very watchable and somewhat fun film, but it never reaches the stratosphere of some of Hitchcock's best work ("Psycho," "Rear Window," "North by Northwest," "Spellbound," etc.) because he made a poor decision in attempting to turn what should have been a film into a play. It's worth watching once, but not more than that, which is a shame since by any reasonable estimation it should have been.
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)
Good for about an hour, but loses its life.
For about the first hour, "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer" is a truly excellent film. Tom Tykwer shows a mastery of color use that few directors possess, the off-kilter story builds some nice suspense, the acting is solid, and, perhaps most importantly, there is a nice sense of humor about its own ridiculousness. Unfortunately, just after the death of Giuseppe Baldini, just about everything good about the film goes out the window.
Tykwer quickly establishes his color palate for the film, painting it entirely in a muted, blue-heavy tone until Jean-Baptiste Grennouille first discovers a scent that excites him (an apple tree), and that object gets a vibrant, heavily-saturated color (including, as it is an apple tree, splashes of green that are rare in the film). He follows this pattern throughout the film, reaching its height when Jean-Baptiste first finds a perfume shop and it is loaded with golds, greens, yellows, and whites, all vibrant. He also has an excellent, John Carpenter-like grasp of composition, always able to use off-center composition to prepare for action in a particular place on screen. However, these are really the only visual interests of the film.
The early part of the film builds an excellent amount of suspense as we await the murderous rampage we know is coming from Grenouille, but the problems are that it takes too long to get to the serial murder we already know is coming (from the title and the advertising) and those murders simply take too long to be terribly effective. Meanwhile, one of the most interesting aspects of the early film is its sense of self-aware humor. Every character who "cares for" (using the term very loosely) Jean-Baptiste dies as soon as he leaves, perhaps commenting on the roles of minor characters in film and perhaps simply giving us some comic relief, but welcome either way. Tykwer also seems to be having some fun with the ridiculousness of the idea of such a powerful sense of smell, as Jean-Baptiste sniffs to represent everything and quickly becomes something of a self-caricature. However, at the same point just after Baldini's death, that sense of humor disappears and never returns.
Another mid-point problem for the film is that its second-biggest character, Dustin Hoffman's Baldini, is replaced by Alan Rickman's Richis. As usual when not playing a villain, Rickman is stiff, wooden, uncomfortable, and very unbelievable in his performance, as contrasted to Hoffman's usual excellent (if rather limited by his character in this case) portrayal. Since no role in the film requires much, only Rickman stands out as weak, but the size of his role thus becomes a major issue. Throughout, Ben Whishaw plays a very easy role well enough, but he also has little to do.
Finally, the film ends terribly, almost reminiscent of The Who's opera "Quadrophenia." In both cases, we are following unsavory characters around, both excited and repulsed by their activities and knowing that they haven't exactly enjoyed the journey either, but in both cases, the creator apparently couldn't come up with a decent ending. Pete Townshend decided that instead of continuing the social commentary of the rest of the album, his hero would simply announce that all he wanted was love. "Perfume" has exactly the same problem, and the story ends just as ridiculously and unsatisfactorily. However, Townshend at least had a great song to end the album ("Love, Reign O'er Me"). Tykwer has no such tricks, leaving us wishing the film had ended at about an hour and fifteen minutes.
Overall, it's a solid film for almost half of its running time, but then it loses its steam and becomes essentially an exercise in futility the rest of the way. "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer" is unfortunately a major disappointment.
Kumonosu-jô (1957)
A very original and interesting take on "Macbeth" that still retains much of the play's power
There have been many film and television productions of "Macbeth," but there may never have been one as innovative and interesting as Akira Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood." Meanwhile, in spite of the major change of time and scenery, Kurosawa is able to preserve much of the story with only minor alterations and, most importantly, to keep the atmosphere and emotion of the play. The loss of Shakespeare's language is a tragic one that's difficult to make up and the incredible depth and multi-layered nature of the play are quite possibly impossible to convey in performance, but an interesting and well-performed interpretation is still quite wonderful, and that's what Kurosawa's film is. For my review, I'm going to focus on some of Kurosawa's most interesting interpretive choices and their success.
The incredible characterization is perhaps most prominent in Isuzu Yamada's Lady Asaji Washizu (Lady Macbeth). Yamada's character does not have the sexually-charged brutality of Jane Lapotaire's (in Jack Gold's BBC production), nor the supernatural malevolence of Greta Scacchi's (in Michael Bogdanov's production). Instead, her character takes a slightly less aggressive role, pushing her husband by planting simple seeds of her own suspicions in his mind while coldly advocating the path of bloodshed with seemingly no conscience. She also is given a breakdown scene that might be the most powerful version of Lady Macbeth's collapse ever committed to film. Her performance is fascinating and original, something of a microcosm of the entire film.
Washizu, the film's Macbeth, is more traditional, but contains more of an air of military bravery, honor, and power than the previous portrayals (many of which seem to ignore Macbeth's oft-mentioned military prowess, such as Ian McKellen's performance). Toshiro Mifune, always a brilliant actor, is able to convey the extreme inner turmoil of a proud soldier whose ambition takes him places where he feels honor-bound not to go and, fixing an oddly common problem in film productions of the play, looks the part of a great soldier.
Kurosawa's most interesting other change is in his portrayal of the witches. The witches are, first of all, reduced to one, and she is first glimpsed weaving, as though she is in fact a Fate rather than a witch and perhaps presaging her predictive powers. Most productions, most notably and effectively Roman Polanksi's, have portrayed the witches as somehow a product of nature, but Kurosawa opts for the opposite, presenting a more obviously corporeal witch who is imposing on the wilderness and looks alien in it. This last choice also hints at what Kurosawa does with the entire film's supernatural elements, which is to reduce them. His film definitely reads as a psychological tale of an overly ambitious and suspicious leader, with the supernatural presence toned down accordingly, though the Fate-like opening shot of the "evil spirit" confuses the issue. Most productions have been unable to overcome this problem, since it is difficult to focus on either the psychological or the supernatural element and nearly impossible to use both without becoming muddled (the dense language of the play can overcome this on paper, but not in performance).
"Throne of Blood" is a definite must-watch for all "Macbeth" fans and a recommended viewing for all. The performances and characterization are excellent, the direction is truly wonderful, the score is excellent. Indeed, the only weak point the film has is its slightly confused vision of the witch, both suggesting that it defines Washizu's fate and reducing its presence from Shakespeare's work. This film is yet another great entry into the canon of both Shakespeare filmography and Akira Kurosawa.
Rocky Balboa (2006)
Unfortunately, it ranks alongside "Rocky V"
"Rocky Balboa" has an interesting premise: What happens to an icon as he ages? However, it decides, quickly and simply, "nothing." Then, the film descends into an almost nightmarish list of clichés that never manage to be endearing as the first four films were. It uses its own filmic past not as a stepping stone or a touchstone in its exploration but as a crutch, recreating in less dramatic fashion the best elements of the original film while never matching its charm.
Beginning with the basics, the plot is outlandish, but so is professional boxing, so that's not really an issue. The dialogue is loaded with attempts to create the sort of aphoristic tone of the first film, though this time they come across as more sanctimonious than sincere. The characters, outside of Rocky himself, also never find any development. Still, the film does perhaps expose more than any of the previous films what an odd mixture of sweetness and violence Rocky really is, and on that level it should be commended.
The acting, one of the saving graces of the first film, is across-the-board bad, though the reasoning differs. Stallone is for the most part decent, though the somewhat new incarnation of Rocky as Street Philosopher stretches him to the breaking point. Burt Young is as he usually is, which is to say a mixture of over-the-top histrionics and woefully inadequate performance. The other characters really require very little to no acting, with only Geraldine Hughes shining (and that perhaps only because of a natural charisma, sweetness, and beauty). The other characters are not developed enough for the acting to require anything, so the performances are decent enough for what they are. The acting also causes a shared problem for the last three "Rocky" films in that the wonderfully charismatic and interesting Burgess Meredith is no longer present and none of the other actors has the energy he had to uplift the film.
Stallone the director also makes a number of questionable decisions. The final fight scene, instead of following the films' tried and true standard of being shot as though inside the ring and leaving it once in a while in order to give us some outside perspective, is shot mostly as though it is a television broadcast, complete with enough HBO logos to kill a rhinoceros. The one advantage of this presentation is the presence of Max Kellerman as a ringside announcer. He brings an element of fun and energy that the film desperately needs at this point. Stallone also shortens both the fight and the lead-up to it from their lengths in the previous films, presumably in order to focus more on his character study. However, Stallone does end the film very wisely, mimicking the original quite nicely while not copying it as much of the rest of the film unfortunately does.
Oddly, one of the film's problems is also its score. Bill Conti, the original film's composer (and thus composer of the "Gonna Fly Now" theme) is an excellent composer who has done top-notch work repeatedly over his career, but "Rocky Balboa" is a jumbled mix of his much better earlier work reworked in order to fit the emotions of the scenes but often not quite working so. "Gonna Fly Now," even slowed way down, does not sound sad, despite his attempts to make it do so.
Overall, "Rocky Balboa" is a terrible disappointment of a film. Fans of the series will find some interesting elements, but all others will find the film tedious and boring and even the aforementioned fans might. Too much of the film is recycled from earlier films without even being reworked and that which isn't is just uninteresting. To be avoided, though the ending is certainly a more appropriate exit for Rocky than "Rocky V" was.
Schindler's List (1993)
How this film has received so much praise, I may never know
"Schindler's List" isn't by any means a bad film, but it's not particularly good either (a decent way of describing Spielberg's entire career). Some elements of the film are very good, even excellent, but it has issues that are too deep to be overcome, making it an overall mediocre work that certainly doesn't deserve the high praise it has gotten (much of which is because of Spielberg's treatment of the film itself--donating his salary to charity, having the film sent to high schools around the country, etc.).
The film's issues begin with its main character, who begins the film as a complex, interesting character who seems to possess a moral flexibility that would have been a great asset in such a changing society as his and then is reduced to a simple man with a conscience despite his surroundings. The transformation is unwelcome and not at all credible, since it seems to be precipitated by absolutely nothing (The holocaust has already begun around him, so that cannot be the precipitating event.) The change is made all the more ridiculous by the epilogue of Schindler's later life, which makes it clear that the first version of his character is more accurate. Liam Neeson performs very capably in the role, especially in the vastly more interesting opening scenes, but his performance is not enough to save such a ridiculous character arc.
There is also a terrible lack of focus in the film, as it spends such a large amount of time dealing with its villain, Amon Goeth, as to take away from Schindler's presence in the film. Goerth is also a more exciting character than the second Schindler and performed with such an incredible menace and dark intelligence by Ralph Feinnes that the viewer can easily long to see more of Goeth and less of Schindler, which is not a good thing for a film with such moral certainty.
Beyond these problems, there is the visual style of the film, which is a blatant rip-off of Alain Resnais's "Night and Fog." The black and white past with color present footage, intended to connect the past to the present, is clumsily done, as the subject of the holocaust's connection to the present is never once broached within the film. The colorization of the red swastika and girl's jacket also adds absolutely nothing to the film. It's pointless and smacks of Spielberg trying to prove his own depth.
However, "Schindler's List" does have its fine points. The film is still quite pretty to look at, including an incredibly beautiful, depressing image of Jewish graves as a Nazi road, and a number of other truly beautiful images that capture the sorrow of the Holocaust extraordinarily well. The acting is also truly excellent, highlighted by Ralph Feinnes in a tragically under-noticed turn as Amon Goerth. Finally, John Williams's score is hauntingly beautiful and has an understatement the film would have done well to mimic. These are cosmetic elements, perhaps, and they certainly don't make up for the film's major flaws, but they certainly improve the film from the train wreck it might otherwise have been.
Overall, "Schindler's List" is an overrated, average film. The performances and score are top-notch, but its message is not sent as vividly as it is by some other films about the same subject (most notably the aforementioned "Night and Fog") and its characterization of its protagonist leaves a lot to be desired. It's not a waste of time, but films such as "Night and Fog," Sidney Lumet's "The Pawnbroker," Roman Polanski's "The Pianist," and Roberto Benigni's "Life is Beautiful" explore the Holocaust much more poignantly with far less fanfare.
For Your Consideration (2006)
Lowbrow, obvious movie industry satire that disappoints
In spite of his incredible talents as an actor (especially comedic), Christopher Guest has essentially fizzled as a director to the point that his most recent (and best-known) films have been largely-improvised mockumentaries along the lines of Rob Reiner's "This Is Spinal Tap" (in which Guest acts, quite brilliantly), which require little of him as a writer or director, instead relying on the cast. "For Your Consideration" seems to be Guest's attempt to move back toward more-demanding film directing, as it leaves the documentary style behind in favor of more typical visual film fare, has more narrative structure than his previous films ("A Mighty Wind" and "Best in Show"), and even seems more comedically designed in that the scenes are built to a single joke rather than the rapid-fire succession of them in his mockumentaries. Guest even throws in that he's making a movie about the movies, perhaps the most satire-ripe subject on earth.
However, he is not quite up to the task, though the film was a large improvement on his last traditional film, "Almost Heroes." It seems that Guest was still somewhat caught between traditional film-making and the fly-on-the-wall sort of technique that his mockumentaries used, as he often struggles between the angles that emphasize his points and simple medium-to-long frontal shots of characters speaking. He also seems to have scripted a larger amount of the film, since the scenes are almost all structured for the delivery of a single joke (which is true of most comedic films). The characterization is also dull and uninteresting, including none of the over-the-top stereotypes of his previous films (which I assume are meant to satirize said stereotypes and their use in film) and instead pushing the same characters (without the exaggeration needed for humor) we see in all self-referential films. We meet the unorthodox, somewhat disconnected director (played by Guest himself, of course, in another obvious joke), the over-emotional young actress, the aging actress trying to hold onto her youth, the studio suit trying to prove he understands the art, the smarmy agent, and the wise older actor. Overall, Guest's script and direction are so derivative that it's almost painful. It's like watching a first-year film student trying to cover the same ground an old master, Robert Altman, covered so capably in "The Player," while the student never quite understands what makes the master's film work.
The acting in the film is quite good, though the characters require little. The only character who really does require a decent amount of work is Victor Allan Miller, who is played to perfection by Harry Shearer. (This characterization is also the subject of the best line in the film, as Catherine O'Hara tells Shearer, "You play the actor very well.") Overall, it's tough to read Christopher Guest's "For Your Consideration" as anything other than a satire-by-numbers by a director still trying to find his way and possibly fearing that his past success has come only because of his much-liked troupe of improv actors. If you are a fan of these actors (especially O'Hara, who is undoubtedly the star of the film, and Ricky Gervais, who is inexplicably given the big star part), you will probably enjoy the film. If you were hoping for an intelligent, witty comedic examination of the film industry (as I was), the film will disappoint. Let's just hope that this film's failure is enough to make Guest either stick to the mockumentaries or stick to acting.
Fear Strikes Out (1957)
For what it is, it's excellent. Just don't expect more.
Even though I have noted this to be a spoiler review, I will mark the few spoilers within the comment.
In reality, Jimmy Piersall was a gifted outfielder who battled bipolar disorder throughout his life, especially during his playing days in a time when lithium had not yet been discovered as a drug treatment for the disorder. (If anyone wonders, that treatment began in 1958.) That's not the character the film portrays. Instead, this Jim Piersall (Who is oddly never called "Jimmy," considering that he is almost exclusively known as "Jimmy" in reality.) is a kid (presumably only 23 years old at the film's close, based on his real-life history) pushed too hard, too far, and too fast by his father, resulting in a mental breakdown that requires him to face his true feelings about his father. However, as long as one does not expect to see the lifelong bipolar disorder struggle portrayed, this film does easily merit the viewing.
The easiest part of the film to appreciate is the excellent acting, especially by the always-excellent Anthony Perkins. Perkins manages to convey such varying emotions and degrees of emotion that it boggles the mind. He ranges everywhere from an insane anger to a subtle feeling of pain hidden under a look of beaming happiness and does so with a dexterity rarely found in any actor. Karl Malden also deserves some credit for an excellent performance as the driving, overbearing-but-loving father. He never needs any dialogue to tell us how he feels about his son or why he pushes Jim the way he does, because his face tells it all. No other characters in the film really gave the actor the opportunity to show tremendous ability.
However, the direction is also excellent. Robert Mulligan reinforces his film's themes with constant images showing Jim behind or between bars, as though he is trapped in his path (until of course the mental hospital, where such visual entrapment never occurs). He even goes so far as to show John Piersall handing his son a letter saying that scouts from the Boston Red Sox are coming to town to see him, a scene that would seem to bring the two together as they have nearly accomplished their shared goal, with a fence separating them. The scene is one of the most poignant in all of film history. Even the ending of the film is shot with a particular eye to detail that rewards the careful viewer.
*Note: This paragraph is about hints from close viewing, so there are some small spoilers. None should hinder enjoyment of the film, but one should be warned.* There are also a number of subtle hints that seem to suggest that Piersall's problem is more than a temporary breakdown. First of all, his father at one point tells his mother, "I don't want you going away again," suggesting that perhaps she has the same issues Jim does. Secondly, the conclusion of the film is ambiguous, showing a beaming Jim Piersall headed onto the field of play bathed in a heroic, heavenly bright overhead light, but doing so from such a distance as to suggest that perhaps this ending isn't assured. These elements may have been to suggest the bipolar disorder from which Piersall actually suffered while presenting his case as it would have appeared at the time it occurred. The original Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders appeared in 1952, so certainly bipolar disorder's existence was already established (and the term was coined around the turn of the century, by Emil Kreiplin if memory serves) and could have been incorporated into the film. It's an interesting close viewing element of the film, at least. *Spoilers over* Overall, "Fear Strikes Out" may have been something of a distortion of reality (and obviously Jimmy Piersall himself thought so) and it probably oversimplifies Piersall's psychological problems, but it does tell its own story beautifully and artfully with incredible performances and spot-on direction. The only real issue I have with the film is the score, which was so over-dramatic as to undercut the real emotion of the film. It is definitely recommended.
Chinatown (1974)
The perfect Neo-Noir
There are a number of different paths to take when creating a neo-noir film. In "Chinatown," Polanski and screenwriter Robert Towne went in the then-innovative direction of essentially "playing it straight" with their neo-noir. That is to say, there is nothing really "neo" about it other than being in color. It's set during the noir period, with noir dialogue and noir characters. However, Polanski executes the film so perfectly that it becomes perhaps the single most essential noir film of all time (or at least in the top two with "The Maltese Falcon").
The plot is everything a film noir should be--mysterious and somewhat convoluted, following the hard-edged detective Jake Gittes through the dark underbelly of the new city of Los Angeles. While the underlying scheme may seem a disappointment, the seeming banality of it enhances its disastrous effects on those involved even further than they would be otherwise. However, perhaps the strongest element of this film is its incredible characterization. While noir was always loaded (some would say hampered) with stock characters, even the characters who seem to fit the stock roles in "Chinatown" have extra layers of depth beyond what one would expect. Gittes is not simply a hard-nosed detective, but a man with an extreme stubborn streak and a need to prove his own intellectual abilities; Evelyn Mulwray is not just the femme fatale or the damsel in distress but an over-dramatic and fascinating combination of the two who seems to vacillate back and forth while she decides herself which she is; Lou Escobar is an intelligent and competent detective who only seems a step behind Gittes because he lacks some of Gittes's information; and of course Noah Cross is one of cinema's all-time great characters, though the details would constitute a spoiler. The dialogue of the film also deserves mention, as it sparkles with noir-speak slang, almost poetic rhythm, and the type of literary edge that always made the language of films noir so interesting.
Perhaps the most easily noticeable element of this film is its incredible acting. Jack Nicholson is surprising and thus particularly effective in his relatively restrained, nontheatrical turn as Jake Gittes. He even manages to resist the temptation to take the character out of control and over the top when possible, which is quite an accomplishment for an actor who has made such a career out of doing just that. Faye Dunaway's performance is a fascinating study in duality, as her character seems self-consciously aware of her position as both femme fatale and damsel in distress throughout this film and then vacillates between them as though she is still trying to make up her own mind about who she is, which of course she is. Meanwhile, John Huston simply steals the show in an absolute powerhouse performance as the charming and villainous Noah Cross that ranks as one of Hollywood's all-time great performances.
Overseeing this entire process, Roman Polanski directs the film perfectly. Everything from the editing to the cinematography is executed magnificently, resulting in a truly beautiful film in which every shot accentuates the mood of the piece and every scene is told as much with the camera as with the dialogue.
All together, Roman Polanski's "Chinatown" is a monumental film achievement. Years after the death of the film noir, Polanski crates perhaps the ultimate in the genre, following all of its conventions while adding layers of depth that perhaps no other noir can lay claim to. This film might also be the last example of noir played for real rather than for laughs or genre deconstruction, making it an almost priceless piece of cinematic history.
The Departed (2006)
Both fortunately and unfortunately, it's what we've come to expect from Scorsese
Martin Scorsese was once one of the world's great filmmakers, but the truth is that he has been rehashing some combination of "Raging Bull" and "Mean Streets" for the last quarter-century. Even his latter-day masterpiece, "Goodfellas" repeats the revisionist gangster themes of "Mean Streets" with the visual language of "Raging Bull" almost exactly copied. In this way it's unfortunate that "The Departed" is more of the same.
However, even in his darkest hours of imagination, Scorsese has always been a competent storyteller whose films are filled with excellent, vibrant performances, spot-on editing and of course his much-revered knack for choosing score material. In this way, it's fortunate that "The Departed" is more of the same.
The story is one that inherently involves all of Scorsese's favorite themes: violence, identity, and loyalty. It tells two essentially identical inverted story lines: (Slight spoiler, but no more than the commercials told you) A young man who has grown up learning from gang leader Frank Costello becomes Costello's mole inside the state police and a young man who has grown up surrounded by criminals becomes an undercover police officer who infiltrates Costello's organization (spoiler over). The intertwined stories are perhaps the most interesting part of the film, since this take on narrative is something new to Scorsese's repertoire, but it unfortunately is not handled perfectly. Some of the editing is coarse for no obvious reason and yet Scorsese does not provide us with any visual cues that either show that we are supposed to be confused or help us orient ourselves.
Meanwhile, the acting is perfect all the way. Mark Wahlberg may be a one-note actor, but his character is his note. Meanwhile, Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio are excellent in deep, layered roles, though Damon does not have the opportunity DiCaprio does to chew up the screen now and again. Martin Sheen is used perfectly in the type of role we're getting used to him playing. Most importantly, the borderline-campy theatricality and evil of Jack Nicholson is used to absolutely perfect effect in devilishly comic portrayal of an underworld kingpin.
Oddly, one place where the film goes awry is in its use of music. While certainly the Rolling Stones' "Gimme Shelter" is used wonderfully, to great effect and absolutely appropriately (almost as well as the instrumental section of Derek and the Dominoes' "Layla" in Goodfellas), some of the music was annoyingly distracting. This problem also crept up on Scorsese's last film, "The Aviator," at a few points, which is a disturbing and disheartening trend in the director's career. It almost sounds as if he is trying to insert more "hip" music with which he is less familiar (and which he may even like less) and thus is forcing it into place far more than when he uses some of the classic rock anthems and classical standards he has used to such great effect in the past and even in this film. The presence of composer Howard Shore obviously doesn't help, either, as the master of the Very Standard Score delivers the same thing he nearly always does--a bag of clichés.
Overall, the film is worth sitting through once, and probably worth more than that if you're unfamiliar with Scorsese's work. However, it's not much more than that. Watching "Raging Bull" (or "Goodfellas" or "The Last Temptation of Christ," for that matter) again is definitely a better use of one's time. It also certainly wasn't the best picture of the year--"United 93" was.
The Illusionist (2006)
Not particularly bad, but there just isn't much to it
"The Illusionist" looked like it had promise coming in. It had a loaded cast of not just stars but talented stars headed by Paul Giamatti and Edward Norton but even continuing on to Rufus Sewell. It had the second-best film composer alive, Philip Glass, writing the score. It sounded like it could be a fun tale of intrigue surrounding a stage magician. The only real worrisome part (admittedly a very large one) was screenwriter/director Neil Burger, who had only a faux documentary that didn't do well with critics or the public to his credit. Burger brought down the rest of the elements to make the film a middling mess.
The film's script is an issue because it pulls an unwanted sleight of hand, changing the film from a mystery a la "The Prestige" (which is how the commercials and trailer made it appear) into a very slight and trite period romance. Even the mystery element to the plot is loaded with thievery from earlier films, most notably from Carol Reed's "The Third Man," which makes it far more predictable and thus less exciting than it seems it should be. The dialogue is also oblique and stilted. Even beyond these problems, the characterization is very poor, with no character ever really being fleshed out and no character showing ANY arc whatsoever.
That last script issue is the main problem with the acting, which is competent but in parts that require so little cannot be impressive. Some of the casting is also questionable, such as placing Jessica Biel in the position of the beautiful rich countess, but not bad enough to be truly damaging. Paul Giamatti's accent is also an issue, as it seems to fade in and out throughout the film.
Appropriately enough for a film that is so contrived and unoriginal, Philip Glass's score is loaded with retreads of his brilliant earlier work, most notably "Powaqqatsi" and "The Hours." It's still effective music, and none of it isn't at least reorchestrated, but for someone who knows Glass's earlier work it is a disappointment at least.
This leaves Burger's direction, which is uninspired. The film simply doesn't look any different from any other period romance of the same time, save perhaps for the embarrassingly silly effects during the performances. The editing is generally standard, slowing down for the more "romantic" moments and speeding up for the higher-tension moments. However, some of the decisions are so appalling that they make one question Burger's mental capacity. For example, the opening scene shows Giamatti speaking to Rufus Sewell about the results of the manhunt for Edward Norton--then later we see the manhunt. Though there is a twist involved here, one cannot be interested in the search when we've been told the result. The editing does its best to heighten the search's tension, but it can't overcome the basic issue.
Overall, "The Illusionist" is maddening because of its lost potential, and the muddled final product isn't terrible. If you're interested in seeing a period romance with an above-average cast and a few special effects, this film is for you. Otherwise, the film isn't really worth the time and money.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Not as bad or as good as most seem to think
I feel I must begin with a bit of a disclaimer about the supposed "graphic" nature of the film--it isn't bad at all. There are two sex scenes that are perhaps a bit more graphic than usual and (probably the reason for the NC-17 rating) there is one scene in which pubic hair is visible, but there is little else, so don't let that NC-17 rating scare you. Also, the sex scenes add nothing to the film's thematic or narrative content, so skipping them wouldn't actually hurt anything. Incidentally, that's one way in which the film is not as "bad" as most seem to think.
Certainly the stars of this film are really Darren Aronofsky (director/co-screewnriter) and Jay Rabinowitz (editor). The film is meant to be somehow "deep" through its "unusual" editing and directorial touches; however, it is essentially a recycling of many ideas from others (most notably Stanley Kubrick, Adrian Lyne, and Satoshi Kon) and even its choices that are--and this is the best word I can come up with for them--cutesy and fun become boring by the end of the film. For example, the repetition of the series of quick jump cuts to symbolize a few particular acts becomes bordering on annoying by the time the viewer sees it for about the 20th time during the film and the variation of the speed of the surroundings around a drug-addled individual, a technique already used to its best results in Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange," becomes repeatedly less interesting with each of the 700 or so uses of it here. Most of these techniques suit the film's subject, but some have seemingly no function and many of them have long since outstayed their welcomes by the time the film ends.
However, the real problem with the film is its subject. It is, as anyone planning to see it knows, a film ostensibly about drugs and their pervasive nature in our society. However, the film ends up coming off more as one about proving Jennifer Connelly's abilities as an actor and wrapping some goofy cinematography around what could be a truly heart-wrenching story starring Ellen Burstyn. Besides the lack of any interesting thematic content, the film obviously attempts to make each character's "fall from grace" heartbreaking, but does so horribly, the only exception being Burstyn, who forces it to work with a true powerhouse performance. The real injustice is Connelly's character arc (or lack thereof). It's obvious that the film is supposed to be introducing us to the newly "grown up" Connelly as a talented actress instead of just a pretty teenager, and yet she is given no material through which to show any ability and instead comes across as just the only person in the film who really gets what she wants in the end.
Still, the film is not a complete failure because of two things: Ellen Burstyn and Clint Mansell. Burstyn's performance is truly a sight to behold, as she manages to put the heart into her character that Aronofsky's direction tries so hard to remove, making me wonder how good a film it could have been with a decent director and ONLY her storyline. Meanwhile, Clint Mansell's score is absolutely wonderful--in fact it tells the story of the film much better than the film does. It mixes more traditional film music with more romantic composition styles (such as in the opening scene when the opening of Beethoven's 9th Symphony should easily jump to mind) and even rock influences into a cohesive whole that sounds like a particularly strong James Newton Howard work.
Overall, "Requiem for a Dream" isn't anywhere near as interesting, innovative, or thoughtful as its fans would have us think, but it's still not a bad film. Ellen Burstyn's performance and Clint Mansell's score are wonderful and make up for a lot of the problems with Darren Aronofsky's direction, making it at least worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away.
The Prestige (2006)
An entertaining watch, but unfortunately thin and repetitive
Christopher Nolan's recent films ("Memento," "Insomnia," and "Batman Begins") have all been based on the same theme: The power of obsession to increase a person's ability to create and destroy simultaneously. However, while those earlier films also explored other subjects (respectively, the importance of objective reality as opposed to subjective memory, the line between proving someone's guilt and framing him, and whether action or belief defines a person), "The Prestige" is entirely about the single theme. The biggest problem with this difference is that Nolan does not wring enough interesting aspects out of the theme to build an entire film--it only shows us the effects of the obsessions on our main characters instead of exploring the effects any further and it even includes an archetypal wise older character who has already lived it in the person of Nikola Tesla to give one of our heroes advice and give the film's themes voice in case anyone hasn't noticed being beaten over the head with it.
However, beyond the thematic (and thus intellectual) weaknesses, "The Prestige" does offer an entertaining watch. It's obvious from early on that the main purpose of the film is to provide us with a plot that will surprise the audience again and again by pulling the rug out from under it, so to speak, and it is fun to watch the attempted surprises, even though they don't in general work out. Since such attention is drawn to the effect of a magic trick in which something has to be made to disappear and then returned, both surprisingly, one has to expect something similar to happen with one of the characters at the end, and of course it does. There are also a number of points (especially the moment when Angier's wife says that he is "pretending to be someone else" because he changed his name and the moment when the two magicians see the old "Chinaman" who pretends to be crippled) where the only real point seems to be to lay out a piece of the puzzle for later and these moments unfortunately make the ending's false bottoms too obvious and easy to predict.
The acting, meanwhile, is quite good. Christian Bale's part does not require much, but the few scenes that require a stretch are performed admirably. The same can be said of both Michael Caine and Scarlett Johansson. However, the true star of the show is undoubtedly Hugh Jackman, who has easily the deepest and most interesting character in Angiers and performs him quite excellently. The only real complaint I have in this department is David Bowie's Nikola Tesla--even ignoring the terrible accent, Bowie performs Tesla as a simple, one-note character while the real-life Tesla at this time in his life was bordering on being a total raving lunatic. Certainly Bowie is not to blame entirely for the mischaracterization, but he could have, especially considering who he is, brought more lunacy to the performance and certainly added something to the film's picture of obsession and to his warnings about it.
On a final note, the film's score can be easily described in one word: dreadful.
So, all told, this is a fun watch for someone who just wants a fun plot that's acted well and looks decent (Nolan does have a good eye), but it doesn't offer much more for the brain or the more trained cinematic eye. A one-watch-then-throw-away film, unfortunately, from a director who has the talent to do much better. Hopefully Nolan's obsession with obsession doesn't take him down any further.
United 93 (2006)
A surprisingly excellent, thoughtful, and deep film well-deserving of all its accolades
I will note that I say it is a spoiler review because I make some interpretational statements. Obviously, at least nearly everyone who sees the film will already know the plot, but how it will be treated is something you may or may not want to know before viewing.
"United 93" is much more than one might think before viewing. One might expect an overly sentimental piece of near-propaganda showing the heroism of the passengers on-board the flight and demonizing the hijackers, but writer/director Paul Greengrass has the guts and brains to take this premise someplace more interesting and the technical ability to do so in an eloquent way.
The dominant aspect of the film is its direction. First, Paul Greengrass emphasizes how "human" (for lack of a better word) the film is by shooting nearly (if not in fact) all of the film with hand-held cameras. Then, he depicts the confusion of the entire situation by, using a Robert Altman-like series of tricks, forcing the viewer to attempt to place the focus and importance where we wish rather than forcing us to focus where he wishes. While these two aspects do make the film rather a grueling watch, that grueling feeling is completely appropriate and in fact is the main strength of this film.
However, Greengrass also manages to create a film that has a depth beyond what most will see on first viewing. The similarities, ranging from their silence toward the other group to their blind conviction that they must do this even if they die to their desire to let their loved ones know how they feel before they do it, that we see between the hijackers prior to their attack and the passengers before they attempt to retake the plane suggest a number of possibilities. Perhaps Greengrass is suggesting that we could understand these hijackers if pushed far enough--because they are doing what they think will be best for the world as a whole even if it's bad for them, in spite of our emotions toward them. Or perhaps Greengrass is suggesting that the terrorists feel that they are fighting for their lives. No matter the interpretation, it is obvious that Greengrass is suggesting something beyond the thought of "terrorists=bad; passengers=good," which makes this film far more interesting than it may appear.
It is also noteworthy that the film takes care to treat the hijackers as human, showing that one cares for his family enough to call them before boarding and then seemingly has difficulty bringing himself to commit the actual hijacking. Greengrass's treatment of the hijackers again suggests a deeper meaning or understanding of the events taking place, so that the film becomes that much more interesting.
The other aspects of the film are rather dismissible, since the actors have little to work with but do what is required of them perfectly and what little score is used is excellent but again little is required of it. But these aspects are not at all an indictment but rather a simple example of little being required.
All told, "United 93" is a modern masterwork, with far more depth and thought than anyone would expect in a film about such an emotionally stirring event. Paul Greengrass's fortitude and intelligence are on bright display as he uses his camera, sound, dialogue, editing, and all other aspects of film-making to create the most powerful possible effect. The film is not for the feint of heart and is not for quick and simple hero worship, but for everyone else it is a highly recommended masterpiece.
Brick (2005)
An excellent film but bordering on being a paint-by-numbers neo-noir
There have been many re-imaginings and re-workings of the '40s film noir formula in recent years, ranging from the self-knowledgeable satirization of David Mamet's "The Spanish Prisoner" to the total re-imagination of the basics of the formula of David Lynch's "Lost Highway" to the straight-laced modernization of Robert Rodriguez's "Sin City." "Brick" follows essentially in the vein of the last, except that it follows the visual patterns of noir far less than "Sin City" did.
The film's greatest strength and weakness is its adherence to the noir form. It is an excellent, taut thriller tale; and yet it is quite obvious what the ending will be for those of us who know noir. There are a few attempted twists that are quite well created and yet far less surprising than they should be because they are so formulaic. However, the characters, especially the lead, have rather more depth than a typical film noir. This extra characterization adds a bit to the film so that it does not really become nothing more than a remake of "The Maltese Falcon," but rather an obvious homage. Similarly, the setting change to a high school allows director/screenwriter Rian Johnson to re-imagine the characters' positions and the look of the film beyond the typical noir. The adherence to noir-styled dialogue and attitudes is still a wonderful breath of fresh air as opposed to the rest of the film industry.
Surprisingly, one of this film's strengths is excellent acting. The actors are nearly as young as their characters, and yet they have obviously accepted the premise and setting of the story. Joseph Gordon-Levitt manages to cover a number of varying emotions and moods excellently in the lead, and many of the supporters are scene-stealingly perfect--especially femmes fatale Nora Zehetner and Meagan Good. The only truly weak performance is that of Emilie de Ravin, who has only one real scene but is painfully weak in it.
Rian Johnson's direction is what truly makes the film. He creates a taut, well-designed thriller including some truly beautiful cinematography, a couple of foot-chases that would make Carol Reed (director of "The Third Man") proud, and wonderful low-key and high-contrast lighting to create the world of shadows in which noir always exists. However, Johnson does not ignore the auditory. While one of the film's most annoying points is that the dialogue is often difficult to hear, the Nathan Johnson/Larry Seymour score is absolutely perfect and adds even more to the film.
All told, "Brick" is a wonderfully entertaining neo-noir that only updates the noir formula slightly, but does so in a truly entertaining way. The more-than-welcome return of noir is enough to make the film worth watching, but its updates are truly excellent and make it a cut above. "Brick" only has one real weakness: its predictability. Still, predictability is easily overcome by so many positives. As long as one comes at the movie without attempting to force modern realism on it, it's truly an excellent piece of work.
Silent Hill (2006)
Pathetic in nearly every way and so poorly directed it will give you nightmares . . . and not in the intended way.
To begin, I am not a fan of the game; in fact I have never played it. So the game fans who are only concerned with its "accuracy" to the game (which is, by definition, uninteresting film making) will get absolutely nothing from this review.
Beginning with the screenplay, "Silent Hill" is an ugly smattering of unconnected scenes with hardly any discernible plot or characterization. Despite attempts near the end to bring together the preceding into a coherent whole, the film really is a series of slightly varying sorts of chase scenes so much so that the entire film could be reduced to only 20 minutes in length. Those scenes aren't even original or interesting; in fact they are simply one cliché after another until it almost makes one sick. The characters follow much the same pattern--they are one-dimensional, weak clichés of the standard horror movie "mother with missing child," "husband with missing wife," and "troubled child." Overall, the script and story can only be described as pathetic.
Meanwhile, the acting, while not particularly impressive and quite hampered by the lack of characterization, is probably the best point of the film. The only actors who have even a slight (and they only have that) possibility for performance are Sean Bean and Radha Mitchell, who are adequate performers and do what they can, adding a bit to an otherwise truly pathetic film and saving it from deserving a 1 rating.
However, the aspect of the film that truly destroys it is the direction. Christophe Gans obviously did not fully think through the film before making his decisions, as evidenced by his opening, which immediately and heavy-handedly set up a world of diametric opposites and obvious morality. The film opens with (what Gans was intending to be) a frightening scene to set up the fear, and it is appropriately dark and menacing; however, what follows is a shockingly brightly colored scene (seemingly even without a normal "56" filter) showing the loving bond between a mother and child before the true horror suddenly begins. Then, the film does not really follow through with this obvious black and white sort of universe, instead attempting to subvert its own moral compass time and again and yet never adjusting its lighting scheme accordingly. Furthermore, the overly-quick, MTV-style editing and bouncing among useless extra camera angles is also nothing short of disgustingly annoying and serves to reduce the tension in the film's few attempts at said tension. Finally, Jeff Dana and Akira Yamaoka's score does not do the film any favors, switching back and forth between being wildly clichéd and wildly inappropriate.
Finally, no review of a film filled with this many special effects would be complete without a word on them: awful. First, the sheer amount of effects shots is way, way too high, to the point that the film is more like a cartoon than film. Second, the animation is often truly pathetic, as in the shot of the skyline of Silent Hill that resembles a bad matte painting and the awful field of plants around the mother and child in the beginning. No one should watch a film for special effects, but even for those of you who do, this film needs to be avoided.
All told, "Silent Hill" is not one of the worst films ever made, but it's close. The screenplay, direction, and score are all extraordinarily bad and the latter two are often inappropriate for the moods intended by the former. And as if those weren't enough, the pathetic characterization precludes any good acting and the CGI is unbelievably bad and so overdone that the film watches more like a badly drawn cartoon than a true film. Perhaps there are interesting tie-ins to the game that would make a fan of the game enjoy the film, but watching it as simply a film, it is truly pathetic and should be avoided by all, even those who enjoy bad horror films.
A History of Violence (2005)
A masterpiece
Now, first of all, do not go into the theater if you're offended by any amount of sex or violence. If any of that can offend you, this will, and you will probably be sorry, so just don't do it.
Secondly, for those of you who want nothing but sex and violence will likewise be disappointed--there is plenty of violence, but it is all rather brief and the sex certainly isn't explicit to the point of being worthy of pornography if that's what you want. Now, on to the actual review.
"A History of Violence" is largely an exploration on the effects of violence, as we see two cold-blooded killers quickly killed by a nice guy restaurant owner and watch how it affects his family and then a major plot twist takes us on to see even more violence and again how it affects everyone. Director David Cronenberg and screenwriter Josh Olson craft a film that seems to show the entire possible range of reactions to violence and even shows us different reactions to different types of violence. The effects of Tom Stall's self-defense slayings range from increased violence in the case of Jack, his son, to anger at Tom in the case of his wife, Edie, to a seemingly fearful response from Tom himself. And later, when more violence ensues, the effects are again the visible portion, ranging from sexual arousal to a need for atonement (more specifics are impossible without spoilers--though there admittedly isn't much plot, it has major twists that need to be hidden).
Necessarily, with so much focus being on the effects of violence, the acting is very important and in fact is extraordinary. Viggo Mortensen--another Cronenberg star fresh off of major action success (a la Peter Weller in "Naked Lunch" coming off of "Robocop")--may surprise many with how brilliantly he performs as he plays one of the deepest, most complex characters you're ever likely to see on film. He seemingly has to portray every possible emotion and does them all believably and with a wonderful restraint that fits the film perfectly. Maria Bello, meanwhile, also has a subtle, complex character and as usual performs brilliantly (Why do people always seem shocked that she's so good when she does it every time she's in a movie?), conveying all of the subtleties that her somewhat heavy-handedly metaphorical wardrobe skips. Ed Harris has a depressingly one-dimensional and rather dull character and thus does not have the opportunity to exercise his acting muscles, unfortunately, and William Hurt is much the same--though both are receiving great reviews, I think those have more to do with reputation than their performances, which are fine with what they have, but that's not much. Even Ashton Holmes performs quite well as Jack Stall, who is going to have to pay a lot of money to psychologists somewhere down the line after this much trauma.
Cronenberg's film is, not surprisingly, full of low-key lighting and beautiful cinematography, but his camera is perhaps surprisingly quiet. It seems that he's just going to let us watch what's going on rather than trying to tell us anything and that choice of a sort of directorial restraint is often very effective, and especially so here. He and editor Ronald Sanders also give the film an almost disturbingly slow pace except for the violent scenes, which are almost music video-like in their quick cutting and constant action and seem even more so for their presence next to so much slowness. As usual, Howard Shore's score is middling--it works but it certainly isn't Bernard Herrman or Peter Gabriel level.
All in all, this is a slow, disturbingly believable and excellent work showing the effects of violence. It's not for the squeamish or for the blood and guts crowd, really (hopefully Quentin Tarantino fans stay away--this is for those of us who weren't dumb enough to believe "Pulp Fiction" was an "intelligent" movie), but anyone who can handle it SHOULD watch it, because it is as brilliant a movie as I have ever seen, truly.
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
An amazing film that plays on itself perhaps more than any other film in history
I'm going to start this by saying that my review is mostly to prepare those of you who haven't seen the film, because going into it with the wrong mindset can lead to a complete misapprehension of the film and thus not seeing its true greatness. I'm sure some have approached it in what I'm calling the "wrong mindset" and enjoyed it, but I don't think it's likely for a person to do so. And of course anyone is free to do as he or she wishes with the film, so don't take my words as gospel, anyway.
David Mamet has crafted here a film that has truly very little plot and is very easy to see through at every step. However, that's part of the point. The film is an exploration of what it itself is and plays with the conventions of film in general and paranoid thrillers in particular to a hilarious extreme. This takes the form of aphoristic dialogue, obvious clues of future events, and of course the on-the-nose visual motifs that dominate Mamet's direction.
Steve Martin is absolutely brilliant in a type of role we've seen from him before and always played well (to explain it would be to give away a plot point) and Campbell Scott puts in a fine, subtle performance in the lead. None of the other actors is required to do much and does what he or she needs to do well. However, acting is just not much of the point of this film--it's all about the narrative.
Another important point of this film is that Mamet--known for his profane dialogue elsewhere--manages to make an entire film without swearing. Perhaps it was done to make a point ("See how stupid things sound when you don't swear?!") or perhaps it was done just because aphorisms, Shakespeare, Thoreau, and most of the other common sources of the dialogue simply swear little and thus Mamet sort of accidentally went without swearing (I doubt the latter, but it's possible). In either case, there is a purpose to the extremely unnatural dialogue (probably mostly because movies never have realistic dialogue, to be fair) and that is part of the humor of the entire experience.
So, all in all, David Mamet has crafted a surprising masterpiece, but it has to be approached in the right way. If you approach it expecting a true thriller, you're probably going to hate it because of its obviousness, the stilted dialogue, and its blatant rehashing of past films. However, if it is approached correctly as a real play on itself, "The Spanish Prisoner" is an absolutely hilarious film and one of the most intelligent pieces of comedy in history. If you're prepared rightly, it's worth the time, certainly.
Collateral (2004)
1/2 character drama + 1/2 action film = Engaging but messy film
"Collateral" isn't a bad film by any means, but it's a somewhat unfocused, messy film and that holds back a terribly interesting concept and some very good acting, keeping the film only a decent one. The opening of the film is very slow and drawn out, showing us that our hero (and make no mistake about it, Foxx is the star and hero) is a clean freak cab driver and something of a dreamer. However, despite the character development involved, this is perhaps the worst part of the film because it has little to do with the coming plot and it's extremely slow--several passages like this will follow, interrupting an interesting film that has some thrilling action bits as well as one fascinating character (Vincent, the contract killer, played by Tom Cruise) and a wonderful character arc for its protagonist as he, despite his fear of the other man, is affected positively by him.
The acting, needless to say, is excellent. Jamie Foxx has quickly become one of the most respected young actors in Hollywood and this film shows why, and it also reminds us of the talent Tom Cruise has--able to be cunning, frightening, professional, and above all charismatic. Many have forgotten that Cruise's first film role was an evil, crazed young military student in "Taps," but here we can again see how his unmatched charisma can be so effective in a "bad guy" role. To get back to Foxx, he has a difficult, varying role and manages to play every emotion from absolute fear to rage to annoyance perfectly.
Michael Mann's direction is strong, always keeping the focus where it needs to be--on the wonderful characters being acted so well--and keeps the entire film attractive. He also does a wonderful job of not going out of his way to draw our attention to small details that we do need to notice but still allowing us to see them. It's something like watching a stage play in that it's up to the viewer to pay attention and see these effects, which I always enjoy and which gives the film rewatchability (I think I may just have invented that word, but hopeful everyone can discern its intended meaning) on par with just about any film.
Overall, "Collateral" is a somewhat unfocused film that could have been absolutely fascinating and despite the mess still contains excellent acting and wonderful direction. It's certainly worth a watch but it's still a flawed screenplay that needed some quick reworking to make it work and let's face it--a bad screenplay can't make a good film.
Dark Water (2005)
If "The Ring 2" was "The Ring"-lite, this is "The Ring 2"-lite
Every horror film released now brings comparisons and contrasts with "The Ring," sensibly so since that film was the best horror film to appear in some time and it achieved remarkable success both with critics and with the public. "Dark Water" was able to capitalize on an actual relationship with the ring--the novel was written by the author of the novel on which "Ringu" was based and the Japanese film was directed by the same man who directed "Ringu," Hideo Nakata. However, odd as it feels to say something like this about the man who directed "Mouse Trap," Gore Verbinski is still a league or two above Walter Salles and with the release now of "The Ring 2," the story seems not just trite but copied. Alas, "Dark Water" disappoints despite its relationship to "The Ring," but in its disappointment it's still a step up from the type of slasher and zombie movies we've gotten used to.
The story, as I said, is rather tired and clichéd and seems to be largely repetitive of "The Ring 2." Meanwhile, the characters are also what we've grown to expect from horror films--the family is of course broken (Is there some sort of law that says that all films must now have broken families?) because of the father's perceived infidelities and he seems a decent enough person when we see him but we hear a lot from the mother telling us that he's not. As has become the norm following M. Night Shyamalan's lead, there are very few characters, and yet in this case they're not very well developed and a little heavy-handedly explained in Freudian terms. Rafael Yglesias has never been a huge fan of plot it seems (judging from the nearly plot less "Fearless" and only slightly plotted "From Hell"), but he usually has a flair for character, which didn't appear in this script.
The acting in this film may be the thing that really sets it apart from others. Jennifer Connelly, who has recently become one of the most critically respected actors around, performs excellently in the lead role, managing to provide a believability to a role that could very easily go over the top and portray a wide array of feelings and emotions powerfully. Meanwhile, John C. Reilly (who, along with Chris Cooper, seems to be a master of performing well in great films without anyone noticing) pulls off his rather simple role very well and Pete Postlethwaite, sporting yet another new accent, manages to be vaguely creepy and yet believable as the grumpy building manager--though his character never does quite seem adequately explained. Ariel Gade and Dougray Scott are less successful, especially in one of Scott's final scenes, but neither is terrible.
Walter Salles's direction does deserve some notice. He emphasizes the dank, dingy look of the apartment buildings both inside and out, keeping the film's atmosphere as murky as its title. The murky atmosphere is created so well that it carries the film for a while as we await what it is that's so creepy about what's happening--but then it never really happens. Salles also does deserve some credit for not repeating the green color of "The Ring" that many have since copied, but the truth is that his look is almost a throwback to older whodunnits, surrounding us with rain, thunder, lightning, and darkness. The dank, murky atmosphere does work, but the script isn't worthy of it and never lets it quite pay off, so Salles does deserve credit rather than blame for the film, though he didn't do anything too impressive.
The music in this film also deserves note. Salles steals away David Lynch's composer Angelo Badalamenti and he, as usual, provides us with wonderful music that ratchets up the film's tension to a new level. He always creates a sound that is somehow both familiar and unusual, most prominently displayed in his work on "Twin Peaks," and that makes his scoring work perfect for thrillers, especially those of a supernatural type, and he definitely doesn't disappoint here. As the film loses steam throughout, Badalamenti's score becomes increasingly the main purpose for remaining in the theater.
All told, "Dark Water" is a disappointing but still watchable film. It's more of a drama than a thriller, it's slow-paced, and the plot and characters are very trite and clichéd. Still, Walter Salles creates a nicely murky, dank atmosphere in his direction, Jennifer Connelly performs wonderfully, and Angelo Badalamenti provides a great score to make it watchable for its running time, though admittedly those elements aren't enough to make it worth a second watch. I would personally suggest watching "The Ring 2" instead since they are so similar and that film was stronger, including some magnificent moments and the always-wonderful Naomi Watts, but "Dark Water" isn't the train wreck many are calling it and is worthy of one viewing, as long as you're not too easily bored--in which case stay away from it.