Iro's One Movie a Day Thread [Archive] - Page 6

Iroquois

08-17-15, 02:48 AM

#512 - Fantastic Four
Josh Trank, 2015

http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w700-h350-q90-c700:350/wp-content/uploads/Fantastic-Four-2015-full-team.jpg

An experiment with inter-dimensional travel results in a handful of people developing a diverse array of superpowers.

The astoundingly negative hype that surrounded the latest attempt to bring the Fantastic Four to the silver screen meant that it pretty much demanded to be seen. It's not like me buying a ticket was going to stop it from being a tremendous flop, anyway - besides, I somehow have not managed to watch any of the previous Fantastic Four films anyway (apart from a fragment of the 2005 one, though what I saw wasn't particularly impressive). Whereas other heavily reviled superhero films were hated because they were horribly tone-deaf and lightweight films in general, the 2015 edition of Fantastic Four is a sign of how badly things go wrong when the tone goes in the opposite direction. Though audiences have generally responded well to films that treat superheroes seriously (the most prominent example being Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy), there have been instances where taking a serious tack hasn't always worked for the better. 2013's Man of Steel drew some criticism for taking a colourful and upstanding hero like Superman and subjecting him to the same dark sensibilities that defined Nolan's Batman films, which did not suit Superman as a character. While I admit that Man of Steel was still a somewhat tolerable film in spite of these shortcomings, I can offer no such concessions when it comes to this film's attempts to take the same approach.

As I mentioned in my review for Ant-Man, the origin stories in superhero movies generally tend to be a chore to sit through, especially when the characters have already been adapted to film at least once within recent memory. A major failing that many have found with Fantastic Four (and which I'm inclined to agree with) is that it spends far too much of its relatively brief running time building the origins of its heroes and villain. It starts with a lengthy prologue involving boy genius Reed Richards making a teleportation device in his garage with the help of his rough-edged but kind friend Ben Grimm, which seems more at home in a 1980s family adventure film than in a grim present-day superhero film. After that, the film seems to get going when teenaged Reed (Miles Teller) and Ben (Jamie Bell) are approached by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey) to bring their breakthrough technology to the research institute where he works. There, they are introduced to Dr. Storm's children, studious Sue (Kate Mara) and reckless Johnny (Michael B. Jordan) - as well as the ominously monikered Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), another tech genius with a serious chip on his shoulder. They all team together to create a giant version that's capable of transporting people to another dimension, but when a duplicitous executive (Tim Blake Nelson) reveals an ulterior motive for the technology, that's when most of the young cast decides to take a stand in the name of science...

Long story short, it takes half the film before the group receive their powers and a sufficiently world-ending threat only emerges in the last 30 minutes of the film. As such, the film is horribly paced; while a 150-minute running time would be no guarantee of quality, in that context taking 50 minutes to simply set up the cast of characters and the main conflicts makes some degree of sense. With this 100-minute film, it means that the sort of excitement and spectacle that are normally the main draw in even the weakest of superhero films are conspicuously absent for much of the running time. As if to add insult to injury, the indulges a lot of other annoying narrative clichés that aren't even any fun; once again, much of the conflict is driven by members of the military-industrial complex who want to weaponise not just the transporter but also the heroes' abilities. Even by the comparatively low standards of narrative complexity set by most superhero films, this comes across as especially uninspired and poorly executed to the point where the introduction of an actual supervillain can feel like something of an after-thought.

This lack of inspiration even extends to the characterisation being so flat that not even otherwise decent actors can pull it off. Good examples include Reed being the kind of genius who is constantly being belittled by disbelieving schoolteachers and co-workers or Ben being the good-hearted kid from the wrong side of the tracks with an abusive family (which opens up a whole other can of worms when you learn that "It's clobbering time!" apparently originates from Ben's physically violent older brother). The decision to cast African-American actors to play Johnny and his father may have drawn controversy in certain circles, but Jordan and Cathey (who were both on The Wire, which just damns this film even further) do considerably well considering the weakness of the material. The same applies to just about every other actor in the film, with the possible exception of Teller; though he has given sufficiently solid and complex performances in other films, he just seems seriously miscast as Reed, which comes across in his severe lack of chemistry with Bell as they must try to sell a strong friendship that comes under pressure but don't manage to do so for reasons that have nothing to do with Bell's being buried under a mountain of CGI and voice modulation.

Whether it's the depiction of the alternate-dimension planet that the explorers visit or the attempts to bring the Four's admittedly rather disturbing new changes to life, none of the effects work here feels egregiously awful so much as exceedingly average. There is the occasional moment of flair to take it above its rather low standard, but those are very occasional. There are attempts to reflect the actual body horror involved with the Four and also Dr. Doom himself, which does provide a potentially interesting dark side to these otherwise campy characters but ends up squandering said potential by skipping over most of it in order to chase a PG-13 rating. This same squandering is also true of the villain's telekinetic rampage through a military base, which mixes with my impressions of director Trank's earlier film Chronicle to make me think that he really wants to make a live-action version of Akira - and that's without getting into how superficially derivative the climax involving a massive blue beam of energy stretching into the sky looks.

Though reading up on the film's difficult production makes me wonder if there is a potentially redeeming director's cut on the horizon, as it currently stands Fantastic Four is an extremely difficult film to like even when you're willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Serviceable performers aren't given much of worth to do, what few attempts there are at creating thrilling action sequences do little to compensate for the incredibly dull first half, the attempt to build a story lacks creative spark and is ultimately undone by some remarkably poor narrative structuring...the list goes on. Just as Batman and Robin showcased the worst that "light" superhero movies had to offer, Fantastic Four is a pretty good example of how wrong a "dark" superhero movie can go. The two films differ in that Schumacher's garish goof-off can at least be somewhat enjoyed as an incredibly silly cinematic blunder, while Trank's sombre sojourn is such an inherently boring and joyless affair that it doesn't work even as an object of scornful amusement.

1

Iroquois

08-17-15, 03:07 AM

#513 - Stoker
Chan-wook Park, 2013

http://www.moviefancentral.com/images/pictures/review29390/matthewgoode-nicolekidman-miawasikowska-STOKER.jpg

A mysterious man moves in with his brother's widow and daughter.

It's amazing what I can be convinced to watch depending on the names attached. Though my only other experiences with Chan-wook Park's work are predictably limited to his thematically connected "Vengeance" trilogy, I was still rather intrigued by how he'd translate his disconcerting yet captivating directorial sensibilities to an English-language film. The trailer for Stoker did make it out to be a sufficiently unsettling work of psychological drama thanks to the uneasy situation that arises in the wake of a family man's accidental death; namely, that his wife (Nicole Kidman) and daughter (Mia Wasikowska) would then have to deal with the unnerving presence of his estranged brother (Matthew Goode). From there, the film starts to channel Hitchcock's classic Shadow of a Doubt as Wasikowska starts to realise that Goode is more than the polite yet eccentric man that he appears to be. This extends to him influencing other rituals of hers such as receiving birthday presents from her father or playing the piano.

Though Park does bring an interesting visual style to the film through some frantic editing and carefully constructed camerawork, it's not enough to compensate for how fundamentally lacklustre the script ends up being. The three leads do their best to elevate the material; Goode once again plays a dapper yet suspicious gentleman, Kidman plays a woman who is gracefully trying to return her situation to normal no matter how abnormal it gets, while Wasikowska arguably gets the most difficult part as she is alternately repelled and intrigued by Goode's character in addition to trying to navigate her own difficult coming of age. This extends to some complicated moments such as Goode's rather perverse fixation on her or the difficulties she encounters at the hands of the male students from her high school (especially when both these factors collide in one of the film's most memorable sequences). Just because the film is sporadically interesting does not make it an especially profound or thrilling drama; scenes are just as likely to be boring as tense, if not more so. It does ramp up towards the end, but that does little to redeem the film as a whole. Interesting visuals and twisty narratives may have served Park well in the past, but even in his hands Stoker feels like a misfire. The confusion over whether or not this film was set in the past or the present persisted well into the film, but that confusion ultimately becomes irrelevant in the face of yet another modern thriller that tries to make explicit what older writers and directors would've effectively left to a viewer's imagination.

2

Iroquois

08-18-15, 12:24 AM

#514 - Spring Breakers
Harmony Korine, 2012

http://www.characterink.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SpringBreakers_Outdoor_01.jpg

Four female college students go to Florida for spring break.

"The trouble with being avant-garde is knowing who's putting on who."
- Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes

That quote sums up the main quandary I have when I try to organise my thoughts about Spring Breakers. It's not like I'm much of a fan of Harmony Korine's films in the first place - he did little to endear me to his sensibilities with the trailer-trash slice-of-life that is Gummo or the incredibly dysfunctional family dramedy of Julien Donkey-Boy. On the surface, Spring Breakers looks like another of Korine's attempts to provide a portrait of a sub-culture without projecting any judgment in the form of explicit condemnation or satirisation. Of course, this results in it appearing to be exactly the kind of vapid celebration of mindless millennial hedonism (as evidenced by the opening montage of alcohol-fuelled nudity with Skrillex playing in the background) that is taken to an incredible extreme by its characters. After setting up its lead quartet of college-aged female students (Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine) and demonstrating their boredom with lectures and classes, the film then depicts three members of the group carrying out an armed robbery at a restaurant in order to acquire the funds necessary to head to spring break. After enough of a party-hearty montage has passed, the group are arrested for some reason and then bailed out by a gangsta rapper (James Franco) who decides to take them under his heavily tattooed wing for the remainder of spring break.

I probably would not have given this film a chance if not for certain sub-sections of cinema fans selling it as some kind of subversive masterpiece that will probably come to provide a definitive portrait of this generation in the same way that films like Rebel Without a Cause or Easy Rider came to define earlier youth cultures. To a certain extent, I can see how this would appear to be the case. The leads of Spring Breakers may be nigh-indistinguishable, but that seems to become irrelevant since the group tends to function as a singular unit that only starts to break down under the influence of Franco, whose access to lots of drugs and guns (plus his weirdly friendly demeanour) definitely makes him an alternately appealing and frightening figure. There's also the natural escalation of the women seeking greater and greater highs - when sex and drugs lose their thrill, where else do you go but to straight-up criminal behaviour such as robbery and murder? That's without taking into account the film's distinctive visual style, which seems to combine influences from both Nicholas Winding Refn and Terrence Malick as it mixes gaudy neon-soaked lighting with free-floating camerawork and ponderous narration. If nothing else, that at least makes the film worth watching as the interplay of different colours and the film's bizarre editing serve to make it distinctive in that regard and are inventive enough to make sure that I don't write off the film completely.

Of course, that doesn't stop the film being as boring and underwritten as hell. Gomez's character is the only one that gets anything remotely resembling an arc and any remotely sufficient definition as the brunette Christian girl who does want to escape her repressive lifestyle but still finds herself discomforted by the actions that her friends take throughout the film. The other three are pretty much interchangeable as they start to embrace not just spring break culture but also the exciting life of crime offered by Franco, whose turn as a rapper/gangster is not nearly as weird or charming as the film would have you think. Ironically, as the film develops more of a plot it seems to become even less engaging. Granted, you could make the case that Spring Breakers is no different to something like The Tree of Life or Drive in how it takes seemingly banal subject matter and grants it serious artistic merit through vivid cinematography, portentous dialogue and narration, unconventional editing choices, and so forth. Unfortunately, all the day-glo colour palettes, slow-motion montages, and free-associating voice-overs aren't enough to seriously redeem just how downright obnoxious the film ends up being. Boldness only goes so far, and even then it doesn't go even halfway towards making this film feel remotely worthwhile. Whether the film is satirising its insipid cast of characters or reveling in their increasingly illegal activities ends up being surprisingly irrelevant. I don't know whether or not expecting this to be a misunderstood gem makes that much of a difference, but I can't imagine it would be a positive one.

1

Iroquois

08-18-15, 12:28 AM

#515 - A Fish Called Wanda
Charles Crichton, 1988

http://www.heyuguys.com/images/2013/11/A-Fish-Called-Wanda-Chips.jpg

A team of thieves pull off a jewel heist but soon end up double-crossing one another or forming uneasy alliances in order to get their hands on the loot.

As a fan of both Monty Python and Fawlty Towers, it's amazing that it took me this long to watch John Cleese's third biggest contribution to comedy. Here, Cleese (who co-wrote the film with director Crichton) stars as a middle-aged English lawyer who becomes wrapped up in the aftermath of a massive jewel heist pulled off by four crooks of both English and American persuasions. An incredibly convoluted yet easy to follow series of developments result in one thief (Tom Georgeson) being arrested, but not before hiding the loot and trusting the key to another thief (Michael Palin), prompting the other two thieves (Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline) to do whatever it takes to recover the loot for themselves. To this end, Curtis tries to seduce the information out of several male characters (including Cleese's unhappily married family man) while Kline often ends up trying to outsmart or outfight every single opponent he encounters. Amidst all this, Cleese (and, to a lesser extent, Palin) must do their best to survive the crazy hijinks that they've been dragged into.

A Fish Called Wanda blends several different types of comedy together and manages to guarantee a constant stream of humour throughout the film. The main ensemble of characters is very well-developed. Cleese naturally channels the same sort of overly cultured and pompous twit that made him a sitcom legend yet with slightly more sympathy. Palin also gets to play a rather Pythonesque character as the perpetually stuttering and put-upon chew-toy of the group whose friendliness towards animals is constantly challenged by the increasingly absurd circumstances he finds himself in (such as being forced to murder a potential witness). Curtis may be somewhat limited as she plays a somewhat standard femme fatale whose own arc is basically tied to her bouncing between the other male characters out of both self-serving greed and genuinely wavering affection, but she sells it reasonably well. Of course, anyone who watches this film will come away remembering Kline above all else. By playing an extremely eccentric and pseudo-intellectual criminal with delusions of grandeur and some very peculiar mannerisms (to say nothing of his constant consternation with English customs in general), he effortlessly steals the show as he provides a non-stop barrage of verbal and physical jokes that understandably won him an Oscar.

The comedy is dark and sociopathic without ever crossing the wrong lines - if anything, it gets to the point where any seemingly genuine sense of sentimentality (such as the sincerely romantic relationship that develops between the very unlikely pairing of Cleese and Curtis) threatens to drag the film down. Of course, it moves along at a very brisk pace to keep up with its complex screwball plotting and relentless jokes. It's paced well enough that it never becomes too incoherent or difficult to follow. Though there are plenty of things that threaten to date the film severely, such as the background score that's full of peppy synthesisers and squealing guitars, for the most part A Fish Called Wanda still has enough staying power to guarantee some gut-busting laughs. It manages to mix up its comedy with a deft hand and has some excellent performers on hand to deliver the material with as much gleefully bizarre gusto as possible. Consider this highly recommended.

4

Iroquois

08-18-15, 12:34 AM

#516 - Shampoo
Hal Ashby, 1975

http://www.movieactors.com/photos/warren-shampoo-04.jpg

During the 1968 Presidential election, a womanising male hairdresser is made to deal with his errant ways when he becomes attracted to a potential business partner's girlfriend.

This film has a considerable pedigree to it. It's directed by Hal Ashby, whose other films have been ones that I've liked to various degrees, plus it features the impressive screen pairing of Warren Beatty and Julie Christie, whose on-screen chemistry was one of many things that contributed to McCabe and Mrs. Miller becoming one of my favourite movies. Despite this, I found Shampoo to be rather underwhelming. It takes place over the course of roughly 24 hours surrounding the 1968 Presidential election and is largely filtered through the viewpoint of a hairdresser (Beatty) who has multiple casual relationships on the go as a result of his profession. Even so, he is still looking for something more as he tries to go into business for himself, which leads to him trying to team up with an unsuspecting businessman (Jack Warden) whose wife (Lee Grant) is one of his lovers. This gets complicated when it turns out that Warden's mistress (Christie) is an ex-girlfriend.

Though the other Ashby films that I've seen demonstrate a considerable ability to balance comedy with drama, that same quality doesn't translate all that well when it comes to Shampoo. Being set in the not-too-distant past allows it to function as a low-key satire about the hippie movement and sly commentary on the Nixon administration, even if it is just window-dressing for Beatty's story where his plans for the future are undone by his incredibly rash present-day decisions. I'm not sure if the brief window of time between the film's setting and production means that its invoking of dissonant values is meant to be deliberate or not (such as straight characters casually throwing around homophobic slurs, especially when it relates to them calling Beatty and his profession into question). Despite me mentioning the chemistry between Beatty and Christie, it doesn't really seem to be on display here due to the pair being caught in the midst of a rather belligerent dynamic, to say nothing of the inclusion of Goldie Hawn as Beatty's current girlfriend who has dreams of her own. The era-appropriate soundtrack choices are good ones and there's a generally good competence to the film's technical side, but the main plot is generally passable at best, no matter if it's trying for comedy or drama or both. There is the odd good moment (that ending is really something), but I generally find myself feeling indifferent to what is the first (and hopefully last) Ashby film that didn't impress me.

2.5

gbgoodies

08-18-15, 12:38 AM

Great review of A Fish Called Wanda. :up:

I've never been a fan of Monty Python, but A Fish Called Wanda is one of my favorite comedies.

Iroquois

08-18-15, 12:39 AM

#517 - The Way of the Dragon
Bruce Lee, 1972

http://pmd205465tn.download.theplatform.com.edgesuite.net/Miramax/325/990/k1NjdrYTpwDQTQBt1uHrzZ_PEhpIDtoI_640x360_54026819744.jpg

A young man travels from Hong Kong to Rome in order to help protect a Chinese restaurant from local gangsters.

Bruce Lee is of course a legend in the realm of martial arts and his films usually serve as evidence of just how much of a well-oiled fighting machine he can be with little depth beyond that. The Way of the Dragon does come across as a generally rough film as a result, with its plot depositing Lee's character in Rome under the pretense of helping out with running a Chinese restaurant. As such, the first third of the film plays out like a fish-out-of-water comedy as Lee must adapt to unusual Italian customs (including being unexpectedly seduced by a local woman) and thus it takes a while for the actual fighting to start. The fighting comes about as Lee stumbles into the midst of a conflict where the restaurant's staff are being shaken down by a local mob. With Lee naturally being extremely skilled at fighting, his arrival becomes the turning point in this turf war as he inspires the restaurant staff to fight back against the mob, who then resort to outsourcing to foreign martial artists in order to counter him.

One of the main reasons that I never quite loved watching Lee movies is that the man's prowess, despite being impressive to witness, comes at the expense of the rest of the film. The rather comedic nature of the film's conflict and non-action scenes are rather bare-bones and not all that humourous to watch, making the film feel awfully padded as a result. Of course, it's sufficiently compensated for by the action. All the hallmarks of classic 1970s martial arts are here - the grainy cinematography full of crash-zooms and gliding dolly shots, the chintzy background score, etc. - and Lee always makes for a magnetic presence. The film may take a while to get going, but when it does it's definitely worth watching, especially when the mob gets desperate and starts hiring other martial artists to take on Lee. This provides the film with its most memorable moment, when Lee fights none other than Chuck Norris (whose role as an all-American villain is naturally given a guitar-twanging leitmotif similar to the one that accompanied Henry Fonda's character in Once Upon a Time in the West) within the ruins of the Colosseum. The resulting scene lasts about ten minutes and is definitely enough to sway one's opinion of the film from middling to good. The Way of the Dragon isn't that much of a classic, but it's got just enough good moments to not feel like a waste of time.

3

Miss Vicky

08-18-15, 12:39 AM

I tried watching A Fish Called Wanda not long ago. Ended up shutting if off after like 20 minutes.
I liked Springbreakers and have been meaning to rewatch it.

Iroquois

08-18-15, 12:47 AM

#518 - The Last Dragon
Michael Schultz, 1985

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6Z5DdJQ1-c0/maxresdefault.jpg

A young African-American who is training to become a master of martial arts is forced to go up against both an evil white record producer and a villainous gang leader.

The Last Dragon definitely had the potential to be fun. It notably arrived before Big Trouble in Little China wove a bona fide cult classic out of the blending of kung-fu fantasy with typical Hollywood action tropes. The difference is obvious thanks to the fact that the film was produced by Motown mogul Berry Gordy, and so The Last Dragon introduces kung-fu elements to mid-1980s Harlem and soaks the whole thing in an extremely ephemeral MTV aesthetic. It introduces our young hero (Taimak), who is on the way to becoming a martial-arts master when his actions raise the ire of two very different villains. On the one hand, there is the extremely outsized and brilliantly named Shonuff (Julius Carey), the leader of a local kung-fu gang who swears vengeance against Taimak for perceived slights; on the other hand, there is the middle-aged white record producer (Christopher Murney) whose evil plan extends to him trying to kidnap the host (Vanity) of a popular music video show in order to get the videos he produces played on air. Yes, really. The plot then becomes an excuse for Taimak to hone his abilities by fighting off some incredibly tough enemies.

I can definitely grant that the makers' hearts are in the right place as they attempt to do right by their influences. The most obvious target of homages is none other than Bruce Lee, whether it's something as big as a scene taking place in a crowded movie theatre that's screening Enter the Dragon or something as small as Taimak wearing the iconic black-and-yellow jumpsuit from Game of Death, which are all nice touches due to how sincere they feel. To this end, it's also amusing that the true villain of the piece ends up being a white man who can't grasp why nobody will buy into his incredibly hollow attempts to create hit music videos. Some of the humour doesn't fly quite so well, such as the trio of Asian characters who act out a number of black stereotypes in direct contrast to Taimak, even going so far as to mock his appreciation of Asian culture by speaking to him in exaggerated Chinese accents. The same clunkiness extends to Taimak's extremely annoying kid brother. If anything, it says a lot that the normally ancillary and clichéd romantic sub-plot still feels oddly sincere in a film that is built upon comical levels of artifice.

As far as the actual action goes...well, it leaves a little to be desired. The dedication to name-checking Bruce Lee and his abilities (as well as my decision to watch this immediately after seeing The Way of the Dragon) may be a reverent decision, but it also means that any actual action gets shown up pretty severely. The nun-chucks come out, enemies attack the hero one at a time, etc. A major problem seems to be the film's gaudy aesthetic. What made Lee's fighting great was how it was captured fairly simplistically and was always the focus of a viewer's attention. As a result, the attempt to graft on extra touches becomes something of a hindrance; fight scenes become rather muddled due to the presence of too many players fighting it out against some incredibly garish backdrops while some generally mediocre funk songs play in the background (though, to be fair, the main theme is a pretty decent song). The clashing of styles only serves to undercut the film so much so that I can barely remember whether or not any of the fighting was actually any good. As it is, I do reckon that The Last Dragon deserves credit for trying to combine two disparate cinematic worlds into one memorably entertaining movie, but such a bold move only pays off so much. The sheer '80s weirdness ends up leaving an impression that vastly overshadows the actual performance of martial arts, which is definitely a detriment to a film that wants to pay reverent homage to classic martial arts films.

2

Iroquois

08-18-15, 12:48 AM

I tried watching A Fish Called Wanda not long ago. Ended up shutting if off after like 20 minutes.
I liked Springbreakers and have been meaning to rewatch it.

https://vhistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/a-fish-called-wanda-tape-1306.jpg?w=620

Iroquois

08-18-15, 01:27 AM

#519 - Dead Leaves
Hiroyuki Imaishi, 2004

http://cdn.eventfinda.com.au/uploads/events/transformed/401718-161203-34.png

A pair of amnesiac criminals are arrested after committing a crime spree and sentenced to a maximum-security prison colony located in the remains of the moon.

It is clear from the outset that Dead Leaves is not remotely bound to the sort of slick, measured professionalism that frequently characterises animé at its best. From the outset, the roughness of character and prop designs becomes apparent when you can actually glimpse them amidst the extremely high-speed stream of cuts, comic-book frames, and visible sound effects cluttering the screen. This applies in terms of both style and substance, which quickly becomes clear when the film starts off by throwing the audience straight into a high-speed car chase featuring the leads trying to escape from the police. The story is also as thin as they come - after the chase ends, the two leads are captured and imprisoned in "Dead Leaves", a prison complex where inmates are restricted to being cocooned in full-body strait-jackets that only allow them to eat and excrete (both by force - don't ask). Eventually, the leads manage to orchestrate a prison break through methods that probably don't bear repeating for a number of reasons and before long they and the other inmates team up to riot against the insane warden and her super-powered lieutenants.

In addition to being an extremely quick and barely coherent action movie, Dead Leaves is also a blackly comic slice of science-fiction. Those expecting anything remotely tasteful are advised to look elsewhere; the fact that a supporting character's penis is actually a gigantic drill that's roughly the same size as the rest of his body should definitely be enough of a warning (and that's before you see it get used...) I can at least sort of respect the fact that the film goes all-out in making sure that every second of its relatively short running time (it clocks in at a mere 55 minutes) is throwing something shocking or thrilling at the screen. Despite the anarchic energy on display, it is very easy to get bored by Dead Leaves, perhaps more so than it is to get disgusted (and trust me, it is quite the disgusting movie). Even after taking into account the combination of the leads' amnesia and the rather unpleasant conditions of Dead Leaves, you barely feel any sympathy for the leads as they start fighting their way through the prison and start learning their true identities (thanks in no small part to the film stopping dead so that a doctor can deliver a massive dumping of exposition) and only remain sympathetic because the main trio of enemies are gratuitously sadistic monsters that are unquestionably worse (if not by much). The deliberately disorienting and weirdly creative visual style is a point in the film's favour that definitely makes it a somewhat memorable experience - however, the appeal is limited thanks to some of the more graphically offensive scenes on offer and how one eventually grows numb to the chaos unfolding on screen. If unadulterated high-speed cartoon hjinks sound like your thing, then go for it, otherwise I can't really see myself watching this more than once or seriously recommending it.

2.5

Iroquois

08-18-15, 11:15 PM

#520 - Woman in the Dunes
Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1964

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-URicsleBDus/UuN2fHpdpMI/AAAAAAAAM5c/UMdwcj0JNbU/s1600/wd09.png

A teacher goes on holiday to the beach and ends up being stranded in a ramshackle house.

I had generally liked The Face of Another and its unorthodox take on science-fiction, so of course I had some high expectations for viewing the film that seems to be widely considered Teshigahara's masterpiece, Woman in the Dunes. I managed to go in while knowing very little about it - it marked another collaboration with The Face of Another scribe Kobo Abe, was about two-and-a-half hours long, and was apparently about a woman...and some dunes. As a result, I'm not sure if I want to go into too much detail about the plot because it was genuinely such a consistently surprising film throughout its considerable running time. It's interesting considering the seemingly superficial premise - namely, that of a city-dwelling teacher (Eiji Okada) who is on leave and visiting a remote beach area to work on his bug-catching hobby. When he ends up missing the last bus of the day, the locals encourage him to bed down in a small hut that is occupied by a solitary woman (Kyoko Kishida) and is also surrounded on all sides by extremely steep dunes. Okada thinks nothing of this at first, but soon realises that he is effectively trapped in this sand pit and made to live and work alongside the woman in order to provide his captors with sand for an illegal cement-mixing operation. Of course, he plans to escape, but complications soon arise...

Due to not having gotten much sleep the night before, I frequently found myself in danger of falling asleep during Woman in the Dunes. This is not supposed to be a dig against the film, but you should definitely be prepared for a film that does take its time to expand upon its fairly simple premise. The external action naturally involves Okada trying to escape his situation by any means necessary, and while those sequences are fairly suspenseful to watch they don't exactly feel like the main focus of the film. Instead, the film focuses on not just his uneasy relationship to Kishida (who is morosely accepting of this incredibly cruel situation) but also how this bizarre imprisonment starts to warp him as more and more time wears on. The film-making style is subdued yet effective, with what little music there is being appropriately tense and atonal and the cinematography working to capture detail and nuance than vibrancy and flair. That being said, I did find it distracting how the area surrounding the house is framed in such a way that you could not actually see the other side of the area and initially made me wonder why Okada couldn't just swim away or try scaling the other side of the pit. That's a minor nit-pick within the greater context of this film (if not a subtle metaphor of its own that suggests a serious short-sightedness on Okada's part) as Woman in the Dunes crafts a reasonably compelling tale of imprisonment and the associated psychological trauma. Long stretches of introspection and solemn dialogues are punctuated by escape attempts and the occasional external development. Doesn't quite live up to the impossibly high reputation that it has, but it's still very good.

4

Iroquois

08-20-15, 03:47 AM

#521 - The Dead Zone
David Cronenberg, 1983

http://www.brutalashell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TheDeadZone-Walken.png

After a car accident puts him in a coma for five years, a teacher wakes up to find that he has psychic powers that work when he touches other people.

It says a lot about how twisted Cronenberg's prior films had been that it would take him adapting a Stephen King novel in order to become more accessible. The story finds an appropriately off-kilter lead in Christopher Walken, whose gaunt appearance and piercing stare makes him the ideal person to play a character who is troubled by psychic visions. He is definitely good enough to carry a film that doesn't quite seem sure about where it wants to go after the first act. It then ends up pursuing two very distinctive storylines - one involves a local sheriff (Tom Skerritt) asking him for help in catching a serial killer, while another involves Walken crossing paths with an extremely disagreeable politician (Martin Sheen) who has his eye on not just becoming a senator but eventually running for President. Amidst these rather episodic developments (which do go some way towards explaining why this was turned into a TV show so easily), he tries to rebuild his old life as best he can, whether by returning to teaching or by attempting to reconnect with an old girlfriend (Brooke Adams) who has since married someone else.

In addition to Walken's typically engaging screen presence, the cast is generally decent - Herbert Lom is good as the doctor who guides Walken through his paranormal development, while Sheen in particular delivers an interesting performance as a rising politician whose problematic politics and coarse mannerisms are a far cry from his iconic role as a more benevolent politician on The West Wing. Cronenberg's work behind the camera is naturally clinical in a way that does not distract from the erratic nature of King's story, showing lightning-quick flashes of the past and future without being disorienting in the process. It does tread into some interesting areas as Walken struggles with the responsibility that comes with his power, which is frequently challenged in situations both great and small. Even so, it does seem a little inconsistent in its treatment of Walken's power as he conveniently manages to avoid reading the futures of certain characters that he happens to touch. This being a combination of Cronenberg and King, it's no surprise that things get a little gory, occasionally in ways that come across as absurd (such as one character's rather...impractical method of committing suicide). I came to it after not only watching a couple of episodes of the Anthony Michael Hall-starring TV adaptation, but also after the Saturday Night Live parody starring Walken himself. Both of those are arguably factors that may have had a diminishing effect on this film; even so it's still a decent bit of work, if relatively lacking in creativity and shock value for a Cronenberg film.

3

Iroquois

08-20-15, 03:55 AM

#522 - Gangster No. 1
Paul McGuigan, 2000

http://ilarge.lisimg.com/image/7383857/968full-gangster-no.-1-screenshot.jpg

An ageing London gangster reminisces about his rise to power in the late 1960s.

Genre pastiche is great when it's done right, but when it's not...results may vary. Gangster No. 1 definitely feels less like its own movie than a series of homages and references to many other crime movies, which is definitely a problem that was endemic to the genre following the release of Pulp Fiction. It starts off somewhat promisingly by introducing us to our nameless protagonist (Malcolm McDowell). McDowell, whose uniquely nasal delivery gave modern cinema one of its most iconic narrations in A Clockwork Orange, at least manages to bring a similar gravitas to this rather mediocre film as he snarls his way through the tale of his younger self (Paul Bettany) entering London's criminal underworld in 1968 under the tutelage of a renowned gangster (David Thewlis). What follows is a fairly standard gangster tale as the protagonist makes his rise to power that involves a lot of the usual tropes - twisted love triangle with the boss's girlfriend (Saffron Burrows), brewing turf war with a rival gangster (Jamie Foreman), increasingly brutal acts of violence that are for reasons both personal and business-related, etc.

The problem isn't just that Gangster No. 1 is derivative, it's that it's derivative in a fairly boring way. I generally don't mind picking up the similarities to earlier works, but I do mind if that's the only thing that defines the film. Goodfellas would be the most obvious influence upon this film with the bulk of the film being a narration-heavy '60s flashback; even more egregious are developments such as the boss-moll-soldier dynamic from Scarface, the inner monologue with a different voice from Mean Streets, and the entire third act suddenly turning the film into Once Upon a Time in America. This latter homage is especially distracting considering how every character is aged up by 30 years save for Bettany, who is replaced with McDowell instead. I guess the film-makers really wanted that voice-over. This doesn't automatically make the film completely bad, but it definitely feels too uninspired to be even remotely classic. It doesn't try anything particularly daring in terms of its execution and the story doesn't have a lot in the way of interesting twists. It's carried by some fairly decent actors even as they play some generally rote characters. Having the main character be a deliberately blank slate is quite the tightrope act and what few pieces of character development he receives only serve to leave him unbalanced. The occasional lapses into heavily stylised shots (especially in certain flash-forwards) do little to infuse the film with much energy. I remember when I first saw Gangster No. 1 on video store shelves many years ago and thought that it looked like quite the awesome movie. Now that I've finally gotten around to watching it, I'm sad to see that that's not the case.

2

Iroquois

08-20-15, 04:03 AM

#523 - Fist of Fury
Lo Wei, 1972

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28300000/Fist-of-Fury-bruce-lee-28365470-1600-680.jpg

When a Chinese martial artist returns to Shanghai and finds his old teacher has died under suspicious circumstances, he swears revenge on the school of Japanese fighters that were responsible.

Given how much of your typical Bruce Lee film is built on the visual spectacle of seeing the man himself carry out all manner of effortless devastation upon his unfortunate enemies, it doesn't seem like they would hold up all that well to repeat viewings beyond the actual action. Fist of Fury does reasonably well by building a more slightly more complex tale than that of The Way of the Dragon. Here, Lee's typically tough-as-nails protagonist ends up in the midst of a more historical conflict in early 20th-century Shanghai, with the main enemies being the students at a Japanese dojo who exist merely to antagonise the staff and students of a Chinese school. A plot forms around Lee being the only person to truly recognise the depth of the Japanese characters' conspiracy, though his actions naturally form an extra conflict as his attempts to seek vengeance for his master cause serious consequences for the school's inhabitants, to say nothing of the increasing difficulty it poses for his intention to marry his fiancée.

While the plot of Fist of Fury does add a considerably solid subtext to the proceedings, it also serves as a decent excuse to see Lee use his skills on a whole other type of opponent. Having the bulk of his opponents be Japanese does make for interesting cross-cultural combat, especially when he has to fight off katana-wielding enemies using a pair of nun-chucks (and yes, that is as awesome as it sounds). It does add some moral complexity as his vengeful rampage causes considerable problems for the people he cares about (and it creates the odd good scene, such as his conflicted cemetery confrontation with his fiancée), but that's not why we're here. The action is pretty good, whether he's fighting a whole crowd of students or going one-on-one against a more formidable opponent. It's good enough to be worth a second viewing, so if you've never seen this before and are looking to check out more of Lee's work that isn't Enter the Dragon, this is as good a place to start as any. At the very least, its plot won't drag and make you cringe in the same way that The Way of the Dragon probably will.

3.5

Iroquois

08-20-15, 04:43 AM

#524 - Black Robe
Bruce Beresford, 1991

http://www.freeimgshost.com/fullsize/0kp4e448ddpfj9anjob.png

In 17th-century North America, a pair of French colonists - one a Jesuit priest, the other not - travel from one mission to another along with members of the Algonquin tribe.

Wait, the Iroquois are the bad guys in this? Zero popcorn boxes.

But seriously, Black Robe is a rather impressive follow-up to Beresford's renowned Oscar-winner Driving Miss Daisy that takes a very different tack to that rather average film. It offers an interesting take on the explorer narrative because it builds a story around the many differences between the various Native American tribes and the French settlers that colonised Quebec in the early-1600s. The plot of the film involves a simple supply run from one French outpost to another. To this end, members of the Algonquin tribe are employed to accompany the two Frenchmen assigned to carry out the mission. The two Frenchmen are completely different - one (Lothaire Bluteau) is a Jesuit priest who seeks to convert the Native population to Christianity, while the other (Aden Young) is a non-religious settler whose attitudes simultaneously endear him to the Natives while causing conflict with Bluteau. As a result, the Algonquin members of the mission have difficulty trusting Bluteau (who they refer to as "Blackrobe", hence the title) due to his pious nature ironically causing them to think of him as a demon, which causes trouble for them along the path.

The technical skill on offer is solid and I do have to appreciate the respect to which it shows the Native tribes involved, though I do question how compelling it stays over the course of its narrative. The two leads of Bluteau and Young set up an interesting dichotomy in regards to the balance of personal faith against respect of the natives; this applies reasonably well to the plot where the Algonquin people have their doubts about Bluteau wish to abandon their mission (with the exception of August Schellenberg's leader and his relatives). It does ultimately feel like the inclusion of the Iroquois natives as unambiguously evil characters is an awfully convenient choice to propel the narrative along, even though it makes sense that some tribes would be more violently resistant to Western influence than others. That being said, it is enough to shake up a narrative that does start to feel a little thin after a while and there is enough resonance to its themes of faith to properly justify it. As a result, Black Robe is a decent enough historical drama that doesn't overstay its welcome and offers some interesting moments, as well as some beautiful location photography of the American wilderness.

3

Iroquois

08-20-15, 05:58 AM

#525 - Constantine
Francis Lawrence, 2005

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/constantine/38.jpg

A professional exorcist and demon hunter must team up with a detective who is investigating her twin sister's apparent suicide.

Constantine does have a bit of a troublesome reputation due to its translating the eponymous anti-hero from his native Britain to Los Angeles and having him be played by Keanu Reeves (who does play quite heavily towards the unfortunate stereotype of him being an extremely wooden action hero). The fact that I was willing to look past said reputation and watch the film anyway is probably a sign of how much faith I had in the source material; after all, I do like to give the odd paranormal action/horror film a chance. Constantine does manage to somewhat decent as it follows Reeves through his everyday missions to keep the minions of hell under control (complete with Shia LaBeouf of all people as his comic relief sidekick, who mainly exists to drive him places), and the main plot involving the mythical Spear of Destiny (the artifact used to kill Christ himself at his crucifixion). To this end, he joins forces with a detective (Rachel Weisz), whose twin sister has committed suicide in such a way that it ultimately ties into the potentially apocalyptic main plot.

I do give Constantine credit for some things. Reeves does look somewhat badass as he manages to dispatch hordes of supernatural assailants using all sorts of faith-based weapons. The acting is pretty woeful across the board - Reeves and LaBeouf play to their most unfortunate acting stereotypes, while Weisz does feel rather bland despite her character being the one who is supposed to carry the story. The blandness even spreads to more distinctive character actors like Tilda Swinton or Peter Stormare. For a mid-2000s comic book movie, the effects do alternate between the effective (such as Constantine fighting a swarm of hellish insects, which looks better than any killer bug fight has any right to) and the not-so-effective (such as most of the minions of hell, which feel like slightly less human versions of the monsters from Lawrence's follow-up film I Am Legend). They do help to carry a film that often feels incoherent and full of barely-connected plot threads. I'm not even sure I could even provide a detailed summary of the film's events without referring to the Wikipedia page. Whether that reflects more poorly upon the film or me is extremely debatable. In any case, Constantine does have fairly watchable action-horror sequences but it's still a pretty hollow and inconsequential film despite its rather inventive supernatural premise. It's got just enough good bits to save it from being a true object of scorn, but there's just too many flaws to make the whole thing worthwhile.

2

Iroquois

08-20-15, 05:59 AM

#526 - It's Such A Beautiful Day
Don Hertzfeldt, 2012

https://thegeekoutlet.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/tumblr_mjq24p2euz1qztvpwo1_500.gif

A compilation of three short films that all focus on Bill, a seemingly normal everyman whose typical malaise over the mundanity of everyday life is exacerbated when he has a serious health scare.

Review here (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1303420-its-such-a-beautiful-day.html).

4.5

ash_is_the_gal

08-20-15, 09:49 AM

Wolfsbane

08-20-15, 11:01 PM

I like Constantine. Excellent portrayal of the Devil in my opinion.

Iroquois

08-20-15, 11:58 PM

i felt pretty much the same way about Spring Breakers. my ex wanted me to watch it with him because it was ohmahgawd sew amayzing but i was bored out of my mind and spent most of the film watching the clock.

Tell me about it. I had been hearing similar opinions from people who believed that it really was some sort of transcendent arthouse masterpiece that went beyond being something as tiresome and predictable as a straightforward satire, so of course I was at least somewhat intrigued. As I've noted elsewhere, I think having high expectations of this film ends up being even worse for it than low expectations as the whole thing really is a chore to sit through for the most part for reasons that are presumably intentional.

I like Constantine. Excellent portrayal of the Devil in my opinion.

I don't dispute that, too bad he doesn't show up until the last 20 minutes or so.

Iroquois

08-22-15, 03:04 AM

#527 - Adaptation
Spike Jonze, 2002

https://kalafudra.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/adaptation-6.jpg

A neurotic screenwriter struggles with his latest project, which is an adaptation of a non-fiction book about a rogue horticulturist.

For the creative team of director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, following up their highly acclaimed initial collaboration Being John Malkovich wasn't going to be easy. Fortunately, the struggle to produce something just as fresh and inventive as that bizarre little fantasy film ended up being the ideal inspiration for a follow-up film, though it is one that tests the audience's tolerance for suspension of disbelief and authorial self-indulgence. The film follows screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (played in-universe by Nicolas Cage) as he gets to work on his follow-up to Being John Malkovich, which is an adaptation of the non-fiction book The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean (played in-universe by Meryl Streep). The book covers Orlean's investigation of a white horticulturist (Chris Cooper) whose legal troubles over obtaining rare and environmentally protected orchids form the basis for Orlean's book as she follows him around and observes his process. The incredibly self-conscious Charlie hits writer's block as he works to figure out how to work Orlean's interesting but fairly straightforward and anti-climatic book into a captivating yet sufficiently unconventional screenplay. His difficult situation is only exacerbated by the presence of his happy-go-lucky twin brother Donald (Cage again), who is Charlie's opposite in just about everything except physical appearance. This is especially true of Donald's own forays into screenwriting, which are trite, nonsensical, and naturally received much more warmly than Charlie's more challenging and complex work.

Adaptation does feature a lot of the usual hand-biting humour that accompanies virtually every film associated with Hollywood culture, but that well-trod ground isn't given as much priority as Kaufman's own self-deprecating depiction of not only his writer's block but also his day-to-day existence. This extends to a very unflattering self-portrait where Charlie is constantly obsessing over his personal flaws and making virtually every instance of him talking to other people extremely awkward (especially when it comes to women that he finds attractive). Cage not only sells Charlie's nervousness very well, but he also manages to play the incredibly excitable and silly Donald to the hilt as well. This role could have been extremely annoying (which is arguably the intention, at least initially) but Cage channels his usual manic energy into this character and makes him oddly charming even as he spouts all kinds of tiresome think-positive platitudes, resulting in what might possibly be Cage's greatest performance. Streep brings a cultured dignity to her role as a New Yorker journalist, which makes for a great balance against Cooper's Oscar-winning turn as the colourful, fast-talking Orchid Thief himself. The rest of the film is peppered with some decent enough characters played by recognisable faces; the most memorable one is definitely Brian Cox as screenwriting lecturer Robert McKee, who manages to make the most of his brief amount of screen-time with an expletive-laden rant about the point of writing. (Side-note: I did a course on screenwriting several years ago - during one session, the lecturer actually screened the scene in question in a self-reflexive act that would definitely be in keeping with the film's tongue-in-cheek attitude.)

On a technical level, Jonze brings his usual quasi-experimental style to the proceedings in order to lend some impressive illumination to Charlie's muddled attempts at writing and also the story himself. Fast cuts, stock footage, and of course trick photography are all employed to not only tell the story of The Orchid Thief but also Charlie's own story, especially when the two divergent plots eventually start to intertwine as his writing process starts to seriously break down under mounting pressure. The third act...well, without giving too much away it is ultimately designed to break away from the standards set by the first two acts, but whether or not the conscious decision to do so actually benefits the film or damages it will probably vary from viewer to viewer. At the very least, while I can accept why it had to happen and the fact that even I can't think of how the film should have ended, there's still something about it that doesn't work all that well. Even so, that's a minor complaint against a very quirky little film that does a great job of illustrating the mind-bending problems that can come with translating one artwork into another. The performances are great and work off a good script, which is all shot through with a largely unobtrusive music-video style. I may be due for re-watches of Being John Malkovich and Where the Wild Things Are, but until then I'm more than happy to cite Adaptation as my favourite Jonze film. I'm not sure if it's my favourite Kaufman script (again, more re-watches are in order), but I like that it offers a fairly fresh spin on what could have been another tiresome Hollywood satire.

4

Iroquois

08-22-15, 03:22 AM

#528 - Her
Spike Jonze, 2013

http://www.readthespirit.com/visual-parables/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/01/WithComp.jpg

A recently-separated man starts to bond with an artifically intelligent computer operating system with a female voice.

After having re-watched Adaptation, I then decided to make a little Spike Jonze double-bill by re-watching Her. This resulted in me going from watching an indie film about an extremely neurotic writer facing an existential crisis that was only exacerbated by his inability to relate to women to watching an indie film about an extremely neurotic wri-

Hey, wait a second...

But seriously, Her does have a somewhat interesting premise that intertwines science-fiction with romantic dramedy. In the not-too-distant future (Next Sunday A.D.), there's a guy named Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) who is not too different from you or me. He's got his own set of problems - he's recently separated from his wife (Rooney Mara), he's working a fundamentally creative yet uninspiring job where he is commissioned to write love letters between couples he's never met, and he constantly struggles to relieve his own loneliness (as evidenced by a blackly comical early scene where he has anonymous phone sex). Soon enough, he buys a brand-new computer operating system that features actual artificial intelligence. The A.I. (voiced by Scarlett Johansson) chooses the name Samantha, which eventually prompts Theodore to start thinking of the constantly-expanding relationship with Samantha as a romantic one, as does she.

There's plenty to make one warm to Her. There's the aesthetically pleasing pastel-soaked visuals that are captured through some charmingly down-to-earth cinematography. There's the well-realised world-building full of sufficiently believable technological advances that definitely take on a life of their own - who can forget the scene where Theodore plays a hologram videogame and encounters a foul-mouthed cartoon alien? There's also some good actors in the mix - Phoenix is always a stand-out even in this somewhat difficult-to-like role (even if we do empathise with Theodore's desperate yearning to truly connect with someone, this does result in him having a rather toxic worldview that is reflected ever-so-slightly in his encounters with women) and Johansson's performance definitely shows enough range and energy to compensate for a literal lack of screen presence. That's without mentioning Amy Adams as Phoenix's best friend, who is always a pleasure to watch even in a relatively small role like the one she plays here (this also applies to Mara as she only gets a handful of scenes but makes the most of them as a person who manages to challenge Theodore - both for better and worse). I also like the background score, which is co-written by Arcade Fire's Win Butler and may contribute to the film being derided as hipster-baiting garbage but I don't mind it.

That being said, there's plenty about Her that is also difficult to work around. Even though it inhabits a rather intriguing setting and sets up some interesting concepts as part of its technologically conscious premise, such concepts are only really applied when it's convenient to the generally straightforward plot. As a result, the film does find itself reiterating a lot of tropes that are associated with the somewhat unfortunate "manic pixie dream girl" archetype. Now, I grant that this doesn't automatically ruin a film. I still consider Harold and Maude a minor favourite despite the fact that its main twist involves the MPDG being a septuagenarian. Her does offer a somewhat inventive variation on the theme due to Samantha's status as an advanced computer rather than a flesh-and-blood being, but that only makes the instances in which it sticks to playbook developments feel even more underwhelming (especially on a second viewing, which makes the film feel like even more of a chore). While I did enjoy Her quite a bit the first time around, nowadays I think the main appeal comes from the weird world-building more so than the plot and characterisation (especially considering how flimsy the latter factors end up being). It's not enough to totally scupper the film, but it definitely means that I don't think of it as a modern classic just because it manages to supplant its bare-bones romantic narrative with sci-fi influences and off-beat comedy.

3

Iroquois

08-22-15, 03:29 AM

#529 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Stephen Sommers, 2009

http://www.imwithgeek.com/uploads/1/2/7/2/12727119/665449763_orig.jpg?255

A pair of soldiers join forces with an elite commando unit that must recover an extremely dangerous weapon from a megalomaniac arms dealer.

Considering the contempt that sufficiently cultured film buffs have for overly expensive and fundamentally lightweight blockbusters, I do kind of wonder why Stephen Sommers doesn't get dragged into the firing line as often as more notorious contemporaries like Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich do. I guess it's because his blockbusters tend to be relatively inoffensive in comparison to the former's constantly-escalating obnoxiousness or the latter's trite sense of sentimentality. That doesn't automatically redeem G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, which is yet another attempt to turn a popular toy into a flashy 21st-century live-action extravaganza. The G.I. Joe brand provides only the slightest window-dressing to an otherwise generic action blockbuster that sets up a conflict involving a set of high-powered warheads filled with matter-destorying nanomachines and the two sides - one bad, one good - fighting to get a hold of them whether for purposes of saving the world or holding it to ransom.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra may seem rather tolerable as far as contemporary CGI-heavy blockbusters go, but it's still prey to a lot of the usual faults that plague other films of its ilk. The plotting is fairly uninspired and haphazard (especially when it flashes back to various characters' back-stories) and isn't given much fleshing out by the actors involved. The film does need a viewpoint character or two around whom to build its fantastic world and logic, but making said characters be a combination of Channing Tatum's angst-ridden protagonist and Marlon Wayans' wacky comic relief is a decision that does have some promise but is executed rather poorly. The rest of the cast is thinly defined at best (case in point - the rest of the Joes) and badly defined at worst. I'd say there's an issue with the casting when the early presence of a certain recognisable actor ends up foreshadowing a sadly predictable reveal, and that's without getting into Christopher Eccleston's villain speaking in a high-pitched Scottish accent. Not even the conflict that arises from a hero and villain having been former lovers provides a satisfactory pay-off (nor do the multiple flashbacks that develop the complicated history between both sides' token ninja characters).

The weakness of the plot and characterisation does offer a silver lining of sorts; it does divert one's attention to the fact that the CGI on offer isn't bad enough to warrant heavily negative comments. There's something to be said for the relatively decent quality of it, especially when much of the screen ends up splashed with it in the form of elaborate backdrops (such as the underwater lair that only serves to remind me of Rapture from BioShock) or simple expository holograms. Even so, that still doesn't excuse the poorly structured action sequences that often depend on something as simple as the ninja characters' physical prowess to forcibly inject scenes with excitement and compensate for both physically and logically ridiculous developments. Said developments aren't even ridiculous in a fun way, such as Wayans' character frequently getting put through painful situations for very little reason at all other than humour - seriously, what is up with random vehicles in movies speeding towards characters and honking their horns without making any attempt to slow down or swerve out of the way? That's too distracting to even make its application work within its intended comical context. As a result, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is an acceptable way to pass time when you have nothing better to do and need some sort of distraction but there's nothing here that makes it worth seeking out voluntarily. Just because it looks fairly slick is no excuse for its many other shortcomings.

1

cricket

08-22-15, 09:05 AM

Seeing how you have recently watched and enjoyed a couple of 60's Japanese movies, I recommend to you Samurai Rebellion.

Iroquois

08-22-15, 11:36 PM

#530 - Cure
Kiyoshi Kurosawa, 1997

http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/c/u/r/cure-1997-01-g.jpg

A detective investigates a series of ritualistic murders that are being committed by random people under the influence of hypnotic suggestion.

Another film where I've gone in knowing next to nothing about it other than it is considerably acclaimed and something of a cult film, it's very easy to apply one's own frames of reference to Cure in order to make sufficient sense of it. The plot involves a detective (Koji Yakusho) investigating a bizarre type of serial killing - namely, that random and seemingly unconnected individuals are committing vicious murders that are distinguished by carving an X into the victims' necks post-mortem. These murderers and victims are being discovered around the same time that an amnesiac wanderer (Masato Hagiwara) is creating new ones out of various people he runs across as he stumbles from place to place. The inherent weirdness of the case leads to Yakusho having his own gradual breakdown, which is only exacerbated when his wife's own mental problems escalate in severity and cause the stress of both his work life and home life to collide in all sorts of unexpected manners.

I can pick apart what types of psychological crime thrillers seem to have had an influence on Cure, especially those types that go beyond their simple cat-and-mouse narratives to ask deeper questions about why the "cat" chases the "mouse" (or whether or not the "mouse" is ever so easily caught). Fortunately, Cure has a sufficiently interesting concept that makes its seemingly derivative nature come across as less of a copycat and more of a film whose own inventiveness inspires comparisons to similarly creative takes on the thriller. The hypnosis angle is revealed at a relatively early juncture in the narrative and information is parceled out slowly as Hagiwara convinces multiple sane individuals to commit gruesome acts of murder against the unlikeliest of targets. Plenty of tension is wrought out of that side of the narrative as one watches Hagiwara go through his routine. He establishes an effective psychological tactic constant asking of questions and apparent inability to retain any answers he might receive, which leads to him asking the same questions over and over again (much to the frustration of his "victims" and, to a lesser extent, the audience). The careful exposition as to how he gained this mysterious power is also developed slowly yet effectively as Yakusho and his co-workers conduct their investigation, but this is not a film that is all that concerned with solving the mystery so much as the effect it will have on those that solve it.

Cure is intermittently graphic without coming across as gratuitous, while the interplay between protagonist and antagonist does end up becoming a solid backbone for the film as a whole (which is only improved by certain scenes, such as one where a confrontation between the two leads takes place over the course of one especially lengthy take). While the film is pretty unremarkable when it comes to visual style (save for the occasional instance of deliberately and effectively disorienting editing), the sound design stands out in a way that can probably best be described as Lynchian due to its emphasis on discomforting drones sounding as the narrative demands. Though it does drag in places and could have used just a little tightening, for the most part it's an effectively enigmatic thriller and remains so up to and even past its final scenes. The way in which the film ends manages the impressive feat of making me question why Cure has not been given a Western remake while also understanding perfectly why that should be the case. As a sufficiently strange and unpredictable little psychological thriller, it definitely deserves more recognition.

3.5

Iroquois

08-23-15, 12:12 AM

#531 - Pretty in Pink
Howard Deutch, 1986

http://cdn1-www.thefashionspot.com/assets/uploads/2015/02/pretty-in-pink-.jpg

A working-class high-school student finds herself becoming attracted to an upper-class classmate while also dealing with her friend's unrequited crush on her.

My opinion of John Hughes as a creator of entertainment are rather mixed, to say the least. I used to love Ferris Bueller's Day Off when I was younger but I'd be hard-pressed to say that I hold that opinion now, while The Breakfast Club definitely has its flaws but I like it well enough on its own terms to consider it a third-tier favourite. I haven't seen Planes, Trains, and Automobiles all the way through (though I do want to). However, I thought Sixteen Candles was poor enough in quality that I stuck it on my "worst 100" list. Though Pretty in Pink promised to be very much of the same ilk as Sixteen Candles in that it focused on Molly Ringwald's teenage protagonist as she had to navigate various romantic problems, I figured I'd still give it a chance. Credit where credit's due, it definitely improves on the incredibly thin Sixteen Candles by offering a slightly more complex dilemma for Ringwald's character as she not only has to handle the social stigma associated with living in a lower-class house with her unemployed single father (Harry Dean Stanton) but also how it promises to affect her romantic chances with a handsome upper-class boy (Andrew McCarthy). Meanwhile, other complicating elements include McCarthy's supremely snobby friend (James Spader) trying to keep the two apart and Ringwald's own friend (Jon Cryer), who carries his own torch for the unsuspecting Ringwald.

Though Pretty in Pink is still something of a step up from Sixteen Candles, that doesn't stop it from being a fundamentally boring film. Hughes (who wrote this but did not direct) has had detractors that have criticised his high-school films for depending on stereotypes while also managing to provide extra definition in regards to what makes them so stereotypical in the first place. Though that criticism arguably applies to The Breakfast Club (where the whole plot revolved around five completely opposed teen stereotypes spending a whole movie stuck together against their will), at least that film managed to provide some fairly interesting and humourous takes on seemingly trite characters. Pretty in Pink offers no such respite underneath the '80s hell that includes clashing clothes patterns and New Order on the soundtrack. Breakfast Club worked because everyone involved in the cast had their own small arc that intertwined with one another to make for a constantly interesting film, while Ferris Bueller at least provided a compelling blend of cool wish fulfillment, sadistic slapstick, and a fairly resonant emotional core about an especially neurotic introvert. The stigma against Ringwald due to her poor background is a decent enough arc, and it's a credit to both her and legendary character actor Stanton that they can sell this particular conflict well. Even so, that still gets steamrollered by the love triangle that erupts between Ringwald, Cryer, and McCarthy. Neither option, whether it's the emotionally fragile goofball or the blandly affable prep, seems like an especially desirable choice (even though Ringwald seems to gravitate towards McCarthy out of a sort of gold-digging pragmatism as much as genuine romantic attraction). As a result, the main plot loses what little momentum it has as we are treated to scene after scene that plods towards a conclusion that doesn't seem to have all that much at stake.

Even so, Pretty in Pink has some decent moments. The soundtrack is rife with extremely period-appropriate slices of popular and not-so-popular music that can definitely be picked out and picked apart (of course Cryer's character listens to the Smiths while at home by himself), but at least the film fully commits to capturing the ephemeral nature of mid-1980s America. The largely flat cast of characters may not be all that endearing, but the actors involved at least do their best to infuse said characters with some small degree of charm - I've already mentioned Stanton bringing his usual drawling that-guy charisma to his role as Ringwald's dad, but I think Cryer and Spader don't do all that badly in some otherwise unfortunate roles (to say nothing of Annie Potts as the owner-operator of the record store where Ringwald works). It's a shame that Ringwald and McCarthy, ostensibly the characters at the heart of the film, feel rather underwhelming in comparison. As a result, I still find it difficult to really care one way or the other about Pretty in Pink. It's not terrible in the same way that Sixteen Candles was, but there's very little here that serves to make it stand out in any favourable way. I guess the next time I feel like getting a Hughes fix I'll either throw on Breakfast Club again or maybe finish Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.

1.5

Guaporense

08-23-15, 04:00 AM

Iroquois

08-23-15, 05:52 AM

I think that Imaishi is a genius. His best work is not this, which was sort of a prototype for his over the top style, his best stuff are the series Gurren Lagann and Kill la Kill. Gurren Lagann was also released as a movie duology, though I think they cut out too many important elements, but it still is among my favorite animated films of all time. Imaishi's stuff is like the speed metal of cinema: using the art form of animation to be fast and over the top without limit.

I've had Gurren Lagann on my Netflix watchlist for a while now, but I did not know it was created by the same person who did Dead Leaves. Though I didn't give this film the most favourable rating, I still reckon I'd like to give it a chance. Not so sure about Kill La Kill, though.

MovieMeditation

08-23-15, 02:26 PM

I think Her is close to a masterpiece. Great love story interweaved with social commentary and satire. Love the view on technology and the future world, as well as the human mind and the understanding of the surroundings in a disconnected world, which provokes lonliness and the loss of real emotion. The sense of presence seems distant and the world colorless, but the contrast to a vivid world is great. But yeah, I love it. Even better on a second watch for me, since the rythm of the film is off-beat and a little weird. But that's what makes it great.

Iroquois

08-24-15, 12:30 AM

#532 - Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief
Alex Gibney, 2015

http://media.salon.com/2015/04/tom_cruise_going_clear.jpg

A documentary about the highly controversial Church of Scientology.

The Church of Scientology has become quite the walking punchline over the course of the past decade or so thanks to their litigation-happy attacks on any possible opposition, to say nothing of the erratic and fundamentalist public appearances by the most high-profile member of the movement, Hollywood A-lister Tom Cruise. Though Alex Gibney's Going Clear (based on Lawrence Wright's book of the same name) does touch on the aspects of Scientology that have served to make it a laughing stock in recent years, it is very clear that the film's examination of Scientology goes above and beyond something as basic as shallow mockery. Wright claims that his intention was not supposed to be a derisive exposé of Scientology's dark secrets so much as an earnest attempt to understand what it was about this incredibly unorthodox movement that had managed to draw so many people into joining. To this end, much of the film involves interviews with many individuals who were at some point devoted members of the Church but had since left and were willing to speak openly about their time with the Church (with the only one I immediately recognised being Oscar-winning filmmaker Paul Haggis, though most of them are not celebrities anyway). This collection of individuals provides the backbone for a film that attempts to paint a warts-and-all portrait of Scientology based in the personal experiences of members who wished to speak out against it.

The film spends its first third or so tracing Scientology's origins by describing and examining the Church's creator and original leader, pulp science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard is initially depicted as exactly the kind of charlatan that detractors of the Church consider him to be, with the decision to adapt his original self-help system Dianetics into a full-blown religious movement apparently motivated by the promise of taxation-free financial gain. Other developments serve to paint him as a genuinely unhinged person, whether it's his ex-wife's account of him kidnapping their child or evidence of him trying to acquire psychiatric help before eventually asking to be lethally electrocuted in order for his problems to be "cured". Other bizarre developments may prompt some uneasy laughter, especially when Haggis incredulously recounts the time that he learned what was then one of the Church's top secrets - the Hubbard-penned creation myth involving ancient alien souls from another planet - and how it drastically changed his opinion of Scientology (though not enough for him to immediately quit). However, the laughter drops out for good with Hubbard's passing and his replacement as leader by David Miscavige, a Scientologist since childhood who took over as a young man in the 1980s and has presided over the Church ever since.

The film treats Miscavige's ascension to the top of the Church hierarchy as a darker reiteration on Hubbard's already rather sinister time as leader. Hubbard originally attempted to avoid paying taxes by globe-traveling and hiding out; under Miscavige, members simply managed to file so many lawsuits against the IRS that they were effectively pressured into granting the Church tax-exempt status. The earnest success story of a fresh-faced young actor named John Travolta (who is implied to be blackmailed into staying within the Church) eventually gives way to the rise of Tom Cruise, whose notoriously fanatical attitude about Scientology is just the tip of a very large iceberg as the rest of the organisation works overtime to fulfill his every possible whim. The inexpensive, grueling, and blatantly unethical labour undertaken by the members of the movement's "Sea Organisation" under Hubbard's watch soon devolves into many accounts of physical, mental, and emotional abuse that is not only permitted by Miscavige but also occasionally carried out by him personally. The only thing more disturbing than the actual instances of abuse and neglect described in the interviewees' recollections is the cult-like air that permeates said recollections, with many of them talking about just how much torment they were able to tolerate before finally deciding to break away from the Church.

Going Clear runs for a full two hours and does threaten to test one's patience once or twice, but for the most part it's a frighteningly compelling insight into what goes on within the Church of Scientology. In addition to depicting what it's like inside the Church, it also shows just what happens when the Church's influence turns toxic for people both inside and outside the Church. Indelible images abound, whether it's actual footage of Scientologists singing "Happy Birthday" to a giant portrait of Hubbard a year after the man's death or even a dramatisation involving a violent game of musical chairs set to the tune of "Bohemian Rhapsody". Much of the film is focused on talking-heads interviews with former Scientologists, who do make for fascinating subjects regardless of how heavily involved they were with the Church (ranging from Travolta's personal assistant to some of Miscavige's most immediate subordinates and spokespeople). The wide range of archival footage does create quite the lasting impression and is thankfully emphasised over dramatisations, which are brief and sparsely used. Though one can easily accuse it of being overly biased against Scientology to the point of being worthless on an objective level, Going Clear makes sure to end with an acknowledgment of the fact that the makers did try to secure interviews with prominent members of the movement such as Miscavige, Cruise, and Travolta. The flat-out refusal to offer any defence of the Church is sort of an understandable response to a film that's pretty dedicated to digging up the Church's dirt; however, this means that something as simple as a sub-title that merely reads "Tom Cruise's attorney denied this" with no further elaboration is potentially more damning than anything the film-makers and interviewees could deliver.

4

ash_is_the_gal

08-24-15, 10:18 AM

i really love Her and Pretty in Pink. the latter has its flaws to be sure, but i only find its flaws even makes it more charming.

i'm checking out that Scientology film

honeykid

08-24-15, 11:11 AM

Scientology And Me and The Secrets Of Scientology are well worth a look and are both good documentaries.

Iroquois

08-25-15, 01:40 AM

#533 - The Big Boss
Lo Wei, 1971

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/blog/roninonempty/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-big-boss-01.jpg

A young Chinese man comes to Thailand and takes a job in an ice factory but must contend with the incredibly corrupt employees and their boss.

One of the reasons that I never became a huge fan of Bruce Lee is that, despite his considerable combative abilities and iconic screen presence, that never quite felt like enough to fully carry a film. As a result, his films always felt at least a little underwhelming despite the makers trying their best to weave sufficiently entertaining plots and characters in between scenes of kung fu carnage. The Big Boss marked the first leading role in Lee's career and, in a lot of ways, it serves as a rough draft for the handful of films he made before his passing. Lee plays a Chinese labourer who has traveled to Thailand looking for work. He moves in with some relatives and gets a job at a nearby ice factory, but of course there's more to the situation than meets the eye. It turns out that the ice factory is a front for a drug-smuggling operation and the people who run said operation are willing to kill any unfortunate workers who see too much or start asking too many questions. After enough workers have mysteriously disappeared, it then falls to Lee to start investigating just what is going on, though the villains use every possible tactic to either win Lee over or simply eliminate him.

The problem with The Big Boss being the first Lee-starring feature is that, while it uses a lot of the same ideas that get refined in later films, here they can't help but come across as rough and (I hate to say it) boring. The plot isn't supposed to be the most important part of this film, but here the scenes that are dedicated to crafting it feel incredibly leaden. Lee's character is another one of his stubbornly honourable heroes, though even by that standard he still lacks any sufficiently interesting development (even his character's oath of non-violence barely has any relevance). The sole exception would be the brief sequence of events in which the villains encourage him to side with them by not only promoting him within the ice factory but by also plying him with strong drink and fine women (which naturally causes friction between him and his working-class housemates who believe that he has sincerely turned traitor). That's still not good enough to justify how thin the plot is the rest of the time, which is especially distracting considering the lack of satisfactory action in this film. Though there is a comedic edge to the confrontations, it soon becomes obvious why the blatant attempts at humour were slowly phased out of later Lee films. As a result, I barely noted much in the way of interesting action until the last twenty minutes or so, and by then it was too late. The Big Boss may have laid down a lot of the foundations for some fairly good films, but that hardly makes it great in its own right. Not even the inclusion of some of my favourite bands on the soundtrack (whoever heard of a kung fu movie that featured Pink Floyd and King Crimson?) is enough to favourably distinguish it.

2

Iroquois

08-25-15, 11:42 PM

#534 - Universal Soldier
Roland Emmerich, 1992

http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/3/25//universal-1.png

A pair of dead soldiers are resurrected as part of a program to create an army of super-soldiers, which is complicated when one of them rejects his programming and escapes.

I should probably know better than to give certain directors chance after chance after chance to win me over, and now I realise that this is especially true of Roland Emmerich. This early film of his features a relatively small-scale story compared to the apocalyptic extravaganzas he'd go on to create, but that's still no guarantee of "less-is-more" quality. To start off, there's the inherently silly premise to consider. I can understand why the military might want to use deceased soldiers as the guinea pigs for experiments designed to yield a more powerful commando, but you'd think that there would then be an explanation for why they're using dead soldiers from the Vietnam War despite taking place in the film's early-'90s present day. Two of these soldiers become the hero (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and villain (Dolph Lundgren) as they start to regain their memories. Van Damme quickly realises that he is alive in the present day and goes on the run with an aspiring reporter (Ally Walker). Meanwhile, Lundgren's recall is a lot less total; he thinks that he's still in Vietnam for some reason, immediately prompting him to leave a bloody trail as he pursues Van Damme at all costs.

Unfortunately, Universal Soldier ends up being little more than an extremely generic chase movie distinguished only by its extremely ludicrous premise. The odd spot of unique world-building is squandered in some sub-par manners - the concept of the super-soldiers needing extreme cold to heal and survive is an interesting one, but it's poorly executed and frequently played for weak humour. Though Lundgren and Van Damme are not exactly known for their acting abilities, I do think the former manages to pull off an appropriately bloodthirsty villain with gusto while the latter struggles with the demands of being a mentally tormented killing machine struggling to regain his humanity. The action generally isn't distinctive enough to make much of a difference as it runs through a fairly standard collection of set-pieces. Shoot-outs, vehicular chases, the odd instance of excessively violent death...none of it feels especially fresh or inventive. As such, I feel like this is something of an audition reel for Emmerich to prove how capable he is of directing action movies on a larger scale. It certainly doesn't lack for basic technical competence, but that's hardly much of a justification when it's in service to such a wholly unremarkable film. That being said, I'm intrigued by the weirdly cult-ish reputation that its two most recent sequels have earned, but it wouldn't be difficult to be better than this.

1.5

Iroquois

08-26-15, 01:03 AM

#535 - Story of Ricky
Lam Nai-choi, 1991

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11112/111121690/3449943-8459905183-vlcsn.png

A young man with superhuman strength and endurance is sent to prison for murder and must fight against the villainous inmates and wardens.

The most well-regarded martial arts films tend to feature fluid camerawork, exquisite choreography, clever storytelling, and a general sense of substance. Story of Ricky, on the other hand, features virtually none of that. Even by the genre's standards, the premise is extremely flimsy. In the not-too-distant-future, prisons have become privatised and unregulated; this allows the staff to be incredibly corrupt and sadistic, often using established prison gangs to keep an especially draconian order among the population of inmates. Into this system enters a young man named Ricky, who is quickly established as being unnaturally strong and tough. Before too long, he's upsetting the prison's regime by fighting back against the various bizarre villains that both inhabit and operate the prison. While a standard martial-arts film would use that story as a launching pad for all sorts of elaborately crafted fights, the violence that characterises Story of Ricky is as deliberate an inversion of the genre's usual fare as possible. Most of the actual fights are over pretty quickly, and the reason why is either the film's greatest weakness or its greatest strength depending on your tolerance for over-the-top violence.

It is quite ironic how a film that features the words "story" in its title seems to place as little emphasis on telling a good one as Story of Ricky does. There is no dramatic tension whatsoever. The main character is practically an invincible superhero whose punches are not only capable of tearing massive holes in his opponents but can also break through solid doors and walls. Though his motives and powers are explained in-story (often through flashbacks, including one where he himself wasn't even present), you do have to infer for yourself why he doesn't just break out of prison at the earliest possible juncture or even allow himself to be trapped by the villains again and again. The concept of setting up vulnerable sympathetic characters to off-set the hero's invulnerability is barely developed beyond the film drawing a very black-and-white line between "good" prisoners and "bad" prisoners (hint: the good ones start treating Ricky as their saviour while constantly being mutilated and murdered by the bad ones). Characters are given the slightest amount of definition necessary to either progress the plot or to justify something weird and violent happening. The violence on offer is brutal, sure, but often in absurdly grotesque ways to the point where it's practically a splatter comedy on par with Sam Raimi's Evil Dead movies or Peter Jackson's Braindead. There is an art to creating such noticeably fake effects and it contributes to a sufficiently humourous aesthetic. It's debatable as to whether or not the film-makers were going for intentionally comical bloodshed, but either way I can't say I'm disappointed with the film as far as pure entertainment goes - it's graphic without being genuinely disturbing and well worth a chuckle.

It's not often that I re-watch a film within a day or so, but I figured that Story of Ricky earned it (if only because I was torn between seeing it in its original Cantonese or with an English dub, so I ultimately decided to watch it twice). Though the extremely low budget and incredibly shoddy quality of just about every facet has apparently generated a "so bad it's good" kind of reputation, I have trouble thinking of it in the same terms that I would with something like Plan 9 From Outer Space or Troll 2. At least Story of Ricky seems at least somewhat aware of its own silliness with its collection of physically impossible feats and fights, scenery-chewing cast of bizarre characters, and (most importantly) the capacity for cartoonish and colourful carnage. Its revels in its shortcomings without a trace of ironic self-indulgence and so every little off-putting detail or badly executed stunt only adds to the charm rather than hinder it. Obviously, those of you who don't go in for excessive amounts of violence are advised to look elsewhere. Otherwise, this rightfully deserves its reputation as a cult classic built on the back of some delightfully memorable instances of over-the-top kung-fu action.

4

Iroquois

08-27-15, 04:00 AM

#536 - The Others
Alejandro Amenábar, 2001

https://rupertsmithfiction.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/the-others-the-others-2001-film-32714484-1920-1080.jpg

A woman who lives in a large mansion with her two extremely photosensitive children starts to believe that the house is haunted.

The Others is a decent enough throw-back to old-school haunted house horrors that rely on the building of bloodless dread and potentially supernatural mystery, and that's enough to guarantee it being a good film despite the rather generic first impression it creates. The film's opening credits feel a bit unnecessary; certain films just work better without them, especially when listing cast members who play characters that appear at crucial or surprising moments and thus expecting certain actors to show up does take some of the surprise out of it. In any case, the film does well at establishing its post-WWII setting as a trio of out-of-work servants walk up to the front door of a large mansion inhabited by a woman (Nicole Kidman) and her two young children. A series of scenes involving Kidman giving her prospective employees a tour of the house develops a plot that's already creepy enough even without the possibility of any paranormal activity. It turns out that Kidman's children are extremely allergic to any light source that's stronger than a small fire, hence a complex system involving door-locking and curtain-drawing so as to prevent them from suffering extremely painful and possibly fatal reactions. That's without the kids acting like the other pale weird kids common to British-looking horror as they naturally become the first to cotton on to the fact that there is something very weird going on with the usual bumps in the night, which naturally result in a disbelieving Kidman growing dangerously paranoid.

The Others maintains a fairly consistent sense of unease thanks to its small but complex ensemble and ever-present threat of not just ghosts but dangerous sunlight, that's about all that the film really has going for it. The film does touch upon themes involving family, post-war anxieties, and religious subtext as it examines what the characters' lives are like even without any imminent peril; while these concepts are generally handled in a satisfactory manner, sometimes they do drag the film down (such as the entire sub-plot involving Christopher Eccleston's character, which doesn't feel particularly essential to the plot beyond some mild thematic relevance). The film is generally good at working the less-is-more angle when it comes to parceling out information about the antagonists, though that does mean it becomes surprisingly easy to anticipate how things will develop. Performances are generally decent, though the music is perhaps a little too dramatic for its own. As a result, I can respect The Others as a generally competent homage to old-school horror that brings in some fairly fresh modern sensibilities, but that doesn't feel like enough to make it a classic.

3

Camo

08-27-15, 04:04 AM

Great write up of Going Clear Iro :up:. My favourite film of the year so far.

Iroquois

08-27-15, 04:33 AM

#537 - The Prestige
Christopher Nolan, 2006

http://www.allaboutjackman.com/images/2006ThePrestigeB.jpg

A pair of magicians become rivals who constantly try to outdo one another, with their focus being on trying to master the same illusion.

Of all the Nolan films I have seen, The Prestige wasn't necessarily the worst but it was one that I didn't expect to hold up all that well on a re-watch. Much like an actual magic trick, the film builds off increasingly fantastic and unexpected reveals to create an entrancing initial experience, which only led me to assume that it would also end up feeling less impressive watching it again and knowing how it was done. Though there is no denying that it loses a little something on a second viewing, The Prestige certainly doesn't feel like an excessively weak movie. The film begins with one magician (Christian Bale) being accused of murdering his long-time rival (Hugh Jackman) by sabotaging his illusion, leading to him being sentenced. From there, the film proceeds to jump around a bit thanks to both leads reading one another's journals in a move that is easier to follow than it sounds, tracing their origins as ambitious assistants to a famous magician. When a mistake on Bale's part results in the death of Jackman's wife (Piper Perabo), Jackman swears revenge by intending to become the best magician ever and ruin Bale by any means necessary, which naturally prompts Bale to retaliate in turn. Thus begins one morally grey cold war as both men work to one-up each other by any means necessary, while various other individuals such as Jackman's mentor (Michael Caine), Bale's wife (Rebecca Hall), and the young ingenue (Scarlett Johansson) who ends up becoming the pawn of both leads.

The Prestige is a generally decent film that has a fairly interesting visual style (just look at that header image) and offers a storyline that's still solid enough even when it supplements its Spy vs. Spy conflict with certain third-act developments. Bale and Jackman make for sufficiently conflicted, motivated, and well-acted protagonists - Bale may be the better performer here yet he doesn't get quite as much to work with as Jackman. They have some decent support - Caine is dependable as always, while Hall and Johansson do rather well with characters that could have been annoying props. Even a surprise performance by David Bowie as none other than renowned inventor Nikola Tesla feels at home here (to say nothing of Andy Serkis as his assistant). It explores themes of obsession and identity crisis as Bale and Jackman threaten to lose themselves in their battle for supremacy, though a second viewing doesn't reveal that much more depth to this exploration and still drags occasionally due to its somewhat repetitive structure. As a result, I still think The Prestige is more good than bad but its strengths aren't strong enough for me to consider this a genuinely great film. Some nice visuals and a twisty plot that doesn't fall apart the second time around are decent qualities, but that's not enough to make it a wholly enjoyable film for me.

3

ash_is_the_gal

08-27-15, 05:09 PM

i need to see both of the last 2 movies you reviewed again. i enjoyed them both, but i feel like i kind of came to appreciate The Others more in retrospect than i did at the time. anyway, good reviews.

honeykid

08-27-15, 05:15 PM

I think The Others and Moulin Rouge are the only two films I have seen which offer any evidence of Kidman as an actress. I've heard some good things about a couple of films since, but with her face all frozen I have to admit to being sceptical, at best.

Iroquois

08-28-15, 01:39 AM

#538 - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Brad Bird, 2011

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02092/mission_2092343b.jpg

A spy goes on a mission to prevent a terrorist cell from initiating a global nuclear conflict.

Despite being apathetic enough about the franchise to miss the third installment in theatres and feel less impressed by the first two films in retrospect, I still ended up seeing the fourth M:I/i] film in theatres (apparently because [i]The Adventures of Tintin was sold out, according to an old Movie Tab post). It managed to impress me reasonably well to the point where I was starting to think of it as my favourite film in the franchise. Now that I've had a chance to watch (or re-watch) all five films, I still reckon that I'd be willing to hold up Ghost Protocol as my favourite film in the series. Making a fourth installment in any franchise is always a risky proposition that is more likely to miss than hit (where critically, commercially, or both), and the employment of animation veteran Brad Bird seems to paradoxically come across as both a safe choice and an unpredictable one. Bird's cartoon sensibilities do end up proving a strong addition to a franchise that is built upon the creation of implausible yet thrilling sequences of action and suspense. This time around Tom Cruise's protagonist has to get bailed out of prison in order to conduct a mission to prevent the theft of nuclear launch codes. This seemingly simple plan is complicated by his being framed for a terrorist act and his whole organisation being disavowed, leaving him with a team of three other agents (Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner) with whom to save the day.

Granted, in a lot of ways Ghost Protocol falls prey to a lot of the usual flaws that have plagued the series. The plot at least tries to change things up by largely abandoning the paranoia angle from previous films and thus cuts out all the usual betrayals and double-crosses. For the most part, it does stick to some recognisable staples of the series for better or worse, such as having Cruise being pursued by well-intentioned investigators or the heroes being made to come up with convoluted solutions to their problems. It still has a bit of trouble staying consistently captivating and peaks around the halfway/two-thirds mark as the film's already-thin conflict grows even thinner. Characterisation is generally pretty haphazard, whether it's Michael Nyqvist's unremarkable turn as an extremist antagonist or the tragic back-story that's supposed to define newcomer Renner as a sufficiently complicated character. Pegg is brought back to serve as comic relief and he definitely provides well enough in that regard, though he doesn't get much of an arc beyond his role as a rookie field agent trying to do a good job. Patton does what she can with an extremely straightforward revenge sub-plot that is at least handled solidly enough to make up for her eventually having to play honey-trap as the team's sole female member. I'm also grateful that this marks the first film in the franchise that didn't try to shoehorn in a romantic sub-plot for Cruise, though it does make a handful of references to his fiancée from the third film that I probably could have done without. If nothing else, you can always depend on Cruise's combination of natural charisma and willingness to get physical for his craft to carry a character that has persisted throughout five films without all that much going on in the way of personal development.

Cruise's daredevil antics here definitely make for some genuinely captivating action; the sequence where he must climb up the outside of the Burj-Khalifa using nothing but a pair of high-tech adhesive gloves is something that practically demanded to be seen in theatres yet still feels appropriately tense and stunning during a re-watch on a smaller screen. While the first film's notorious cable-drop scene is easily the franchise's most iconic moment, I honestly think that this scene gives it a serious run for its money. It's not alone; there is the comically ingenious scene where Cruise and Pegg must carry out an infiltration using a giant computer screen to simulate an empty corridor or another scene that takes place amidst the constantly-churning machinery of a high-tech car park. The skyscraper climb casts a long shadow over all of them and the fact that it happens halfway through the film does make the third act feel somewhat anti-climatic as a result, but not enough so to completely derail the film. Bird's visual style definitely feels suited to the grand scale and manic energy as he and cinematographer Robert Elswit work well together to create good-looking shots of what's happening. Bird's presence also made me note just how much the bombastic score by Pixar regular Michael Giacchino sounded extremely similar to his work on The Incredibles, but that still felt appropriate considering how that film paid so much homage to '60s spy stuff like Mission: Impossible in the first place.

While it's far from perfect, I definitely think that Ghost Protocol gets more things right than wrong in trying to keep its fairly simple concept fresh. It manages to make all three of its predecessors feel like rough drafts as it evens out some of the major flaws from those films (though not all of them, unfortunately). At the very least, it feels like a very conscious attempt to provide a vastly diferent experience through constantly subverted expectations; the infamous face-masks that were awfully prevalent throughout the series are conspicuously rare this time around. There's also the fact that, despite the focus on a team-based dynamic that differentiates it from other major spy franchises, it's pretty noticeable how much of the actual tension and excitement tends to derive from sequences involving Cruise being on his own. That being said, by trimming the narrative fat and emphasising the fantastic challenges posed against the small (but reasonably well-developed) handful of heroes, the series seems to have finally found its groove. This much is pretty much confirmed by how much follow-up installment Rogue Nation managed to stick to the same cinematic formula with all its highs and lows (great stunts, not-so-great characters, etc.). Though I may need to give the first film yet another chance, I still consider Ghost Protocol to be the high point in a very erratic franchise and recommend it to action fans of every type.

3

Iroquois

08-28-15, 08:45 AM

#539 - Juice
Ernest R. Dickerson, 1992

http://static.spin.com/files/130208-Juice.jpg

A group of four African-American teenagers growing up in Harlem find their friendship tested when one of them plans on committing armed robbery.

Juice came out a year after the release of Boyz n the Hood but it opted to avoid a lot of the more straightforward sermonising and melodrama that has ultimately led to Singleton's film not aging particularly well. Instead, Juice offers a more down-to-earth tale in examining the none-too-pleasant situation of a handful of black teens trying to get by amidst a threatening atmosphere of racial tension, gang warfare, and police brutality. The main character (Omar Epps) naturally wants to make something of himself by becoming a DJ, even going so far as to enter a tournament at one point. However, his group of friends is threatened from within by a wild-card (Tupac Shakur), who seems far more willing to embrace the toxicity of their environment and lead the group into a life of crime. The film sets up an interesting conflict between the two, especially when the constantly escalating severity of Shakur's crimes promises to shatter everyone's world.

Though it doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel or anything, Juice is still a very respectable hood film. It naturally points out that crime doesn't pay for a multitude of reasons but doesn't go overboard with it either (save for the occasional notable instance, such as Shakur reacting excitedly while watching the finale of White Heat). Epps makes for a sufficiently likable protagonist in ways that overcome his less sympathetic actions (such as smooth-talking a record store clerk in order to cover for his friends shoplifting records for him), but Shakur creates a sufficiently magnetic and intimidating screen presence even before making the jump from petty crime to robbery and murder. Dickerson's style stays fairly grounded, showing ostentatious flair only when it needs to (such as the scene where Epps does face off against a rival DJ or in a certain scene involving an elevator). Fittingly enough for a movie about an aspiring DJ, the background score consists of some impressive sample-heavy compositions by hip-hop production posse The Bomb Squad. Juice proves a fairly decent film that keeps things sufficiently interesting up until its final moments and is definitely worthwhile if you're interested in hood movies.

3

Iroquois

08-28-15, 08:47 AM

#540 - Story of Ricky
Lam Nai-choi, 1991

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11112/111121690/3449943-8459905183-vlcsn.png

A young man with superhuman strength and endurance is sent to prison for murder and must fight against the villainous inmates and wardens.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1375905-riki-oh-the-story-of-ricky.html).

4[/QUOTE]

Iroquois

08-28-15, 11:22 PM

#541 - Spider-Man 3
Sam Raimi, 2007

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1_Raimis_Spidey4_ALT.jpg

A superhero with spider-like powers is forced to juggle crime-fighting with his personal life, which is complicated by the appearance of an alien parasite.

Though I didn't exactly hate the first two Spider-Man movies, the unfortunate reputation that got attached to the third film was definitely enough to keep me away for the better part of a decade. Of course, as with so many of the films on this list, morbid curiosity eventually led to me to check out the much-maligned Spider-Man 3. Unfortunately, this film definitely lives up (or down) to its rather unforgiving reputation. The plot once again revolves around Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) trying to balance out his secret identity as the friend neighbourhood web-slinger with his increasingly strained relationship with Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), whose own career as a Broadway singer is floundering. The personal conflict is only exacerbated by the arrival of three new villainous threats. First, there's Peter and Mary-Jane's old friend Harry Osborn (James Franco), who has made it his mission to murder Spider-Man in revenge for killing his father, the original Green Goblin. Second, there's a recently-escaped ex-con (Thomas Haden Church) with a link to Peter's past who stumbles into a dangerous experiment that grants him sand-based powers. Last (but not least), there's an alien parasite that arrives on a meteorite and threatens to infect Peter for the worst.

Even with the intention of giving Spider-Man 3 the benefit of the doubt, I still found it a largely lacklustre film. A lot of that has to do with the length - I know that the current trend with superhero movies is to have them pass the two-hour mark by a significant margin, but that only seems to work if the film can find decent material to fill out such a prolonged running time. To this end, Spider-Man 3 makes the mistake of focusing far too much on the non-action material, which wouldn't be so bad if said material wasn't so weak. The entire sub-plot where Peter is infected with the alien parasite has become notorious thanks to his awkwardly unfunny appearance and actions, but even its ridiculous nature is slightly preferable to the more boring sub-plots that permeate the film, whether it's Peter and Mary-Jane's relationship problems or the ways in which they are complicated by the presence of Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Harry. Speaking of Harry, he doesn't prove too much of a threat as he more or less recycles the same villain from the first film, hence why the film tries to over-compensate by introducing not one but two more villains. Church's villain is a mixed bag; though his introduction to Spider-Man's narrative is redundant at best and his vaguely redemptive motivation feels very standard, Church is good enough to sell it all reasonably well. The same can't really be said for the third villain, who is sold as a pretty typical dark/evil counterpart to the hero, which is a shame considering how poorly handled the hero is in this film.

Raimi's capacity for extremely vibrant and dynamic visuals has resulted in his Evil Dead trilogy becoming some of my all-time favourite movies, and it is that same capacity that at least makes the film's awfully sporadic lapses into blockbuster thrills look competent enough to compensate for the relative weakness of the CGI involved. That's about the only real upside to a superhero film that isn't a major travesty but still has next to nothing to recommend about it. For the most part, Spider-Man 3 plays out like an especially weak soap opera that only occasionally references the fact that it's about superheroes. Superhero films that have already moved past the origin-story phase may have more narrative freedom but that just means that they struggle to fill it out, and in a film as long as this one it certainly does struggle. It'd be one thing to just be boring but the ways in which it fills out its running time are especially goofy, especially the sequence of events where Peter is infected with an evil parasite. I'm hard-pressed to recommend it to anyone except comic-book completionists - even people who are just looking for a lightweight diversion will struggle to find much to like about this rather dire excuse for an action blockbuster.

1.5

Iroquois

08-29-15, 12:12 AM

#542 - Romper Stomper
Geoffrey Wright, 1992

https://billysteele60.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/1354220945_2.png

A gang of Australian neo-Nazis get into a turf war with Vietnamese immigrants.

Romper Stomper is one of those films where the main draw comes from being immersed within a fringe sub-culture, even if it one as fundamentally unpleasant as that of neo-Nazi "skinheads". A young Russell Crowe stars as the leader of one such gang, ekeing out a meagre existence in the run-down Australian suburb of Footscray. When they're not busy harassing people of a different colour with their rampant xenophobia, they're too busy using unemployment checks to support their incredibly low-rent lifestyles that involve squatting, drinking, screwing, and whatever other cheap pleasures they can indulge. The balance gets upset by a couple of complications - one ends up being the appearance of an upper-class drug addict (Jacqueline McKenzie) in the gang's usual hang-out, while the other is the escalating gang war between the skinheads and a group of Vietnamese immigrants, which is kicked off when the skinheads assault an innocent couple at the beginning of the film. This provides enough of a premise to prop up a feature-length examination of skinhead sub-culture, which is captured in a very gritty verité style.

The film doesn't hesitate to showcase the skinheads as a largely pathetic group of individuals whose pride in their white heritage is the saddest and flimsiest possible basis for their identity; without it they're just another gang that engages in petty crime and lives in squalor. No matter what kind of fiercely charismatic gusto Crowe puts into his character's diatribes, it's never enough to make up for either his or the other characters' short-sighted foolishness (to the point where other characters will call them out on it). His uncompromising bigotry comes through in even the most trivial instances, such as him being the only one of the group to refuse eating pasta on the basis of it being Italian. Though Crowe brings considerable energy to his turn as the film's vicious protagonist, the other characters tend to be fairly one-note. The only other ones of any serious consequence are Crowe, McKenzie, and Crowe's main offsider (Daniel Pollock), whose nervous disposition makes for the ideal counterpoint to Crowe's cruel nature (and allows the film to build in a fairly standard love triangle between the trio). The film is perhaps a bit too episodic with the entire conflict against the Vietnamese resolving before too long and eventually forcing the remaining members into other misadventures as their numbers dwindle. The music varies between slices of neo-Nazi punk songs (which are naturally difficult to enjoy even after learning they were deliberately made up by non-Nazi bands) and groaning drones (less difficult to enjoy), to say nothing of the Kubrick-influenced use of classical music during one sequence.

Romper Stomper is still a pretty solid film that captures the essence of the skinheads' lifestyles without resorting to straight-up moralising about the wrongness of the characters' views. It manages to do this without setting up a lot of genuinely "good" characters in comparison; most of the Vietnamese characters have their own gang that's just waiting for the skinheads to make the first move, while the wealthy victim of the skinheads' home invasion happens to be an incestuous abuser of one of their number. There are even moments that hint towards less overt racism than the skinheads, such as the publican who sells his hotel to a group of Vietnamese entrepreneurs without even thinking to warn them that it's a regular hang-out for the skinheads and practically guarantees a conflict. The film wears its influences on its sleeve and manages to craft a sufficiently dark and gritty slice-of-life drama about the few fleeting highs and many lows of being a skinhead without feeling much need to ram a message home, which is appreciated but also makes the film feel somewhat directionless as a result.

3

Miss Vicky

08-29-15, 12:18 AM

I rate Romper Stomper higher, but +rep because I agree with what you wrote about it.

Iroquois

08-30-15, 04:14 AM

#543 - Lantana
Ray Lawrence, 2001

http://www.palacefilms.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lantana.hero_.jpg

The members of four very different yet inter-connected married couples find their relationships with one another strained around the same time that one of them disappears under suspicious circumstances.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=435019#post435019).

I gave Lantana an extremely favourable rating after an initial viewing several years ago for deftly weaving an intricate ensemble drama around a fairly standard mystery plot. Though it's been held up as a classic of modern Australian cinema, revisiting it recently hasn't been particularly favourable to my own perception of it. This might have something to do with it providing an easy blueprint for the subsequent fifteen years of Australian drama (both cinematic and televisual) and thus becoming less impressive in retrospect, or maybe it really isn't that good underneath its many accolades. The mystery is fairly simple - the film starts with the body of a woman tangled within a cluster of plants. It then goes on to introduce all its principal characters, most of whom are having difficulties with their marriages. You have the police detective (Anthony LaPaglia) who's cheating on his wife (Kerry Armstrong) with a member (Rachael Blake) of their tango class, who is herself separated from her husband (Glenn Robbins) while eyeing up her married, unemployed neighbour (Vince Colosimo). Meanwhile, there's a psychiatrist (Barbara Hershey) who is not only treating some of these characters, but whose interactions with a gay man (Peter Phelps) talking about his affair with a married man cause her to question just why her own husband (Geoffrey Rush) is being so cold and distant lately. Infidelity and coincidence abound as many of the characters are connected to one another through their affairs, keeping the ensemble tight and also sufficiently inter-connected for the sake of drama as the investigation into the disappearance of one character becomes central to the plot itself.

Unfortunately, Lantana (so named for the twisted type of Australian flora that serves as a metaphor for the complexities of the narrative) doesn't quite manage to hold up all that well on a second viewing. Even on an initial viewing, the mystery that provided the film with a plot still felt secondary to the web of lies that emerged between the film's many characters and the promise of whether or not the mystery would prove to be the breaking point for the many strained relationships on display. None of that intrigue is improved or even supported by a second viewing, which only serves to expose the hollowness of the film's attempt at complex emotional conflict. The occasional spot of dramatic irony (such as a married couple attending a tango class to spice things up only for both members to end up cheating on one another with people they meet in said class) does little to provide the film with interesting material. The cast involves a variety of recognisable actors who give impassioned but ultimately unremarkable performances - Rush in particular is probably the best despite his relatively small role. None of the actors are talented enough to save such clunky dialogue, though - it's straightforward and utilitarian, which does not complement the film's more enigmatic intentions. The visual style is rather bland, which wouldn't be a problem if the film's plot and characterisation held up but here it just serves to make one feel especially bored by the proceedings. Though I do admit to liking it initially, this time around Lantana feels especially underwhelming. It lacks strength both as a mystery and as a drama that doesn't quite deserve the acting talent that it gets (and vice versa). It's worth one viewing at the absolute most, while a second viewing only serves to expose that it's not bad exactly, just extremely dull.

2

Iroquois

08-30-15, 09:46 AM

#544 - Game of Death
Robert Clouse, 1978

https://jiodeslate.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/game-of-death.png

A film star is forced to fake his own death in order to take on an organised crime outfit.

It's not often that I end up shutting off a film without finishing it, but that's what happened the first time that I tried watching Game of Death. The film is well-known for being the film that Bruce Lee was working on at the time of his death, having already shot roughly half an hour of footage before his passing. Said footage can be found on the special edition DVD of Enter the Dragon, where I ended up watching it and finding it about as awesome as anything Lee ever did. Of course, that didn't stop Clouse and company from trying to put together a feature-length film that is supposedly intended to complete Lee's unfinished project but instead comes across as a cheap attempt to capitalise on Lee's posthumous popularity, which had already manifested in the form of various knock-offs featuring Lee look-alikes. Game of Death attempts to build a film around the combination of both existing footage of Lee and newly-shot footage featuring various doubles. The plot also takes a metafictional twist as Lee's character ends up being a star of martial arts films named Billy Lo (nice initials, dude), who ends up earning the wrath of a nebulous criminal organisation. After surviving an assassination attempt by said organisation, Billy opts to stay "dead" and proceeds to dismantle the organisation however he can, even though he does so at considerable expense to his love interest (Colleen Camp).

For a film that attempts to pay homage to Lee's legacy, Game of Death honestly feels like a feature-length insult to said legacy regardless of the makers' intentions. By trying to blend footage of Lee with new footage featuring doubles, Game of Death is constantly breaking one's suspension of disbelief to the point where I wish I was watching a film that simply used doubles and no actual footage of Lee. Homage or not, this attempt at compromise simply feels too patronising to genuinely enjoy. The obvious inter-cutting between shots of Lee and shots of doubles is too distracting to truly look past, while the ways in which the makers try to work around the difference end up being painful to watch. An early scene in which Billy is being cornered by a villain in his own dressing room seems to be the jumping-off point for any uncertain viewers; one can easily tell that Lee's face has been printed out and taped to a mirror in front of the double's reflection, which leads viewers to question whether or not they can put up with similar techniques for the next hour-and-a-half. It gets to the point where the doubles' admittedly decent physical abilities become difficult to notice because you're still getting pulled out of the action every time the film goes out of its way to convince you that, yes, that is most definitely Bruce Lee you are watching fight dozens of goons. Even by the standards of old-school martial arts films, the plot feels far too thin to even remotely compensate for these gross technical shortcomings; not even respectable actors like Dean Jagger or Gig Young do anything to sell the conflict at the heart of the film, to say nothing of the fact that Billy's vocal delivery is one of the most stunningly dull ones I've ever heard (which I guess was a conscious decision to not overshadow Lee's own distinctive voice, but that doesn't make it any less of a failure on the film's part).

If there is one remotely redeeming part of this film, it is definitely the footage that Lee shot before his death where he wears the iconic black-and-yellow jumpsuit as he fights his way through multiple highly-skilled opponents. However, it's edited down severely to fit the constraints of the film's wonky narrative and doesn't appear until the end of the movie. As a result, most of this film becomes an especially tedious waiting game as a viewer bides their time in the hopes of seeing sufficiently uninterrupted footage of Lee himself. In the meantime, Game of Death tries to build a sort of spy movie similar to Enter the Dragon (complete with an opening credits sequence and a background score straight out of a James Bond movie) but it fails incredibly hard. Though I managed to resist the urge to stop the film this time around, it seems like I was right the first time. With the unedited Game of Death footage available on the Enter the Dragon DVD, there is pretty much no reason to ever bother watching this film unless you are a die-hard Lee fanatic. Regardless of whether or not it was an homage to the late legend or a shameless cash-in, the resulting film is a disappointment that I don't think needed to exist.

0.5

Iroquois

08-31-15, 02:03 AM

#545 - I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang
Mervyn LeRoy, 1932

https://nitratediva.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/fugitive.jpg

An ex-serviceman is arrested for a crime he didn't commit and intends to escape from his chain gang.

I reckon that most of the people who find out about Paul Muni these days are likely to do so because of his starring role in the original Scarface, which proved to be enough of a reason for me to check out one of his other best-known roles with I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang. Though there's a superficial similarity in how Muni's character in this film is also driven to overcome adversity and become a success through illegal means, with this film there's a lot more nuance to the character and the performance. After coming back from serving in the war, Muni doesn't just want to return to the grind of his old factory clerk job and instead plans on traveling around looking for more meaningful hands-on work. Unfortunately, unemployment and destitution follow him wherever he goes and he eventually becomes an unwitting accomplice in a hold-up. The robber is killed, but Muni is caught alive and placed on a chain gang. As you can probably guess from the title, he eventually escapes, but that's not the end of his troubles by a long shot.

I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang is a sufficiently competent film that is not dated by its setting as it tackles issues of injustice and moral relativity. Muni brings considerable vulnerability to a character who starts off confident and idealistic but is soon ground down by a world that seems to have very little use for him and then puts him through one unfortunate situation after another. Though he is prone to instances of ethical flexibility throughout the film, none of them are so egregious that he loses an audience's sympathy The film thankfully doesn't drag out either the imprisonment or the escape and instead continues to build highs and lows for Muni as he seemingly manages to escape the crooked justice associated with work gangs, but he still ends up encountering all sorts of unexpected obstacles as he tries to rebuild his life on the outside. As is to be expected from an early talkie, the film is lean and punchy - as a result, performances are a little stilted at times but generally passable. Even with such a short running time, there are parts that threaten to drag but for the most part the suspense is pretty strong, especially while Muni is escaping. It's a bit on the pulpy side and doesn't feel strong enough to warrant a repeat viewing, but it's still good, and that ending genuinely caught me off-guard (if only because I had no idea that this film was pre-Code). Worth at least one watch if you want an old-timey thriller with a little weight to it.

3

Iroquois

08-31-15, 02:48 AM

#546 - Death Wish V: The Face of Death
Allan A. Goldstein, 1994

http://www.zonetroopers.com/uploads/6/6/1/7/6617342/6846214_orig.png

A professor of architecture with a history of vigilantism takes action when his girlfriend is disfigured on the orders of her gangster ex-husband.

So continues my anachronic viewing of every single Death Wish movie, with this one definitely holding little promise of being genuinely good. By this point, leading man Charles Bronson was in his seventies and this film seems to have been written around that, focusing less on his milquetoast protagonist cutting a bloody swath through gangs of one-dimensional villains and instead trying to build a more conventional thriller in keeping with the tone of the original film. Here, Bronson is living a quiet life in a witness protection program and about to propose to his fashion-model girlfriend (Lesley-Anne Down) when she starts being threatened by her ex-husband (Michael Parks). Parks is actually a leader of a criminal organisation using his business-minded interest in the fashion industry to act extremely coercive towards Down, especially when he is trying to get his estranged daughter back. Before long, Down is disfigured by one of Parks' henchmen, which prompts Bronson to (briefly) contemplate "returning to his old ways", as characters in the film put it so bluntly. Much like how Rocky V attempted to revitalise a self-parodying franchise by cutting out the sillier elements and deliver an earnest film about Rocky falling on hard times, Death Wish V also opts to create a more focused story that doesn't centre completely on Bronson killing crooks left and right. It is also very much like Rocky V in that this noble intention ends up being wasted underneath a very sub-par execution.

Unlike other later installments in long-running franchises that like to comment on their characters' advanced ages, the film never really acknowledges Bronson's mileage except by having him eliminate his enemies through cunning tricks rather than through physically taxing acts of direct violence. While this is understandable for multiple reasons, it does lead to some ridiculous scenes such as Bronson killing an enemy by using a remote-controlled soccer ball filled with explosives in a manner that seems awfully reminiscent of the toy car scene from The Dead Pool. That still doesn't account for how Bronson seems to be sleepwalking through his role; while his character has always been a fairly stoic individual, here his attitude really does come across as a man who knows he's too old for this. Parks has recently become a cult actor as a result of delivering memorable appearances in films by directors like Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino. Here, he's kind of a mess as he plays an Irish-American mobster who struggles to maintain a consistent accent, snarling his way through a performance that manages to be both hammy and boring. Other actors like Down or Saul Rubinek do what they can with their fairly limited roles, while Robert Joy delivers a very questionable performance as an eccentric dandruff-stricken hitman.

In some ways, Death Wish V is arguably an improvement over the banal quasi-exploitation style of the Michael Winner-directed Death Wish films. This film's plot may hinge on a woman being brutally attacked and there are the occasional instances of gratuitous female nudity, but at least the makers didn't feel the need to add graphic rape scenes this time around. While Death Wish V may exercise restraint (if only to accommodate its geriatric star), for too much of the film it feels too restrained and ends up becoming (pardon the pun) deathly boring. As a result, there is very little to sincerely recommend about Death Wish V. I definitely can't recommend it as a stand-alone film or even a good film by the already-low standards of the franchise. It's marginally better than the offensively dreary (or drearily offensive) Death Wish II, but lacks the illusion of depth offered up by the original Death Wish or even the sheer entertainment value of Death Wish 3. I am probably going to end up watching Death Wish 4: The Crackdown once I get the chance (I've come this far, haven't I?) but I can't imagine it being a major disappointment after watching this fairly turgid swansong for everyone's favourite architect-turned-vigilante.

1

Iroquois

08-31-15, 08:04 PM

#547 - Candy
Neil Armfield, 2006

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Heath-Ledger-candy-the-movie-1017519_800_450.jpg

A young man and woman fall in love, which is threatened by their combined addictions to heroin.

I'm starting to think that there's a fundamental weakness to movies where the conflict is completely dependent on a character's debilitating drug addiction, especially if the drug in question ends up being heroin. A downward spiral with an apparently foregone conclusion can work, but that's awfully dependent on how much you can make an audience care about the characters even when their fates are probably not going to be good ones. As a result, Candy ends up being a fundamentally boring excuse for a drama as it centres on two pretty young leads in Heath Ledger and Abbie Cornish. Ledger's character is already a regular heroin user as the film begins and he initiates Cornish's character into his world. Thus begins a chemical romance of fleeting highs and crushing lows as the two get married, move in together, and constantly struggle to feed their habit by any means necessary - when they're not trying to quit, of course. As a result, they go through a lot of the usual trials associated with drug abuse such as resorting to criminal behaviour or sexual favours in order to pay off their expenses, plus their attempts to shake the habit are grim and uncomfortable experiences. Throughout it all, their relationship towards one another is rarely on the up, with sweet little platitudes of eternal love often being buried under domestic disputes and mutually traumatising experiences.

The main problem with Candy is that it is a boring film. It offers no genuinely interesting variations on its tried-and-true drugs-are-bad narrative and offers no surprises to anyone who's already experienced such a narrative before. The closest it does get to being halfway-interesting involves a plot thread where Cornish learns that she is pregnant and thus vows to quit using, but its placement in the middle of the film doesn't do it any favours. Not even featuring talented actors like Ledger or Cornish (or even Geoffrey Rush in a supporting role as a fellow addict) can do enough to salvage such trite melodrama; this is especially true when the two leads play an aspiring poet and starving artist respectively, which only allows the film to be padded with weak visual metaphors and clunky attempts at "deep" writing that don't even feel like they were meant to be clunky. The film's visual direction might have proved a point in the film's favour, but it's all dreadfully straightforward and lacks any possible flair that might help to prop up such a numbing narrative (which is a shame, because a scene where one character comes home to find that the other has written their life story on the walls and then left was admittedly intriguing but only enough so to overcome the rest of the film's dreary nature). Candy is not offensively bad, but it's extraordinarily dry and manages to lack any serious emotional heft despite its apparently devastating narrative. People may not want to watch movies about drug addiction because they're so raw and upsetting; I think I might not want to watch them because seeing one is like seeing them all.

1.5

Iroquois

08-31-15, 08:05 PM

#548 - House
Nobuhiko Obayashi, 1977

http://whistlerchicago.com/sites/whistlerchicago.com/files/imagecache/record_banner/bands/hausu_567759_pp.jpg

When summer vacation starts, a schoolgirl convinces a group of friends to to accompany her to her aunt's remote house.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1345641#post1345641).

4

Iroquois

08-31-15, 08:08 PM

#549 - Braindead
Peter Jackson, 1992

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/totalfilm/b/braindead-1992--05.jpg

An awkward young man living with his domineering mother is forced into a complicated situation when she becomes a zombie.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/408663-braindead.html).

4

Iroquois

09-02-15, 07:43 PM

#550 - Gojira
Ishiro Honda, 1954

http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/godzilla-1954-main-review.jpg

Japan is threatened by a gigantic lizard-like creature.

That's about as basic a logline as Gojira needs. Granted, there is more to the plot than that; the titular monster's initial appearance in the middle of the open sea begins with it destroying various ships and soon leads to it menacing the inhabitants of a remote Japanese island in a typhoon-like manner. Said inhabitants proceed to refer to the monster as "Gojira" in reference to a mythical sea monster, which sticks when official investigators of both scientific and military disciplines start to discuss the monster. A conflict arises between the humans; the scientists and those who side with them are presented as being the nominal heroes of the piece because, while they do not wish for Gojira to cause any more destruction, they do acknowledge that it is a brand-new and mysterious life form and thus wish to study it. This naturally contrasts with the attitude of the military and the politicians, who just want Gojira dead as quickly as possible before it can cause any more destruction. It's a sufficiently ambiguous conflict that is further complicated by the interpersonal drama that unfolds between the four main human characters - a leading paleontologist (Takashi Shimura), whose younger colleague (Akihiro Hirata) is in an arranged engagement to his daughter (Momoko Kōchi), who is more attracted to a ship captain (Akira Takarada).

I've watched both of Hollywood's big-budget attempts to bring the iconic lizard to a wider audience and found them wanting (one more so than the other), so it seems like I'd either really like the original rubber-suit version or be similarly unimpressed. The film definitely isn't subtle about how Gojira is supposed to be a metaphor for the effects of the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the creature's origin being attributed to nuclear tests mutating prehistoric life forms into massive, powerful juggernauts. That still doesn't stop it from providing some interesting subtext, with some debate other whether or not something capable of killing Gojira should even be allowed to exist in the first place. The film doesn't develop much in the way of plot or characterisation, but scenes that focus on developing both at least don't feel like completely unwelcome intrusions (even if they are fundamentally basic and slow the film down a little). Akira Kurosawa regular Shimura is definitely a welcome face as he provides his role as the expert with an appropriately serious and downplayed charisma. Though the effects naturally look extremely artificial to a 21st-century viewer, that doesn't stop them from being used and combined in some visually compelling ways, plus the sound work is remarkable (especially the creature's roars). I can certainly appreciate Gojira to an extent, but at the end of the day I can't really bring myself to think of it as anything greater than an old monster movie that's just happened to hold up really well. One can easily identify the ways in which it laid the groundwork for decades of disaster movies to come, but it is still good enough so that these qualities don't become retroactively boring or irritating, and that's worth at least some commendation.

3

Iroquois

09-02-15, 08:05 PM

#551 - The Warriors
Walter Hill, 1979

http://www.worldsfinestshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/the-warriors.jpg

When a prominent street-gang leader is publicly assassinated, the gang that has been wrongfully accused of the deed must fight their way through a city full of angry gangs in order to get back to their home turf.

The Warriors has rightfully become recognised as one of the greatest cult classics of all-time for plenty of good reasons. For starters, it builds an interesting dystopia-like film out of a premise that is virtually science-fiction, with co-writer/director Hill intending to set the film in a not-too-distant future not unlike the weird but recognisable Britain seen in A Clockwork Orange, which is an obvious influence on this film. In Hill's film, New York City still bears a superficial resemblance to its equally grim-looking real-life counterpart, except there there are lots and lots of gangs strewn throughout the city to the point where they outnumber the already-sizeable number of police officers. The leader of the city's most powerful gang, a charismatic fellow named Cyrus (Roger Hill), thus gets the idea to call a city-wide truce followed by a massive meeting between every gang in the city. He intends to have them call off their feuds, ally with one another, and rise up to take the city of themselves. Unfortunately, after making this announcement Cyrus is shot and killed, leading to perpetrator Luther (David Patrick Kelly) blaming the eponymous crew. The plot then kicks off with the Warriors (who are unaware of the city-wide manhunt targeted against them) trying to make their way back to their home turf of Coney Island, working to fight or avoid whatever enemies they encounter on their journey.

With a premise as relatively bare-bones as this one, it pays to pack it out with anything that can make the film work, which The Warriors most definitely does. The film itself looks fairly gritty thanks to its being set in a New York full of run-down urban landscapes coated in grime and graffiti, but that's about where the true grit ends as the rest of the film builds an out-sized yet oddly believable world of cartoonish street gangs. The Warriors and their Native American-themed vests look mild compared to many of the other gangs; The Baseball Furies are probably the most iconic characters in the film with their bizarre combination of baseball uniforms and brighty-coloured face-paint, though other gangs include the all-female Lizzies wearing tie-dye shirts and denim or the Turnbull A.C.'s and their skinhead punk aesthetic. In this company, the actual police are no different from any other gang with their all-blue uniforms and signature nightsticks. Despite the apparent goofiness of each gang's look, the film manages to balance silliness with seriousness as the other gangs force our would-be heroes into various fight-or-flight situations. The world also throws in plenty of weird little details to properly flesh out the world, such as the silky-voiced radio announcer who provides updates on the Warriors' progress in between pumping out all sorts of era-appropriate jams, which make for an interesting blend with the wide variety of moods provided by Barry DeVorzon's mainly-synthesised original score.

Despite the low budget and minimalist narrative, the film still manages to provide solid characterisation for its sizeable cast. The main cast of characters may be fairly one-note in terms of development (the stoic leader, the oversexed bully, the nervous new kid, the talkative comic relief, etc.) and not all that great as actors, but none of them ever come across as irritating despite these qualities. Michael Beck and James Remar in particular deliver surprisingly charismatic performances (in a cult way) as the group's no-nonsense de facto leader Swan and his brutish rival Ajax respectively. As Luther, Kelly makes for a great love-to-hate presence as a chaotically evil prankster whose screechy voice and unbalanced personality result in one of the most iconic movie moments to ever involve beer bottles, while Roger Hill as Cyrus makes the most of his one scene to deliver an amazing grand-standing monologue to a rapturous audience. The impressive performances even extend to incredibly minor characters, whether it's Cyrus's vengeful second-in-command yelling out his demands or even future Oscar winner Mercedes Ruehl in a bit part that doesn't deserve to be talked about because of spoilers. The film doesn't quite stick every narrative landing, especially with the addition of a random woman named Mercy (Deborah van Valkenburgh) who decides to tag along with the Warriors in hopes of finding anywhere that's better than her current situation involving the weakest gang in the city. While her sudden presence does take a while to get used to, she's good enough to add a decent enough layer of depth to what could have been another hackneyed romantic sub-plot (and also results in one of the film's s best character moments when she ends up on a train with a group of preppy teenagers coming home from prom night). In any case, they are all good enough to sell some incredibly punchy dialogue that's littered with old slang and the occasional great turn of phrase - look no further than Ajax's menacing threat to a Baseball Fury that has him cornered.

In terms of being an action movie, The Warriors deserves credit for working around its limited budget. Granted, it's mostly limited to being a toss-up between chases, fights, or combination of the two, but it's not like you're expecting a film about impoverished gangs in the slums of a '70s-looking New York to be getting into destructive gun-fights (though there is the occasional gunfight or explosion). There's an economy to the fighting that makes it feel surprisingly tactile despite obvious moments of staging and choreography. Slick combinations of semi-realistic cinematography and editing alternately make it feel grounded or heighten the fantastic elements, whether it's the use of punctuation-like cuts during a brawl or resorting to slow-motion in order to capture especially graphic moments (such as a chair breaking on someone's head). Though the violence itself has arguably grown fairly tame in the decades following its release, it doesn't feel like it when baseball bats are getting broken or people are getting smashed into bathroom mirrors. It is that weird hybrid of rough-edged realism and vibrant comic-book fantasy that makes The Warriors a true cult classic. Walter Hill and co. draw on all kinds of sources from Greek mythology to KISS in order to put together a film that resides on the very fine line between dour slug-fest and campy free-for-all. The characters are memorable in frequently good ways, the plot is simple yet compelling, the action is most definitely watchable no matter what tone it's going for, and the film's whole retro-futuristic sense of artistic direction is simply so aesthetically and aurally pleasing. It's far from perfect and I don't doubt that there are plenty of reasonable arguments against it (some people might dislike it on the basis of all the reasons why I've praised it, to say nothing of the many moments where the cracks show), but who's writing the review here? Either you can dig it...or you can come out to play-ay...

5

Addendum: If you haven't seen this movie before and want to check it out, make sure that you try to find the original 1979 cut of the film. Walter Hill released an "Ultimate Director's Cut" in 200X that grafted on a variety of technical changes such as comic-book intertitles, post-production zooming, and a prologue comparing the Warriors to ancient heroes of Greek history. While this is semi-tolerable on one watch, it ruins both the pace and the feel of Hill's original enough so that I definitely recommend making the effort to see the original version wherever possible. Seriously, I know he did it with the best of intentions but it does feel like an affront on par with the special editions of the Star Wars Original Trilogy.

Iroquois

09-03-15, 10:37 AM

#552 - Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence
Mamoru Oshii, 2004

http://www.zone-sf.com/images/gits2in3.jpg

A cyborg commando and his mostly-human partner are assigned to investigate a series of murders that all appear to be committed by different robots of the same type.

The original Ghost in the Shell is an extremely dense animé to get into despite its brief running time, building a strong reputation off its well-realised depiction of a futuristic Tokyo where the line between humanity and machines is becoming more and more blurry. The decision to emphasise existential queries about what it means to be truly alive over elaborate action set-pieces has proved divisive, with many viewers dismissing the film as pretentious in its attempt to philosophise when it wasn't having its cyborg heroes engage in shoot-outs with assassins or tanks. Though I initially held this opinion after my first viewing, I like the film's enigmatic treatise on the nature of artificial intelligence and have re-watched it several times. As a result, I expected nothing less confounding when I finally got around to watching its sequel. The plot does work to distance itself from that of its predecessor by shifting the focus from original protagonist Motomo Kusanagi to her long-time partner Batou. Like Kusanagi, Batou's body and brain are almost completely synthetic, with only his "ghost" (the film's term for what is probably best likened to a soul) being the only thing human about him. Along with his largely-organic co-worker Togusa, he investigates a series of brutal murders where artificial sex dolls go berserk and kill their owners. What initially seems to be little more than a dangerous glitch soon gives way to a greater and far more sinister conspiracy as Batou must not only to track down the people responsible but also try to avoid losing what little is left of his humanity in the process.

Naturally, Innocence proves a challenging experience during its relatively brief running time. Visually, the film has the same smooth line-drawing animation that made the original such a treat to watch, but that film's sparse use of 3-D computerised animation has been taken to considerable excess with this film to the point of being a constant distraction. While I can sort of appreciate Oshii's willingness to experiment with the blending of both types of animation and that such blatantly artificial effects only serve to reflect a story that hinges on artifice as a concept, that doesn't stop it from being a bit of an eyesore at times. The film also backs up its visual gymnastics with a story that is a bit more focused on the procedural narrative with the occasional spot of action to liven things up (such as Batou's attempt to track down a lead forcing him to fight his way through a Yakuza bar). It frequently feels like a deliberate attempt to change things up from the original; as a result, there isn't as much ponderous dialogue this time around, though whether or not its replacement with reality-bending scenes of nightmarish fantasy are all that much of an improvement. While the film expands upon a lot of the same themes regarding human nature and technophobia that were present in the first film, it's hard to tell if it does a good job of expressing them with any more clarity, especially when the film starts getting a little too wrapped up in delivering action sequences. As a result, I don't really feel like I can praise Innocence too highly but I can definitely respect it as a decent follow-up to a classic that at least doesn't get things horribly wrong. As with all of Oshii's other films, I feel like it needs a second viewing to truly absorb everything that's going on, but as it stands I think I can afford to wait a while before the next time.

3

Iroquois

09-05-15, 08:38 AM

#553 - The Last Seduction
John Dahl, 1994

https://behindtheseens.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/the-last-seduction-featured-image.png

After her husband pulls off a lucrative drug deal, a woman steals the cash and proceeds to hide out in a small town.

The Last Seduction offered an interesting premise in that it decided to take one of the most fundamental yet admittedly overused noir tropes and build an entire film on subverting it. In your archetypal noir story, a femme fatale is a female character who often serves as a catalyst for the plot when she meets the male protagonist and soon enough gets him involved in the narrative at large. Said character is often an alluring type who will use her attractiveness in order to manipulate male characters to her advantage (which naturally includes the protagonist) and thus makes her just as much of a threat as any gun-toting gangster or nosy official. The Last Seduction takes a different tack by actually making a femme fatale the protagonist - in this case, a tough-talking call-centre supervisor (Linda Fiorentino) whose husband (Bill Pullman) has just acquired a pile of cash in the wake of a drug deal. After a brief domestic incident, she decides to take the money and run, eventually stopping in a small town where her straight-shooting attitude causes a stir with the locals. She eventually decides to settle in for the time being, acquiring an office job and beginning an extremely casual relationship with a local guy (Peter Berg). Of course, she still has to contend with Pullman doing whatever it takes to track her down...

While The Last Seduction starts off rather promisingly, that promise soon fades away. While I suppose I can't judge the film all that harshly for its mid-'90s made-for-TV visual style, I could definitely take issue with the conscious attempt to utilise a jazzy score, which seems to drive home the genre homage a little too hard for its own good. These stylistic choices are nominally inconsequential but they serve as unfortunate window-dressing for a less-than-stellar film. Given how important the lead role is to the film at large, it's just as well that Fiorentino ends up providing such a good performance. With a husky voice and a wide range of adequately convincing emotions (even though we know she is likely to be feigning them), she has just enough complexity and understandable motivation to avoid being a one-note villain. The rest of the cast get some fairly unchallenging roles; Pullman gets to play a slimy antagonist who definitely isn't a good guy but isn't all that one-note either, while Berg manages to take a character who would nominally be the "hero" of a typical noir yet displays a pathetic nature that exposes how fundamentally ridiculous a certain type of noir protagonist tends to be. Given the production value, it practically goes without saying that, with the exception of those three and also Bill Nunn as a private investigator hired by Pullman, the acting leaves a fair bit to be desired.

The film arguably goes on a bit too long and its premise only goes so far in creating a genuinely interesting film. Filtering many of the usual noir tropes and clichés through the femme fatale's perspective does little to make you forget about their inherently clichéd nature so the film doesn't feel especially impressive on that account. Granted, there are the occasional darkly amusing moments caused by the film's approach to its material, such as Fiorentino's plot to escape Nunn's custody at one point, but these are arguably counter-balanced by the film occasionally resorting to some problematic twists (such as a major late-stage reveal involving Berg's character), which might be justified by the characters' personal flaws but does seem to date the film's sensibilities for the worse (even if it is in the name of humour, such as the small town's entirely-white inhabitants nervously noting the black Nunn's presence in hushed tones). As such, The Last Seduction is interesting as an exercise in toying with genre expectations and it's at least carried by a decent lead performance, but beyond that there doesn't seem to be much to recommend about it beyond its status as a cinematic curiosity. I'd argue it's worth a watch simply because it exists, but it's very debatable as to whether or not it's actually all that good a film.

2.5

Iroquois

09-05-15, 09:11 AM

#554 - Run Ronnie Run!
Troy Miller, 2002

http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/3664/36/16x9/960.jpg

After making a memorable appearance on a Cops-like reality TV series, a white-trash deadbeat gets his own spin-off series and moves to Hollywood.

I recently watched the entire four-season run of Mr. Show, the cult sketch comedy series created by and starring Bob Odenkirk and David Cross that ran from 1995 to 1998. The show built a considerable reputation thanks to its hilarious ensemble of underground comedians who powered their way through episode after episode of incredibly absurd and frequently satirical skits that often bled into one another for maximum comic effect while singularly yielding comedy gold. Such an approach makes it easy to draw comparisons to legendary British sketch show Monty Python's Flying Circus; this does make one wish that the show's sole cinematic spin-off, 2002's Run Ronnie Run!, could have been a stand-alone testament to the same talent that made the show such a beloved entity in the same vein as ...Holy Grail or Life of Brian. Unfortunately, Run Ronnie Run! ended up being a severely flawed attempt to spin an entire film out of one of the show's recurring characters and ended up torpedoing what little chance the creative minds behind Mr. Show had of translating that particular sensibility to a wider audience than late-night HBO obsessives.

Given how much Mr. Show tended to avoid relying on recurring characters in favour of building consistently entertaining episodes around many single-use sketches, the decision to base an entire film around one such character seems pragmatic but also just doesn't work. It might have something to do with the fact that the recurring character in question is Ronnie Dobbs (Cross), a so-called "Southern gentleman" who lives a stereotypically trailer-trash lifestyle where his only real goals are chasing cheap thrills and avoiding capture by the local law enforcement. The latter results in him ended up appearing on a show that is obviously supposed to be a parody of Cops. His memorable appearance attracts the attention of British entrepreneur Terry Twillstein (Odenkirk) who seizes upon the idea that Ronnie's antics are entertaining enough to deserve their own show. Before too long, Terry tracks down Ronnie and convinces him to go along with his scheme, launching a standard rags-to-riches plot where Ronnie's rise to fame and fortune conflicts with his desire to re-marry his childhood sweetheart Tammy (Jill Talley), who is naturally tired of his irresponsibility and wants him to grow as a person .

Choosing such a simplistic character as Ronnie to be the crux of the film definitely proves to be a problem, especially when a large bulk of the film seems to be stretching out the existing storyline established within the character's brief appearances on Mr. Show. The film seems to realise the limited potential of a story based entirely around Ronnie, though its attempts to pack out its running time lack any serious comedic innovation and instead rely on anything from numerous celebrity cameos (with the only genuinely funny one involving Mandy Patinkin as the star of a musical based on Ronnie) to repeating the same types of gags over and over (the running gag involving David Koechner as Ronnie's increasingly injured drinking buddy being the most egregious example of such). It thus results in a comedy that is not just low-brow but is nearly indistinguishable from the sort of film that I'd go out of my way to avoid if it didn't have such talented creators involved. A brief appearance by another couple of Mr. Show characters in the form of white R-'n'-B duo Three Times One Minus One only makes me think that those characters have enough depth to their incredibly absurd nature that I think they'd be far better candidates for the feature-length treatment (coincidentally, their sudden appearance happened to garner the biggest of what few laughs I got out of this film).

Unfortunately, it was not meant to be and so Run Ronnie Run! ends up feeling like an excessively boiled-down version of everything that made Mr. Show great. Even if I wasn't going to compare it to the source series, it'd still come across as extremely light on laughs thanks to its weak premise that doesn't make good on its satirical promise, especially in incredibly dated instances such as a parody of hit reality series Survivor. I would like to think that the film was intended to be a mockery of such comedies that are aimed at the lowest common denominator (even before the executives responsible apparently turned it into a shell of itself) but that's probably just wishful thinking on my part. I guess I should just be grateful that it wasn't completely devoid of laughs, which I suppose can be credited to the talent of the performers and writers, which can't quite be suppressed even under such unfavourable circumstances.

2

christine

09-05-15, 09:18 AM

Ito, Liked your excellent review of a personal favourite The Warriors. Also loved your description of Charles Bronson as a milquetoast protagonist . Made me smile that did :)

cricket

09-05-15, 10:49 AM

Glad to see another fan of The Warriors; it's one of my favorites as well. I didn't know about the other cut, screw that!

I didn't like Braindead-too over the top for me.

House wasn't my style either, but I did like it.

honeykid

09-05-15, 10:59 AM

Iroquois

09-05-15, 10:40 PM

I don't know how easy it is to get an original cut of The Warriors now. I've not seen one since the Directors cut came out. Thankfully I still have my VHS copy, should I really need to watch it properly.

I can only speak for Australian/R4 DVDs, but at some point in the past year or so I noticed that they'd re-issued the original version on DVD so of course I snapped up a copy. We'll see if this means the Director's Cut gets phased out completely.

Iroquois

09-05-15, 10:58 PM

#555 - Disciples of the 36th Chamber
Lau Kar-leung, 1985

http://951465021.r.lightningbase-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/post/shaw-brothers-vs-golden-harvest-1985/discipples.jpg

Three Cantonese brothers are forced to hide in a Shaolin temple after the most irresponsible member of the trio causes a conflict with their Manchurian overlords.

The 1978 Shaw Brothers film The 36th Chamber of Shaolin earned a place as one of my favourite martial arts films on the basis of having its incredibly capable leading man, the one and only Gordon Liu, prove a fascinating screen presence despite lacking the Confucian charisma of Bruce Lee or even the foolish charm of Jackie Chan. The film itself managed to be impressive simply for having half its running time consist of a hellish training montage for Liu's character as he worked to develop the skills necessary to become a Shaolin warrior monk in sequences that were so well-executed that I was able to look past how fundamentally uninteresting an extended training montage should be. 1985's Disciples of the 36th Chamber is apparently the second sequel to that particular film (I have not seen 1980's Return to the 36th Chamber, though I do still want to) and brings back Liu's character San Te, this time a far more experienced Shaolin monk than the novice of films past. However, San Te ends up being a supporting character in this particular tale that instead focuses on three Cantonese brothers who end up residing in his order's temple after one of them upsets the local Manchurian rulers, essentially forcing the trio into exile.

Much like Jackie Chan's Drunken Master, Disciples of the 36th Chamber thrives on having its protagonist be based on an actual Chinese folk hero whose on-screen exploits are heavily rooted in slapstick buffoonery. Here, the protagonist in question is Fong Sai-Yuk (Hsiao Ho), one of three brothers who is introduced to us as being the dunce of a class where every other student is more than half his age. Unfortunately, there is nothing especially amusing about this hero who has to be forcibly tied to his brothers when he is out in public for fear of the mischief and mayhem that he may cause. Though circumstances eventually lead to him being untied and made to fight, they only cause further complications to the already-tense feuds between the Han populace and the Manchu ruling class. Even when the brothers are packed off to the Shaolin temple, Sai-Yuk still does his best to escape from the rigours of training. To go on would probably count as a spoiler, but I make my point well enough. Sai-Yuk's actions and personality make him an especially obnoxious and hard-to-like hero whose rebellious yet naive nature end up causing so much unwarranted conflict that he makes the villainous Manchurian characters seem downright tolerable in their pantomime evilness. Without a decent enough hero to root for in these circumstances, Disciples of the 36th Chamber flounders severely for far too much of its extremely brief running time, and this is coming from someone who liked Drunken Master.

It's a shame, then, because that severely scuppers what is otherwise a fairly decent Shaw Brothers film. The production is rife with silky costumes and ornate backdrops and the sound work is naturally packed with all sorts of snappy, swishy noises. Though he is significantly diminished by being stuck in a supporting role without an arc of his own beyond being a strict mentor, Liu is still great to watch. Speaking of which, the finale really is the only good reason to even consider watching Disciples of the 36th Chamber because it features some well-choreographed wire-fu. That (along with one comical scene in which the heroes' mother challenges the main villain to open her thighs...it makes sense in context) are minor highlights in a film that tries to be funny by doing a comical reiteration of The 36th Chamber of Shaolin. Sadly, Sai-Yuk is too annoying a character to make even his most well-deserved comeuppances induce any sort of amusement, instead irritating me to the point where I not only don't care about whether or not he becomes a hero but I also struggle to care about what he does when he is the hero. While there may be the same level of quality common to Shaw Brothers productions, here it just feels wasted on a film that fails pretty badly at what it sets out to do.

1.5

Iroquois

09-06-15, 10:06 PM

#556 - Enter the Void
Gaspar Noé, 2009

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fE8bdaupIlQ/TGKje6afF1I/AAAAAAAAABk/0HJhZ6e0q64/s1600/Void.png

When an American drug dealer living in Tokyo is shot to death by police, he proceeds to have a prolonged out-of-body experience.

I first attempted to watch Enter the Void when it was doing the rounds of the festival circuit towards the end of 2010 and I went to see it on a double-bill with Todd Solondz's Life During Wartime. I had already seen both I Stand Alone and Irréversible, so I was already familiar with Noé's extremely abrasive cinematic sensibilities. Enter the Void sounded theoretically more "enjoyable" than those films, if only because it promised a lush psychedelic experience thanks to its plot about drug dealer Oscar (Nathaniel Brown) getting killed in a sting operation one night and then proceeding to become a spirit who observes how things play out in the wake of his death. Between the displays of sensory abuse and the extremely disconcerting subject matter, I soon grew uncomfortable enough that I ended up walking out of the theatre after roughly an hour, marking the first time that I had ever actually walked out of a movie. As a result, I thought that someday I would get around to finishing Enter the Void, and when I saw that it was available for viewing on Netflix I decided that then I would finish what I started.

After going through its notoriously brief yet explosive opening credits, Enter the Void is split up into three clearly-defined sections. First, there's the entire section that follows Oscar through the last night of his life, then there's an extended sequence where his life effectively flashes before his eyes before finally having his spirit observe what happens in the wake of his death. The first part plays out entirely from a first-person perspective and introduces a number of the major players in Oscar's life and enough foreshadowing to carry the remainder of the film. The second plays out like a massive chunk of exposition that serves to give background details to what is already hinted at during the first part of the film, developing relationships such as the...complex one between him and his sister Linda (Paz de la Huerta), as well as that with his best friend Alex (Cyril Roy) who gets him into dealing as well, in addition to showcasing the various other memories and choices that have led up to his terrible fate. The third part simply involves him being a passive presence who examines what happens to the others in the aftermath of his death.

Unfortunately, as with Noé's other films the actual development of plot and characterisation is probably the weakest aspect of this film, especially considering how much of the second act consists of making incredibly blatant what was already clearly implied during the first act (such as the conflict that arises between Oscar and the friend who ultimately turns him in to the police). The decision to use a largely amateur cast and significant amounts of improvised dialogue adds a certain degree of authenticity to the parts of the film that aren't explicitly intended to be fantastic; however, it's still the weakest part of the movie due to its focus on characters of varying levels of both sympathy and complexity. At least Oscar and Linda get enough development so that we at least care about what happens to them, especially the latter as she attempts to cope with the former's death (while the former acts a little too foolish at times to be all that sympathetic in his own right). Meanwhile, Alex is a character who may not be so easy to tolerate due to his cheeky fast-talking and generally cocky attitude. Everyone else is pretty one-note and not exactly worth further examination.

If there's any reason to watch Enter the Void, it is most definitely for the audio-visual experience more so than any real development of plot and characters. While said experience was admittedly a major factor in convincing me to bail on a theatrical screening (that and the film's treatment of its protagonist's death, which was perhaps a little too effective at communicating the obviously weighty nature of the subject), even then I was able to see that Noé was at least passionate about crafting one of the most brightly hypnotic films ever made. Setting it in the lurid, neon-soaked streets of Tokyo yields many locations and scenes that feature gorgeous combinations of every conceivable colour complete with uncannily strong contrasts. The same goes for the camerawork; after the conclusion of the impressive and lengthy first-person sequence (complete with blinks, which is a nice touch even if it makes you wonder where the film cuts), the film then switches up to Oscar's disembodied spirit flying around Tokyo and hovering over many scenes that run in many long takes, blending real footage with CGI in order to create a consistently believable illusion of being a lost soul roaming the land of the living. Though not every shot in the film is guaranteed to be a free-floating psychedelia-tinged extravaganza, enough of them are to make it at least worth your while.

Of course, this doesn't stop Noé from lapsing into a lot of his trademark gimmicks such as disorienting strobe lighting and deliberately jarring drones on the soundtrack (on a lesser note, I also find the chintzy music-box version of Bach's "Air on a G String" that plays repeatedly throughout the film to get more than a little tiresome after a whole). The shock tactics are out in force and, though they do make the experience a little unpredictable, they can also get a little too repetitive (such as one graphic jump-scare moment that is repeated a couple of times) Seeing as this is probably the closest that Noé has come to making a film that could be described as "enjoyable", one is likely to resent the moments that once again try to grind an audience back down into feeling cynical and depressed over the fragility of life and all that. The same goes for whether or not the more graphic content in the film feels like overkill - though this is arguably the most tolerable feature Noé has done yet, sequences such as Oscar gliding his way through a love hotel filled with couples having sex still feel gratuitous even though the combined technical choices definitely don't make these scenes feel even remotely titillating.

Now that I've had a chance to finish Enter the Void, I have to admit that I do kind of like it. Granted, there's still a lot to dislike about it - the incredibly shallow plot that's packed out with some rather stock characters isn't improved by Noé's preference to shock people's senses through physically unsettling stimuli more so than narrative weight, plus it's maybe a bit too long even in the slightly shortened version that I watched. I still think I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being. If nothing else, the underlying structure isn't too obnoxious to off-set the colourful visuals (*cough*Spring Breakers*cough* - incidentally, both films share the same cinematographer and it shows), and ultimately that's what matters. The story does get dark in its meditations on sex, drugs, death, love, loyalty, and the nihilism that arises from the mournful absence or ultimately unwanted presence of those particular things. My feelings about the film are most definitely flexible - after posting this, I could decide that it deserves to be disliked instead of liked - but I give it credit for providing a genuinely interesting cinematic experience that doesn't threaten to completely alienate an audience like Noé's previous films deliberately set out to do. Enter the Void may not have that much to offer in terms of thematic depth, but it makes up for it in being the film version of looking through a kaleidoscope that's pointed at the gates of Hell. At the very least, it's the first film he's made that I actually feel would be worth watching more than once.

3

Iroquois

09-07-15, 09:25 AM

#557 - Incident at Loch Ness
Zak Penn, 2004

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/incident-at-loch-ness-2004/hero_EB20041021REVIEWS41004007AR.jpg

A documentary crew follows acclaimed director Werner Herzog as he is hired to direct his own film about the Loch Ness monster.

What an odd little duck of a film this turned out to be. Incident at Loch Ness is a behind-the-scenes chronicle of what happened during the filming of famed German director Werner Herzog's documentary about the fabled Loch Ness monster. Herzog, who has earned quite the level of notoriety for presiding over some incredibly difficult film productions, naturally has a camera crew following him in case this production goes wrong. The film, tentatively titled Enigma of Loch Ness, is being produced by Hollywood screenwriter Zak Penn, who has his own ulterior motives for getting a director of Herzog's stature involved in his project. After assembling a small crew to work on the film-within-a-film, everyone heads to Scotland and prepare to make the film and its behind-the-scenes documentary. It is at this point that I feel that I should avoid delving too much further into what happens in this film, but it practically goes without saying that the shoot encounters all sorts of setbacks ranging from minor technical issues to the friction that develops between the crew members as the production grows increasingly futile and dangerous.

Herzog's presence is at once the film's greatest strength and its greatest weakness, though in the latter case it has less to do with the man himself and more with how the film itself is built around him. With his airy German drawl and distinctive countenance, Herzog makes for a great protagonist in his own right who commands virtually every shot in which he appears. The other people in the film may not have his sheer force of personality, but many of them distinguish themselves just fine. Penn makes for an appropriate antithesis to Herzog, with his role as a gormless American responsible for writing Hollywood blockbusters like Behind Enemy Lines or X-Men 2 making him the ideal foil for this cultured European responsible for making some of the most respectable art films of the 20th century. The crew tend to be serviceable people who generally maintain down-to-earth vibes, with the stand-outs being the bearded cryptozoologist who could have been the protagonist of an actual Herzog film thanks to his bizarre obsession with the paranormal and the token female crew member who just so happens to be a model and whose late arrival into the film is at once a shameless stunt-cast on Penn's part yet also a surprisingly vital part of the film's plot. With an appropriately mismatched collection of individuals in place, the film is ready to progress.

Of course, the true weakness comes from how Incident at Loch Ness is a little too conscious of how much it wants to duplicate the same craziness that has happened in and around actual Herzog productions. If the fact that the film's conflict comes from a group of people being trapped on a boat isn't enough of a tip-off, then it becomes extremely clear thanks to the scene depicted in the header image, which features Penn angrily aiming a flare-gun at a recalcitrant Herzog in a deliberate homage to the apparently apocryphal story of Herzog directing Klaus Kinski at gunpoint during the filming of Aguirre, the Wrath of God. The film's attempts at providing clever riffs on its leading man's reputation work to an extent, though you definitely can't shake the feeling that the film is trying too hard in instances such as the one depicted above; this is especially true considering how Penn bluntly name-checks the incident in question and asks Herzog how it feels to be on the other end of the gun for a change. I can definitely understand how incidents like this seem to be deliberate attempts by Penn to showcase the stifling and self-destructive nature of Hollywood producers trying to force creative energy out of a person like Herzog, especially when Penn's actual plan is revealed and Herzog has a...complicated reaction. Though it's arguably intended to be played for humour, I honestly don't think it translates all that well, or at the very least not enough so as to get a laugh. This sort of clever self-referential attitude is what ends up distinguishing the film for better or worse; otherwise, it is a fairly standard example of a behind-the-scenes film where conflict is driven mainly by in-fighting more so than external obstacles.

Even though the humour is a little too self-aware for its own good, Incident at Loch Ness is a generally decent film that uses its documentarian approach to provide a rather amusing (albeit not particularly deep) take on Herzog's notoriety. This is less because of anything Herzog himself does and more thanks to how he reacts to the increasingly absurd situation surrounding him. The understated cast sell the material well enough, while Penn's presence is definitely noteworthy as he ends up becoming the true subject of the film more so than either Herzog or the Loch Ness monster. Though the film's attempts to either parody or pay homage to Herzog's extensive career are a bit hit-and-miss, Penn himself becomes a very Herzog-like protagonist as his true intentions for hiring Herzog to come to Scotland are revealed and his behaviour only keeps getting more bizarre as the film goes on, which is just as well considering how fundamentally by-the-numbers it can be compared to other films and shows of its ilk. If the truth is always stranger than fiction, then that does do an intentionally weird film like Incident at Loch Ness a bit of a disservice, but at least it's not a major one.

3

cricket

09-07-15, 10:32 AM

That's a great review of Enter the Void, a pretty off the wall movie. I would give it the same rating, and I think I liked it slightly more than I Stand Alone, and I'd rank Irreversible last out of the three. The guy is a fascinating director for sure. It's funny that you walked out of the cinema as that seems the ideal place to see it, although I can understand it.

Iroquois

09-07-15, 10:42 AM

Yeah, I do regret walking out on it, but it really was proving too tough to watch at the time. Oh, well.

Iroquois

09-09-15, 12:33 AM

#558 - Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Kevin Smith, 2008

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/n42xoYSxvSYl.jpg

Two lifelong friends decide to make their own adult film in order to pay the bills.

If I were to pinpoint the moment at which I started to seriously question thinking of Kevin Smith as one of my favourite film-makers, it was probably when I watched Zack and Miri Make a Porno. After making five mostly-comedic films set in his inter-connected "View Askewniverse", Smith proceeded to make an unconnected film about a single dad and called it Jersey Girl, which took enough of a critical and commercial drubbing that Smith's next project ended up being a rather safe choice in that it was a direct sequel to his breakthrough no-budget debut Clerks. This was around the same time that a veteran comedy writer by the name of Judd Apatow made his big-screen directorial debut with 2005's The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which proved to be such a surprise hit that it effectively launched not only his own film-making career but also ushered in a new wave of fresh-faced and not-so-fresh-faced comedic actors who soon started making their own movies. While I cop to enjoying The 40-Year-Old Virgin the first time I saw it, repeat viewings were not kind to it and I grew rather fatigued by Apatow's particular brand of comedy, which tended towards the overly long, the heavily improvised, and the pointlessly dramatic. That negative impression has stuck with me year after year so whenever I am faced with any comedy that even looks like Apatow had anything to do with it, the best-case scenario is that I tend to be skeptical of it being any good.

This brings me to Zack and Miri Make a Porno, a film in which Smith shamelessly decides to make a film aimed at appropriating Apatow's style. This extends to not only stacking the cast with several actors who had previously worked with Apatow, but also by building off the same kind of R-rated high-concept that is simple enough to be used as the title, promising both filthy chuckles and a warm emotional depth to otherwise unsentimental characters. So far, this all comes across as territory that Smith's staked out before anyway, but it also marks his second attempt to make a film based outside the comfort zone of the Askewniverse (with the first being the bland but inoffensive Jersey Girl). However, he focuses on copying Apatow to the point where it either obscures or compromises his few strengths as a film-maker; Smith has always been more of a writer than a director, which puts him at odds with his conscious decision to imitate a film-maker whose films tend to involve significant levels of improvisation. Apatow's sensibilities were already enough to seriously alienate me, but they're made even worse when they clash with Smith's, leading to scenes such as the one where Seth Rogen's Zack makes multiple amused comments while watching a pair of gay men have an argument. As such, there's a certain aura of self-satisfaction to the way that a lot of the interactions play out as the film becomes less about organic interplay (pun not intended) and feels way too much like everyone is trying to one-up each other's jokes, which only hurts the film as a whole.

On the acting front, things are far from great. A lot of that can be pinned on the incredibly weak characterisation on display. The eponymous duo (played by Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks respectively) embody a fairly typical goofy-guy-less-goofy-girl dynamic that pays true homage to Apatow by disguising the lack of serious depth through many a foul-mouthed exchange and a dependence on the stars essentially playing themselves. This is a problem in Rogen's case since this comes from a period where he almost invariably played immature slackers who were so awfully similar to one another that one could easily tune out any variations (if there were any), while Banks gets little more to do than play his neurotic foil. Craig Robinson doesn't fare much better as Rogen's co-worker who gets roped into his crazy make-a-porno scheme while also trying to hide it from his wife (oh, those wacky married couples) and proves some very debatable race-based humour. They even bring in Gerry Bednob, who apparently made such an impression with his bit part as the cranky old Indian guy in The 40-Year-Old Virgin that this production went out of its way to get him involved as if to remind audiences, "Hey, you liked The 40-Year-Old Virgin, right?" There are a couple of actors who have worked with Smith such as Jason Mewes (once again playing a foul-mouthed doofus, albeit one who's far less obnoxious than Jay) and Jeff Anderson (a.k.a Randal from Clerks, though here he plays a far less defined character). Their presence feels like little more than a wink to Smith fans that, yes, this is most definitely a Smith film; that being said, Mewes is probably the most amusing performer in the film by some distance, with some of his more foolish antics and turns of phrase definitely earning a couple of chuckles.

Of course, just because Zack and Miri Make a Porno wrings a couple of chuckles out during its feature-length running time doesn't mean I can bring myself to like it. I already mentioned the clashing comedic sensibilities and techniques, but they only exacerbate the problems with a script that definitely embodies more of Smith's flaws than usual. The premise pretty much guarantees that the humour's going to be filthy, but here its relentless application ends up being numbing. The more explicitly pornography-themed humour is extremely dire, whether it's Zack and Miri delivering a constant stream of pun-based movie titles as they try to name their project (eventually settling on "Star Whores" because guess what sci-fi franchise Smith really likes...) or the awkwardness involved in the actual production itself (complete with one extremely quick gross-out gag that should theoretically provide one of the film's biggest and most sudden laughs but...doesn't). It is "complemented" by the film's attempts to build an emotional core behind its cheeky shenanigans, which predictably revolves around how platonic roommates Zack and Miri are made to confront the supposedly non-existent romantic tension that exists between them yet is predictably challenged by their work on this production. Smith may have semi-competently balanced relationship drama with slacker comedy in films like Chasing Amy or Clerks II, but here his touch is clumsy and what was already a pretty joyless excuse for a comedy gets even more bogged down as more and more attention is paid to complicating and resolving a very inconsequential plot.

I am now wondering which of Smith's films I wish to cite as my least favourite - this or his 2014 mad-science horror-comedy Tusk (his 2010 buddy-cop comedy Cop Out is also terrible, but in a bland and slightly less insulting manner than either of the other two films). Despite both films' superficially dissimilar plots and intentions, they do manage to showcase Smith at his absolute worst underneath their provocative premises. Both films are grossly derivative (what is Tusk if not a more broadly comical version of The Human Centipede?) and are marred by serious tonal inconsistencies, to say nothing of the ways in which the humour lapses into unpleasant self-indulgence far too often for either film to be genuinely funny. Though the extremely fatalistic and disgusting body-horror premise of Tusk may make it fundamentally worse than the simplistic lewdness of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, that doesn't exactly let the latter film off the hook. The passage of time has led to me re-assessing all of Smith's films (frequently for the worst), but this was the first time that I saw a Smith film and didn't just feel disappointment (as was the case with Chasing Amy) but genuine hatred. I still look to this film as the turning point where I started the journey from impressionable fanboy to "Well, at least Clerks is still kind of good". That should tell you everything you need to know about this aggressively mediocre and obnoxious attempt to ride a bandwagon.

0.5

honeykid

09-09-15, 08:13 AM

Iroquois

09-09-15, 10:24 AM

#559 - Obvious Child
Gillian Robespierre, 2014

http://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Screen-Shot-2014-04-15-at-4.33.21-PM.png

After being dumped by an unfaithful boyfriend, a twenty-something comedian has a one-night stand that results in an unwanted pregnancy.

Obvious Child seemed like a fairly promising film thanks to its decidedly romance-free premise about a woman (Jenny Slate) whose boyfriend leaves her for one of her friends. In the wake of this revelation, she has a one-night stand with a man she meets in the comedy club where she performs. A few weeks later, she discovers that she is pregnant. So far, so familiar. Then she immediately decides to go through with an abortion without intending to tell the father. This is an interesting enough hook to a rom-com premise that has grown rather stale in recent years, but between that and the extremely brief length of the film it becomes unfortunately clear that this is not enough to sustain a feature film. It clocks in at a lean eighty-four minutes, but even then there are many scenes that do feel an awful lot like padding even when they're not supposed to be (such as the entire sequence of scenes featuring David Cross as one of Slate's fellow comedians - as funny as I normally find Cross, even his rather pathetic character isn't very amusing).

I can accept that just because a film is about comedians doesn't automatically mean that it has to be a funny one. However, when considering how much screen-time is dedicated to actually watching stand-up routines, it is kind of disappointing how none of them provoke any laughter, especially when it comes to the ones that are deliberately trying to amuse rather than showcase Slate's character having a subtle breakdown on-stage. Another thing that is interesting about Obvious Child is how it does actually commit to having its pregnant protagonist not only decide to have an abortion but also stick to it, which is a bold move considering how the film also tries to develop and display quirky indie bona fides. Unfortunately, even that doesn't feel like enough to make the film as a whole feel especially worthwhile. It's not terrible by any means, it's just awfully...dull. Even Slate's central performance as an adorkable neurotic who does her best to take her situation in stride (with a decently acted support network at her side) isn't enough to totally salvage the film. I can respect its rather unorthodox approach to such a contentious subject while trying to deliver an off-beat slice-of-life comedy, but that doesn't automatically mean it works.

2

MovieMeditation

09-09-15, 10:29 AM

Surprised at such a low rating, but I guess you do explain why you think so.

I remember enjoying this one back in the days, but I don't know if I have grown older and thereby won't like it as much anymore, because it can be quite silly... Funny thing is, I haven't seen Smith's masterpieces like Clerks, but I have seen this one, Tusk and Cop Out. Oddly enough I enjoyed Zack and Miri and Cop Out, but I did hate Tusk.

I don't know, I guess I have to watch this again to really criticize anything you say, because right now it is only a faint memory.

honeykid

09-09-15, 11:06 AM

Is a woman making the decision to have an abortion and stick to it really something unusual in film? It seems like something that'd be really prosaic.

Iroquois

09-09-15, 11:35 PM

I have a copy of this, but haven't watched it. I bought it when it came out but even then I wasn't psyched by the prospect of watching it. Being a Smith film was all it had going for it. One day I'll watch it (much like Juno) but much of what you said is as I feared.

Hey, you never know. Considering our difference of opinion over Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, you might very well like it more than I did, but it really will depend on your own tolerance for Judd Apatow and whether or not you can handle Smith trying his damndest to replicate his style with only the occasional Smith signature such as Star Wars or hockey or Jason Mewes being thrown in for good measure.

Surprised at such a low rating, but I guess you do explain why you think so.

I remember enjoying this one back in the days, but I don't know if I have grown older and thereby won't like it as much anymore, because it can be quite silly... Funny thing is, I haven't seen Smith's masterpieces like Clerks, but I have seen this one, Tusk and Cop Out. Oddly enough I enjoyed Zack and Miri and Cop Out, but I did hate Tusk.

I don't know, I guess I have to watch this again to really criticize anything you say, because right now it is only a faint memory.

I haven't seen Zack and Miri since it came out in 2008 and I was pretty much geared up to dislike it because of the whole Apatow thing. Even mellowing out about that over the past few years hasn't done much to improve my opinion. Also, Smith's earlier work is worth checking out, though I'd argue that Clerks is the only true masterpiece. Films like Chasing Amy and Dogma are alright, but stuff like Mallrats and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back only looks good in comparison to stuff like Zack and Miri.

Is a woman making the decision to have an abortion and stick to it really something unusual in film? It seems like something that'd be really prosaic.

Maybe within the context of American comedy - given the whole "quirky indie" vibe, my initial frame of reference was to compare it to Juno (which admittedly did feature its protagonist going to get an abortion but ultimately deciding against it at the last minute) and, to a lesser extent, Knocked Up (which skimmed over the possibility of the female lead getting an abortion so quickly that I can barely remember why not). Then again, there was Fast Times at Ridgemont High so I don't know, I guess it's a case-by-case basis and it was interesting to see the makers of Obvious Child try to build a dramedy around a woman who was most definitely going to get an abortion.

Iroquois

09-09-15, 11:42 PM

#560 - Lost in Translation
Sofia Coppola, 2003

http://www.hollyinspec.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tumblr_mbgog2P85B1ri3in9o1_1280.jpg

Two Americans - one an aging actor, the other a young newlywed - strike up an unlikely friendship while both of them are staying at the same hotel in Tokyo.

This is my first time revisiting Lost in Translation in ages. I liked it well enough the first time that I saw it, but I didn't exactly love it or anything. The passage of several years and the many changes to my cinematic tastes naturally meant that my viewpoint would be different, but would it be different enough to improve my opinion of the film? That'd make sense given how much Lost in Translation tends to be based in a less-is-more approach as its admittedly rudimentary narrative tries to provide an experience more so than a story. Renowned sad-clown star Bill Murray thus makes for the ideal lead as a character that bears a lot of similarity to his real-life persona, here playing a famous film actor who is in Tokyo to shoot a whiskey commercial. When he's not working on the commercial or appearing on talk shows, he's engaging in singularly empty activities such as watching subtitle-free Japanese TV or swimming in the hotel's luxurious pool. To counter screen veteran Murray, relative newcomer Scarlett Johansson co-stars as the young wife of a professional photographer (Giovanni Ribisi) who's in Tokyo for work reasons. While he's off working (which is almost all the time), Johansson finds herself bored; though she makes an effort to play tourist and check out a lot of the sights, more often than not she stays cooped up in the hotel listening to self-help audiobooks or staring out the window. Eventually, the two leads' paths cross and they become acquaintances who opt to kill their free time together out of a sort of mutual disconnection to the people and places around them.

One could definitely question the intentions behind the many comedic scenes in which Murray is either amused or bemused by the culture shock and the language barrier (such as one scene where he has a linguistically-based conflict with an escort that's arrived at his hotel room door), though they do feed into the film's main themes of emotional emptiness that go beyond any superficial fun that's being poked at Japanese stereotypes (which I'm not entirely sure excuses it). The film will challenge and reward an audience's patience as it takes time unfolding with many scenes of what could be considered nothing happening; despite its emphasis on restraint, it doesn't become truly boring. The down-to-earth visual style captures Tokyo with clarity and little else; the soundtrack is an interesting one that invokes some unusual choices in its use of shoegaze bands like My Bloody Valentine and The Jesus and Mary Chain. Given how shoegaze is a musical genre in which relatively simple songs are lent greater weight by excessive distortion, the choices on offer definitely do a good job of reflecting the film's emphasis of everything except its simple plot. The pairing of Murray and Johansson is an unlikely one, but their dynamic is decent enough to carry the film during the periods where they are together. Otherwise, it really is dependent on scenes of one or both Americans spending their time being bothered by not just their fish-out-of-water situations but also by their own gnawing ennui. Despite the many superficial differences there are between the two characters, both actors are good at communicating a lot through body language more so than words, though they pretty much have to do that considering how often they end up on their own.

It's a shame that Lost in Translation works a little too well at making an audience relate to the same listlessness that its protagonists feel by being a somewhat slow and uneventful film that feels like passing time in a hotel room. That's not an automatic reason to condemn the film, but it's enough of a strike against it that I still feel slightly bored even as I've grown older and learned to appreciate cinematic restraint. The film definitely has enough good moments strewn throughout its running time that I'm willing to think of it as a decent film, but decent is all it really feels like. There's a certain indescribable quality to it that means that I would not be averse to giving it a third chance at some point down the line, but as for right now I'm willing to think of it as an uncomplicated indie film featuring an understated yet strong performance by Murray (how constant Oscar-chaser Sean Penn took home a Best Actor award for his scenery-chewing work in Mystic River over Murray's work here is beyond me) and a good break-out role for Johansson. Definitely worth at least one viewing no matter what.

3

gbgoodies

09-09-15, 11:59 PM

I haven't seen Lost in Translation, but I've heard that it's worth seeing just for Bill Murray's performance. It's been on my watchlist for a long time, but it keeps getting pushed down by HoFs, MoFo lists, and other recommendations. I may have to move it up a little bit.

TheUsualSuspect

09-10-15, 11:54 PM

Sorry I've missed a lot of this thread. You're a machine.

Iroquois

09-11-15, 01:01 AM

#561 - Birdemic 2: The Resurrection
James Nguyen, 2013

https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/birdemic-2.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1

A group of people working in Hollywood must band together to survive when bizarre rainstorms start bringing prehistoric killer birds back to life.

In many ways, the age of irony has proved to be a double-edged sword when it comes to pieces of unintentionally amusing entertainment (which is doubly ironic when you think about it). Back in the old days, noted bad directors like Edward D. Wood Jr. and Coleman Francis were somehow able to craft several poorly-made but well-intentioned films before their output was "celebrated" years later as a result of people like the crew at Mystery Science Theater 3000 latching onto their films as sources of accidental comedy. With the advent of the Internet and the constantly-evolving modes of humour derived from its existence, the thirst for such entertainment paradoxically guarantees that it's harder for filmmakers to provide anything that could be considered "pure" in terms of providing such entertainment value. Take Tommy Wiseau, the star-writer-director of the notoriously low-grade 2003 melodrama The Room. That film was a perfect storm of bizarre characteristics that gave a grossly incompetent film a second life as a weird curiosity and made its creator into a cult figure. Of course, Wiseau's response to the film's newfound following was to claim that it was his intention all along to create a deliberately terrible black comedy, as if his making one of the so-called worst movies ever made was deliberate. Unfortunately, by recognising what he had done and by trying to play up his weirdness for intentionally comic effect, Wiseau basically guaranteed that he would never produce anything on the same level as The Room ever again. He had become too self-aware to make any kind of sincere follow-up, and so anything else he does won't have that same indescribable sense of magic to it.

This brings me to Birdemic 2: The Resurrection, James Nguyen's follow-up to his zero-budget cult horror, 2010's Birdemic: Shock and Terror. The original Birdemic, which ultimately played out as little more than a rip-off of The Birds, had all the hallmarks of a bad movie that were only exacerbated by the film only having a budget of about $10,000 (making films like Troll 2 and The Room look seriously polished in the process). Though the most prominent problem was undoubtedly the incredibly primitive-looking effects work used to bring flocks of killer birds to life, that element was still supplanted by some incredibly amateur-ish acting, writing, editing, camerawork, sound work, pacing - and that was without mentioning the film's aggressively heavy-handed environmental message (with the Birdemic apparently being caused by the effects of global warming). I bring this all up because Birdemic 2 seems to promise more of the same as it follows the same plot progression as the first film. However, there's a good chance that the passage of several years and the inception of a cult following for the first film might have had the same kind of damaging influence that has affected Wiseau's own post-Room output. As a result, Birdemic 2 ends up being one of those sequels that is awfully similar to its predecessor without managing to capture the same ineffable magic, which is a shame when magic is all that the original Birdemic really had going for it.

The plot is fundamentally similar to that of the first one in that it takes half the film for the Birdemic to actually happen. In the meantime, the action relocates from the Bay Area setting of the first film to Hollywood, where a director named Bill is trying to make his own indie film. He ends up meeting Rod and Nathalie, the survivors of the original Birdemic. Rod, who already made millions of dollars during the events of the first film, agrees to help finance Bill's project on the condition that Nathalie, a Victoria's Secret model looking to break into acting, gets an audition for the movie's lead role. This causes conflict with Gloria, another actress who was originally promised the lead role by Bill (although that was mainly the off-shoot of Bill making advances towards her). Such behind-the-scenes drama is enough to fuel the first half of the film, complete with lots of foreshadowing about the inevitable Birdemic. The reveal of the Birdemic still hits about as suddenly as the last one (and once again after a sex scene featuring the two leads - wonder if there's something to be read into there), but this time the nature of the Birdemic is fleshed out in some especially ridiculous ways. Whereas last time there was no real cause for the birds becoming homicidal (apart from global warming, of course), this time it's blamed on red rain falling from the skies and reanimating prehistoric birds that have been preserved in tar pits, bringing them all back to life to shock and terrorise the population of L.A.

Whether it's a deliberate attempt to invoke an audience's fondness for the predecessor or simply a lack of genuine innovation on Nguyen's part, Birdemic 2 struggles to fill out its brief running time with anything worthwhile. There is little in the way of significant variation on the experience of watching Birdemic - at least, not much that would for any "improvement". A lot of that has to do with setting the film in Hollywood and spending its first half focusing on a film production - this allows for the occasional meta-fictional joke such as having one character remark on how low-budget indie films are better than high-budget blockbusters or the existence of an Asian character who remarks about how he wants to write a movie based on the Birdemic. There's also a somewhat interesting plot development thanks to the competition for the film-within-a-film's lead role leading to a passive-aggressive rivalry forming between Nathalie and Gloria; in true Birdemic fashion, this goes nowhere. The film brings back several other characters from the first film; the exposition-dumping scientist, the ponytail-wearing tree-hugger, the lounge singer, Nathalie's mother, and even one of the two children (the explanation for the other child's absence is probably one of the most memorable moments in this whole film). Unsurprisingly, the characterisation is weak and the acting is weaker, yet the various random appearances and disappearances of characters still feels extremely inconsequential - I literally forgot about at least one character disappearing without any explanation until I started reading up on the film after watching it.

As for the rest of the film - well, if you've seen any footage from the first Birdemic, you have a pretty good idea of what to expect. The effects work used to capture the birds have ever-so-slightly improved, using fully 3-D computer effects rather than flat clip-art animation However, just because Nguyen has a slightly larger budget to work with this time around doesn't mean the actual scenes depicting the Birdemic become any better underneath the technological advancement. They go through the exact same motions that they did in the first film, alternating between hovering, dive-bombing, and getting killed by humans. Even Nguyen himself seems to realise the limited appeal of the birds and thus tries to add in several other different threats and the various effects needed to bring them to fruition. What is arguably the film's most memorable scene doesn't involve any birds whatsoever; instead, it focuses on a woman being stung by a sizable computer-generated jellyfish. That's without referencing the addition of raining blood (which naturally doesn't leave so much as a puddle on any actual scenery), which not only kick-starts a Birdemic by raising dead birds but also creates zombies, who are shown crawling out of graves in a manner that involves obvious use of green-screen. I can't even appreciate such a left-field development because it basically shows that the makers of an 80-minute killer bird movie where the birds don't even show up until the halfway mark can't even trust the killer birds to carry what's left of the movie. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with zombies, but here their presence seems like a convenient way to pad a movie where the conflict is driven by magic rain that brings the dead back to life. At least the resurrection of a pair of Neanderthals smacks of some creativity, if not necessarily of quality.

While Birdemic was definitely a novel and rather enjoyable experience (which was probably helped by watching it in a theatre with friends), Birdemic 2 ends up being a rather confounding piece of work for a number of reasons. I still find myself trying to figure out exactly how self-aware Nguyen and his collaborators are about the quality of the film they're making; if anything, the various attempts at jokes that pepper the film would suggest that there is an element of conscious self-parody at work here, though one might actually wonder if they are sincere jokes whose intentions are being misinterpreted (especially when one movie executive character complains about Bill's script lacking any sexually titillating content before later being shown presiding over a scene featuring three topless women - talk about the filmmakers having their cake and eating it too). The same goes for the film trying to introduce brand-new elements such as zombies, cavemen, and blood-red storms in order to prop up the killer birds' growing staleness. Such a concern over authenticity really does become significant when you want to rationalise the fact that Birdemic 2 is a sequel that tries to replicate its source film while also trying to make it different enough to justify its existence. Is it a deliberate attempt at satirisation (which is no doubt backed up by the various jabs at film production and Hollywood in general) or a failed attempt to make lightning strike twice (as evidenced by how slavishly this film mimics its predecessor)? It can be one or the other or a combination of the two (most likely the latter), but in any case the film feels like even more of a chore than its predecessor. Best recommended for when you have company of like minds and similar senses of humour, otherwise it really will feel like a serious contender for the worst movie ever made.

1

Iroquois

09-11-15, 08:39 AM

#562 - The Guest
Adam Wingard, 2014

http://i.imgur.com/kxGQUsy.jpg

A family is visited by a man claiming to have been a friend of their eldest son, who died while serving in the military.

I'm of two minds when it comes to the recent wave of '80s nostalgia that's permeating quite a few recent films. On the one hand, I appreciate that filmmakers are working to filter the best parts of that particular decade's techniques and aesthetics into new and exciting contexts, but on the other hand I do have to wonder if such slavish adherence to a decade gone by might actually be working to either stifle creativity or at the very least serve as window-dressing to films that I might otherwise not have cared about. Right from the moment that The Guest features a title card written in Albertus typeface (because if you're going to go for a deliberate cult '80s atmosphere, you've got to make sure that you use the same credits font as John Carpenter), you have a pretty good idea of just what you're in for. The film begins on a rural homestead located near a small town where the resident family is mourning the death of their son during the war in Afghanistan. It is around this time that an ex-soldier (Dan Stevens) arrives on their doorstep, stating that he was friends with the deceased son while they were in the military together. Though the family is initially wary of his presence, they offer to let him stay at their home for the time being. In addition to being bereaved, the family has a number of other issues such as the father (Leland Orser) having trouble with his job and the family's other son (Brendan Meyer) being bullied at school, so Stevens starts to set himself up as the family's guardian angel, even going so far as to escort the 20-year-old daughter (Maika Monroe) to potentially dangerous parties. Eventually, Monroe starts to clue in to the fact that there is something weird going on with Stevens, while Stevens' own erratic behaviour starts to escalate...

So the obvious frame of reference here would be the Hitchcock classic Shadow of a Doubt, with a family taking in a virtual stranger where the family's precocious daughter is the first and more or less only person to clue in that something's not quite right. While Shadow of a Doubt made it clear from the outset just how much of a villain Joseph Cotten's character is is before he starts hiding out with his distant relatives, The Guest offers no such insight into Stevens' character, though early scenes where he goads Meyer's bullies into a very one-sided bar brawl definitely hint at there being something seriously wrong with him, but the movie does tease out its reveal very carefully. The film is probably a bit too careful about its pacing, resulting in a first half that does feel a little dull and eventually you're just waiting for the truth to come out rather than anticipating it. At the very least, the acting is solid enough to carry an all-too-straightforward film - Stevens makes good as a character whose awkward yet affable behaviour hides a dark side that's a little on the vague side, while Monroe is a decent enough heroine who is believably flawed but sympathetic. Character actors such as Orser or Lance Reddick (playing the man who knows the truth about Stevens' character) flesh out their fairly standard characters reasonably well, especially the latter channeling his usual brand of no-nonsense charisma.

While the story is admittedly a bit too thin and poorly paced to make this film truly great (especially when it comes to expanding upon Stevens' true motivations, which are either too simple or too convoluted), the real strength comes from the fact that you get to feast your eyes and ears on a retro-style throwback full of lurid cinematography and loads of synth-pop on the soundtrack. I thought it was a nice touch that the soundtrack included the Sisters of Mercy's cover of Hot Chocolate's "Emma", though I wish it had been given greater emphasis or context. The choices of music combine to strong effect with the cinematography, which involves all manner of high-contrast shots featuring all sorts of complementary colours bouncing off one another. Though the film is a little too short on serious action, it crafts a sufficiently strong third act and puts together an interesting set-piece for its climax. The Guest ends up being a fun enough little film but it struggles to evoke the same sense of energy and flair as the films that inspired it. That seems to be the paradox that afflicts many films like The Guest - it's great at imitation, but not great full stop.

3

honeykid

09-11-15, 11:35 AM

Iroquois

09-12-15, 07:20 AM

As is often the case with films like this, Iro, I simply really like/enjoy all the things you don't like about Birdemic 2 and they're what make it more enjoyable than the first. I like the return of the characters and the differences (love the explanation for the boy not being there and the tree hugger who now hates books as they're bad for the environment and praises the kindle). I like the zombie street gang who, naturally, have automatic weapons. I like the same streets being used and the ridiculous blood rain reason for the birdemic. It's better than global warming. :D I like the pointless/random/satirical gratuitous nakedness and the killing which happens there. I like the stupid, but much improved, computer animations of the birds.

Actually, it was the girl who was absent, not the boy. There was no zombie street gang, just a regular street gang that had been killed by birds (the zombies were entirely different characters). The blood rain was an interesting concept but it fell apart once I realised just how transparent an attempt it was to inject life into a flatlining high-concept.

My g/f and I just laughed from start to finish and she enjoyed it far more than I. Taking out the 'proper films' she likes, such as The Matrix, this is up there as, arguably, her favourite film. I'm pretty sure she liked it more than Birdemic, though I'm not sure if she prefers it to Birdemic with the RiffTrax.

As I was sure to note in the review, I'm sure this is better in the company of like-minded individuals (that much I know about the first film), but I watched this by myself so excuse me for being alone.

If I rated films solely on competency and the like, this'd be dead in the water. At least as little as you've given it. But those things rarely cut any ice with me and, with films like this, that's certainly not why I'm watching them. I'll be far harsher on a $200m film which has a poor script than a $1m film with a poor script. But then, I'm far less likely to want to watch a film which costs $200m because those films rarely have much use for the things I enjoy about a film and things like the script are merely there in those films to get to the set pieces. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is a great example of this. It's a mess but, for the most part, it's too competently made/written/acted/edited/etc to be laughably bad and so I get my enjoyment elsewhere. Mainly my affection for Drew and the likeability of the Angels.

I don't know if you've noticed, but competency is not exactly the be-all and end-all of my rating system either. I think Birdemic 2 quite simply falls prey to a lot of the usual sequel flaws, what with it being caught between being too samey and too different. Any similarity to its predecessor felt unremarkable and any difference felt desperate. I was also worried that Nguyen would have gotten in on the joke and tried to tailor a possible sequel to be more deliberately hilarious - even if he was being totally serious then it's still a bad sequel regardless of his intentions.

Iroquois

09-12-15, 07:28 AM

#563 - Slow West
John MacLean, 2015

https://s3.amazonaws.com/tribeca_cms_production/uploads/film/photo_2/550a12c8b57ce92360000001/SLOW-WEST_web_2.jpg

A young Scotsman travels to America in search of the woman he loves and teams up with an Irish bounty hunter to find her.

Given its incredibly simple storyline, I do wonder how much chance Slow West had of being genuinely great as opposed to just good. The tale follows a naive young Scotsman (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who travels from Scotland to America's Wild West in search of the woman (Caren Pistorius) he loves, who has emigrated for reasons that become clear soon enough. His journey doesn't last long before he is ambushed by a group of ex-soldiers hunting a Native American; fortunately, he is saved by by a laconic Irish bounty hunter (Michael Fassbender) who is clearly a lot more experienced when it comes to dealing with the local dangers. As a result, Smit-McPhee then decides to hire Fassbender as his bodyguard to help see him safely towards his destination in the west, which is complicated by the fact that Fassbender is secretly hunting Pistorius, who has a large bounty on her head due to the actions that forced her to leave Scotland in the first place. Throw in the fact that Fassbender's former gang (led by Ben Mendehlson) is following the lead duo in the hopes of them leading them to the bounty in question and there is sufficient complexity to pack out the film's extremely lean running time...

...or not. Slow West becomes more or less dependent on its episodic structure, building its strength less through crafting an organically developed whole than through a number of strong scenes. The earliest example of this is a scene in which Fassbender and Smit-McPhee visit a general store in the middle of nowhere that ends up going south extremely quickly. Other scenes, such as Smit-McPhee's solo encounter with a German writer or a minor character recounting the tale of his time with a young outlaw trying to make a name for himself, the film is definitely better at building singularly satisfying sequences than a completely satisfying film. This is a little unsurprising considering that this is writer-director MacLean's feature-length debut after working in short films, so the film really does play out like a series of vignettes. Some of them are good vignettes, but some of them aren't. The sporadic use of voice-over involving Fassbender's character feels awfully redundant for the most part, and the interplay he has with Smit-McPhee is decent without being spectacular (with the occasional high point, such as one scene where the former shaves the latter's face with one especially large knife). The film can be considered a black comedy due to the direction that some scenes take, but it's not liable to generate any major laughs nor does it justify the jaunty acoustic score that plays through much of the film.

Even so, Slow West is not without its good points. The cinematography is pretty strong, especially during the film's extremely bright and impressive third act that makes good use of complementary colours as it sets yellow fields against blue skies. The performances are generally decent, with the cast selling a generally nonplussed demeanour when it comes to witnessing some of the absurd circumstances that come their way. Fassbender and Smit-McPhee in particular do well at this as they give off airs of seen-it-all weariness and dumbfounded shock respectively. Though the film definitely lives up to its title by taking its time to progress through its eighty-four minutes, it's definitely got enough going on to feel at least a little worthwhile, but unfortunately the film's few strengths aren't enough to make it a modern classic. It's an entertaining enough modern Western where the flaws may prevent it from becoming a modern classic but that doesn't stop it being too difficult to enjoy.

3

Iroquois

09-12-15, 07:37 AM

#564 - Top Five
Chris Rock, 2014

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/5/6/1430932275279/Top-Five-Film---2014-006.jpg

A comedian turned movie star must do an interview to promote his latest film, which is a more serious departure from his most famous work.

If you've read enough of my reviews on here, you'll know that I don't much care for the films of Woody Allen - not even the classics like Annie Hall or Manhattan. I bring this up because veteran comedian-actor Chris Rock has decided to run the Allen playbook when it comes to writing, producing, directing, and starring in his own film. The film's main premise even sounds like something that Allen would've come up with himself (and people who've seen more Allen films than I have are welcome to tell me if he did actually do a film with the same premise). Rock plays Andre Allen (what a coincidental surname, huh?), a man who started in stand-up comedy before making the jump to acting in films, with his most famous role being in a series of comedies where he plays a cop that just so happens to be a talking bear. In a somewhat unsurprising development, he plays on making the jump from funny films to serious films, which leads to his latest film being a dramatic biopic about a Haitian slave uprising. The film takes place over the course of a single day as he must give an interview to a New York Times journalist (Rosario Dawson) while promoting his new film, all the while having doubts about his impending marriage to a reality TV star (Gabrielle Union).

Top Five doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel, but it doesn't need to. Rock has always been a fairly likeable presence whether he was speaking truth to power through his stand-up or playing second fiddle in films like Grown Ups, and that translates to an appropriately self-aware performance that doesn't shy away from showcasing his self-insert's shortcomings, such as a struggle with substance abuse and his frustration with fans that only recognise him for his lightweight talking-animal fare. He generates some good chemistry with Dawson, which allows for some good interplay as he gets to let loose against a foil who is challenging yet receptive to his output. Dawson herself gets fleshed out a little more than her role as interviewer would suggest and she gets some good laughs outside of her connection to Rock. The rest of the cast gets packed out with some good characters, chief among them being J.B. Smoove as Rock's childhood friend turned overeager minder. The smaller parts range from recognisable faces playing tiny roles (such as Kevin Hart as Andre's agent or Tracy Morgan as his brother) or recognisable faces playing themselves (most prominent among them being people as diverse as Jerry Seinfeld and DMX). It's especially impressive how the characters aren't exactly given the short shrift regardless of their place in the narrative; while it would be easy to establish Union's character as a one-dimensional obstacle to the admittedly predictable tension that develops between rock an Dawson, she does get enough depth and material to work with to stop her being a bland rom-com stereotype.

Thanks to the flexible nature of the interview-driven narrative, the main plot's 24-hour timeframe is supported by a number of flashbacks that help to develop the characters nicely. All of them prove entertaining in one fashion or another - the extended sequence where Andre "hits bottom" proves especially cringe-inducing in a genuinely hilarious way. The laughs do come at a cost, especially when it comes to Dawson getting her own revenge on a boyfriend with...very particular tastes (which was funny at first, but I do have to question whether or not it was worth laughing at in hindsight). The film still touches on a number of subjects related to the fame monster that plagues Andre and makes for both amusing comedy and compelling drama. It's always great for a film to genuinely surprise you and Top Five definitely did that. Rock's comedic sensibilities hit the mark for the most part and make this better than the typical talk-heavy picture and support the film as it hits upon some familiar narrative beats. Also, I'm not sure I could bring myself to hate a film that features a scene where Jerry Seinfeld screams out his top five rappers in the middle of a loud nightclub.

3.5

honeykid

09-12-15, 12:50 PM

As I was sure to note in the review, I'm sure this is better in the company of like-minded individuals (that much I know about the first film), but I watched this by myself so excuse me for being alone.
It wasn't a criticism, but you have to be aware that watching films like this is always better with more people around.

I don't know if you've noticed, but competency is not exactly the be-all and end-all of my rating system either. I think Birdemic 2 quite simply falls prey to a lot of the usual sequel flaws, what with it being caught between being too samey and too different.
That's just sequels for the most part though, isn't it?

Any similarity to its predecessor felt unremarkable and any difference felt desperate. I was also worried that Nguyen would have gotten in on the joke and tried to tailor a possible sequel to be more deliberately hilarious - even if he was being totally serious then it's still a bad sequel regardless of his intentions.
As I said, I liked the things you didn't. Had I watched it on my own I doubt I would've enjoyed it as much. that much is obvious.

Iroquois

09-13-15, 07:34 AM

#565 - The Elephant Man
David Lynch, 1980

https://myworldvsthemovies.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/324361-the_elephant_man_friendship.jpg

Based on the true story of Joseph Merrick, a person born with significant physical deformities who is initially resigned to being a sideshow freak until a doctor decides to take him away for study.

For a filmmaker that's built such a reputation on wild surrealism, it's interesting to see David Lynch balance his cinematic sensibilities against more fundamentally accessible conventions. The Elephant Man marks his second feature after his years-in-the-making Eraserhead and shares many similarities with that film. The Elephant Man transposes the same monochromatic industrial landscape and focus on grotesqueries from Eraserhead's dark fantasy world to the grimy real-life setting of Victorian England. Here, a respected physician (Anthony Hopkins) learns about the existence of a sideshow freak known as the "Elephant Man" (John Hurt), so named for the birth defects he developed due to his mother being attacked by an elephant while he was still in utero. When Hopkins sees him living in squalor and incapable of speech, he opts to spirit him away to a hospital so as to investigate his unique physical condition. It turns out that, despite growing up as little more than a revolting curiosity, Hurt has normal intelligence and emotions; however, even the good intentions of Hopkins and other characters aren't enough to stop many people from mistreating Hurt.

The Elephant Man does have the occasional Lynchian touches here and there as it creates disturbing combinations of sound and vision (especially during its opening scenes and during one nightmarish depiction of events) but otherwise it is an incredibly straightforward film. It gets by on the considerable strength of its performers, especially Hopkins and Hurt; Hopkins may play an appropriately conflicted character who worries about whether he is helping or exploiting Hurt, all the while lending gravitas to his role as a learned man whose natural sympathies cause him to side with Hurt. As the titular Elephant Man, Hurt delivers an appropriately nuanced performance from underneath layers of make-up, reciting increasingly loquacious dialogue through the most dignified of rasps. It's a credit to these two and to others (such as John Gielgud as an initially belligerent hospital administrator and Anne Bancroft as a renowned stage performer whose intrigue with Hurt goes beyond a crude fascination with his appearance) that they take what could have been an otherwise stolid biopic and turn it into something that's affecting without being manipulative and striking without being ostentatious. Other characters play relatively minor parts, whether it's immoral yet entrepreneurial hospital staff looking to make a living off bringing gawky spectators to Hurt's quarters or carnival folk who genuinely believe that the freak show is where Hurt truly belongs and that removing him from that environment is a harsher act than leaving him there. Lynch has long since established himself as a director who cares about even the smallest of roles in his films, and it shows even in one of his earliest films.

In terms of technique, I seriously can't imagine this film being as good as it is without the black-and-white cinematography. When it comes to any film that's made in the era where colour cinematography is the widely available and accepted norm, any film that can not only make it work but feel essential to the film as a whole has to be impressive; if you have to seriously struggle to think of this film in colour (much less improved by colour), then that's most definitely a success. The music is period-appropriate, though it does resort to deranged-sounding carnival tunes a bit too often for its own good, threatening to ruin genuinely disturbing moments in the process. Otherwise, the score is good - of note is the usage of Samuel Barber's "Adagio for Strings" in a way that threatens to steal it away from Platoon completely (and that's saying something). Though I still think it doesn't quite have what it takes to overrun more stereotypically Lynchian fare such as Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive, I do reckon that The Elephant Man is an all-around outstanding film that deserves to be seen by...well, everybody. It's not too weird to alienate wide audiences but not too safe and comfortable to become totally forgettable either. With his sophomore feature, Lynch crafts one of his best works, which is good enough to transcend his trademark brand of weirdness. Seek it out.

4.5

Iroquois

09-13-15, 07:50 AM

#566 - Tangled
Nathan Greno and Byron Howard, 2010

http://www.rotoscopers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Tangled.jpg

Based on the classic fairytale of Rapunzel, the story of a princess with extremely long hair who is locked into a tower by an evil hag.

Can I really begrudge Disney for not really doing anything overly inventive with their features? After creating a consistently strong alliance with Pixar in order to create some of the definitive family films of this generation, their non-Pixar output has tended towards sticking to the tried-and-true formula of taking classic fairytales and offering their own interpretations of them. Here, the tale of the day is that of Rapunzel, a young princess who has been locked away in the highest room of a tall tower and whose hair has grown so long that it can be dropped from the tower, allowing people to climb up and down to the room in question. I don't remember exactly how the original tale went (which is probably for the best considering what the brothers Grimm were like), but in the world of Tangled it means that Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is the long-lost princess who has been kidnapped by a hag named Gothel (Donna Murphy) due to some magic mumbo-jumbo about a flower that has healing properties, which ends up being used on the local queen and resulting in the newborn princess being born with the flower power. Enter a dashing rogue by the name of Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi), who is on the run from having pulled a daring heist and has decided to hole up in a certain tall tower...well, there, you have enough plot to fill out a hundred minutes of computer-generated family fun.

What Tangled lacks in narrative innovation, it makes up for in a relatively high level of visual prowess. This doesn't automatically extend to character models (damn the people who pointed out how much Rapunzel's facial model makes her look the same as Elsa, Anna, and Honey Lemon - now you can't unsee it either, and then there's the unfortunate implications associated with the appearance of Mother Gothel...), but it extends to everything else in a fairly tolerable manner. The annual release of a mass of floating lanterns makes for a decent motif and narrative objective, but the rest of the film definitely seems to play things awfully safe with its generic fantastic European kingdom setting - and then there's Rapunzel's hair length increasing or decreasing as narrative convenience demands. There's also the carefully paced-out use of musical numbers, most of which feel don't feel great in recollection but are thankfully not obnoxious ear-worms on par with a certain Disney song about letting something go. The action sequences do little to stand out in my memory, while the ones that do don't exactly do so out of the thrills or laughs that they generate. Basically, Tangled is about as middle-of-the-road as Disney films can get - it's not great but there's enough quality involved so that you don't hate it outright.

2.5

Optimus

09-13-15, 08:04 AM

I enjoyed Tangled. Thought it was a nice little movie. Nice review.

Iroquois

09-13-15, 08:12 AM

#567 - Father of the Bride
Vincente Minnelli, 1950

https://thecinemonster.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/father-of-the-bride.jpg

A family man becomes concerned over the fact that his only daughter is getting married.

One of the drawbacks about getting into classic film is that you are more often than not going to start at the top and then find yourself being rewarded with diminishing returns as you track through various associated films. I liked the Spencer Tracy-Katharine Hepburn courtroom dramedy Adam's Rib well enough, but subsequent attempts to watch any related comedies (e.g. Woman of the Year) have met with underwhelming responses. Now think about how it plays when you remove Hepburn from the equation, which leads us to Father of the Bride. Here, Tracy plays a father who, upon learning that his only daughter (Elizabeth Taylor) plans to get married to a man he knows nothing about, initially intends to put an end to any such plans for marriage. This kicks off the plot as the wedding day draws nearer and Tracy does his best to handle the situation as things grow more and more complicated with each passing day.

For a film that's apparently considered a comedy, it's extremely short on laughs (to the point of there being a complete absence of them). I could credit that to the film's humour not aging all that well, but if a film's going to be held up as enough of a comedic touchstone to merit at least one remake then it should be worth something (or is it one of those films that actually needed a remake?). Tracy is his usual ornery yet likable self, though it's wasted on a framing story that leads to him narrating everything and providing dry quips in the process. Not even having Taylor appear in a supporting role as the bride-to-be is enough to sufficiently redeem this film. The very occasional interesting moment (such as Tracy's character having an impressionistic nightmare about his daughter's impending nuptials) adds little to the film's favour either. As a result, this film is hardly the worst ever but it's regrettably quite the chore to get through with the very occasional interesting moment to lend it any staying power.

1.5

MovieMeditation

09-13-15, 08:21 AM

I wasn't that happy with Top Five but I see the appeal. I just didn't click with it but Chris Rock did succeed in a few areas with it.

The Elephant Man is a strong and emotional film and I also like how it is definitely Lynch in a few places, but mostly it moves straight ahead and gives the characters and the actors portraying them plenty of room to breathe. I love the film, I own it on blu-ray, but I haven't picked it up again since I saw it last time. An unbelievably tragic and touching film. It's beautiful, but hard to watch at times.

I saw Tangled in theatres and I wasn't the biggest fan, I think I felt kind of the same as you did. I do owe it a rewatch though, but I'm not exactly in a hurry to do so.

Good reviews, Iro.

Iroquois

09-14-15, 08:18 AM

#568 - Tender Mercies
Bruce Beresford, 1983

http://screencrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tender-Mercies-Jaime-March-2013.png

A famous country singer that has fallen on hard times opts to marry a motel-owning single mother, but things are complicated connection to his estranged ex-wife and daughter.

Robert Duvall is an actor whose generally understated demeanour served to cement him as one of the most dependable character actors in modern cinema (with the odd performance that allows him to stretch his abilities, such as the eccentric helicopter squad leader from Apocalypse Now). To this end, Tender Mercies had a lot riding on it as the film where Duvall finally ended up winning a Best Actor Oscar; after all, this could be one of those films where the lead performance is the only truly worthwhile reason to watch it or might even be a sympathy vote for a film that borders on unwatchable. Fortunately, Tender Mercies avoids that particular pitfall as it gives Duvall a role that may feel like it's trying to bait awards but Duvall manages to make it a role that deserves them. Here, he plays a once-renowned country singer who starts the film as a perpetually drunk resident of a roadside motel who works out a compromise with the proprietor (Tess Harper), a young widow and single mother. He soon ends up marrying Harper in a move that seems equally romantic and pragmatic, but his past soon catches up to him when his country singer ex-wife (Betty Buckley) and his estranged daughter (Ellen Barkin) end up passing through the small town where he resides.

Duvall more than earns his accolades as he manages to play a convincing once-legendary music star (even going so far as to do his own singing) that is a very flawed human being but not without a certain charm that does make his small victories feel worthwhile and his defeats conjure up bittersweet feelings. Even so, he wouldn't quite be where he was without a decent ensemble cast backing him up - Harper is decent as the woman he marries who is constantly trying to do right by the people she cares about, while Buckley and Barkin do work well as characters that are understandably upset with Duvall without being totally unsympathetic to an audience invested in his struggles. There are a number of familiar tropes here and there, such as the up-and-coming group who drops by the station to pay him reverent lip-service, to say nothing of the nosy journalist who decides to reveal Duvall's whereabouts to a larger populace. Beresford has always been a filmmaker whose aesthetic sensibilities are in service to the story at large so there is nothing especially ostentatious about his work behind the camera. This makes for a good fit with a film that is pleasant (if bittersweet) enough to be worth watching, though not exactly a great one.

3

Iroquois

09-14-15, 09:49 AM

#569 - The Broadway Melody
Harry Beaumont, 1929

http://timelines.latimes.com/media/event_images/48/gvx79xke.jpg

A pair of sisters who perform in a vaudeville singing act come to New York to make their big break into show business.

I'm no stranger to disagreeing with the Academy's opinions over which films deserve to win the annual Best Picture award, but I do have to wonder if I could ever fairly judge some of the award's earliest recipients. The Broadway Melody is the second film to ever win Best Picture and in doing so became the first of many musicals to achieve the honour. It came out of the era where talking pictures had just been invented and filmmakers everywhere were attempting to adapt to this new technology, so of course the most obvious application was to use it to record the crowd-pleasing antics of song-and-dance numbers. This film also justifies said antics by integrating them into a fast-talking backstage drama as two sisters looking to make the big time find themselves challenged by the cynical machinations that take place behind the scenes of all the light and wonder. Some of this manifests in the way of the sisters having their personal and professional relationship threaten to collapse under the demands of the industry and of the men that work within it, regardless of their intentions being malicious or benign.

Honestly, The Broadway Melody is boring. I realise that context is important and that, if nothing else, it does do a decent job of staging its musical numbers, but for the most part it's an extremely standard example of an early talkie. The characters talk at great length with great speed and have use period-appropriate idioms, but the somewhat convoluted conflicts that arise between each of the characters does little to engage beyond a vague sympathy for both leads (which is less because of anything specific about them than because of a general desire to see them survive in this vicious racket). None of the actual songs stand out one way or the other either. My ratings for films that I consider "boring" but not genuinely awful tend to see-saw between one-and-a-half popcorn boxes and two popcorn boxes; here, I think that it might as well get the lesser rating. Just because a film doesn't engender any hatred doesn't automatically mean that I like it either, so it's difficult to recommend this to anyone who's not already genuinely interested in musicals (my own interest is pretty...inconsistent, so take my words with a grain of salt) or completionists looking to watch every Best Picture winner, though in the latter case my recommendation or lack thereof would be irrelevant.

1.5

Friendly Mushroom!

09-14-15, 09:51 AM

Good review! That movie does suck.

Iroquois

09-14-15, 10:36 AM

#570 - Footlight Parade
Lloyd Bacon, 1933

http://mainstagegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/Footlight-Parade.jpg

When talking pictures start to replace live performances as the most popular form of entertainment, a producer must come up with a variety of live musical numbers to play in the same theatres.

Old musicals are lightweight enough that one can spin an entire plot out of a spot of situational irony. The studio's decision to make a talking picture based around theatrical companies struggling to adjust to the popularity of talking pictures seems like a rather mean-spirited one, but if that's what it takes to literally get the show on the road then so be it. The production, which is being overseen by James Cagney's director-turned-producer (coincidentally, I think this is the first Cagney picture I've actually seen - great start, huh?), has to come up with a number of "prologues" to play before movies. He cooks up a scheme to create several performances to play at each of his business partners' theatres, but of course creating these performances consists of its own variety of problems with the complex collection of relationships that form behind the scenes between various members of the company.

As far as musicals go (especially the old ones), I definitely prefer the dancing to the singing and can respect both the dedication and visual flair that goes into bringing them to life. The songs I can more or less do without - as long as they aren't memorably bad or annoying then I can always just tune them out. Footlight Parade uses legendary musical director Busby Berkeley for its numbers and the extremely loose narrative framework allows for a variety of numbers as the company goes from theatre to theatre. There are some passable character arcs being put into place, the most memorable of which involves Cagney being oblivious the affections of his secretary (Joan Blondell) as well as that of another secretary (Ruby Keeler) and her own dream of being a dancer. These interpersonal dynamics feed into the climatic numbers themselves, which vary a bit in terms of quality. The "Honeymoon Hotel" sequence is staged well but the song is kind of annoying, while the "Shanghai Lil" sequence at least offers a decent song to go along with its dive-bar dancing. That's without mentioning what is probably the most memorable sequence, "By A Waterfall", which involves a lot of elaborate aquatic choreography that results in some fairly impressive imagery. Of course, that still means sitting through some rather average 1930s dramedy, but overall this is still fairly decent as far as old-school musicals go.

2.5

Iroquois

09-15-15, 03:52 AM

#571 - Stagecoach
John Ford, 1939

http://745433944.r.lightningbase-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/010-john-wayne.jpg

A stagecoach carrying a varied collection of individuals from one frontier town to another runs into trouble.

Stagecoach has a somewhat intimidating reputation as one of the greatest early Westerns and is a generally well-made film full stop (I remember reading somewhere that Orson Welles watched Stagecoach multiple times in preparation for filming Citizen Kane, which sounds like testament enough to its own quality as a film). At the very least, it's got a solid high concept that allows for good character-based drama thanks to the mismatched ensemble that board a stagecoach going from one town to another. In addition to the sheepish driver and the grizzled sheriff riding shotgun, the passengers include an army wife looking to reunite with her husband, a sex worker getting run out of town by the local temperance league, an alcoholic doctor, a timid whiskey salesman, a Southern gambler, and a banker going on the run after embezzling thousands of dollars from his branch. Along the way, they pick up an outlaw who is searching for the man that killed his father and brother. Oh, and with this being an old Western there is also the looming threat of a tribe of Native Americans threatening to descend upon anything that comes through their territory, and guess where the stagecoach is headed...

While Stagecoach doesn't quite feel like an absolute classic, it definitely has enough quality to it to live up to most of its reputation. The characters may be somewhat broad and the performances certainly play to that broadness for better or worse. A good example of the former is Thomas Mitchell's scenery-chewing performance as the alcoholic doctor who is very quick to befriend the whiskey vendor and blithely talk his way around any complication, albeit a character who is sensible enough to give up when things are truly perilous for the group. John Wayne, here playing the vengeful outlaw, displays his usual potent combination of swagger and bravado but still makes for a halfway convincing romantic partner with Claire Trevor's scarlet woman (though that's more likely to do with how quickly things progress during the film's extremely compressed timeframe). The interplay between the characters is also solid, especially when the safety of the group is threatened by circumstances such as being forced to hole up inside an abandoned outpost or actual Natives launching their attacks. Even in the quieter moments, there are good instances of friction such as the strained relationship between Trevor and Louise Pratt's extremely prim and proper army wife. Cramming together disparate personalities and seeing them bounce off each other isn't always as much of a guarantee of dramatic fireworks as you would expect, but the characters in Stagecoach are developed well enough both individually and together to make it all work, enough so that it becomes the film's main strength more so than the expectation of any external action being visited upon or perpetuated by the main characters.

That isn't to say that Stagecoach lacks good action. It's certainly got its moments, though I could question its pacing a bit - one sequence late in the film feels so thoroughly climatic that when it finished I was initially surprised to see that the movie was still going and had consciously remind myself that, yes, there were still plenty of plot strands that needed resolution. The film's actual resolution may be slightly more low-key but it's still engaging and concludes the film with an impressive economy of storytelling. Now that I think about, "impressive economy of storytelling" would be a good way of summing up what makes Stagecoach good. It has a theatrical premise and its cast plays into that nicely, providing good characters that can be rooted for or against to various degrees. Though the film doesn't try to humanise the villainous Natives, it at least offers a somewhat decent justification by having their presence foreshadowed by a member of a different tribe with whom they have a bitter rivalry - again, another instance of economic storytelling that offers a simple but effective explanation for the film's seemingly unfair treatment of Natives. It's also technically competent and appropriately devoid of flashiness (albeit with the occasional impressive stunt or technique). I can definitely vouch for it as a classic Western that deserves to be seen even if your tastes don't lean towards Westerns.

3.5

Iroquois

09-15-15, 03:55 AM

#572 - My Darling Clementine
John Ford, 1946

http://media2.fdncms.com/sevendaysvt/imager/wyatt-earp-reluctant-marshal-of-tombstone/u/original/2375440/mdc6.jpg

A marshall turned cattle drover is forced to take action when he enters a lawless frontier town and has to do battle with both its contentious doctor and a group of cattle rustlers.

Though I'd already seen Tombstone and therefore had a fair bit of familiarity with the real-life exploits of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday (albeit filtered through the sensibilities of a 1990s Western), My Darline Clementine still deserves some consideration on the basis of it being Western legend Ford's interpretation of events. Henry Fonda and Victor Mature play Earp and Holliday respectively, with the former initially looking to do nothing more than do some cattle droving with his brothers. When one of his brothers is murdered and the cattle is stolen, Earp is forced to take on the role of marshall in the nearby town of Tombstone, which is so incredibly lawless that the current marshall and his deputies are unwilling to do their job right. The job also puts him in conflict with Holliday, a surgeon turned gambler who rules over the local saloon but is afflicted with consumption. Though he immediately butts heads with Earp, the two gradually form an unlikely friendship even in the face of obstacles such as a family of vicious cattle drovers or the complex romantic quandary that forms when Holliday's ex (Cathy Downs, the "Clementine" of the title) and present paramour (Linda Darnell) come into conflict with one another.

Fonda naturally makes for a handsome and affable hero who still has enough emotional vulnerability to make him feel well-rounded, while Mature's off-kilter screen presence (which makes me think of an uncanny and less charismatic version of Dean Martin) makes him a decent choice of actor to play the perpetually inebriated and sickly Holliday (though it'll probably never overtake Val Kilmer's twanging drawl in my memory). The cast is stacked with dependable character actors, while Downs and Darnell get decent enough subplots so that the film doesn't feel like it hits a brick wall whenever it decides to draw attention to them. The film does have the odd moment when it does slow down a bit too hard for its own good, such as one scene involving a traveling actor drunkenly reciting Shakespeare. However, the film's dud moments are more than compensated for by Ford's technical abilities, which do become important when the film opts to add some external action, especially during the third act. The finale is definitely a major point in the film's favour, and though I'm not entirely sold on it being a genuinely classic film, there's plenty going on that makes me think of it favourably.

3

nebbit

09-15-15, 08:44 AM

#570 - Footlight Parade
Lloyd Bacon, 1933

http://mainstagegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/Footlight-Parade.jpg

2.5
I love a Busby Berkley movie :yup:

Iroquois

09-15-15, 09:58 AM

I love a Busby Berkley movie :yup:

They're alright, just not really my thing.

Iroquois

09-15-15, 09:59 AM

#573 - The Great Train Robbery
Edwin S. Porter, 1903

http://filmmakeriq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Great-Train-Robbery.jpg

A gang of outlaws perform a robbery on a train.

A simple summary, but it's to be expected for The Great Train Robbery, which only runs for about ten to fifteen minutes and, being released in 1903, is probably the oldest film I've watched as of writing. The extreme age does mean that a lot of the storytelling methods common to peak silent films are conspicuously absent - there are no title cards to fill in the blanks caused by the lack of audible dialogue, so of course you have to pay extra attention to every minute mannerism of the characters in order to piece together every single little thing that happens. Of course, thanks to the overall simplicity of the narrative it's easy enough to follow along for the most part and even if you do happen to lose the thread of the plot then you can pick it back up quickly enough. On a technical level, you can definitely respect the effort involved and it's still interesting to see how the conflict resolves itself (even if it does involve the odd chuckle at some characters' overwrought death throes). The photography doesn't try anything too fanciful for the most part, with the decision to colorise several characters' costumes providing an interesting (if rough-looking) aesthetic choice.

When it comes to films that are this old, I'm not sure exactly how much they can be sincerely enjoyed; as a result, I can at least recognise The Great Train Robbery as an important film that should be seen by anyone with an interest in film. Due to the limitations of the era, there's not exactly a lot of depth to the film but there doesn't really need to be when it's so brief. Unfortunately, that does seem to preclude any serious replay value, unless you were to try to figure out the minor yet ultimately inessential details of the plot. Still, it's short enough that you might as well give it a shot. At the very least, it's worth it to see that iconic final image.

3

Gatsby

09-15-15, 10:04 AM

I have a way more positive view of Stagecoach than you do, (I wrote a review on it btw), but at least you gave it a fairly appropriate rating and commented on the stuff I like about the film.

Really need to get to The Great Train Robbery.

Iroquois

09-16-15, 12:06 AM

#574 - The Story of the Kelly Gang
Charles Tait, 1906

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/The_Story_of_the_Kelly_Gang_1906.jpg

Based on the true story of Australian bushranger Ned Kelly and his gang of outlaws.

Originally, The Story of the Kelly Gang marked the first feature-length film ever made, clocking in at a sizeable seventy minutes. Unfortunately, due to the lack of preservation that led to many films being damaged or destroyed during the first few decades of cinema's existence, the most current version of the film amounts to a mere seventeen minutes. Even in this abridged form, The Story of the Kelly Gang still covers the core details of the narrative surrounding Australia's most famous outlaw, showcasing Kelly and the three other members of the gang as they proceed to fight back against the police, who are naturally shown to be corrupt (with one of the earliest scenes in the restoration showcasing a constable making unwanted advances on Kelly's sister) while they carry out their own merry crime spree that mainly involves various different types of robbery with instances of murdering of policemen (and one instance of killing an associate turned informant). Things inevitably climax with the notorious siege on the Glenrowan Inn as the gang make their infamous last stand complete with Kelly donning his iconic suit of armour. The restoration ends with a wounded Kelly being captured by the police.

As with The Great Train Robbery, it's hard to know how much one can truly judge a film as old as The Story of the Kelly Gang, especially when circumstances have reduced it to a quarter of its original length (and the film's final moments are plagued by significant chemical damage to the film stock, rendering the climax difficult to watch through the bubbling and distortion). Of course, I was able to look past that (if nothing else, the film stock's distortion actually looks compelling in its own right), but in trying to tell a wide-ranging story despite the limitations of the medium the film actually ends up being kind of boring. The most complete sequence in the film details the gang holding up the occupants of a train station (as well as a hapless wagon-rider who stumbles upon the scene), which is a problem when said sequence is rather lacking in terms of excitement or tension and thus feels much longer than what seems necessary. That's definitely a strike against the film, though the rest of it is reasonably taut and well-paced; there are some nice stylistic choices, such as the decision to use a red filter for the moments after the police decide to set fire to the Glenrowan Inn in order to smoke out the gang. The Story of the Kelly Gang definitely suffers for having the bulk of its content go missing, as what is left is inconsistent in terms of quality and makes for a fairly slow watch even for a piece of work that runs less than twenty minutes. Worth watching for the historical importance, but not exactly worth it beyond that.

2.5

Iroquois

09-16-15, 12:08 AM

#575 - The Invaders
Francis Ford and Thomas H. Ince, 1912

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RAj4QaYsL._SX342_.jpg

The peace treaty between white U.S. soldiers and the Sioux native population is threatened by the unexpected appearance of railroad surveyors.

For a forty-minute film that came out in 1912, The Invaders is interesting because of the relative amount of complexity that it offers. Decades before Native Americans became a simplistic go-to antagonist in many Golden Age Westerns, this extremely brief film was able to weave an interesting story about the high-tension convergence of three separate groups; the white American soldiers, the Sioux with whom they sign a tentative peace treaty, and the Cheyenne who opt to cause mayhem for both those groups. The fragile peace between white and Sioux is threatened when a railroad company insists on sending surveyors onto Sioux land, which is naturally treated as an unwelcome imposition despite one of the surveyors having a forbidden romance unfold with the Sioux chief's daughter. Things are also further complicated by the white general's daughter having her own dalliance with one of her father's subordinates. Unfortunately, the implications of these affairs only serves to exacerbate the uneasy relations between native and colonial and soon violence unfolds between both (or all) sides.

There's something to be said for the ambition involved with trying to tell such a complex story within the space of about forty minutes, especially when the film eschews dialogue-based intertitles in favour of some erratically placed title cards that mainly serve the same purpose as chapter headings. Creating a nuanced and sympathetic treatment of both Native American tribes and the members of them is also an impressive move (though the "good" Sioux get far more development in that regard than the "bad" Cheyenne, but points for effort nonetheless). The production design and cinematography are also solid as well, as well as the scenes that actually involve some fighting between the groups. I'm not sure if it's good enough to warrant being thought of as a true classic - I certainly hadn't heard of it until I saw it on a thematic triple bill with The Great Train Robbery and The Story of the Kelly Gang - but it holds up pretty well and is worth checking out if you have more than a passing interest in silent film.

3

Iroquois

09-17-15, 12:38 AM

#576 - The Proposition
John Hillcoat, 2005

https://billsmovieemporium.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/vlcsnap-2011-03-16-22h25m35s120.png

A captured outlaw is offered the chance to earn a pardon for himself and for his younger brother if he ventures into the outback and kills his older brother.

The Proposition provides an incredibly bleak and bloody take on bushranger mythology in the second (and arguably best) collaboration between director John Hillcoat and screenwriter Nick Cave. The duo's dark sensibilities combine in service of a morally grey tale set in the 19th-century outback that centres on three Irish brothers (Danny Huston, Guy Pearce, and Richard Wilson) who are all noted outlaws. The film begins with Pearce and Wilson being arrested by the local troopers, whose English captain (Ray Winstone) secretly offers them the chance to be pardoned if Pearce can track down and kill Huston, who has separated from his brothers and is hiding out somewhere in the wilderness. This gives Pearce a fairly simple journey to go on that is naturally fraught with all sorts of complications long before he even gets close to Huston. Meanwhile, Winstone has to deal with a number of problems on the home front, the most notable of which include trying to cultivate a quiet home life with his sheltered wife (Emily Watson) and dealing with the consequences of his proposition when his sharply-dressed superior (David Wenham) arrives in town.

Acclaimed musician Cave translates the same bloody-minded fascination with the depth and breadth of the human condition that characterised much of his most well-respected music. There is nothing about this film that could be considered romanticised; the closest it gets is the entire sub-plot about Winstone and Watson trying their best to replicate their old English lifestyle in a remote farmhouse, and even then it is still tinged with tension as the demands of Winstone's job take a greater and greater toll on the household. Otherwise, the unflinching portrayal of the Australian outback and the individuals that reside there is enough to remind me favourably of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian (which I had read at some point between this viewing and my last one). Pearce's objective seems simple, but the obstacles are frequent and generate a constant slow-burning tension; the most obvious example is when he stumbles upon an abandoned outpost occupied by a dead publican and a drunken old adventurer (John Hurt). Though the scenes that follow Pearce's misadventure-filled A-plot are more often than not the most compelling ones in the film, the B-plot concerning Winstone and the other townsfolk is fortunately solid enough for the scenes dedicated to it to not feel like filler; arguably, the most unforgettably brutal moment in the film takes place in the town square. Despite the ways in which the film will frequently linger on details great and small, be it long shots of characters silhouetted against orange horizons or a close-up of blood being squeezed out of a cat-o'-nine-tails, the film never truly seems to drag as it keeps moving towards its inexorable conclusion.

There is an impressive ensemble of actors from both Britain and Australia that serve to make The Proposition more than just another slow and violent Western. Pearce makes for an appropriately stoic and largely amoral protagonist whose overriding concern for the welfare of his younger brother proves to be much more of a motivation than the promise of his freedom; as a result, his conflicted performance is good enough to overcome any slippage of his Irish accent. Huston makes for a good antagonist behind his filthy appearance and affably philosophical demeanour, which does make him a more interesting threat than if he was just another raving lunatic (unfortunately, Tom Budge gets stuck playing said lunatic in his role as Huston's wild-eyed offsider and doesn't quite sell it). Heavyweight character actor Winstone gets a fairly challenging role as he has to constantly swap between being the hard-bitten captain of the guard and a sensitive husband, the balance between which is managed by his unwavering dedication to "civilising the land" defining both sides of his character.

As one of only two female characters granted any narrative significance (the other being Leah Purcell as a member of Huston's gang, who does well with a part that is admittedly rather minor and underdeveloped), Watson gets a decent enough part that serves to accentuate the contrast between the ideal of English civility and the nadir of Australian cruelty; though she mainly serves as a highly-strung embodiment of the former, this does lead to her embracing the latter out of a vengeful desire for retribution against the lead trio. Even seemingly minor parts get strong performances - Hurt appears in only two scenes but he brings enough mad-eyed theatricality and darkly inappropriate humour to his few minutes of screen-time that he threatens to steal the whole show, while Wenham makes the most of having to play a very love-to-hate bureaucrat complete with snooty delivery and handlebar moustache. Credit also has to go to veteran indigenous actor David Gulpilil as the troopers' resident tracker who gets in some clever jabs at his white superiors, while Tom E. Lewis gets to channel his most famous role as an outlaw whose vicious nature makes him play out like an older and much more embittered version of Jimmie Blacksmith.

As far as technique goes...that's where things get a little flawed. Despite Cave's considerable reputation as a musician who has blended many different styles to great success over the course of the past few decades, I actually find his score (co-written with Warren Ellis, a member of the Bad Seeds and Cave's frequent collaborator on film scores) to be the weakest aspect of the whole film. The lilting children's song that begins the film becomes a leitmotif that plays over any scenes set on the home front and is thus liable to become annoying, while the music that plays as Pearce heads further into the outback isn't much better; though it is mainly minimal and instrumental, instances of Cave whispering or roaring the same lines of poetry tend to come across as distracting rather than complementary. Otherwise, the cinematography is a treat as it captures everything with clarity, moving fluidly between static landscape shots and intense close-ups. Between that and the editing, there is enough going on to make the film become rather bizarre in some instances, especially with the occasional disorienting shock being deployed as a result. These factors contribute to making a film that is not without its flaws but still has enough strengths to earn a reputation as one of the best Australian films of recent years. It's violent without being gratuitous and gives us a cast of generally well-written and well-acted characters whose actions or lack thereof pose some significant moral quandaries in the name of lofty goals such as peacekeeping and civilisation - when they're not being bloodthirsty agents of carnage, of course. Definitely recommended.

4

honeykid

09-17-15, 09:55 AM

The Proposition is a film I barely remember anything of. I remember thinking it was ok, but it's a palette I've never been comfortable with, which is one reason why I don't like Westerns.

Iroquois

09-19-15, 04:29 AM

#577 - Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino, 2012

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02454/dj_2454514b.jpg

In pre-Civil War America, a bounty hunter teams up with a former slave in order to find and free the former slave's wife.

If I were to describe Django Unchained in one word, it would be "safe". This is not to say that it is a fundamentally bad film, but considering how Tarantino originally built his reputation as a filmmaker on being a consistently shocking and surprising filmmaker I can't help but feel like this is kind of a let-down. Granted, this isn't the first time that one of his films failed to live up to his considerably high standard - the pulpy B-movie throwback of Death Proof doesn't have a whole lot of stand-alone appeal and I would definitely rank it as his worst film (though I do have half a mind to revisit it). If Django Unchained had been his next film after that, it would have been a good film and a promise that Tarantino was getting back on track to make another masterpiece. Unfortunately, Inglourious Basterds arrived and proved a consistently unpredictable piece of work buoyed by strong performances and several impressively taut sequences (although it did run a little long). While Django Unchained doesn't lack for running time or general craftsmanship, in many respects it feels like a backwards step for Tarantino.

The plot is relatively simple; one cold, dark night a German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) encounters a group of slaves being driven through the wilderness and selects one (Jamie Foxx) because he is the only one who can identify a trio of highly lucrative targets for him. After legally acquiring Foxx (and allowing the slave-masters to meet appropriately grisly demises in the process), Waltz opts to free him after he helps out with tracking down the original three targets. Foxx takes to bounty-hunting with considerable ease; however, he mainly plans to use his newfound freedom in order to rescue his wife (Kerry Washington), who is a slave on one of the most notoriously sadistic plantations in Mississippi. To this end, Waltz and Foxx concoct a scheme that will allow them to persuade the plantation's owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) to let them "own" Washington, but of course things are never that simple. All things considered, it is a fairly straightforward plot and Tarantino has done more with less - he did wring a four-hour epic out of an incredibly simple revenge storyline with Kill Bill, after all - but his typically episodic style of narrative structure clashes with his intention to recreate the sprawling Western epics that he grew up watching. It's enough to make the film as a whole feel strangely directionless despite its basic rescue-revenge story; the listless drifting is enough to make one feel especially fatigued even before the film reaches its final half-hour.

Fortunately, the film's less-than-stellar storyline is anchored by Waltz and Foxx sharing a fairly strong odd-couple dynamic throughout the whole thing. In Inglourious Basterds, Waltz stole the show as an effortlessly charming and clever Nazi investigator; it is that same sense of charisma that translates to his vastly different role in Django Unchained as a bounty hunter with a strong (albeit imperfect) sense of personal ethics. He has to be an effervescent character in order to carry Foxx, whose character has to take some time to grow from traumatised slave to angel of vengeance. His quiet demeanour soon gives way to a calm yet acidic tone that makes the ideal counter-point to Waltz's extremely friendly mannerisms. Other characters vary in terms of ability and effectiveness; Washington is decent enough even though her role basically does extend to being a damsel in distress. Despite the sheer amount of effort that DiCaprio puts into his role (if nothing else, him being able to act through having his hand actually get slashed open in one scene is admittedly impressive), I just can't take him seriously. Though his character is supposed to be a gleefully sadistic racist, he never convincingly makes the transition from ridiculous caricature to genuine threat - and that's without getting into his overwrought Southern accent and lapsing into the sort of vein-popping yelling that pops up in enough of his roles to make his relative lack of range apparent. At least his scenes are supported by the presence of semi-regular Tarantino collaborator Samuel L. Jackson, whose turn as DiCaprio's head slave has considerable depth beneath a surface that initially seems to be little more than an extremely racist stereotype.

Though the issues with plot and characterisation do ultimately prevent Django Unchained from becoming a major classic, it does well enough on a technical front. I'm really starting to take note of Robert Richardson as a cinematographer lately; his versatility with a variety of cinematic styles makes him a perfect fit for Tarantino's trademark genre-blending as over-saturated colours and crash-zooms fit side-by-side with more traditional landscape shots. The soundtrack is naturally an eclectic and mostly anachronistic collection of pieces that work to varying degrees of effectiveness, though the best moments tend to not have any background music whatsoever. The action is decent, if not entirely up to Tarantino's best; at the very least, there is one sequence that is so exquisitely captured that it should serve as the film's climax (sadly it doesn't, thus leading to the film fading away more so than burning out). After at least two full viewings and at least one or two other partial viewings, I still have some hope that this will grow on me and become genuinely great rather than merely good. There is plenty to like about it, but all the strengths that this film has ultimately struggle to come together and form a cohesively strong piece of work.

3.5

Iroquois

09-19-15, 04:33 AM

#578 - Django
Sergio Corbucci, 1966

http://i2.cdnds.net/15/15/618x401/movies-django-1966.jpg

A lone gunman becomes involved in a conflict that ranges between two groups of bandits as he seeks revenge against one gang's leader.

If that logline looks in any way familiar, it's because it does seem awfully similar to that of A Fistful of Dollars, another notable yet derivative spaghetti Western. Even though Django came out a mere two years after Leone's film it manages to provide enough distinction to at least make it a fairly worthwhile experience. A lot of that is down to the steely-eyed Franco Nero as the titular protagonist, who is distinguished right from the opening frames as he drags a coffin on a rope through the harsh desert before proceeding to rescue a courtesan from being tortured by bandits. Thus, he finds himself caught between two gangs, one made of American ex-militia members and the other made of Mexicans. Django has a score to settle with the leader of the American gang, but of course that quest for simple revenge is complicated by a tale involving not just the constantly-raging battle for victory between the two outfits but also the chance to acquire some gold in the process.

Like many an old genre film worth its salt, Django has a distinctive visual aesthetic that helps to carry its otherwise fairly standard plot. The grittiness common to all the best spaghetti Westerns is on full display here and definitely lends the film personality; this much is especially true considering how it manages to mimic A Fistful of Dollars but manages to induce even more cynicism from bitter beginning to a quick yet dramatic conclusion. The little tweaks, such as Django's coffin and his incredibly dramatic relationship with the woman he rescues, are nice ones but ultimately serve as window-dressing to a film that's not that bad so much as average. There are some good moments of action and suspense (the most memorable of which involves Django trying to sneak himself and his coffin out of a packed saloon), while the score involves some appropriately histrionic instrumentals and the iconic theme song (which I naturally recognised from its usage in Django Unchained - it seems like there's a fair bit of fun to be had in picking apart what Tarantino opted to appropriate from this film). Django is a good bet if you're into niche fare like this, but I'm hard-pressed to think of it as a classic in its own right. I would not be averse to re-watching it, of course, but even the various fun little aspects don't feel like enough to make it truly great.

3

Iroquois

09-19-15, 04:34 AM

#579 - There Will Be Blood
Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/therewillbeblood1.jpg

At the turn of the 20th century, a former miner works his way towards being a rich and powerful businessmen in the burgeoning oil industry.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/412822-there-will-be-blood.html).

(Additional notes: this review is over seven years old by now and looks a little rough, but I'm not about to argue with the gist of it. Excellent film in just about every regard.)

5

Iroquois

09-19-15, 04:38 AM

#580 - My Brilliant Career
Gillian Armstrong, 1979

http://www.madman.com.au/images/screenshots/screenshot_1_18826.jpg

In turn-of-the-century Australia, a young woman seeks to have both a career and personal independence but is confounded by other people's expectations of what kind of woman she should be.

My Brilliant Career could best be summarised as being an Australian take on Jane Austen. While it is not based on any actual Austen fare (instead being adapted from a novel by renowned Australian author Miles Franklin), the vibe is there thanks to the period trappings and the tale that deals in themes relating to independent womanhood. The film stars Judy Davis as a young woman whose personal goals vary greatly from what her family and the rest of society typically has in mind for young women of the era; while they would rather have her become a prim and proper wife and mother who is well-respected in the community, she has other ideas. Her main goal is to define herself, mainly by striking out on her own and having a career of her own (possibly in writing) rather than be forced to depend on any man that she may be forced to wed out of social grace. Though this goal is challenging enough thanks to the pressure put upon her, things are complicated somewhat when she feels some measure of reciprocity towards a local gentleman (Sam Neill) bestowing his attentions upon her.

The film is generally passable, with some decent cinematography and production design that is dedicated to preserving the setting; however, that's not enough to truly distract from how dry the whole film manages to be. Davis is a decent enough actress to build the film around, but she is pretty much the only performer of any serious note; even Neill can only do so much in his role as a roguish country boy who Davis sees as a possible compromise between her career goals and the repressive position that turn-of-the-century society has molded for her. Even with the film's extremely lean running time, the plot does seem to dither considerably and most of the characters generally don't do much to stand out favourably. My Brilliant Career is a respectable film, but it doesn't do all that much to hold up these days. It paints a pretty picture and its treatment of early-feminist politics through a relatively modern lens is worth noting, but it's hardly a film that I feel can be enjoyed or appreciated in depth.

2.5

Iroquois

09-19-15, 04:48 AM

#581 - Grand Hotel
Edmund Goulding, 1932

https://kelleepratt.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/grandhotel_garbo.jpg

Follows the exploits of the staff and guests of a high-class German hotel.

For years, Grand Hotel seemed like an interesting prospect as far as early Hollywood films went. Set amidst the hustle and bustle of the Grand Hotel, the fanciest place to stay in Berlin, it promised a sufficiently compelling and complex film for the early days of talking pictures as it balanced a number of different plots and characters that intertwined and bounced off one another over the course of a feature film. There are quite a few plots running through the film that demand one's attention regardless of their significance, whether it's the seriously ill bureaucrat (Lionel Barrymore) opting to check himself in to spend his last days in style or the effervescent nobleman (John Barrymore) who is secretly a gentleman thief attempting to steal from a fellow guest. All of this takes place amidst a series of lavishly-designed sets that definitely put the "grand" in Grand Hotel and is captured with the level of dedication one would expect from early-'30s Hollywood.

When I did finally get around to watching Grand Hotel, I couldn't help but find the end result awfully boring for the most part. The film's status as an all-star vehicle is apparent from the opening credits, which opt to give fanciful title cards to all its most famous players. I do wonder if this is the first film to try using star power to compensate for any potential narrative weaknesses; as such, I genuinely struggle to remember what actually happens in the film. To be fair, the stars' presence plugs the gaps reasonably well; Greta Garbo always makes for a magnetic screen presence, which is clear though her role as the fading Russian ballerina whose fear of the future is assuaged somewhat by the arrival of John Barrymore (even after his plan to steal from her almost works). Other plots are serviceable but not genuinely good - Joan Crawford's turn as an aspiring performer earns some pathos, as does Lionel Barrymore's turn as a timid man only now learning what it is like to live. These are nice touches, but they fail to make for a fundamentally solid film. Grand Hotel deserves a modicum of respect, but there is little about its sumptuous melodrama that appeals even in a historical context. Star power may be the main strength of the film, and it is a strength that is not completely without merit, but it's not enough to seriously redeem the final product.

2

MovieMeditation

09-19-15, 06:44 AM

Camo

09-19-15, 07:45 AM

From this page i've only seen TWBB and Stagecoach, great review of the latter and glad to see you like TWBB so much. I'm going to read the review you linked in a second so expect rough seven year old rep.

As much as i enjoyed the 60s countdown, i think this is clearly the best thread this year, actually i think this is the best thread i have seen here overall. Your effort and consistency has been pretty astonishing, i'm surprised you haven't just posted "yeah that was good" reviews at this point :p. I'll need to set aside some time to go through all of this as i've clearly missed a ton of movies i've seen and everything i've read has been well thought out and interesting whether i agreed with your view or not.

honeykid

09-19-15, 11:09 AM

I think the all star cast of Grand Hotel kind of was the point of it. I think it was the first film to do that and, probably, was as much a publicity stunt for MGM as anything else.

Friendly Mushroom!

09-19-15, 07:58 PM

I repped your review of Grand Hotel though I disagree with it. I loved the cast and found it far from boring. Great movie. :)

I can see why some may find it boring though.

Iroquois

09-20-15, 05:03 AM

I can't deny or go against anything you say in your review of Django Unchained. It is Tarantino playing on all his instruments known to his style and it is something that ends up feeling like a safecard in his filmography - maybe even his least daring work in his filmography.

As a movie to be reviewed and analyzed in the general sense, it would come up short or at least land about where you put it. But for me, this film is like Tarantino delivering the perfect vision of pure fun entertainment in his eyes, while being a homage to westerns through and through. I have a hard time not surrendering to this film, simply because it is so much fun in my opinion. The first half is better than the second and the story is fragmented and all, but I mainly enjoy it so much because it's just a fun movie... Also the best time I ever had at the cinemas and to this day the only movie I ever paid twice to go see... That said, it's also the only QT film I ever had the chance to see on the big screen, but nevertheless, what an experience.

It looks like The Hateful Eight will be a throwback to Reservoir Dogs and a retelling of his style in Django Unchained. But I do hope it will be a little more daring, though I doubt it.

In my experience, the films where Tarantino tries to be out-and-out "fun" tend to be the ones I prefer the least. That's not to say that they're automatically bad (except for Death Proof), but it is an interesting pattern that I've noticed because Tarantino does seem to compromise his films by trying to make them fun. Death Proof would be the obvious case; even when trying to deliver a film that's supposed to be an uncomplicated car chase movie, he can't help but bog it down with his trademark idiosyncrasies like excessive amounts of dialogue (and he doesn't stick to capturing the grindhouse feel as well as Rodriguez did with Planet Terror). Kill Bill made for a better balance of action and substance, but it arguably had a better sense of plot than Django Unchained did, which undid the latter to a certain extent (especially when it ran for 30 minutes past the obvious climax, and nothing that came afterwards actually lived up to that particular scene). Kill Bill gets the edge because it was so well-paced, and Django..., for all its tendencies towards the epic and violent, doesn't match it and thus is a bit too imperfect even as far as being fun goes.

From this page i've only seen TWBB and Stagecoach, great review of the latter and glad to see you like TWBB so much. I'm going to read the review you linked in a second so expect rough seven year old rep.

As much as i enjoyed the 60s countdown, i think this is clearly the best thread this year, actually i think this is the best thread i have seen here overall. Your effort and consistency has been pretty astonishing, i'm surprised you haven't just posted "yeah that was good" reviews at this point :p. I'll need to set aside some time to go through all of this as i've clearly missed a ton of movies i've seen and everything i've read has been well thought out and interesting whether i agreed with your view or not.

Thank you for the very kind words :up: I imagine this thread would be quite daunting to any number of people who don't check in constantly. Anyway, since the mods have recently cracked down on what can get tagged as a review (mainly due to length concerns - if you go through a lot of old reviews they tend to be short ones, even ones from this thread), I figure that I owe it to the films to actually write a solid chunk of text about each one, though this does mean that I fall behind on reviewing them.

I think the all star cast of Grand Hotel kind of was the point of it. I think it was the first film to do that and, probably, was as much a publicity stunt for MGM as anything else.

I repped your review of Grand Hotel though I disagree with it. I loved the cast and found it far from boring. Great movie. :)

I can see why some may find it boring though.

Yeah, like I didn't hate it or anything, it was just passable.

Iroquois

09-20-15, 05:07 AM

#582 - The Kid with the Golden Arm
Chang Cheh, 1979

http://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/articles/20martialarts-kidwiththegoldenarm%20%28Custom%29.jpg

A warrior clan is tasked with transporting a shipment of gold by the government, which is then targeted by a gang of evil martial arts masters.

Chang Cheh's follow-up to 1978's Five Deadly Venoms reuses many of the same performers in telling an even more simple story than that particular film. Though the focus is once again based around whether or not the good guys or the bad guys will acquire a significant treasure, here the convoluted mystery-drama of Venoms is dropped completely. The government orders a reputable warrior clan to transport gold to a famine-stricken area of the country, assigning one of their agents to supervise the job. However, it's not long before a gang of martial artists with metal-based names openly declare their intention to steal the gold for themselves, prompting the clan to improve their guard. This includes a boyfriend and girlfriend who are both capable fighters in their own right; however, it is the government agent (and the ostensible protagonist) who proves a lovable rogue that clashes with his uptight colleagues over his tendency to get drunk more for the hell of it than in service to his highly skilled style of drunken boxing.

Credit where credit's due, the plot for The Kid with the Golden Arm is simple without being trite and has enough twists and turns to not get boring over the course of an incredibly brief running time. The performers on display are decent enough actors - more importantly, they make for capable martial artists. The action does seem a little too obvious in its choreography to truly engage, but I'm prepared to forgive it simply because fanciful artifice is half the reason why anyone would watch a Shaw Brothers movie. Films like this are tantamount to ballet with their obvious sets and artfully constructed fight sequences - what it lacks in rawness and believability, it makes up for in panache and fluidity. I'm just glad that the characterisation is decent enough to not annoy me - part of that has to do with not playing up the lead character's drunken antics for excessively broad comedy and actually making him a considerable threat right from the get-go. There are nice details to the characters here and there. Of particular note is one character who is fatally poisoned and thus prepares to die a violent and honourable death only to be cured...which leads him to resent his saviour for denying him the chance to die with honour. The humour may not be laugh-out-loud but the balance is handled in just the right way to add some much-needed character to a film that could have just as easily been another sterile (if technically decent) old-school kung-fu movie.

3

Iroquois

09-20-15, 05:11 AM

#583 - Bowfinger
Frank Oz, 1999

http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5241/65/16x9/640.jpg

A wannabe film-maker plans to make a science-fiction film by any means necessary, including filming a famous movie star without his knowledge.

Though the ads I saw during Bowfinger's theatrical release did play up the silliness to a somewhat alienating degree, I've since come to realise that the premise held some potential. This potential was increased by the fact that the film reunited star/screenwriter Steve Martin with Dirty Rotten Scoundrels director Frank Oz. I did like that film's simple yet well-executed comedic tale of a pair of con artists frantically trying to one-up one another, so I figured that that same energy would at least partially translate to Bowfinger. Martin plays the titular producer/director who reads a script about an alien invasion and decides that he wants to make it despite only having about two thousand dollars in capital. He repeatedly ignores common sense as he not only puts together a ragtag cast and crew but also intends to bring in a major Hollywood star (Eddie Murphy) to play the lead role. Murphy, who is a highly strung action star whose angry awareness of the film industry's flaws borders on full-blown paranoia, predictably rejects the overly enthusiastic Martin. To this end, Martin decides to lie to the majority of his crew and have them film the movie around an unsuspecting Murphy under the pretense of him being extremely focused - and that's before they manage to find his exact double (Murphy again).

Bowfinger has a decent enough comedic high concept but it fails to flesh it out with any sufficiently amusing jokes. There is some cleverness scattered here and there, whether it's Murphy's eager devotion to a self-help program that in no way resembles Scientology (anchored by a po-faced Terence Stamp as Murphy's contact within the organisation) or some of his more potent comments about the film industry (such as rejecting a potential action movie catch-phrase for being too complex with the line "We're making a movie, not a film!" or remarking on the inherent racism of the Academy Awards). There's also the running plot about how Martin's attempts to film an alien-themed movie around Murphy lead to him becoming increasingly paranoid and vulnerable to a nervous breakdown, which does lend a blackly comic air to the proceedings. Unfortunately, the odd moment of cleverness isn't enough to make a significant difference as the film treads some fairly basic comedic ground. There's a scene in which Martin makes Murphy's gormless double run across a busy highway as part of an action sequence, which feels a little too broad for its own good. The same goes for Heather Graham as an extremely stereotypical ingenue who gets straight off a bus and straight into Martin's production, which adds little to the proceedings.

While Bowfinger doesn't do anything egregiously wrong in its satirical yet fundamentally earnest mockery of the film industry, I can't help but be disappointed by how incredibly unfunny it ends up being. The film does its best to infuse its cast of misfits with weight and significance; Martin's lifelong passion for filmmaking makes him a somewhat tragic figure even as he lies, cheats, and steals in order to see his vision come true, whereas his various compatriots believe in the work they're doing regardless of their awareness of the greater truth. This translates to the performances, with Martin channeling his typical comic energy into a character that is dedicated to a vision but not self-aware enough to give up on said vision, while Murphy pulls double-duty as both a belligerent yet insecure Hollywood A-lister and his sweetly oblivious doppelganger. Other performances put in the hard yards but yield little in the way of decent results. There's no ironic detachment on display here, but one wonders if sheer sincerity is truly enough to support the film, especially when the jokes invoke the mildest of amusement without actually arousing a single chuckle.

1.5

nat666195

09-20-15, 08:45 AM

#1 - Dead Poets Society
Peter Weir, 1989

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76897000/jpg/_76897294_dead-poets-society.jpg

Dead Poets Society is about a 1950s boarding school where the new English teacher (Robin Williams) and his unorthodox approach to teaching poetry ends up inspiring a handful of students to form the titular society (technically, to reform it because Williams' character started it during his high school years, but whatever). The consequences are altenately uplifting and devastating.

I have somehow never managed to watch Dead Poets Society from start to finish. The last time I tried it, I watched it all the way up until the last 15-20 minutes when the DVD glitched so I gave up and never got back to finishing it until now. Even though I knew how it ended anyway, I never truly counted it as being 100% "watched". Obviously, I've gone and rectified that. Anyway, as for what I think...

I remember liking it quite a bit on my initial attempt years ago, but watching it now...not so much. Williams definitely gives a strong performance here, with his character getting just enough depth to not seem like some one-dimensional cool teacher archetype. The central cast of male students that make up the titular society - that's a bit more debatable. One character's subplot involves his romantic pursuit of a cheerleader, which does play out rather questionably to say the least (dude, she's passed out/asleep at some jock party and her football hero boyfriend is about ten feet away, do you really think your carpe diem attitude is going to justify stroking her hair and kissing her forehead?) The main subplot, revolving around another character being inspired to try acting despite a fear of disappointing his strict dad, is familiar enough that I have to wonder if knowing how it'd play out would either make it more tragic or just signal how lacking in originality the script felt. Ethan Hawke's turn as a quiet, nervous student (a far cry from the sort of roles he's best known for), does have its moments, especially the scene where Williams forces him to make up a poem in front of the whole classroom, which is honestly a great scene in spite of it being instantly recognisable as the typical "scene where the shy kid learns to express themselves".

By this point, Dead Poets Society has seeped into the cultural consciousness enough that it feels like a parody of itself at times. It's got a handful of choice moments (as trite as it may seem, that final scene really does leave an impression), is amply aided by Williams' remarkable rendition of a fairly basic character archetype and the acting by the main characters is decent enough to sell their admittedly all-too-familiar character arcs (except in the very shallow romantic subplot mentioned above, of course). Am I likely to invest another two hours in another viewing? Probably not. Do I reckon people should see it if they haven't already? Sure, why not.

3

I loved the Dead Poet's Society. It had my favourite actor in it.

Iroquois

09-21-15, 01:41 AM

#584 - Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
George Roy Hill, 1969

http://cdn2.artofthetitle.com/assets/sm/upload/qa/fb/mg/54/butch-cassidy-screen1-in-bolivia.jpeg

Mostly based on the true story of the eponymous outlaws as their constant train-robbing leads to them being pursued by a team of mercenaries.

I saw this on a theatrical double-bill with another revisionist Western from 1969 (but I'll get to that soon enough); it had been at least a few years since my last (and also first) viewing of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but my opinion of it was generally favourable. Even so, it took another viewing to appreciate it more fully, if only because there is a lot to appreciate. At the time, revisionist Westerns of the era were intent on deconstructing the genre by any means necessary, which often involved criticising the cheerful and largely bloodless mythology of earlier films by creating blood-soaked works filled with nihilism and complex morality. In that context, Butch... seems like a compromise between old and new styles as it promises a film exploring the death of the Wild West while also setting up its two leads as charming rogues. Paul Newman and Robert Redford play Butch and Sundance respectively; the former is getting on in years but still has the wits to make lots of cash and keep control of his unruly gang, while the latter is a moody gunslinger with exceptional shooting skills and a serious attitude problem. Along with the "Hole-in-the-Wall Gang", they pull off enough train robberies that they eventually earn some very unwanted attention from the railroad tycoon, who puts together an elite squad of bounty hunters in order to track and kill them. To this end, they decide to leave the country and head to Bolivia along with Sundance's schoolteacher mistress (Katharine Ross), but of course that presents its own set of problems...

I've noted in other reviews how William Goldman is one of the best examples of screenwriter-as-auteur (if not the best), and Butch... alternately proves and challenges that assertion. Structurally, Butch... follows a three-act structure pretty closely - the first act introduces our leads, the second act seems them pursued, and the third sees them go to Bolivia. The pacing does leave a fair bit to be desired as the film hits something of a wall once it reaches the Bolivian section of the film. Up until that point, the film has great momentum as it sets up its characters. The film's greatest strength is easily the relentless banter exchanged between Newman and Redford, often as a result of disagreements over how to solve whatever problem is facing them at that particular moment. This continues through the excellent second act, which sees the duo once again holding up a train only for a crew of mercenaries to burst out of one carriage and start chasing them. Between the tension generated by this barely-glimpsed band of killers and the duo's attempts to outmaneuver them (trading quips all the while), it's easy to see how the film loses its momentum in its third act, though it doesn't change things up too much aside from allowing its leads a breather and the chance to get back on top of things. It's just as well that Newman and Redford have such great chemistry, which is enough to carry the whole film just fine and make these outlaws of rather debatable sympathy at least amusing enough to watch. Given how the film's beginning states that "most of what follows is true", I guess I can't seriously fault the duo for pulling robberies without masks, if only because that is a practical concern as people will want to see the lead duo's handsome mugs and also points out the futility of their cavalier attitudes. At least sometimes the lack of character logic is played for laughs, such as the lead trio inferring that the hit squad sent after them by the railroad tycoon must have been more expensive to put together than the cost of the actual robberies, leading to Butch exclaiming that he should be getting paid not to rob the trains. Clever little bits and pieces of dialogue and physical humour accumulate quick and fast in this film.

While its strength is most definitely built on handsome stars swapping cleverly-crafted one-liners, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid doesn't exactly skimp when it comes to technical excellence either. Legendary cinematographer Conrad L. Hall provides crystal-clear shots that are infused with some serious vibrancy both in terms of colour and flexibility. The entire opening sequence that introduces Butch and Sundance is shot entirely in sepia tones; though the film is in full colour for most of its running time, I would not have minded if the whole film had actually been captured in sepia. "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" is tolerable, but it's definitely worth noting just how much the film works without using music; the only times I recall music being used are during montages, and I honestly prefer the music staying within those boundaries. The period details are well-realised (especially the costume design by the legendary Edith Head) and the instances in which the film does opt to get somewhat serious with a scene involving action or drama are still executed reasonably well, whether it's the extensive chase sequence or the notorious finale. When it comes to being a Western, the film dances a furious jig on the line between being a serious deconstruction and a sincere celebration, but that doesn't stop it being an extremely enjoyable film either way.

4

Iroquois

09-21-15, 01:46 AM

#585 - The Wild Bunch
Sam Peckinpah, 1969

http://d12vb6dvkz909q.cloudfront.net/uploads/galleries/28302/wild-bunch-1.jpg

After their attempt to pull one last heist goes horribly wrong, a gang of aging outlaws offer their services to a Mexican general looking to consolidate his power.

With this latest viewing being the back half of a double bill with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, it is easy to pick apart how many similarities The Wild Bunch shares with that particular film beyond simply being a revisionist Western from 1969, if only to point out how much they compliment and contrast against one another. Both films centre around outlaw gangs who are targeted by squads of mercenaries working on behalf of railroad tycoons; consequently, both gangs abandon the United States and attempt to forge new lives for themselves in foreign countries by plying their criminal trades. While Butch... had a romantic streak that made any deconstruction fundamentally lightweight, Bunch throws any such sentiment to the wind and then shoots it for good measure. It is a decidedly unsentimental Western, with the only concession to any sort of positivity being towards codes of honour and loyalty, and even then the film goes out of its way time and time again to expose the folly in these particular themes. The "bunch" of the title are a motley collection of outlaws that are mostly past their prime and looking to pull one last job, which unfortunately for them takes place at the very beginning of the film. When that goes sour thanks to the whole thing being a set-up by the aforementioned railroad hit squad, they head into Mexico to regroup and circumstances lead to them working for a corrupt Mexican general. While most of the group are more or less fine with supporting his despotic regime for the sake of some cash, the sole Mexican member of their ranks naturally takes issue and intends to fight back...

The Wild Bunch wouldn't be what it is without a strong ensemble around which to build, and it most definitely gets that. William Holden is perfect as Pike Bishop, the grouchy yet affable ringleader who can convey a wide range of emotions, especially as he gets to dwelling on the more miserable aspects of his incredibly troubled past. Ernest Borgnine plays Dutch Engstrom, Pike's fiercely loyal partner-in-crime who gets some impressive chemistry with Holden. Warren Oates and Ben Johnson make for a good double-act as the slightly younger yet incredibly immature Gorch brothers, while Jaime Sánchez gets a surprisingly solid character as Angel, the "kid" of the group who arguably undergoes the most difficult character journey in the film (especially since his conflicting loyalties drive much of the plot). Edmond O'Brien rounds out the numbers as oldest member Freddy Sykes, with his performance reminding one of every "old prospector" stereotype yet he manages to make it work. Of special note is Robert Ryan as Deke Thornton, a former associate of Pike's who has been forced to head up the squad tasked with tracking down and killing the Bunch or else be made to go back to prison. While he's essentially the same as Pike, his squad is completely different as they are a group of vile scavengers kept together less by mutual camararderie than by the promise of their being killed if they bail on the mission. That's without mentioning Emilio Fernández as the appropriately loathsome General Mapache, playing the villainous role with toothy grins galore.

In addition to having a strong enough cast of characters to build the movie around, The Wild Bunch does well at creating enough of a movie for them to build around. The dialogue is frequently blunt and harsh in ways that lack the obvious lyricism and wit of William Goldman but still make up for it in being memorably to-the-point. Even so, there's still enough complexity to things that needs to be inferred, especially in how the film treats its incredibly skewed sense of morality. The Bunch are the type of protagonists that only seem heroic by default due to how horrible everyone else is (with the possible exception of Deke); Angel is the closest the film gets to having a wholly sympathetic character due to his wishing to save the people of his village from Mapache but that doesn't stop him from doing something like murdering the woman he loves because she's gone over to Mapache (though exactly how willingly she made that choice is up to interpretation, and the incident is framed as a crime of passion on Angel's part - yeah, you're not exactly going to get a kind treatment of female characters in this film). Given the age of many characters, there's an obvious "death of the West" theme running through the whole thing as the older characters basically have to admit that there isn't really a place for outlaws like them anymore (which is driven home by the presence of various technological advances such as automobiles and machine-guns). The Bunch may be capable crooks when it comes down to it, but many of the quieter non-action scenes establish just how worn-out and done a lot of them actually are. As a result, their motivations for selling out to a despotic general and his German supporters are much more complex that mere greed; though they ostensibly work towards not having to work again, it's pretty obvious that work is all they know. This feeds into the group's sense of loyalty to one another, which is paradoxically vital yet self-destructive as they stick by one another even when it's impractical and dangerous (especially when it comes to Angel, who is a major spanner in the works).

Of course, what really makes The Wild Bunch and its grim deconstruction really work is the gritty, explosive violence that is wrought throughout the film. Being shot in this film makes a bloody spurt and leaves a ragged wound, and it happens a lot. It is a nasty business as the guilty and innocent alike are subjected to excessive brutality. That doesn't mean that the film is a thoroughly dour affair full of suffering and misery; its tragedy is supplanted by a number of stylishly depicted action sequences that involve the Bunch fighting it out with their adversaries. Peckinpah does use a number of techniques to amplify the violence, but only when it is deliberately trying to evoke tension and excitement during one of the film's many shoot-outs. The cinematography is crisp, the editing is tight without being disorienting, slow-motion is applied effectively, and the scenes are generally free of music (though the music is appropriately sinister; one piece even sounds like a deliberate subversion of the triumphant theme music from The Magnificent Seven). The opening heist sequence sets quite the standard for what's to come, while the train heist is a masterful sequence in suspense and the finale has quite rightly become the stuff of legend. I recognise that The Wild Bunch has its problems, but it certainly doesn't lack for substance. It is anchored by excellent actors bringing serious depth to extremely flawed characters and is still buoyed by the action sequences being some of the most well-executed ones in the entire genre. It's not exactly as accessible as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but it doesn't need to be.

4.5

Iroquois

09-22-15, 03:07 AM

#586 - Stardust
Matthew Vaughn, 2007

https://filmdump.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/stardust-3.jpg

A young man ventures to a magical kingdom in search of a shooting star to prove his love for a beautiful woman, but his quest is complicated by the star taking the form of a living woman and also being sought by evil-doers.

Stardust is something of an oddity in the context of Matthew Vaughn's filmography. Sandwiched between British gangster debut Layer Cake and violent superhero parody Kick-Ass, Vaughn's sophomore feature takes a completely different tack to his other films as it adapts a fairytale novel written by Neil Gaiman. It is built on the fantastic concept of there being an entire realm known as Stormhold that is only accessible through a gap in a stone wall located in a small English village. After a prologue that establishes the origin of its hero (whose father is from the village and whose mother is from Stormhold), it cuts to him as a young man (played by Charlie Cox), a hopeless romantic who is looking to win the affection of a local girl (Sienna Miller). As they witness a shooting star one night, Cox promises to retrieve it for Miller in order to prove his love for her, which means that he must cross the wall into Stormhold. Of course, his seemingly simple quest is complicated by a number of factors. First, there's the fact that in Stormhold the shooting star takes the form of a human woman (Claire Danes), who does not take kindly to Cox's initial plan to use her as a trophy. Second, there's the evil witch (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants to cut out the star's heart in order to provide her with the magic she needs to remain beautiful and powerful. Third, there's the power struggle that forms in the wake of the king's death as his three remaining sons must try to acquire the star's necklace in order to claim the throne, with one (Mark Strong) willing to go further than the others in order to get it.

There's nothing egregiously wrong with Stardust, but there's not much that can be considered especially great. Gaiman has proven to be a solid writer in the realm of sci-fi and fantasy, but that doesn't fully translate to the story in this film as it crafts a somewhat generic high-fantasy world. At least it is somewhat distinguished by the odd piece of interesting world-building, such as an airship full of sky pirates led by Robert de Niro or the bloodthirsty mechanics of the local regency. The various plot elements are also pretty standard for a film of this nature, especially the romantic ones that are pretty predictable but not enough so to be truly annoying. I do appreciate how the film was willing to set up a number of conflicts, especially by having multiple potential antagonists as both Pfeiffer and Strong stop at nothing in order to track down Danes. The assembly of veteran performers and relative newcomers are generally decent with no real misfires as they all embody a number of familiar fantasy archetypes. Cox and Danes have believable enough chemistry to compensate for the more hackneyed developments of the narrative, while Strong and de Niro do well in supporting roles (especially the latter as a seemingly merciless pirate with some interesting depth of character). The effects work is pretty erratic in terms of quality with plenty of obvious uses of CGI, but it is generally tolerable and occasionally genuinely impressive (as is the case surrounding one character's magic-related death late in the film). Stardust is a tolerable example of high fantasy that has some good moments but lacks just enough cleverness and invention to be a great film; it is also a little too long, predictable, and poorly paced as well. Even so, I'd still rank it alongside Kingsman as one of Vaughn's best films, although considering the company that's not saying much.

2.5

Iroquois

09-22-15, 05:16 AM

#587 - The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
John Huston, 1948

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The-Treasure-of-the-Sierra-Madre-2.jpg

In 1920s Mexico, a trio of unemployed Americans head into the mountains in search of gold.

With his weather-beaten features and his rough yet nasal voice, Humphrey Bogart still makes for an unlikely example of a classic A-list movie star. Several of his most famous roles tend to bypass his gravelly countenance and sell him as a damaged anti-hero with a slightly romantic edge, for good (Casablanca) or not-so-good (Sabrina). The Treasure of the Sierra Madre might just be my favourite film to feature the man and it doesn't feature him playing one of his usual anti-heroic types or even a straight-up villain like in The Petrified Forest. Here, Bogart plays Fred C. Dobbs, an American who is down and out in a Mexican town in 1925. After trying to beg money off rich folks and getting cheated out of being paid for fair work, he and his equally impoverished buddy Bob Curtin (Tim Holt) decide to take up prospecting, hoping to find gold in the unexplored wilderness. To help them out on this venture, they bring in an older and more experienced prospector named Howard (Walter Huston), who agrees to guide them on their journey to riches. Of course, once the trio actually find a suitable vein of gold to mine, they must contend with various threats such as murderous bandits, opportunistic explorers, dangerous animals and, last but definitely not least, the greed and paranoia that affects all three of them (especially Dobbs).

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a pretty masterful example of classic cinema thanks to its tautly paced plot that doesn't drag over the course of two hours, generating as much drama from the growing friction between its three leads as it does from having their operation be endangered by external conflicts. Each of the three leads is definitely good enough to carry their own weight and prop one another up; as Dobbs, Bogart gives us a desperate man whose desire to simply make enough money to survive quickly escalates into an extremely obsessive mindset that puts him at odds with his companions, leading to a performance that drops his trademark sense of hard-boiled charisma in favour of an increasingly manic and deranged performance. His tendency to lapse into motor-mouthed diatribes is matched by the senior Huston, whose advanced age does not prevent him from being able to keep up with (and even surpass) Bogart in terms of being able to rattle off lines of dialogue like machine-gun fire. Though his old-prospector mannerisms are likely to prompt laughter in a few instances, they only make him an even more charming and layered character rather than render his dramatics ridiculous. Between these two, Holt's more restrained turn as an earnest young man simply looking to make a small fortune instead of a large one is an appropriately understated one; as a result, he doesn't need to go overboard with it. Outside of the core ensemble, other memorable performances include the smooth-talking explorer (Bruce Bennett) and the Mexican bandit leader (Alfonso Bedoya) who put in good turns that don't break the film's rhythms with their appearances.

Though I naturally need to revisit a few of the other contenders to make sure, I would probably still cite The Treasure of the Sierra Madre as my favourite Bogart film, my favourite Huston film, and basically a second-tier favourite. The film is paced incredibly well with each external development spread far enough apart so that the film can addresses each new twist without losing focus or an audience's interest. In addition to forming a satisfactory whole, the film is peppered with great individual moments, whether it's the famous exchange about stinking badges or a certain scene involving a gila monster. The focus on exploring the ramifications of greed does so by giving its leads great character development, with each one embodying a very different reaction to the promise of striking it rich. On a technical level, the film is extremely well-made with sharp black-and-white cinematography doing well at capturing the sun-soaked hillsides and being even better at covering the trio's nights spent by the fireside. The music is naturally old-timey yet the frequent repetitions and variations of the film's main theme never grow tiresome. All things considered, this is quite the old-school masterpiece and is definitely recommended.

4.5

MovieMeditation

09-22-15, 12:10 PM

I saw Treasure a long time ago, when I was just starting to get into film, therefore I feel like this one desperately needs a revisit...

I liked it, but not much more. It's been so long though, so I doubt my thoughts still stands the same. Good review though and I'm definitely wanting to see it again even more now.

Beatle

09-22-15, 03:47 PM

#15 - A Beautiful Mind
Ron Howard, 2001

http://www.richardcrouse.ca//wp-content/uploads/2013/08/beautmind.jpg

Based on the true story of Nobel-winning mathematician John Nash, whose attempts at working on maths start getting derailed by a number of growing problems.

I knew next to nothing about A Beautiful Mind other than that it was a renowned Oscar winner that - surprise, surprise - was based on a true story about a troubled genius. Fortunately, I think the lowered expectations worked in the film's favour. After a fairly average first act that makes it seem like a fairly pedestrian period drama, the second act gets interesting when Nash (Russell Crowe, here playing up the nervy eccentricity that goes with being a socially awkward maths genius) is recruited by Ed Harris's shadowy G-man as part of a top-secret government project, and then

it turns out that Ed Harris - in addition to Nash's lifelong friend (Paul Bettany) - is a hallucination and that Nash is a paranoid schizophrenic who needs medication and electroshock.
That revelation, and the fallout that ensues, make for a film that's interesting but doesn't always stick the execution. There's the expected tension between Nash and his wife (Jennifer Connelly, quite reasonably earning an Oscar for her work here) and various ensuing struggles that do come across as legitimately disturbing at times. There's an intriguing premise at work here, but it gets dragged down by Howard's extremely conventional Oscar-bait approach to the subject matter. I don't hate it, but I do feel that the material doesn't quite reach its full potential.

rating_2_5

I haven't seen it start to finish, but I think Crowe gave a great performance, as did Connelly. Never been a fan of Howard, except Da Vinci code, so I absolutelly agree with everything you said.

Iroquois

09-22-15, 08:03 PM

#588 - Taken 2
Olivier Megaton, 2012

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SBZ5sl2-bgU/maxresdefault.jpg

After killing a gang of human traffickers in order to rescue his daughter, a security consultant and his family are targeted by the father of one of the men he killed.

I was not too kind to the original Taken when I reviewed it. As charming as I generally find Liam Neeson, he was far and away the best part of a rather clunky excuse for a modern action film. That being said, I wonder if I might have been a bit harsh on it, though that reaction was prompted less by re-thinking my feelings towards the film itself and more in relation to the incredible shortcomings of its follow-up, Taken 2. The original film had a serviceable if none-too-original high concept in its tale of a highly-skilled security consultant tracking down the men who kidnapped his daughter, but a sequel involving the exact same circumstances seemed a little too improbable even for an action movie as uncomplicated as this one. So they went with the next best thing - a revenge plot. This time, as Neeson works towards rebuilding his relationships with his ex-wife (Famke Janssen) and daughter (Maggie Grace) while the trio are on holiday in Istanbul, they are targeted by an Albanian gangster (Rade Šerbedžija) and his organisation. It turns out that Šerbedžija is the father of one of the traffickers that Neeson murdered in the first film, so naturally he wants revenge.

While a revenge plot is arguably more plausible than having Grace's character get kidnapped again, there's no denying that it feels incredibly flimsy. The gimmick of having Neeson and Janssen be the ones who get kidnapped for a change seems promising (especially when it means that Grace is forced to bail out Neeson for a change), but it barely goes anywhere. The original film never really made any promise of being particularly deep in terms of writing or thematic content, but it seems considerably more complex in comparison to this awfully lightweight sequel. There were issues with Taken that I had hoped might have been addressed in this film, but no such luck. Some lip service is paid to the futility of the cycle of revenge unfolding between Neeson and Šerbedžija but it's never adequately developed or expanded upon, thus all the villains in this film end up being one-dimensional crooks. The heroic characters don't fare much better. Neeson is still the same character that see-saws between gruff killing machine and awkward yet caring family man as the plot demands, while Janssen essentially becomes the film's latest damsel in distress after sharing a couple of warm reconciliatory scenes with Neeson. Grace is still supposed to be a pretty ordinary young woman, though to the film's credit she does actually get to do something in this movie as the sole non-captured member of the family, even if it does amount to following Neeson's instructions.

Unfortunately, Taken 2 doesn't even deliver on the action front either. In the original film, Neeson's character quite famously stated that he has a very particular set of skills, but between that film and this one it's clear that this does not translate to varied action. The scale may be increased, but the thrills are even more rare. This can easily be credited to the direction, where every modern action/thriller flaw is featured (especially those that were already found in Taken, yet are exacerbated here). The combination of jittery cinematography and rapid cross-cutting not only fails to add any excitement, it is actively disorienting and alienating. One barely gets a sense of place or direction at times, which is probably just as well as the film speeds along before you have time to question certain plot contrivances; of course, that's probably because you're busy questioning the more obvious contrivances that exist to extend the film's running time. Neeson ends up being as competent or incompetent as the story needs him to be in this context and even glosses over some of his more ridiculous acts (such as needlessly sending a speeding car flying into an embassy filled with soldiers). Between the incredibly weak plotting and the poorly-captured action, Taken 2 is a mess of a film that threatens to tarnish what little goodwill the original film earned and wastes what little potential it might have had to stand out on its own terms.

1

Iroquois

09-23-15, 10:18 PM

#589 - Moon
Duncan Jones, 2009

https://benabb.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/moon.jpg

A lone astronaut tasked with overseeing an extensive resource-mining operation on the moon discovers that he is not alone.

Warning: contains unmarked first-act spoilers.

When I first saw Moon on the festival circuit, I was quite simply blown away. Duncan Jones' low-budget debut takes place in the not-too-distant future where scientists have combated a shortage of energy resources by discovering a potent new fuel source known as "helium-3" on the far side of the moon. To this end, an energy corporation has established a small mining facility there that is populated mainly by automated machines save for a single human overseer named Sam (Sam Rockwell). Sam is only a matter of days away from concluding his three-year contract and returning to Earth to see his family, who can only contact him through a series of pre-recorded video messages (and vice versa). After crashing one of the harvesting machines, Sam wakes up in the infirmary with no recollection of what has happened. He then proceeds to venture outside and discovers a wrecked harvester and inside is...himself. What follows is a slow-burning thriller as the two Sams must try to deal with this bizarre situation and the horrifying implications thereof.

I seem to recall that the first-act reveal was deliberately hidden from reviews I read in the lead-up to watching Moon for the first time, so of course I feel reluctant to spoil it, but hey, you saw the disclaimer up there. Anyway, it's important to mention it because it's an interesting feat to see Rockwell play the same character twice. Though it's an initially disorienting move, the intent is strong enough to make it work and there are plenty of features that distinguish the Sams. A capable actor like Rockwell gets to perform a great one-man show, alternately playing the naive Sam 1 and the skeptical Sam 2. While Rockwell is pretty good at carrying the movie (and he'd have to be), credit also has to go to Kevin Spacey as GERTY, the facility's resident AI whose HAL-like monotone is accentuated by a screen dedicated to showcasing the context-appropriate emoticons. The interplay between Sam and GERTY is great as they cover a considerable range of interactions ranging from casual banter through to suspiciously guarded exchanges and beyond. There are a few other minor characters scattered throughout the film (I still can't help but be distracted by Matt Berry of Darkplace and IT Crowd fame appearing in a small role as one of Sam's bosses) but it is mostly a story that depends on the conflict between Sam 1, Sam 2, GERTY, and even the facility itself as its pristine hallways make it as much of a character (and a threat) as any actual personality.

A second viewing does expose Moon's fundamentally lean nature. Though the premise does naturally invoke some commentary on corporate corruption and the moral quandaries associated with acquiring energy sources, it seems more concerned with toying with questions of identity. The two Sams are made to confront a mutual identity crisis, though Sam 2 is far quicker to accept the obvious situation than Sam 1 is - this does mean that Sam 1's arc forms the central narrative as he learns the truth about what's really going on inside the facility. As such, it becomes much easier to focus on Sam 2 a second time around, though that does mean realising that he doesn't have as much of a journey as Sam 1 - he is also dedicated to finding out the truth, but he has such a head-start that his character's journey is much shorter and ultimately makes him seem flatter. Thankfully, GERTY and the complicated allegiances built into its core programming make for an adequately supportive third party as one is never quite sure how much its actions are working in either Sam 1's interest or Sam 2's or even those of the facility's supposedly-benevolent bosses. Other deep-space tropes are thrown in for good measure such as the existence of delayed communications with Earth and the occasional technical malfunction to keep the story interesting, and the technological side of things definitely results in quite a few poignant moments.

Despite the relatively small budget, Jones and co. make a film that's visually competent enough to not distract from the film's actual storyline. The production design is notable with the sterile facility being decorated with neat little details as evidence of Sam's time there, while the attempts to shoot two separate Rockwells are handled competently enough that even when the film resorts to shots involving Rockwell interacting with body doubles you barely notice because of the way the scenes are paced. Beyond that, the effects work is also extremely solid as it uses some serviceable CGI to render decent-looking exterior shots. The music is largely subdued with a lot of moody piano pieces that appropriately accentuate each of the Sams' loneliness and despair. A second viewing has revealed that Moon isn't quite the mind-blowing masterpiece that I remember it being, but it is still a solid example of low-budget sci-fi that comes up with great writing and performances to compensate for its extremely small scale. It's also a great acting showcase for Rockwell and gives Spacey a role that makes excellent use of his trademark nasal delivery. If you're looking for some sufficiently cerebral sci-fi that doesn't descend into a convoluted mess of illogical developments and has a warm human centre to its coldly mechanical world, then look no further.

4

Iroquois

09-23-15, 10:23 PM

#590 - The Tracker
Rolf de Heer, 2002

http://www.reelgood.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tracker.jpg

In 1922 Australia, three white men and an indigenous tracker set off on the trail of an indigenous fugitive who has been accused of murdering a white woman.

Iconoclastic Australian filmmaker Rolf de Heer goes bush for a film that's light on characters and long on just about everything else. There are only a handful of central characters in the story, all of whom are introduced at the beginning yet are never referred to by name. Renowned Native Australian actor David Gulpilil stars as the eponymous Tracker, who has been tasked with tracking down the Fugitive (Noel Wilton), who has been accused of murdering a white woman. Following him are three white men working on behalf of the law. First and foremost is the Fanatic (Gary Sweet), a hardened enforcer who is unsurprisingly quite racist in his views towards the indigenous population; this feeds into him being extremely determined to track down the Fugitive no matter what. Second is the Follower (Damon Gameau), a fresh-faced and simple-minded recruit who is new to the field of law enforcement and is thus extremely worried about the mission but nonetheless tries to measure up to the Fanatic's expectations. Finally, there is the Veteran (Grant Page), a world-weary soldier who lacks the Fanatic's bloody-mindedness and the Follower's eagerness to please, simply wanting nothing more than for the job to be done. This motley collection of individuals set off in pursuit of the Fugitive, but it's not long before conflicts arise not just as the group encounter numerous setbacks and situations but as the Fanatic loses his trust in the Tracker and ensures that a thick tension fills the air between the members of the squad.

Though it's a pretty lean film that only just crosses the ninety-minute mark, The Tracker is still a consistently engaging piece of work thanks to its core ensemble and their interplay. Gulpilil makes for a good protagonist who is naturally conflicted about his role but is still willing to get along with his companions up to and past when things get extremely complicated. Sweet gets a solid role as a man who's arguably the closest the film gets to having a serious villain; while the Fugitive's actual guilt is left ambiguous for most of the film, the Fanatic establishes himself as an extremely vicious individual early on when the squad interrogates a group of indigenous people. There's enough weight to his performance and character motivation that he doesn't come across as underdeveloped. Gameau may get a somewhat thankless role as the gormless new meat who is torn between his loyalty to the domineering Fanatic and his basic sense of morality making him question the Fanatic's brutal methods, but his nervous nature sells certain moments such as a rather tense scene where he's on sentry duty. Page rounds out the main quartet as the least developed character, who is also the oldest yet lacks the Fanatic's dangerous sense of conviction. What few other characters populate the film don't get much in the way of definition (not even Wilton, who is only sporadically glimpsed throughout the film); they tend to spend much of the film existing as either hapless victims or unseen adversaries.

The film's visual style is pretty standard for the most part, letting the vast and colourful outback scenery provide much of the spectacle in a variety of landscape shots. These make for a great contrast against tight close-ups as the leads are in conflict as well as tense night-time moments. The film only allows itself into a plodding rhythm inasmuch as it allows its carefully-paced shocks to have the most effect. The most shocking and violent moments get an interesting treatment in that, rather than be depicted as they happen, the film instead opts to cut away to paintings of the instant shock itself, only switching back in order to examine the often-tragic aftermath. The soundtrack consists mainly of modern-sounding indigenous songs, which range from anachronistically funky jams to melancholy guitar ballads. These factors all combine to add some extra character to a film that's already swimming in it. The Tracker may not be an overly complex film, but that's because it doesn't need to be. It takes a less-is-more approach that does threaten to drag at times but is anchored by some solid performances, especially the cheerful yet antagonistic chemistry between Gulpilil and Sweet. Humour and suspense mesh surprisingly well under these circumstances and make for an interesting example of a "meat pie Western".

3.5

False Writer

09-23-15, 10:40 PM

Great reviews on Butch Cassidy and Wild Bunch; two of my favorite westerns!

Friendly Mushroom!

09-23-15, 10:51 PM

Personally they are two of my least favorite westerns. :laugh:

False Writer

09-23-15, 10:54 PM

Not a fan of revisionist I see. Are you more spaghetti?

Iroquois

09-25-15, 12:41 AM

#591 - The Happening
M. Night Shyamalan, 2008

http://thelowdownunder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-Happening-Hero.jpg

When people start committing mass suicide for no discernible reason, a science teacher and his wife try to escape before the phenomenon gets them.

Until this year, I was pretty much able to avoid M. Night Shyamalan's very prolonged and very public fall from grace. Before, I had only seen The Sixth Sense a couple of times and my general impression was that I sort of liked it (and I still wanted to see Unbreakable). Even so, it was pretty easy to avoid watching any of his films even before his notorious dependence on twist endings led to his cultural stock dwindling away. This year saw me decide to play a bit of catch-up. I saw Signs, which wasn't altogether bad but ultimately felt too off-kilter and flawed to seriously appreciate. More recently, I saw The Last Airbender, his big-budget adaptation of the popular Avatar cartoon that managed to become his most reviled film yet (though I couldn't bring myself to muster any serious rage over its massive shortcomings - say what you will, at least he's not as overly obnoxious as Michael Bay). Now I've checked out The Happening, a film that has also suffered a severe haranguing due to its botched execution of what admittedly starts off as an intriguing premise. It begins when people suddenly stop moving in their tracks and then, after brief periods of apparent disorientation, proceed to commit suicide without any signs of distress. The phenomenon, initially thought to be the result of a terrorist attack, gradually spreads further and further from its epicentre in Central Park and soon begins affecting nearby towns and eventually other states. So far, so creepy...

Unfortunately, what happens next is that Shyamalan fails to flesh out this premise in a strong manner. The most immediate problem is probably the casting of Mark Wahlberg as a high-school science teacher who is caught up in the middle of the Happening. He is also having some relationship troubles with his wife (Zooey Deschanel), which are exacerbated when they have to leave the city with Wahlberg's colleague (John Leguizamo), who acts extremely bitter towards Deschanel as a result of said troubles. When the film's not taking time to showcase the various ways in which people are killing themselves, ranging from jumping off buildings to shooting themselves to allowing themselves to be mauled by tigers (yes, really), it's following Wahlberg and Deschanel as they try to escape to wherever might be safe. This is where The Happening falls apart as it struggles to come up with enough events to fill out its brief running time. It's a real shame that the film ends up wasting Leguizamo as he proves to be a more capable performer than Wahlberg, whose attempts to balance emotional strain with his more natural charisma end up making him look comically quizzical. This is counterbalanced by Deschanel, whose blank stare and frequently monotonous delivery are supposedly justified by her character being an emotionally distant person, though that ultimately feels like a cop-out more so than a legitimate character development.

As for the rest of the film, it starts off with an intriguing atmosphere reminiscent of creepy B-movies of old, but that is soon squandered as the depiction of people's deaths grows increasingly absurd and as the threat is depicted as little more than rustling foliage and light breezes. While there is something to be said for the less-is-more approach when it comes to making an audience feel horror, here the result is compromised not just by the fact that it's visually uninteresting, but also by how arbitrary a threat the Happening ends up being towards the different characters. The writing in other areas tends to be extremely wanting as the film not only struggles to keep the film going but also fills out its scenes with some rather shoddy writing (especially in the film's third act where the small group of survivors that we're following stumbles upon not one but two violently paranoid hermits within quick succession of one another). While there is some amusement to be had at some of the more poorly-handled moments, such as actors delivering bad dialogue with worse inflections, even that is too sporadic to seriously redeem The Happening. It still ends up being far more boring than even an unintentional comedy should be, let alone as a genuinely unsettling thriller. The fact that it does occasionally seem to get close to having a good idea only makes its general failure sting even more.

1

Friendly Mushroom!

09-25-15, 09:23 PM

Not a fan of revisionist I see. Are you more spaghetti?

Probably. Most of the westerns I have seen years ago, a majority of them being traditional American ones like John Ford's. I like the Western genre but few I would consider masterpieces like Good Bad Ugly, High Noon and Stagecoach.

Iroquois

09-26-15, 09:09 AM

#592 - Superbad
Greg Mottola, 2007

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5600000/Superbad-jonah-hill-5651552-1200-978.jpg

A trio of high-school seniors get into a series of misadventures after they try to acquire alcohol for a house party.

In theory, I should like Superbad. My last Top 100 featured Clerks and Dazed and Confused; the former's crude, dialogue-heavy buddy comedy and the latter's loosely-structured 24-hour tale of partying high-schoolers seem like obvious influences on this film. It also came out during my final year of high school and the lead characters were supposed to be socially awkward misfits, so that should have resulted in peak relatability. However, as I've noted in other reviews, it was very easy to grow fatigued with anything that had any relation to Judd Apatow and featured any of his regular collaborators; Superbad was a major contributor to said fatigue since Apatow regular Seth Rogen co-wrote and co-starred in the film. That aside, the film is perhaps too immature for its own good, which comes as no surprise considering how Rogen and co-writer Evan Goldberg apparently started writing the screenplay when they were thirteen years old. It's obviously been through some revisions since then, but the core narrative is still pretty simple. Superbad takes place on a Friday a couple of weeks before graduation and centres on two lifelong friends named Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera). They are fairly average (if uncool) teenage boys whose original plans for the night involve their usual hanging out with their dweeby friend Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). These plans are shaken up when the boys get word of a house party being held by popular girl Jules (Emma Stone), who incidentally asks Seth to acquire some alcohol for said party. Seth, being infatuated with Jules, readily agrees to carry this out, while Evan is willing to go along with it because it means he'll get a chance to impress his own crush, Becca (Martha MacIsaac). Of course, this means getting Fogell's help as he's the only one with a fake ID.

This is a solid enough set-up for a movie's worth of shenanigans, especially when an unexpected twist results in the trio being split up, forcing Seth and Evan to improvise a new plan to acquire alcohol while Fogell gets into a series of misadventures with a pair of wacky police officers (Bill Hader and Rogen), thus allowing for a wider range of gags to be deployed. Unfortunately, despite some of the film's more interesting touches (such as a retro vibe enhanced by a soundtrack filled with various classic funk and soul numbers), the humour is extremely patchy. While some of the absurdity is tolerable (the infamous joke involving Fogell's fake ID featuring the ridiculous fake-sounding mononym "McLovin" still holds up despite it being run into the ground on a "Vote For Pedro"-like scale), some of it just lands with a dull thud, such as Seth's revelation that he used to be obsessed with drawing cartoon penises (which the film goes on to show in detail). This does not prompt personal offence so much as a nonplussed "Really?", which is a reaction that I still have even as I re-watch this for what is at least a third full time (no idea about partial viewings). One can also interpret a subtle darkness to this seemingly lightweight plot in that Seth really does seem to think that the way to win over the girl he likes is to get both of them drunk enough for her to "make a mistake", to say nothing of the many irresponsible ways in which Hader and Rogen abuse their authority. Hell, I liked Super Troopers just fine and that managed to wring a whole movie out of irresponsible goofballs working in law enforcement, yet these cops' infrequent appearances feel pretty sub-par for the most part with only the occasional funny line to sustain them. They also feel like a conscious attempt to pad out a film with broadly comical wish fulfilment that is naturally used on the incredibly dorky Fogell. This intention is made even clearer by the fact that sequences involving Seth and Evan by themselves tend to be a bit more grounded in reality, whether it's their attempts to fit in at a party full of dangerous adults or their confrontation over the tension that's been growing between over the fact that they have vastly different post-graduation plans.

As easy as it would be to completely hate Superbad, I think there is just enough of worth here to stop it being a completely reprehensible mess of a film. Despite the aforementioned dark subtext behind these fairly ordinary teenagers' incredibly short-sighted plans to hook up, it helps that there actually is a bit of heart and self-awareness to the plot that saves it as it reaches its inevitably awkward conclusion. This even extends to the wacky sub-plot involving Fogell and the cops, though it's not given nearly enough focus in favour of playing up the anything-goes mischief of those scenes (which can be entertaining but is fundamentally flat and doesn't really hold up). The film does struggle to pepper its considerable running time with amusing jokes, but I guess if I wasn't liable to laugh at them when I was the same age as the main characters then being almost a decade older was not probably not going to make a significant difference. The technical quality of this film is only in service to the comedy and the acting tends to be pretty average as the performers play to their persona's most widely-accepted stereotypes; Hill is an obnoxious smartass, Cera is a neurotic mumbler, Rogen is an easy-going goofball with rapid-fire delivery, etc. The lack of a distinct high concept beyond high-school tomfoolery certainly makes it a surprisingly tolerable film in relation to other Apatow-like films and there's enough quality that tells me this might not be the last time I end up seeing this. Ultimately, however, to me Superbad feels like the cinematic equivalent of spending two hours hanging around a pair of best friends having a conversation consisting entirely of their own personal in-jokes. I might be able to understand the jokes, but that doesn't guarantee that I'll laugh at them myself.

2

Iroquois

09-26-15, 09:23 AM

#593 - Taken 3
Olivier Megaton, 2014

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2015/01/14/1227184/704331-87b1091c-9aa8-11e4-b380-6759e7d08be1.jpg

When a highly-skilled security consultant is framed for murder, he must evade the authorities as he tries to find the criminals responsible.

Warning: contains unmarked spoilers for the first two Taken films.

Every once in a while, I'll watch an obviously bad movie and, upon learning that I have done such a thing, other people will ask me, "Why? Why would you do it?" and my answer will consist of four simple words: "I had to know." After giving an extremely unfavourable review to Taken 2 the other day, I still felt compelled to watch Taken 3, the supposed final chapter in the unlikely franchise that had spawned from the left-field Liam Neeson action thriller Taken. That film saw his character cut a bloody swath through an army of human traffickers in order to rescue his teenage daughter - all things considered, it didn't completely suck (having Neeson in a movie tends to do that - or tended to, anyway). After that proved a surprisingly popular hit at the box office and Neeson's career took a turn for the lucrative with his appearances in middlebrow thrillers like Unknown and The Grey, the powers that be decided to produce Taken 2, which attempted to extend the original's mythology by having Neeson's character and his family be explicitly targeted by a mobster seeking vengeance following the events of the original film. Taken 3 touted the tagline "It ends here" as if to suggest that the storyline involving Neeson's war on Albanian traffickers would finally reach its violent yet dramatically satisfying conclusion...

...except that it doesn't. Instead, Taken 3 concocts an entirely unrelated plot that once again sees Neeson attempting to maintain ties with his daughter (Maggie Grace) and ex-wife (Famke Janssen); the latter conection in particular is emphasised as their re-ignited romantic tension is thwarted by Janssen's jealous current husband (Dougray Scott, who I think is supposed to be playing the character portrayed by Xander Berkeley in the first film but surely they'd have picked a more similar-looking actor if that was the case, right?). Things escalate when Neeson is unexpectedly framed for murder; when he naturally escapes the law using his particular set of skills, a federal agent (Forest Whitaker) is assigned to go after him. As a result, Neeson must do whatever it takes to clear his name and wreak furious vengeance on those who have wronged him. Meanwhile, there's a mysterious Russian gangster (Sam Spruell) who is leaving a trail of corpses in search of some money that is owed to him, and it's not long before his army of goons cross paths with Neeson...yeah, you sort of see where this going even as I try to be vague about it. Taken 2 already took an extremely easy approach to making a sequel by having the plot be driven by a villain seeking revenge, but that just made the film film feel like an especially flimsy attempt to continue the story of an extremely one-note thriller. Though that film set up its own premise for a sequel by referencing other mobsters who might seek their own revenge for Neeson's actions, the people responsible for Taken 3 apparently decided that a blatant knock-off of the plot of The Fugitive was a preferable alternative than developing the established cycle-of-vengeance narrative. Why? Hell if I know. This did come out in the same year as Lucy so there's no telling what the hell Luc Besson is thinking these days.

Even with this derivative and nonsensical approach to the material in mind, Taken 3 could have been a tolerable affair if not for the fact that it fails to provide a decent film to go along with it. Other Taken films have set up Neeson's capable protagonist as an unstoppable killing machine when pushed to extremes, though not without shortcomings that make one question their sympathy for his cause; one scene in the original film showed him being willing to electrically torture one of his enemies to death for information on his missing daughter's whereabouts. Taken 3 not only has him willing to torture enemies for information (by waterboarding them, no less) but even attempts to build exciting action showcases out of sequences that show him committing all manner of severe crimes in order to prove his innocence of being a murderer (look no further than the car chase where his attempts to elude police custody result in a container truck's cargo going flying down a busy highway and crushing civilian vehicles in the process). This only goes towards exposing the holes in the film's sense of morality, where literally everything Neeson does is justified in the name of clearing his name and going after the real bad guys. Even Whitaker's top government agent is inclined to understand and even forgive Neeson's actions if they mean that he is going after more obvious villains like Spruell and his cronies. In addition to all this, the film tries to add in a sub-plot regarding Grace undergoing an unexpected pregnancy and Neeson's inevitable reaction to it; this is after his first scene in the film showcases yet another out-of-touch attempt to relate to his daughter. This one reaches parody-like levels with his decision to buy her a gigantic panda bear for her birthday despite her apparently being old enough to be attending college and living in an apartment with her boyfriend. Don't worry, this ends up being plot-relevant...or does it? Ah, what difference does it make.

Leaving aside the extremely questionable approach to morality and character development that these films take, there's also the fact that it's quite simply a bad film in general. As with Taken 2, the film is rendered a nigh-unwatchable mess by various attempts to artificially generate tension and excitement through combinations of quick cuts and shaky camerawork. Stuff like this makes me retroactively respect difficult-to-like films like the various installments in the Death Wish franchise because they at least managed to depict their heavily-aged hero dispensing justice without chopping the film to bits (no matter how ludicrous it may have gotten). As a result, any actual action becomes difficult to appreciate; as if having to buy into a hero of questionable morality wasn't enough, I can't even do it without having to tolerate incoherent action scenes as well. At this point, the less said about acting and writing, the better - if you've seen either of the previous Taken films, then you know what to expect from this particular film. The film is significantly longer than either predecessor because it dares to pad itself out by not only providing background information on Neeson and that trio of colleagues he's always hanging around but by also trying to provide a twisty narrative. Rather than enhance a tired and overly long third installment in the franchise, they only serve to demonstrate how much this film is out of ideas. Despite its many, many flaws, Lucy at least demonstrated some minimal degree of creative effort on Besson's part; Taken 3, on the other hand, is Besson at his most boring as he struggles to co-write a half-decent action movie for this unlikely hit series and has his weak efforts exacerbated by Megaton's messy direction. If you are unfamiliar with either of the previous Taken films, this is a serious cinematic misfire that you are probably better off not watching at all. If you are remotely invested in the Taken films, then this will still be an underwhelming excuse for a "final chapter"...at least until a fourth Taken film gets produced. Hey, Liam Neeson needs to eat too, you know?

1

Iroquois

09-26-15, 11:41 PM

#594 - Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2014

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Birdman.jpg

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is a washed-up actor that's best known for playing the titular superhero but he intends to turn things around by mounting a stage adaptation of a Raymond Carver story. Naturally, the production is complicated by unruly actors, unfortunate malfunctions and, oh yeah, the voice inside his head and his growing telekinetic powers.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1246120#post1246120).

(Additional notes: okay, so a second time around the holes really started to show. The ambitious nature of the cinematography is still impressive and most of the cast put in good performances even in rather simple roles e.g. Naomi Watts' character. I still think Keaton was robbed this year. The plot and writing doesn't really hold up all that well either, though, and while that's not enough to sink the film it does lower my opinion of it a bit.)

3.5

Iroquois

09-27-15, 12:22 AM

#595 - The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Guy Ritchie, 2015

http://popculture-y.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Man-From-U.N.C.L.E.-film-still.jpg

During the Cold War, a CIA agent must team up with a KGB agent in order to locate a scientist whose knowledge must not fall into the wrong hands.

Guy Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn both got their starts in filmmaking by creating British gangster films (with the former's first two films being produced by the latter). Coincidentally, their most recent films both happen to be spy films that forgo the genre's current trend towards moodiness and pessimism in favour of reviving the heady mix of high adventure and debonair sophistication that characterised a lot of the most popular espionage films and shows of bygone eras. Vaughn's own film, Kingsman: The Secret Service, was a loose comic-book adaptation that intended to revive the implausibly goofy but undeniably cool atmosphere of old-school James Bond films in a much more edgy modern-day context. Ritchie, on the other hand, goes full retro with his cinematic adaptation of the 1960s television series The Man From U.N.C.L.E.. Made in the midst of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, the show had an interesting high concept in that it involved two elite secret agents, one from each side of the Iron Curtain, being made to team up in order to tackle a major threat to the state of global affairs. This exact premise is preserved in Ritchie's version, which promises a watchable enough combination of two vastly different personalities bouncing between amusing odd-couple conflicts and highly-skilled teamwork as they work to accomplish their mission in appropriately awesome fashions. Of course, just because something is promised does not automatically mean that it is delivered, and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is a little inconsistent in terms of delivery.

Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer play the American and Russian agents respectively, with the former playing the standard suave '60s spy full of charming cockiness while the latter plays a stereotypically stoic Soviet. The film starts with them getting into an extended chase sequence over the acquisition of an East German mechanic (Alicia Vikander), whose father is a scientist suspected of being involved in a terrorist plot. To this end, Cavill and Hammer are made to work together by their respective superiors and, together with Vikander, travel to Rome in order to uncover and foil said plot before it is too late. Not the most complicated plot, but it doesn't have to be in order to provide a sufficiently compelling film. There are plenty of aspects to the film that make it somewhat worthwhile. Considering how over-saturated the spy genre tends to be with dashing yet capable protagonists, Cavill may not stand out too much but his smooth-talking performance is a consistent highlight for the film. Hammer similarly plays into audience expectations as he speaks in a stilted baritone, embodying a pragmatism in terms of presence and tactics that makes him a sufficiently interesting foil to Cavill. Vikander rounds out the heroic leads; though she had given an impressive performance as an artificially intelligent gynoid in this year's Ex Machina, her turn in this film as a far more impassioned human lacks that same dynamic quality. Her character's establishment as a mechanic who can handle herself in a car chase or even while fighting the much larger and stronger Hammer is essentially forgotten as she ends up being little more than a pawn to get shifted around in the narrative as necessary. This much is especially true considering the incredibly teasing romantic sub-plot that plays out between her and Hammer. Other characters in the film tend to be little more than serviceable; Elizabeth Debicki does alright as the film's ice-queen antagonist, while Sylvester Groth has some surprising depth to a one-note role as Vikander's estranged uncle. More recognisable faces like Hugh Grant and Jared Harris (playing a British naval commander and Cavill's CIA handler respectively) amount to little more than glorified cameos, but that doesn't stop them putting in the effort.

Another thing that I appreciate about The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is its commitment to replicating the atmosphere of the 1960s spy entertainment from which it takes inspiration. The production design is particularly noteworthy as everything from racecars to fashion to locations work to truly evoke the film's era, while the soundtrack to the film compliments its Rome backdrop nicely by utilising an elaborate Ennio Morricone pastiche. Unfortunately, that doesn't quite translate to the film's action sequences - though there is the occasional amusing touch (such as an entire speedboat chase that plays out while one character looks on from within one very comfortable truck), there's not a lot here that does much to genuinely excite. I guess I should be thankful that the action generally isn't cut to shreds or packed out with excessive usage of slow-motion, though one can pick apart some more artificial scene transitions, especially during one of the climatic chase sequences. Another sequence attempts to replicate ambitious 1960s experimentation with editing by featuring multiple simultaneous split-screens, though that comes across as annoying rather than stylish. Such choices do tend to come across as very weak attempts to enhance the action on display, which is clearly not the film's strong suit. Instead, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. earns a surprising amount of goodwill on the basis of the chemistry between the leads and a rather engaging retro aesthetic, but as an action blockbuster built around a twisty plot it leaves a fair bit to be desired. Ritchie does seem to be working off the same playbook he used on his Sherlock Holmes films as he attempts to blend witty characterisation with fanciful thrills and a plot that is complex without being convoluted. In that regard, he succeeds; unfortunately, that just means that this film ends up being like both Holmes films in that it's decent enough for a single viewing but will most likely struggle to hold up in the years to come.

2.5

Iroquois

09-27-15, 12:27 AM

#596 - The Quiet Man
John Ford, 1952

http://www.cinemagraphe.com/_movies/the-quiet-man-1952/the-quiet-man-1952-5.jpg

An American boxer travels to his Irish hometown, where his attempts to reclaim his family homestead and romance a local woman are challenged by her boorish brother.

In my experience, the combination of actor John Wayne and director John Ford has tended to be a fairly safe guarantee that any film the two of them made was of good quality. Though those particular films tended to involve the genre most famously associated with both men, that of the Western, The Quiet Man takes a very different tack in that it sees the Johns travel away from Monument Valley and head for the Emerald Isle itself. Wayne (wisely choosing not to temper his trademark drawl with any kind of regional brogue) stars as an Irish-American boxer who, having lived most of his life in Pittsburgh, suddenly arrives back in the small Irish village where he was born. He seems intent on staying in town, even going so far as to buy up the land on which his family's old home is situated. This causes a bit of a stir with a local landowner (Victor McLaglen) who proceeds to antagonise Wayne over the situation. Things are only further complicated when Wayne also happens to fall for a red-haired local lass (Maureen O'Hara), who happens to be McLaglen's sister. Thus begins a drawn-out conflict between Wayne and McLaglen as they both struggle to achieve their desired goals - Wayne wants a quiet country life with O'Hara that is free of disturbances, while McLaglen wants nothing more than to "win" over Wayne by any means necessary.

With The Quiet Man, Ford works to mythologise his ancestral homeland in much the same way that he famously mythologised the Wild West with films like My Darling Clementine. This film doesn't feature too much in the way of his later cynicism on this front either, nor does it slide into unchecked misanthropy (especially late in the film, where one scene involving Wayne and O'Hara did make me think "Ah, this isn't going to play out like the ending of McClintock!, is it?" - spoiler alert, it didn't). It does go into exploring Wayne's troubled past and his real reason for returning to Ireland (which is captured in a manner that feels especially striking for 1952), plus the belligerent romantic tension that plays out between him and O'Hara feels believable and occasionally yields a stand-out moment (such as one scene where they are caught in the rain). The cast of characters are solid enough underneath some extremely thick accents - McLaglen certainly makes for a difficult enough antagonist without being too annoying, while O'Hara's turn as a fiercely independent woman is appropriately complicated by her feelings for Wayne and her deference to certain social customs. While it's naturally difficult to see Wayne as anyone other than Wayne, he manages to be rather convincing underneath his signature affectation and swaggering gait.

If you're going to make an idealised vision of a world that may never have existed, then you might as well go all the way and render it as vividly as you possibly can. Ford definitely does this as he collaborates with cinematographer Winton C. Hoch to capture the extremely verdant scenery as best they can. The same capacity for evoking the best of the landscape does translate to more grandiose or intimate settings; look no further than the film's iconic climax or the aforementioned rain scene. If nothing else, The Quiet Man is worth watching for that astonishingly lush imagery alone. Your appreciation for the music will definitely depend upon your tolerance of traditional-sounding Irish folk songs with bagpipes galore. Though I may not feel quite as impressed by the end result as I thought I'd be, I think The Quiet Man definitely has room to grow on me. The vision of 1920s Ireland depicted in the film is fanciful enough so as to border on fantasy, but that doesn't mean that the resulting film is any less enjoyable as a piece of nostalgic wonder.

3.5

Iroquois

09-28-15, 03:48 AM

#597 - Wyrmwood
Kiah Roache-Turner, 2014

https://cdn4.thedissolve.com/reviews/1380/fullwidth.186a7f63.jpg

When a meteor shower causes a zombie apocalypse, an immune survivor into the outback to search for his missing sister.

Every time I watch a film like Wyrmwood (so named for a falling star from the Book of Revelations, which is explained in-story yet feels kind of pointless when the film's subtitle "Road of the Dead" would be a much more honest and comprehensible choice), I do find myself questioning exactly how sincere the film is in its homage to cult cinema. More importantly, I find myself wondering whether that has any bearing on my appreciation of the film anyway. Wyrmwood mashes together two distinct sub-genres for its plot; the main genre is zombie horror, with the film taking place the day after a meteor shower results in the majority of the population becoming infected with a zombie virus. There is a small collection of survivors who appear to be immune to the airborne version of the virus, though they are still susceptible to infection via zombie bite.

The plot focuses on Barry, a survivor who is still grieving over having been forced to kill his infected wife and daughter. Together with fellow survivors Benny and Frank, Barry sets off in search of his sister Brooke, whose own immunity has resulted in her being kidnapped by a crew of gasmask-wearing soldiers and being subjected to vicious experiments by a scientist who would probably have to work his way down to "mad". So far, so standard. As for the second genre, well, when the film even starts in medias res as its heroes attempt to hold off a swarm of zombies, it indulges said genre through their appearances and goal. Our heroes, decked out in hockey masks and motocross outfits, are busy trying to shoot their way out of a crowd of zombies; it's not long before they've created their own armoured vehicle and are tearing off down the road. That particular brand of vehicle-centric post-apocalyptic fiction informs the rest of Wyrmwood, especially when that series' main conceit about fuel becoming scarce feeds into the plot in a bizarre way.

Making a zombie film is always a bit of a gamble, especially in an era where they all need some sort of angle to justify their contribution to an over-saturated sub-genre. To its credit, Wyrmwood changes up its zombie mythology enough to be halfway-interesting - all conventional fuel sources stop working, which forces the heroes to improvise a system where their vehicle is powered by the noxious fumes that the zombies exhale. There's also the pay-off to the entire sub-plot where Brooke is experimented upon by the mad scientist, which doesn't really deserve to be spoiled even though it does make for a somewhat innovative twist for the film's third act. Of course, the film's twists to the zombie rules don't do much to compensate for the film choosing to force some more predictable tropes into the mix. Barry is an embittered protagonist mourning the loss of his family, while Benny is his comical sidekick who exists to spout funny one-liners and occasionally provide his own dramatic weight (such as his own back-story involving his own lost family members). Brooke may be a strong female character but that comes at the cost of Barry's other female family members being killed off for dramatic reasons. The mad scientist and his military accomplice also play into their villainous roles that make them out to be far worse than the mindless flesh-eaters, and though the former hams it up considerably by dancing to disco music and grinning maniacally throughout his scenes it can't help but feel forced.

The attempts to do appropriately gory and practical effects are a nice touch but there's not a whole lot of inventiveness to the film as it uses a lot of exploding heads and spraying squibs. Even the moments that are generated as a result of the film's more left-field elements (such as the zombie-fuelled cars or the fact that their blood is flammable) generally don't pay off - not even the twist that happens in the third act that at once promises something different yet also feels a bit too convenient for the heroes. Camerawork is somewhat competent given the limitations, though the film is frequently prone to moments of video blur, especially when it opts to go in for either slow-motion or too-quick camera movements. Scenes such as Frank giving a detailed monologue about the Biblical phenomenon that gives the film its name do little to intrigue; likewise, the various throwaway gags that play up Australian stereotypes for laughs (such as some survivors keeping an infected mate in an icebox full of beers, which they still have no problem grabbing and drinking, or the first-aid kit containing nothing but beer) fail to be particularly amusing. Given the material, the actors are tolerable enough and nobody is too wooden to be a major impediment, though not enough so for that to loop around to being entertaining either.

It becomes very easy to doubt the sincerity of movies such as Wyrmwood, especially when they wear their very obvious influences on their proverbial sleeves. It isn't totally unwatchable, but it does feel like yet another film that tries too hard to earn a cult following (and really, there's no better way to ensure you don't earn a cult following). Of course, here the angle seems to involve mashing up zombies with a Mad Max-style film about road warriors dressed in black and racing around in heavily modified vehicles. It's also interesting how, in addition to the Spierig brothers' debut Undead, this marks yet another Australian zombie film that's been created by a pair of brothers (written by both Roache-Turner brothers, with Tristan producing and Kiah directing). Wyrmwood's angle seems to be by filtering its zombie uprising through a mishmash of influences without doing anything significantly innovative in its own right. It's sort of the same problem I had with Kung Fury - though Wyrmwood doesn't slavishly try to replicate its influences like that particular viral sensation did, it doesn't bring enough new stuff or personality to the table to be significantly good in its own right. I can respect some of the effort involved and will admit that hearing there's a sequel in the works is not a total affront, but it's just such an underwhelming piece of work when all is said and done.

1.5

Iroquois

09-28-15, 10:59 PM

#598 - The Homesman
Tommy Lee Jones, 2014

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/5/12/1399896648076/168c8825-8604-4f41-9804-00fff0c9e3c3-460x276.jpeg

When a trio of women go insane due to the harshness of frontier life, a woman recruits an old outlaw to help her escort them across the plains to a church that can take care of them.

Tommy Lee Jones doesn't take the director's chair often, but when he does it's usually going to provide something interesting. The only other one of his admittedly few directorial efforts that I've seen is 2005's The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, in which he played a ranch-hand subjecting a cop to a long and miserable ordeal in revenge for the shooting death of the titular character. It was a rather challenging example of a neo-Western with its dubious morality, generally miserable atmosphere, and well-captured scenery, but that only made it stand out for all the right reasons. Jones' latest directorial effort is The Homesman, which also promises a fairly bleak tale unfolding in the West. Here, the film takes place in the Nebraska territories where a handful of families are trying to carve out new lives on the open range. The deconstruction of the existing Western mythology begins almost immediately by showing how the harsh living conditions are taking their tolls on the collective sanity on three of the women. After a montage of deaths, rapes, and at least one infanticide, it is decided that the sick women should be escorted from the frontier to a church in Iowa, but when none of the local men prove willing or able to take on the task, a local spinster (Hilary Swank) decides to take responsibility for transporting the women. On her travels, she encounters a man (Jones) left to hang by an angry mob, and agrees to free him if he is able to aid her in her mission.

As you may have garnered by the previous paragraph, The Homesman is not a pleasant watch by any means. Though the basic premise could easily have yielded a more digestible narrative, Jones' adaptation of the Glendon Swarthout novel translates the grimness without descending completely into banal nihilism. The combination of a world-weary old grouch and a fiercely independent young woman taking on a perilous journey through the old West is enough to remind one of True Grit, yet there's enough difference in the material here. Swank is good as a woman who seems like she's set up to be a kind of no-nonsense heroine who has nothing but good intentions in her heart, but of course it is that attitude that provides her character with serious flaws and the film is all the better for it. Jones is a far less pious individual whose first scenes involve him being run down and left for dead; though he is significantly more self-interested than Swank and comes into conflict with her as a result, his matter-of-fact pragmatism makes him a compelling character even before he starts to develop. Playing insane people convincingly is always a challenge, but the three women in question (Grace Gummer, Miranda Otto, Sonja Richter) take characters who could have turned into irritating millstones and give them enough depth to be more than just living MacGuffins. Other recognisable actors such as Meryl Streep, Tim Blake Nelson, and James Spader pop up in small roles throughout the film and make the most of their very limited screen-time.

The Homesman is technically competent with solid cinematography and does feature the odd well-executed sequence, adding in some genuinely shocking and unexpected twists to its generally straightforward yet tense road-movie narrative. It feels a bit long at times, especially during the drawn-out conclusion. The film does well at examining the dark underbelly of the frontier myth by showcasing the oft-unseen pain and misery of the women who helped build it, though some of the less compromising scenes may make it a rough watch and perhaps a bit too miserable for its own good. Still, that's enough to guarantee that the film is worth one's attention, but I concede that it's not for everyone. The contrast of Swank's dogged idealism and Jones' pragmatic cynicism makes for a generally interesting (if somewhat familiar) interpersonal conflict, while their encounters with other strangers upon the trail also prove to be decent ways to fill out the story. I recommend it for people with a prevailing interest in not just Westerns but also in reasonably challenging dramas.

3

Iroquois

09-28-15, 11:05 PM

#599 - Mad Max 2
George Miller, 1981

http://nextprojection.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/mad-max-2-1981-02-g.jpg

In the fallout (heh) of society's breakdown following a nuclear war over dwindling resources, a lone driver ends up caught between a group of civilised survivors and the murderous gang that is terrorising them.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1305222#post1305222).

(Additional notes: bumping up the rating a bit. I like it more and more with each viewing, but it's still full of holes and ridiculous developments e.g. the impracticality of the Gyro Captain's trap, the Toadie's constant short-sightedness, etc. Still good fun, though.)

4

Iroquois

09-28-15, 11:09 PM

#600 - The Avenging Eagle
Sun Chung, 1978

https://kiaikick.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/avengingeagle1.jpg

A vagrant recounts the tale of his dark and violent past as a member of a villainous martial arts clan to a friendly stranger, prompting them to team up and fight the clan.

The Shaw Brothers studio produced a wide variety of films during the 1970s and definitely yielded its fair share of films that were good enough to earn favourable reputations outside of the martial arts genre's niche audience. Of course, as I'm starting to check out more of the more obscure entries in the studio's filmography, I find that not every film they make is an instant classic. The Avenging Eagle is one such film, which is a little disappointing because it happens to star Ti Lung, who I know best as one of the stars of John Woo's A Better Tomorrow trilogy. Here, Lung plays a vagrant who starts the film wounded and riding a horse to nowhere in particular. He is rescued and nursed back to health by a stranger (Alexander Fu) who has an ulterior motive for wanting to not just help Lung but also find out his back-story. Lung slowly parcels out information, revealing that he is a defector from a clan of vicious criminals who was originally one of their most barbarous members but has since chosen to abandon his clan and their sinister leader (Ku Feng) for reasons that soon become clear. Eventually, it becomes clear that he is being targeted for assassination by his former brothers-in-arms and so things become complicated...

Shaw Brothers movies always maintain the same distinct quality when it comes to background details such as art direction and production design, which is enough to guarantee that even the weakest films to come out of their studios always look like at least some kind of treat. It supports a fairly standard story of revenge and redemption that's told largely in flashbacks. The fighting and stuntwork is the same kind of elaborately choreographed yet ultimately dated-looking combat that involves a variety of weapons and movements, each fight paced out by the careful development of a story that involves Lung and Fu working towards similarly vengeful goals for very different reasons. The wuxia elements admittedly don't always yield the best results, but as with any martial arts film worth its salt the action-packed finale is worth the price of admission. However, The Avenging Eagle is only really worth checking out on an intermediate level - I'd still recommend people watching more widely-recognised Shaw Brothers films like Five Deadly Venoms or The 36th Chamber of Shaolin in order to gauge how much they'd enjoy this particular film. I liked those films quite a bit, yet I found The Avenging Eagle to ultimately be a bit middling. Take that as you will.

2.5

Iroquois

09-28-15, 11:16 PM

#601 - The Searchers
John Ford, 1956

http://athenacinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/John-Wayne-in-The-Searchers.jpeg

After most of his extended family is murdered by a group of Native Americans, an ex-Confederate soldier joins forces with the family's adopted son in order to find the family's kidnapped daughters.

John Wayne is a difficult person to like both as a public figure and as an actor. Though he naturally tends to be the most prominent factor of every film he appears in, I paradoxically think that the quality of any one of his films is dictated by virtually every other factor instead of his presence. This might just be because his iconic countenance and mannerisms makes it feel like you're never just watching him play different characters; rather, he is pretty much a universal constant that everything else in the film revolves around. As such, having The Searchers become recognised as not just one of his greatest films he's ever been involved in but also one of the greatest American films ever made means that Wayne neophytes are liable to start with it and thus earn a very negative first impression of the man. That's one of many reasons why The Searchers casts a very long shadow over most of the man's extremely prolific career. Another prominent one is that, despite the overt problems with it that seem really clear with it in retrospect, The Searchers actually is a really good film.

Of course, Wayne's character in The Searchers is a very difficult one to sympathise with in general, but at least it's done with some intent. The film takes place in Texas a few years after the conclusion of the Civil War, with Wayne's character being a former Confederate soldier returning home for the first time since war first broke out. Right from the outset he sets himself up as a more complex protagonist than one might expect judging by the lingering looks he gives his sister-in-law and the racial epithets he spits at the family's part-Cherokee adopted son (Jeffrey Hunter). His reticence towards talking about what he's done in his absence even to his closest loved ones also speaks volumes without the use of words, providing the same impressive economy of storytelling that I've come to expect from Wayne films (especially those directed by John Ford). Eventually, a story emerges as what appears to be a simple matter of joining a posse to round up a neighbouring rancher's missing cattle ends up being a diversion for a group of Comanche natives to launch a raid on the Edwards residence. After it's revealed that the parents and eldest son are dead while the daughters have been kidnapped, the posse turns its attention towards tracking down the natives. Soon enough, most of them are willing to abandon the search because it makes more sense for only a couple of them to go (apparently), and so it falls to Wayne and Hunter to continue the search. Years pass, but the duo don't give up searching even after setback after setback while the home front starts to move on without them (especially in the case of Vera Miles as Hunter's childhood sweetheart, who is understandably growing tired of the headstrong young man's diligent attempts to salvage what's left of his host family despite the odds growing smaller and smaller every day).

The core narrative is simple enough, but the film more than adds in enough character to justify its two-hour length. As if his introductory segments don't provide a complicated enough excuse for a hero, various other actions that Wayne takes throughout the film do. Whether it's deliberately desecrating a native's corpse because he knows it clashes with their religious beliefs or even using Hunter as bait in order to kill off some treacherous white men, Wayne repeatedly pushes the boundaries as to how much of an anti-hero he can be. Though his goal of recovering his missing nieces is an ostensibly noble one, it's tempered not just by constant external setbacks but also by his all-encompassing racism that isn't an overt part of his personality (at one point he's willing to trade with a tribe of friendly natives) but still influences enough of his actions to the point where he practically becomes an antagonist by the time the film's third act rolls around. The clean-cut and blue-eyed Hunter isn't that much better as he also gets caught up in Wayne's obsessive quest out of not only a strong sense of personal honour but also out of a desperate need to have family to connect to; ironically, this only leads to him distancing himself from the extremely forward Miles and also involves him accidentally marrying a native woman during a bartering session. A regular cast of character actors peppers the rest of the movie; Western stalwart Ward Bond makes yet another good impression as the reverend/captain who forms the original posse, while Henry Brandon lends steely-eyed menace to what could have been an extremely thankless role as the film's main villain. Miles makes for a good romantic lead who can sell her character's brash nature, never becoming irritating because of how relatable she makes her frustration with Hunter. Some dopey comic-relief characters such as Hank Worden's "doddering old fool" and Ken Curtis's guitar-strumming young postman may come across as extremely dated examples of humour and threaten to grind the film to a halt with their slow-witted nonsense, but after a few viewings I actually do find their presence rather amusing (if not vital to the film as a whole).

Veteran director Ford reunites with The Quiet Man's Oscar-winning cinematographer Winton C. Hoch to capture Monument Valley in all its Technicolor glory, depicting a variety of settings from cozy homesteads to rocky red deserts to snowy forests with vibrant and colourful images (and, of course, that final image, which incidentally serves as a great bookend). The music is serviceable enough for a classic Western, with the more intense pieces being far more effective than the more peaceful fragments or the country-sounding theme song. Despite being almost 60 years old by this point, it has aged remarkably well even when one takes into account some of its cornier or unintentionally questionable moments (such as Hunter's less-than-gentle reaction to his new wife trying to sleep next to him on one cold night). It deals in some dark subject matter that, being made in 1956, it still has to allude to with deflecting dialogue and actions from Wayne, but the film is honestly all the better for it. This much is emphasised when his reaction to a companion questioning him about a traumatising discovery is to scream, "Whaddaya want me to do, draw you a picture?" No, we definitely don't need that picture even in an age where subsequent Westerns have gone on to depict the sorts of horrors that are obscured by this film's shadowy corners. I think I'm still due to re-watch Rio Bravo to see if it holds up (and I'll probably do that before too long), but in any case I would be okay with holding up The Searchers as my favourite Wayne film despite my rather complicated attitude towards the man. This might have something to do with the film leaning into Wayne's real-life image and daring to paint the most iconic all-American hero of the era as a horribly bigoted anti-hero who doesn't seem to be all that far removed from the murderous natives he claims to hate so much. Essential viewing no matter what.

4

Iroquois

09-29-15, 03:13 AM

#602 - The Decline of Western Civilisation
Penelope Spheeris, 1981

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/06/150630_CBOX_DeclineWestern.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

A documentary about the Los Angeles hardcore punk scene.

I had managed to watch and review 1988's The Decline of Western Civilisation Part II: The Metal Years several years ago and I found it an amusing portrayal of the vapidity of L.A.'s nascent glam metal scene complete that also interviewed various rock stars. WIth the recent re-release of all three Decline... films, I obviously had to check out the other two, especially the much more beloved first film in the series. Filmed in and around the L.A. punk scene during 1979 and 1980, it covers a number of bands from the scene. Unlike the up-and-coming glam bands featured in Part II, most (if not all) of the bands featured here still maintain some degree of notoriety today. I admittedly hadn't heard of either Catholic Discipline or Alice Bag Band, two very short-lived outfits whose limited output didn't make enough waves to be remembered decades later. Otherwise, the bands are infamous ones whose music I have far more familiarity with - these include Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Fear, and X. The film takes a segmented approach that examines each of its selected bands one at a time, chronicling both their live shows and their relation to the local scene (e.g. members of Catholic Discipline are shown working on their own fanzine).

Though I haven't seen Part II in a few years and am probably due to re-watch it, I could easily pick apart some cinematic parallels in how Spheeris and co. choose to examine the scene in each film. There's a montage of interviews with regular fans explaining why being in the scene appeals to them personally, interviews with bands will play up some of the absurdly fascinating aspects of their fringe lifestyles. The most memorable instance includes the segment about X beginning with a montage of people receiving stick-and-poke tattoos before having the main interview with the band take place while guitarist Billy Zoom gets one of his own done. There's also the camaraderie between the then-current incarnation of Black Flag living in the disused church they call home. Other bands memorably don't get the up-close-and-personal treatment - the main example is Fear, who not only don't merit an interview but their extremely antagonistic attitude towards a hostile audience forms the film's finale. Though I admit to being a little underwhelmed considering the film's cult reputation and how some of the bands don't feel all that interesting in and of themselves, I definitely liked it and will more than likely watch it again. It's an appropriately rough and gritty look at a sub-culture that makes you feel the rawness of the music and the people who make it.

3.5

honeykid

09-29-15, 04:00 PM

I was already lagging behind. I have one day away and there's a load more. Hopefully I'll be able to get some done over the next couple of days.

Iroquois

09-29-15, 09:06 PM

I pump 'em out faster than people can rep 'em.

Iroquois

09-29-15, 09:15 PM

#603 - Sicario
Denis Villeneuve, 2015

http://twitchfilm.com/assets/2015/05/sicario.jpg

An upstanding SWAT team member is asked to join a shadowy black ops team that intends to take down the bosses of a Mexican drug cartel.

As of writing, the only other Villeneuve film I've seen is Prisoners, which delivered a morally grey and miserable story about a child abduction and the physical and psychological toll it takes on various characters. Sicario is also a darkly amoral crime drama, with Villeneuve shifting his attentions to the incredibly dangerous and destructive actions of a Mexican drug cartel. After a brief intertitle explaining the meaning of the title, the film begins with a failed drug bust on a nondescript house in Arizona that turns up nothing but walls filled with vacuum-packed corpses and a shed rigged with explosives. During debriefing, one of the team's members (Emily Blunt) encounters a laid-back specialist (Josh Brolin), who asks her if she'd be interested in joining in on an operation dedicated to taking down the cartel responsible for the corpse-filled house. Blunt idealistically jumps at the opportunity, though her co-worker and close friend (Daniel Kaluuya) is naturally suspicious of the whole affair. Blunt finds herself sharing the same suspicions as she winds up on a private jet headed to Juárez accompanied by Brolin and a mysterious "adviser" (Benicio del Toro). Blunt is quickly caught up in elements way out of her control and simply struggles to keep her head above water as she must face not only the dangers inherent in opposing the cartel but also her incredibly untrustworthy "allies".

Sicario takes a massive international conflict between lawmakers and criminals and becomes more interested in the conflict it raises between the lawmakers themselves. Out of the main players, Blunt and Kaluuya are the closest the film gets to genuinely good characters but even they find themselves increasingly compromised by the entire situation. Blunt definitely proved her capability to pull off a convincing action-heavy role in Edge of Tomorrow, and she makes for a believably competent agent whose skills are tested again and again as the severity of the operation escalates. Of course, it's never truly her ability as an officer that is in question; rather, it is her moral fortitude contrasted against her dedication to the mission. To this end, Kaluuya delivers good support as her sharp-tongued confidant and voice of reason, while Brolin gets in a solid turn as the ethically flexible agent with a smarmy, cavalier attitude towards his mission and the people involved. Del Toro, on the other hand, arguably makes for the film's most striking performance as the mystery man whose laconic nature masks a very complicated individual where the less said about his character, the better. Other supporting characters are solid, especially Victor Garber as Blunt's weary superior and Jeffrey Donovan as an operative who seems to be the polar opposite of the principled, charming ex-spy he played on Burn Notice (to the point where realising it was him was definitely a big surprise).

Big surprises are all over the place as Sicario works through a narrative that covers a war of attrition. There is the occasional sequence of high-stakes suspense (such as one scene taking place at a border-control checkpoint) but scenes like this are not played for genuine thrills. The film paces out its twists reasonably well, but never feels like it's overly dependent on their capacity to shock. If anything, the film is more concerned with anything but the potentially exciting action sequences. The interplay between characters is definitely fascinating, with the film's most intense moments coming about less through scenes involving gunfights and explosions and more through wondering how interactions between different characters will play out. To this end, the film does a good job balancing ethics against pragmatism for the most part; of course, it still makes Blunt and Kaluuya the most sympathetic characters in the midst of all this, though it has to in order to make the film's events have a significant resonance. To this end, it even goes to the trouble of developing one seemingly minor character apropos of nothing, which is a rather effective technique in the long run. The skill on display extends to the techniques, with Villeneuve once again collaborating with Prisoners cinematographer Roger Deakins. Deakins' instantly-recognisable high-contrast approach works wonders, especially in one sequence that takes place during a sequence where the American operatives must wear night-vision goggles. The music is infrequent and minimalist, with the most notable instances involving steadily crescendoing drones that play out in the lead-up to violence but not during it. Though these sounds are simple, they get the job done.

Sicario does a solid job of exploring the War on Drugs less as a black-and-white conflict so much as a black-and-grey one. It provides solid characterisation to the unlikeliest of individuals and makes sure to anchor its story to an appropriately sympathetic protagonist whose seemingly bland heroism is challenged time and time again. Almost every other character dances on the fine line between villain and anti-hero and manages to make the film quite unpredictable as a result. Of course, this is the good kind of unpredictability where it becomes less about anticipating sudden jumps and more about wondering exactly where the story is going to go next, especially when it comes to wondering if the story will go exactly where it seems to be going. The techniques involved are good ones, whether it's Deakins' impressively formal aesthetics or the groaning music that works wonders when it comes to heightening the film's already-considerable levels of intensity. This is easily one of the best films of 2015 so far and deserves recognition as such.

4

seanc

09-29-15, 10:09 PM

Can't wait. I will read the review after I see it. Your score ramps up the excitement a little more.

honeykid

09-30-15, 10:37 AM

I've not seen the other two The Decline of Western Civilisation films, but unlike you, I really like Part II. It's funny, it's ridiculous, it's 80's, it's heartbreaking and more. Also like you, I've not seen in for a long time (probably much longer than you) but I have nothing but warm thoughts about it.

Iroquois

09-30-15, 10:48 AM

I've not seen the other two The Decline of Western Civilisation films, but unlike you, I really like Part II.

um (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/583031-the-decline-of-western-civilization-part-iithe-metal-years.html)

honeykid

09-30-15, 11:23 AM

Iroquois

10-01-15, 07:21 AM

Sorry, Iro. I somehow got the impression that while you liked it, you felt this would be better and, from your rating for this, I thought that the rating would've been lower. :confused: I woke up with a headache today and I've not really recovered. :D

No harm done. I did like Part II just fine but I knew that the original would likely be a very different beast. Unfortunately, the problem with the sincerity is that, while Part II makes for great unintentional comedy, the earnest nature of the original works against it and so sometimes you just end up being a little bored by what's going on here.

Iroquois

10-01-15, 07:26 AM

#604 - Garden State
Zach Braff, 2004

http://media2.policymic.com/96c130f2810c7f7be4f7aae47d3a3ead.jpg

A depressed small-time actor returns to his small hometown for his mother's funeral and proceeds to connect with the locals.

There are certain words that I have to make a conscious effort not to use when it comes to summarising my views on a film because they feel like dismissive cop-outs (though that doesn't always stop me). I bring this up because Garden State almost seems like a film that is explicitly designed to court such shallow criticisms. The film is the passion project of Zach Braff, the man best-known for starring in the long-running hospital sitcom Scrubs (which I have no great affinity for, though I ultimately don't hate it). In addition to starring in this film, he also wrote and directed it; to this end, it seems like a deliberate attempt to write what he knows and build an entire movie out of it. Braff plays a small-time actor living in Los Angeles who has had some success in TV yet still works as a waiter. The plot begins when he is called back to his New Jersey hometown in order to attend his mother's funeral. While there, he proceeds to connect and re-connect with the locals. While several of them tend to be members of his high-school cohort (the most prominent of which ends up being Peter Sarsgaard as a professional grave-digger), the one he ends up being drawn to is a stranger (Natalie Portman) that he meets while waiting to receive a neurological exam. The two form a somewhat unlikely bond over their shared neuroses and odd-couple dynamic, with Portman proving a much more animated counterpart to Braff's incredibly distant protagonist.

Garden State manages the somewhat impressive feat of simultaneously feeling relatable and alienating, which is enough to mean that I can't honestly bring myself to hate it, but I struggle to actually, you know, like any of it. A lot of that has to do with Braff himself, whose heavily medicated character feels like a deliberate attempt to distance himself from the outward wackiness of his most well-known screen persona, and he manages to deliver a fairly decent performance as a result. Unfortunately, that doesn't extend to the rest of the cast. We're supposed to find Portman's bubbly personality as endearing as Braff's character does, but not even the scenes that expose the neurotic vulnerabilities underneath her chipper exterior are enough to distinguish the character for the better. Sarsgaard gives off such a bad first impression that his character's barely-there redemption arc never gains enough traction to feel significant, while Braff's other former classmates aren't even afforded that much definition. Ian Holm is brought in to play Braff's domineering psychiatrist father, but he seems especially wasted on such a minor role.

The film as a whole does tread into somewhat interesting territory as Braff's trip home forces him to confront a variety of problems both dormant and active, such as deep-seated psychological issues related to his mother, especially in regard to her life and death. This only works to add a through-line to a film that is otherwise built out of some extremely patchy vignettes as Braff encounters a variety of eccentric characters living in bizarre domiciles. The slightly exaggerated small-town nuttiness and the ways in which it ties into the film's plot isn't exactly implausible but none of it ever feeds into the main narrative in an organic way. It's not amusing in either a broad or subtle manner; without the balance, the dramatic side of things feels hollow. The unimpressive nature of the film's plot is reflected by the extremely standard film-making style where any flourish serves to detract from rather than enhance the finished product. I get that it's cool to hate Garden State because of its approach to the material that is idiosyncratic without feeling innovative or even charming in its own weird way, but it's not as if the criticisms are without merit as the film fails to leave much (if any) positive impressions.

1

Yoda

10-01-15, 09:52 AM

I can kinda understand not liking Garden State if you consider it just as drama, but it's probably as much comedy as anything. Did you find it, ya' know, funny? I found it pretty funny. The diploma on the ceiling gets me every time.

It nailed a lot of relationship stuff, too, down to the way he tried to reassure her at the airport. That's kind of what's nice about it: the juxtaposition of the insane things happening with the high level of detail to the human moments that keep cropping up. I'd probably give it a low rating, too, if I were just considering things like character arcs and dramatic tension, but I like it because of the other things, like how much it made me laugh and how often I was forced to nod my head at something perceptive.

Iroquois

10-01-15, 09:58 AM

From the review:

It's not amusing in either a broad or subtle manner

Yoda

10-01-15, 10:28 AM

I guess I didn't take "amusing" to be the same thing, exactly, but okay then.

Anyway, you certainly seem more preoccupied with it as a dramatic work, and while that's perfectly fine, I doubt I'd think much of it if that were my general angle, too. I think of it as an offbeat comedy with dramatic elements, and from that angle, I like it a lot. It's almost like a satire of people.

Apart from the diploma thing, I think the way people are constantly giving us tidbits of this movie role he's had (and how cliched and awful it sounds) is pretty great. "Oh, and the part where your dad gives you the thumbs up!"

At this point I'd just be reduced to listing funny moments, though, but there ya' go. If you find/found this stuff funny, it really ripples throughout the rest of the film, I think.

Iroquois

10-01-15, 10:38 AM

It's both comedy and drama, but since there's only so much you can flesh out "I didn't find it funny" then you focus on the drama and how that doesn't work for you either.

honeykid

10-01-15, 01:08 PM

Another sequence attempts to replicate ambitious 1960s experimentation with editing by featuring multiple simultaneous split-screens, though that comes across as annoying rather than stylish.
So just like almost every other use of split screen in cinema history, then. :yup:

MovieMeditation

10-01-15, 01:57 PM

Finally had a chance to sit down and read through your last few reviews...

Though I understand someone not liking Superbad, I think it's one of the better films of its kind. I personally like it and find it rather funny. That's mainly because the movie feels so cofident with its humor and jokes. I agree about the penis drawing thing though, but apart from that I'm pretty laid back and think it's a good comedy and even well written, despite of having a "d*ck", "f*ck", "sh*t" in pretty much every line. I know it has flaws but I have too much of a fun time to care about them much. One of the better American comedies in my opinion.*

Taken (the first) was pretty good, the sequel was about what I expected, while the third film was indeed beyond bad. I hated the *shaky cam and quick cuts and the poor attempt at keeping the franchise going. I mean, I still see Taken 3 as a poor joke to Neeson's statement when he said he would only do another Taken movie if no one got taken. To me that sounds like "hah, there's no way they can come up with a TAKEN movie where no one gets TAKEN". But they did and it sucked in almost every way. Good thorough review.*

I wasn't a fan of The Homesman, it was quite average, though the cinematography and acting was great. The story was too dull, forced and at times very weird... The Searches I have wanted to see for the longest time ever, maybe it has to be soon... Sicario is one of my most anticipated movies of the year!

Screen Squinty

10-01-15, 02:02 PM

Do you count film shorts?

Iroquois

10-01-15, 11:16 PM

#605 - Short Term 12
Destin Daniel Cretton, 2013

http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/short-term-12-main-review.jpg

Centres on the lives of the people who live in or work at a residential treatment facility for troubled youths.

Short Term 12 is a fairly low-key independent dramedy set in a residential treatment facility. All the patients are juveniles, with one patient (Keith Stanfield) preparing to leave once he turns eighteen in a few days' time. Most of the orderlies are in their twenties and aren't much older than their charges. The main one is Brie Larson, who is the de facto leader of the orderlies but is also dealing with her own problems, the most prominent of which being an unexpected pregnancy by her co-worker and live-in boyfriend (John Gallagher Jr.). The introduction of a new staffer (Rami Malek) serves as a good audience surrogate who can have the facility's day-to-day business explained to him, plus he operates from a position of somewhat oblivious privilege and thus struggles to know how to handle the often unruly patients. In addition to the impending departure of Stanfield's character, the facility also takes on a new arrival (Kaitlin Dever) who is extremely standoffish and unwilling to go along with the program. What follows is a feature film that focuses on the day-to-day conflicts that emerge as the wildly emotional patients do anything from quietly going along with the program to getting into all sorts of troublesome situations involving attacking others, trying to escape, self-harm, and so forth.

Short Term 12 is pretty solid as far as dramas go, managing to fill out its loose narrative reasonably well. A cast of familiar and not-so-familiar actors give some very believable performances that add weight to some fairly familiar conflicts (especially the ones that take place outside the facility, such as Larson's sub-plot). As such, the best moments tend to be clearly-defined individual moments; Gallagher Jr.'s embarassing anecdote from the beginning of the film, Stanfield's extremely heartfelt a cappella rap, Dever's attempt to express her inner turmoil through a hand-drawn fairytale, and so forth. That being said, everything flows into each other reasonably well as the characters have good chemistry with one another and things almost feel like a documentary at times. The technique is understandably simple, using naturalistic use of hand-held cameras to good effect. While the camerawork is good for an American indie film, this also means that the film's actual score consists mainly of straightforward acoustic guitar, which isn't bad so much as just...there. Short Term 12 is a pretty good film and, while it doesn't do anything too out of left-field and occasionally falls prey to the odd narrative cliché, it is a worthwhile film that does work wonders at engendering sympathy and empathy for its characters.

3.5

Iroquois

10-01-15, 11:20 PM

#606 - Pitch Black
David Twohy, 2000

http://i.imgur.com/jUwrtge.png

A spaceship is marooned on an alien planet that is inhabited by a vicious alien species that only attacks in the dark.

Pitch Black is sort of spoiled by the presence of two cinematic follow-ups starring Vin Diesel as the goggle-wearing renegade Riddick. This does undercut the fact that the first act of the movie involves the crew and passengers of the crashed ship trying to keep track of the extremely dangerous Riddick. Of course, it's not long before Riddick and the others have to deal with a new problem - namely, that of the nocturnal winged creatures that live underneath the planet's surface and have no problem tearing any creatures that aren't like them into shreds. On a planet with three suns, this would seem to be a relatively minor problem...that is, until the planet undergoes its first total eclipse in twenty-two years and the crew must not only survive the massive swarms of aliens but also find a way off the planet. Fortunately, the odds are tempered somewhat by Riddick becoming the group's unexpected saviour thanks to his sharply-honed survival instinct and the fact that his eyes have been altered to allow him to see in the dark.

The film is a fairly unapologetic B-movie kind of deal and deserves to be treated as such. Performances are generally serviceable - Diesel's gravelly delivery and imposing stature do make him a good fit for the role of anti-hero even as he undergoes a predictable character arc, while Radha Mitchell is decent enough as a more straightforward good character and Cole Hauser makes for an appropriately weaselly love-to-hate character. Character actor extraordinaire Keith David pops up in a supporting role and his presence is always welcome. The rest of the cast is unfortunately little more than poorly-developed prey for the creatures (with the exception of the youngest and most vulnerable kid who takes a liking to Riddick) and it shows. There are plenty of holes in the concept, especially the part about a perpetually sunny planet somehow having its only known lifeform be a species of flying cave-dwelling beasts whose main weakness is light, plus the film does fall prey to a lot of familiar horror tropes after it's finally spent enough time having its first act play out like Tucker and Dale vs. Evil in space. There's a decent enough atmosphere that I would not mind going through with watching the other Riddick films, but as far as being a great standalone film Pitch Black does fall awfully short.

2

Iroquois

10-01-15, 11:25 PM

#607 - Memories of Murder
Bong Joon-ho, 2003

https://adammohrbacher.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/50.jpg

In 1986, a volatile group of detectives must try to catch a serial killer operating in and around a rural Korean town.

On paper, the plot of Memories of Murder seems all too familiar. Two dead women are discovered within the area surrounding a rural town, appearing to have been killed in very similar ways. The local detectives are dedicated to catching the person responsible. A detective from the big city is sent to assist in the investigation since the murders are similar in nature to one that happened there. Though the contrast between city and country causes friction between not within the detectives' ranks but also among the townsfolk, the main characters still work together to chase down whoever is responsible. When put like that, it's pretty standard. In Memories of Murder, it's very different. The local detectives are corrupt and are not only willing to torture suspects during interrogations but also work to prompt them into making confessions regardless of their actual guilt (often using falsified evidence). The big city detective may disagree with the methods, but he's not staunch enough in his principles to take a huge stand against the locals' activities. The townsfolk don't fare much better as they prove to be constantly unreliable or obtrusive to the detectives, whether it's by driving tractors through crime scenes or apathetically throwing away pieces of evidence even after being contacted by the police. Against this kind of backdrop, how can anyone hope for the killer to be caught?

The only other Bong film I've seen is his international dystopian thriller Snowpiercer, which also demonstrates how well he can flesh out a seemingly simple premise with the right characters and developments. The main detectives slot into some fairly recognisable archetypes - the city guy's naturally more reserved in his attitudes compared to the much more impassioned locals (though one is harsh out of pragmatism while the other is harsh out of sheer brutality). Even seemingly minor characters get decent characterisation and carry it off well - of note is the case's prime suspect, a physically disfigured and mentally challenged young man who goes through more than his fair share of torment throughout the film. In addition to the compelling main narrative provided by the detectives constantly trying to close the case by tracing whatever leads they can (especially when the killer's modus operandi involves certain observable events), there are various smaller plots that are brought up and resolved throughout the film, which does make the film feel especially grounded as a result. It doesn't go on for too long and makes sure to earn its tension in the scenes that require it, plus Bong captures the proceedings with sharp camerawork that manages to deftly mix clinical coldness with fiery confrontation (especially during one of the film's many rain-swept sequences). Definitely recommended for people who can handle a grim murder mystery where the more graphic moments are powerful without coming across as needlessly sensationalised.

4

honeykid

10-02-15, 08:20 AM

I saw Pitch Black when it came out and I think I've only seen it once since, but I remember liking it quite a bit. I've never had any interest in the sequels, the only reason I knew Pitch Black was coming out was because Radha Mitchell was in it (Neighbours alumni), but I've occasionally thought that I should look at it again.

I think I'm the only person not blown away by Memories Of Murder. I blind bought it without ever having heard of it and, while I liked it and thought it was good, I was slightly surprised when I started to hear people talking about it so well.

TheUsualSuspect

10-02-15, 08:22 AM

I liked Pitch Black as well. I think whenever Iro gives a film a negative review, it means I've given it a positive one.

TheUsualSuspect

10-02-15, 08:23 AM

...as well as everyone else.

honeykid

10-02-15, 08:38 AM

Poor ol' Iro. It's like he's become a version of me, but one who watches films and writes reviews. :D

Iroquois

10-02-15, 10:20 AM

I keep telling people they're better off mentally adding an extra popcorn box to whatever rating I give, but does anybody listen?

TheUsualSuspect

10-02-15, 11:19 AM

I tend to listen....then ignore.

gbgoodies

10-02-15, 01:07 PM

I keep telling people they're better off mentally adding an extra popcorn box to whatever rating I give, but does anybody listen?

I don't think it matters. Most of your ratings are so low that one extra popcorn box still won't make it a good review. :(

mark f

10-02-15, 03:32 PM

honeykid

10-02-15, 04:28 PM

So, I'm not alone.

Gatsby

10-02-15, 08:16 PM

I thought Memories of Murder was pretty so-so. One of the reasons is that although it is basically a police procedural, it comes across as a Hardy Boys/Korean version of a police procedural. The whole thing seems so ridiculous but the implication is that Korea is a backwards country with little technology and a bunch of incompetent, immature, violent cops who live their professional lives based on how American cops beat the crap out of everybody in 1940s movies. The atmosphere made it watchable, but nothing more for me.
It isn't ridiculous, because those kind of stuff actually happened back then, you know, cops beating the hell out of people using their authoritah. And I'm sure you know the murder is a true event, and is a case unsolved to this day. It's what makes it a great film, because a lot of true-story based films turn out to be a bit bland, but Bong uses a variety of filmmaking techniques and detail and avoids that route.

Iroquois

10-03-15, 08:28 AM

I don't think it matters. Most of your ratings are so low that one extra popcorn box still won't make it a good review. :(

I feel like this is factually incorrect but I'm not about to go through with counting it just. Besides, good ratings and good reviews are mutually exclusive.

I thought Memories of Murder was pretty so-so. One of the reasons is that although it is basically a police procedural, it comes across as a Hardy Boys/Korean version of a police procedural. The whole thing seems so ridiculous but the implication is that Korea is a backwards country with little technology and a bunch of incompetent, immature, violent cops who live their professional lives based on how American cops beat the crap out of everybody in 1940s movies. The atmosphere made it watchable, but nothing more for me.

It isn't ridiculous, because those kind of stuff actually happened back then, you know, cops beating the hell out of people using their authoritah. And I'm sure you know the murder is a true event, and is a case unsolved to this day. It's what makes it a great film, because a lot of true-story based films turn out to be a bit bland, but Bong uses a variety of filmmaking techniques and detail and avoids that route.

I did not know that it was based on a true story. Even so, it reminded me of Zodiac except that it knew to wrap things up a lot sooner (Zodiac was the most part a good film but the entire final hour of the film killed the momentum dead for me - not averse to giving it a second chance, of course).

I tend to listen....then ignore.

You can say that again.

Iroquois

10-03-15, 09:01 AM

#608 - McCabe and Mrs. Miller
Robert Altman, 1971

https://michaelgloversmith.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mccabe.jpg

A gambler moves to a small mining town with the intention of establishing his own saloon.

Is it possible for a film to revise the revisionist Western? If so, McCabe and Mrs. Miller certainly seems like a prime example of such an ideal. Films like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Wild Bunch had presented deconstructions of the classic Western that had vastly different attitudes (compare the blue-eyed charmers of the former to the grizzled elders of the latter) but were still fundamentally similar in that they still examined certain concepts such as honour among thieves and the death of the West. Maverick filmmaker Robert Altman decided to take on the Western and, in many ways, his own approach builds on that most familiar of Western set-ups, that of a lone stranger riding into town. However, the stranger in this case is not some capable gunslinger acting out of good or evil; this stranger is the titular McCabe (Warren Beatty), a wise-cracking gambler who has his own agenda for what he's going to do in town. After charming the locals with his card skills and raucous banter, McCabe sets about with the intention of building his own saloon and brothel catered towards the local populace. Despite his bragging nature, it's not long before he gets in over his head not knowing how to deal with the women he's employed. Fortunately, his luck takes a turn for the better with the arrival of Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie), an experienced madam who offers to partner up with him. Of course, when their enterprise becomes successful it draws the attention of a budding corporation that is looking to aggressively expand into the territory...

There are no clear-cut heroes in McCabe and Mrs. Miller, though that doesn't mean that the film is devoid of good people. Despite McCabe's actions clearly being motivated by the promise of financial gain and his own apparent greed ultimately feeding into his downfall, he's not presented in a remotely villainous light. Instead, he is just a man who has a vision that may be motivated by profit but also happens to have the consequences of allowing the remote mining outpost to become more civilised as a result. His charismatic bluster may work on the locals, but he is constantly shown to be out of his depth by not only the more worldly Mrs. Miller but also by the company reps looking to buy him out (even as he does confuse them with his humourous aphorisms). The ever-charming Beatty makes it work, with his high-falutin' mixture of earthy humour and clever diction, making him surprisingly easy to root for even as he struggles with conflicts great and small. Christie makes for a good foil to Beatty as she demonstrates a much more serious approach to the idea of running a business than the idealistic yet relatively incompetent McCabe. Though her thick British accent takes a bit of getting used to, for much of the film she is as magnetic a presence as Beatty (possibly even more so). She also manages to not only match wits with him but also outsmart him quite frequently, and the duo's considerable chemistry definitely comes through as they have many impassioned diatribes. Of course, Mrs. Miller isn't without her flaws as well, chiefly the fact that she is addicted to opium and works to hide it from everyone (with the implication being that being fired from her previous job over her habit is what led to her seeking out McCabe in the first place). Christie is able to portray this side of things well, communicating layers of mixed emotion through her eyes alone.

As befitting an Altman film, the cast is packed out with quite the ensemble. I only recognise a handful of the actors involved, that doesn't prevent any of them from creating believably strong performances and imbuing even the smallest of roles with distinguishing characteristics. The film even going so far as to wring serious pathos out of the extremely unfortunate death of a bit part who only has three relatively brief scenes. I could rattle off any number of characters and the minor yet pivotal roles they tend to play in not only advancing the core narrative but also in fleshing out the world of this small town, whether it's Keith Carradine as a gormless drifter or Shelley Duvall as a nervous mail-order bride. This is helped in part by Altman's loose approach to recording ambient conversations and shifting focus constantly between plot-relevant discussions and more mundane character-driven moments (though one could easily be alienated by the sound design becoming a little muddled in the process). It's a minor flaw in the greater context of a film that manages to make you care for the somewhat simple but generally earnest population of the town while also throwing in some little surprises (such as the entire character arc of the town's reverend, which is handled with subtlety but pays off magnificently). One also has to admire how the film combines the so-called death of the West with some relatively progressive contemporary ideals, as one can pick up various subtexts about the late-1960s and early-1970s even in this 1900s setting. The degree of autonomy offered to the women working under Mrs. Miller seems reflective of the more agreeable aspects of the sexual revolution, while McCabe's struggle against a company that is maybe a little too eager to resort to shotgun diplomacy definitely serves as a good metaphor for disillusion with supposedly respectable public institutions; that and it works just fine from a narrative standpoint free of subtext.

Despite McCabe and Mrs. Miller being concerned with a somewhat thin business-minded plot, it definitely doesn't skimp on all the other aspects that make a great Western. In keeping with Altman's intention to mythologise a different image of the West than the one that had been captured many a time already, he has legendary cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond shoot the film through with a deliberately grainy and hazy appearance so as to emphasis how much of a lost era the audience is viewing. The camera movements are fluid and engaging, whether it's subtle slides or crashing zooms - how can you not like the photography of a film that will make Stanley Kubrick call up Altman just to ask, "How did you do that?" It's an extremely immersive experience - this latest viewing was done off the basis of an old theatrical print that had suffered some significant damage with the tint frequently being off and plenty of scratches, but even that wasn't enough to ruin what is some astounding cinematography. The interiors of the film's many wooden buildings feel appropriately warm and smoky, while the exteriors of the icy Pacific Northwest settlement conjure chills and majesty galore. That much is necessary when the film opts to move into more serious territory, especially during the finale that might just be my favourite snowbound sequence in cinematic history (and this is coming from someone who cites The Thing as an all-time favourite).

Another delightfully idiosyncratic touch that helps to make McCabe and Mrs. Miller what it is ends up being the admittedly anachronistic use of songs by legendary singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen from his classic debut Songs of Leonard Cohen. This is all despite the film using exactly three songs - while "Sisters of Mercy" is only used briefly during the early days of McCabe's operation as he tries to operate with a handful of very unsuitable workers, it is the other songs that make a mark not just through repetition but through sheer suitability. "Stranger Song" and "Winter Lady" serve as leitmotifs for McCabe and Mrs. Miller respectively, with the former's quickly-picked tale of a shifty mystery man being just as relevant as the latter's elegaic waltz dedicated to an equally unknowable woman. Cohen's song are just a few of many reasons why McCabe and Mrs. Miller has managed to become a major favourite that grows on me more and more with each viewing. It may be infused with more overt romanticism than more bloody-minded revisionist Westerns like those of Peckinpah or Leone, but I don't see that as a weakness. It only serves to make the film that much more beautiful and heartbreaking. Every time I see it I find myself wishing it would end any other way and yet I know that if it did then it wouldn't be the same film.

4.5

Iroquois

10-03-15, 09:06 AM

#609 - Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2010

http://www.filmlinc.org/page/-/uploads/comment/Uncle_Boonmee.jpg

An old man dying of organ failure starts to recount his past lives while in the presence of his loved ones, some of whom have changed radically.

It's very easy to set up a dichotomy between the Palme d'Or and the Academy Award for Best Picture in that both are prestigious awards that are annually given to what the voting bodies of the respective organisations feel is quite simply the greatest film that the preceding year has yielded. Though the colloquialism "Oscar bait" and variations thereof have seeped into the wider cultural consciousness to describe films where the content seems cynically calculated in order to win Academy Awards, I wonder if this extends to there being such a thing as "Palme bait". Or maybe I'm just trying to rationalise why I wasn't all that impressed with one of the most recent winners, 2010's Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives. It certainly had an intriguing concept in its tale of the eponymous character, a terminally ill Thai man whose carers (which include close family members) do their best to keep him alive through dialysis. The film distinguishes itself by introducing elements of magical realism as Boonmee starts to have some very surreal experiences, such as the repeated appearance of red-eyed human-sized monkeys (one of whom is apparently Boonmee's long-lost son). The line between fantasy and reality blurs considerably and occasionally gives way to stand-alone vignettes that feel like fairytales.

Unfortunately, Uncle Boonmee... just struggles to engage my interest. I certainly have to give it credit for maintaining a visual style that's impressive enough so that I don't totally tune out the film, but beyond that I don't feel any strong investment in what's going on. As a result, the film's visual style and the characters' in-universe approach to the more bizarre elements in it come across as the film's greatest strength as it segues quite readily from supposedly unremarkable weirdness into lurid fables. It's also a bit too slow for its own good at times, making you feel an awful lot of its relatively brief running time. I can't really fault the performances as the matter-of-fact nature of many of them in the face of such fantastic visuals or everyday events seems to be part of the intent, but that only means they contribute to the film's lack of a compelling nature. I get the feeling that there's more going on here than I may have picked up on so I would not be averse to a second viewing, but as it stands I'm more than a little let down by Uncle Boonmee... and the ways in which its measured pace gives way to tedium a bit too often for it to be a true stand-out to me.

2.5

cricket

10-03-15, 10:55 AM

honeykid

10-03-15, 03:02 PM

It's very easy to set up a dichotomy between the Palme d'Or and the Academy Award for Best Picture in that both are prestigious awards that are annually given to what the voting bodies of the respective organisations feel is quite simply the greatest film that the preceding year has yielded. Though the colloquialism "Oscar bait" and variations thereof have seeped into the wider cultural consciousness to describe films where the content seems cynically calculated in order to win Academy Awards, I wonder if this extends to there being such a thing as "Palme bait".
There is and it's called Pretentious Wank.

Iroquois

10-04-15, 02:45 AM

I never heard of Sicario until a couple days ago when I watched the trailer. It looked awesome and your review makes it sound awesome. I'm suddenly psyched to see it.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller was just an average experience for me, but from the moment I shut it off, ive had this urge to watch it again, as if I just had a bad day and I totally missed it. Your review may be the kick in the pants I need to get it done.

Sicario definitely seems like your kind of movie. I certainly liked it more than Prisoners, which was a bit too long for its own good. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is definitely the type of film that takes more than one viewing to fully appreciate but I can see how someone might just dislike it anyway.

There is and it's called Pretentious Wank.

Now, now, you know how I feel about calling things pretentious.

Iroquois

10-04-15, 03:51 AM

#610 - The Martian
Ridley Scott, 2015

http://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/gallery/the-martian/91324.jpg

When a freak storm causes an astronaut to be presumed dead by his crew and stranded on Mars, he must improvise his own methods of staying alive until help arrives.

I observed a while back that there was something of a trend developing over the past few years where every year gets at least one big space-themed film that is treated as one of the year's most important cinematic events. Last year had Christopher Nolan's save-the-humans epic Interstellar, the year before that had Alfonso Cuarón's taut survival thriller Gravity, and the year before that one gave us Prometheus, Ridley Scott's return to the mythology of his break-through space-horror film Alien. My opinion of each film varies quite wildly, which meant that there wasn't really any telling how 2015's The Martian would pan out. One can pick out how much it not only follows this trend but also incorporates elements of each of those three films. In addition to being directed by Scott, it is like Gravity in that its plot revolves around a single astronaut (Matt Damon) being stranded in space and trying to survive the harsh environment by any means necessary. The most blatant similarity to Interstellar will be immediately obvious to anyone who's seen Nolan's film, but it also covers the complex series of problems that arise as the NASA staff and the other members of Damon's crew must try to deal with rescuing him. However, for better or worse, The Martian does an alright job at defining itself as a separate entity to any of those other films.

After quickly establishing its core premise within a handful of very turbulent minutes, the film then sets up Damon as he gets ready to use his expertise as a botanist in order to grow enough food to survive the four-year wait until the next scheduled mission to Mars. Meanwhile, his activities eventually draw NASA's attention as the staff try to figure out not only how to communicate with him but also how to rescue him - and that's without factoring in their quandary over whether or not to inform the other members of his crew (who still think he is dead and are in the middle of their months-long journey back to Earth). While Damon's early attempts to acclimatise to his situation (both figuratively and literally) are fairly fascinating in their own right, the story soon encounters quite the narrative paradox. On the one hand, there's only so much interest that Damon's isolated problem-solving can generate on its own even with the conflicts caused by malfunctioning equipment and other setbacks. On the other hand, the scenes that don't feature his character are admittedly necessary to the story but that doesn't stop them feeling way too utilitarian as a result. They may be buoyed by quite the collection of dependable actors, but that's only because, deep down, you know they have to be.

Given how much of the film ends up being a one-man show featuring Damon, you'd naturally expect him to pull some serious weight as he more or less has to carry several sequences on his own. To his credit, he does not do a bad job - at least his somewhat comical video-journal narration about his tasks and experiences provide a favourable enough reminder of his against-type work as an eccentric whistleblower in Steven Soderbergh's The Informant!. However, the humour level never quite manages to rise above mild amusement even as his experiments backfire explosively or as he tries to deal with the fact that the only available music is disco (and he hates disco). He's marginally better at selling dramatic moments, such as his steadily growing desperation and frustration in the face of some serious setbacks that leads him to think that, despite his many moments of progress, he still might not get out of his situation alive anyway.

Unfortunately, this does mean that the rest of the cast gets some short shrift as they are left to fill out some fairly archetypal roles, especially the other members of his crew. As the ship captain, Jessica Chastain adequately conveys her guilt over having left a presumably dead Damon behind, while everyone else in the crew gets extremely slim characterisation that is all tempered with the same slightly comic edge afforded to Damon. It is thin to the point where a romantic sub-plot between Kate Mara and Sebastian Stan really does seem to come out of nowhere. At least Michael Peña and Aksel Hennie do alright in their roles as the excitable pilot and deadpan chemist respectively. The people back on Earth gets some rote roles to fill out, with Jeff Daniels serving as the classic conflicted executive trying to pick the least horrible course of action while also clashing with Sean Bean's flight co-ordinator and Chiwetel Ejiofor's engineer. Ejiofor is always a solid actor, even though the fact that he's cast to play a presumably Indian character is definitely a bit of a distraction. Experienced comedic actors such as Kristen Wiig and Donald Glover get some minor yet significant roles that don't really pay off; this is especially true in the case of the latter as he offers the latest in a long line of variations on the eccentric genius stereotype, even though that amounts to little more than making me feel like I'm watching Troy do an impression of Abed.

Fortunately, with Scott behind the camera there is a strong chance that the resulting film will turn out to at least be technically and aesthetically solid. In the case of The Martian, the depictions of both Damon's adventures on the surface on Mars and his crew-mates' journey through space are captured with considerable aplomb. The detail involved in both settings being adequately reflected through the art direction and production design. The craggy red deserts of the planet surface are rendered well, as are the various artificial environments and the cold yet starry vacuum of space. This much extends to the exhaustive amounts of detail put into nearly every aspect of the film, especially when it comes to showing how Damon has to solve problems such as food, water, power, and communication. While the visuals are easily a strong point in the film's favour, this sadly does not extend to the soundtrack. Veteran composer Harry Gregson-Williams creates a sporadically solid score that can easily be ignored, though some of the film's licensed soundtrack choices are a bit questionable. Having Damon be stuck with nothing but disco tunes is amusing enough at first (look no further than the sequence where he attempts to groove along to Donna Summer's "Hot Stuff") but the film's decision to include a montage set to the tune of David Bowie's "Starman" is obviously a bit too on-the-nose and is enough to pull me out of the movie for a bit.

The Martian has an admittedly interesting premise, but it's hamstrung by the fact that it's a little on the long side and fails to provide interesting variations on some very familiar space-mission tropes. While the talent on display is enough to guarantee that the resulting film doesn't feel like an offensively terrible mess, it struggles to provide a film that's consistently strong on its own terms. Watching Damon go about his survival business on the planet surface is definitely engaging to watch, but cutting away from that to showcase NASA's side of the story does seem to drag things out as it follows an extremely standard narrative. A comical approach to the honestly terrifying concept of being stranded on a distant planet is a good direction to take (especially in opposition to the dour extinction narrative presented in Interstellar), but even having Drew Goddard of The Cabin in the Woods infamy adapt Andy Weir's source novel for the screen isn't enough to make for a wholly entertaining adventure. The jokes are passable, whether it's Damon making various snarky comments about his situation or the NASA staff reacting to some of his more outlandish actions. The comical approach doesn't even extend to the film indulging a lot of space-movie clichés, especially considering the fact that there are way too many scenes of people cheering in the mission control room. Such scenes were overused to the point where I was hoping that the film would try to play them for laughs as it did with so many other things. In trying to set itself apart from the overly serious films mentioned earlier in the review, The Martian sadly ends up being more or less the same despite its humourous bent.

2.5

MovieMeditation

10-04-15, 05:06 AM

I'll read your Martian review once I get around watching it. :up:

Uncle Boonmee sounds extremely interesting, but I could easily see myself feeling the same as you, when a lot of the movie just doesn't live up the the visuals or overall style of the film.

Have you seen the latest Palme d'Or winner? I thought it sounded rather mediocre, so I'm interested in whether or not it would be worth checking out.

Iroquois

10-04-15, 06:47 AM

Have you seen the latest Palme d'Or winner? I thought it sounded rather mediocre, so I'm interested in whether or not it would be worth checking out.

Dheepan? I have not. I don't usually get to see Palme d'Or winners, if only because a lot of the foreign-language ones are a bit hard to get a hold of.

Iroquois

10-04-15, 10:01 AM

#613 - The Avengers
Jeremiah Chechik, 1998

https://pmcmovieline.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/avengers_1998_630.jpg

An English gentleman spy joins forces with a scientist when a wealthy megalomaniac plans to hold the world to ransom.

There is a scene in 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service where Colin Firth's umbrella-wielding gentleman spy remarks that the most recent crop of spy movies have gotten too serious for his liking and that he'd prefer over-the-top theatricality any day. I wonder what he'd make of The Avengers, the big-screen Hollywood remake of the cult British TV series about a gentleman spy and his female assistant who get into all sorts of adventures. The film retains this much of its premise at least, with Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman playing the spy and assistant respectively. They are made to team up when Thurman is accused of conducting corporate espionage on the top-secret project she's working on. This turns out to be part of an elaborate master plan being conducted by a retired spy (Sean Connery), who plans to use the project to hold the world to ransom. From there, Fiennes and Thurman must confront any number of threats not just from Connery and his henchmen but also from potential moles within their agency.

The Avengers is pretty much exactly the sort of trainwreck that its incredibly dire reputation made it out to be. Fiennes and Thurman have a glaring lack of chemistry with one another that makes every single scene they share an endurance test. Casting Connery as a supervillain is an admirable bit of stunt-casting that also ends up being the sole redeeming quality of this film as you get to see him chew scenery in many ridiculous situations. The most memorable of these is the token "evil council" scene (complete with quitters who are promptly murdered) where everyone preserves their anonymity by...dressing up as rainbow-coloured teddy bears. Yes, really. I had to put in an extra picture because that extremely bizarre visual is also one of the only remarkable things about this movie and I feel that you all need to see it.

https://oneroomwithaview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Avengers.png

Of course, that and other moments of fantastic weirdness are not nearly enough to redeem this complete mess of a film. It's mercifully short but that means it has signs of being chopped up pretty severely in the editing room. The film's more fantastic moments of fiction are not only rendered with horribly dated effects work but fail to amuse even on those grounds. The writing is awful, whether it's turning Thurman into a Strong Female Character to contend with stuffy British sexism (who also embodies a minor cliché in that the reason she is a capable fighter is because her father wanted a son), besides which she channels the same seductive purring that actually worked better when she was playing Poison Ivy. The action lacks any genuine thrills and the attempts to temper a 1960s setting with 1990s edge results in a painful clash of sensibilities. While there is the odd unintentionally amusing moment, The Avengers is still quite the cinematic travesty. Despite its outlandish tale of spy fiction complete with weather-controlling machines and evil clones, it's a frequently dull excuse for a film and you really are better off not watching it.

1

TheUsualSuspect

10-04-15, 05:53 PM

I loved the book The Martian, so I'm hoping the film is HALF as good.

honeykid

10-04-15, 06:05 PM

While The Avengers is awful, fans of the lovely Uma should watch it. Especially as she's a red head in it.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcineplex.media.baselineresearch.com%2Fimages%2F75660%2F75660_full.jpg&f=1

And the clothing is quite fun, too.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Ff4%2Fce%2Fa6%2Ff4cea68b2a75149ca6e99afdc421904e.jpg&f=1
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fc4%2Fd4%2Fec%2Fc4d4eca1f4722a2086a38bd6d342cc09.jpg&f=1

Friendly Mushroom!

10-04-15, 07:06 PM

Iroquois

10-04-15, 10:49 PM

Bah, just realised that I missed out on films #611 and #612, probably due to the fact that they were re-watches of films that I've already reviewed. In any case...

#611 - Yojimbo - Review (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1338812-yojimbo.html) 4
#612 - A Fistful of Dollars - Review (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1340710-a-fistful-of-dollars.html) 4

Iroquois

10-04-15, 11:22 PM

#614 - Rio Bravo
Howard Hawks, 1959

http://static.rogerebert.com/redactor_assets/pictures/53c6a3212afe7b40a90000b2/Trio-2-500.jpg

The sheriff in a small frontier town arrests a man for murder but soon has to contend with the man's brother planning to break him out.

Out of all the John Wayne movies I've seen, I'd say that Rio Bravo is probably the most out-and-out fun to watch. I'd still say that The Searchers is the best (and The Shootist is surprisingly great as well), but while those films are good, they tend to be largely dramatic affairs where any comic elements serve to provide the levity necessary to preventing the films in question becoming too dark and miserable. Rio Bravo deftly avoids this, though it's not without its fair share of weight underneath its simple narrative. Wayne plays the sheriff of a Texas town who arrests a man (Claude Akins) for murder in the film's opening sequence. The plan is to hold * in the town's jail and wait for the U.S. marshals to cart him off to prison. Unfortunately, it turns out that the man's brother (John Russell) is the unfortunate combination of vindictive and wealthy; he has a plan to spring his brother from jail and, while he's not quite willing to outright murder Wayne, he's still willing to try every trick in the book to get his brother back. Wayne's attempts to maintain the peace in the face of this conflict are complicated by the fact that he has only two deputies, an old man with a limp (Walter Brennan) and the town drunk (Dean Martin). This provides enough conflict on its own, but where Rio Bravo excels is in is filling its considerable running time (roughly two hours and twenty minutes) with anything and everything that can help the film rise above its basic premise.

One of the most memorable things I've heard about Rio Bravo came from superfan Quentin Tarantino, who praised it as one of his favourite films because of how the strength of its characterisation created a film that proved endlessly rewatchable as a result. While actors as famous as Wayne or Martin don't exactly disappear into their characters, that doesn't make them any less watchable. Wayne provides an appropriate mix of taciturn authority and comical camaraderie underneath his trademark mannerisms, while Martin makes for one of the film's stand-out performances as the alcoholic deputy who is struggling to overcome his personal demons in order to help out Wayne. This is a very believable character arc and Martin spends much of the film avoiding his charming Rat Pack persona as he plays a man who is convinced that he doesn't deserve a second chance even when he gets one. The other obvious stand-out is Brennan, who has the most overtly comical role as the grouchy old deputy whose slowness results in Wayne making him Akins' guard for pretty much the entire film. His high-pitched voice and garbled dialogue may be filling a familiar Western stereotype, but he does it to perfection and becomes the ideal comic relief with his fast-paced one-liners. Veteran character actor Ward Bond shows up as a wagon driver who is a close friend of Wayne's while pretty-boy singer-actor Ricky Nelson delivers a good performance as one of Bond's employees who turns out to be pretty good with a gun and joins Wayne's cause soon enough. In the middle of all this machismo, Angie Dickinson plays a resident of the local hotel who has a chequered past and naturally acts flirtatious towards Wayne despite the obvious age difference and Wayne's belligerent resistance to her advances. It could have been an unforgiving role but Dickinson makes it work rather well.

The characterisation is easily Rio Bravo's greatest strength, but that doesn't mean that the rest of it isn't solid as well. The writing is well-done, pacing out the action with various well-timed moments of interpersonal conflict. The dialogue in particular is cleverly crafted with every character being capable of shooting off snappy one-liners or heartfelt allusions to their inner complexities. Veteran director Hawks knows how to shoot scenes with an eye for what is necessary, be it sharp exchanges or suspenseful pursuits. The music is pretty standard given the genre and era, though it's a credit to this film that the inevitable singing sequence between Martin and Nelson comes off as natural and plot-relevant rather than a cheesy momentum-killing nod to the duo's most famous talents. Hawks doesn't skimp on the action, manufacturing careful moments of suspense (such as the scene where Wayne and Martin follow a murder suspect into the local bad-guy bar) and action (the film's very taut and explosive finale). The various elements combine to make Rio Bravo one of the most utterly charming old-school Westerns to ever exist where even the most dated or difficult elements (such as Wayne and Dickinson's romantic sub-plot or the film stopping dead to have not one but two songs) only add to what makes the film fun rather than make it seem hokey. Though I've had some issues with Wayne films in the past, this is a film that manages to not only avoid a lot of my usual problems with the man but also makes for a very watchable adventure in the process.

4

Iroquois

10-04-15, 11:34 PM

#615 - Apache
Robert Aldrich, 1954

http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/apache/w1280/apache.jpg

The last Apache native rejects the offer to live on a reservation with other natives and instead goes on his own journey that puts him outside the law.

On the one hand, it's nice to see that even in 1954 Hollywood was willing to afford a degree of sympathy to the Native American population that was displaced by European settlers expanding throughout North America. On the other hand, one can't help but question the decision to cast Burt Lancaster as one such native. Even after taking into account the fact that Lancaster himself had a producing credit and was presumably instrumental in this film getting made, it's just a bit too difficult to truly buy him in the role for obvious reasons. It's a shame because it is pretty clear that Lancaster is trying to do the story justice through his steely-eyed depiction of Massai, the so-called last Apache who rebels after the surrender of chief Geronimo to the white man towards the end of the 19th century. Though Massai manages to break away from his captors, he struggles to cope with life as a dispossessed Native; he obviously can't trust the whites but there are plenty of instances where his attempts to reconnect with other natives prove just as difficult.

On a technical level, Apache is a pretty standard Western that does well to capture the period's details while also providing crisp shots of the various landscapes. The film is a lean one, which does work against it a bit, especially when so much time is given over to a romantic sub-plot unfolding between Massai and a native woman (Jean Peters) who he has kidnapped for complicated reasons. The implications of such a situation do make it difficult to appreciate said situation's development (especially during the finale). It's a pretty boring excuse for a Western at times, though it does make up for it with the occasional moment of action; if nothing else, the climax is handled fairly well. Apache isn't horrible, but it's not an easy film to enjoy despite the apparent dedication on display. Even if I were to leave aside the unfortunate implications of having the stories of Native Americans be told through the use of white actors buried under layers of bronzer or the romance having shades of Stockholm Syndrome, that still wouldn't redeem what is ultimately a mediocre Western despite its good intentions.

2

Iroquois

10-05-15, 02:09 AM

#616 - Human Traffic
Justin Kerrigan, 1999

http://i2.cdnds.net/13/40/618x445/showbiz-human-traffic-danny-dyer.jpg

Five British friends get together in order to escape their dead-end jobs and party away the weekend.

Human Traffic is quite possibly one of the most polarising films I've ever watched. Writer-director Kerrigan was only twenty-five when he made this film, resulting in a film that is equally ingenious and insipid in its portrait of youth culture in '90s Britain. The film follows a group of five twenty-something friends as they put up with their largely unsatisfying day-to-day lives in anticipation of the weekend, where they are free to let loose and party. Each one gets a degree of development that serves to define them; the film's protagonist (John Simm) is preoccupied with his insecurities about failed relationships, while his easygoing best friend (Shaun Parkes) is dangerously jealous of his innocently flirtatious girlfriend (Nicola Reynolds). Rounding the core ensemble is a snarky student (Lorraine Pilkington) and a young drug dealer (Danny Dyer). They all come together on Friday evening in order to head through a weekend of drugs and music where they hit up pubs, clubs, and house parties in order to forget their many worries. It's a pretty basic plot but Kerrigan is able to round it out by having the members of this particularly cynical and alienated generation articulate their inner angst and dreams through an awareness of the cinematic medium, with multiple characters directly addressing the camera and seguing into various fantasy spots as a result.

The reason that I find Human Traffic so polarising is that its portrayal of youth culture (which is rooted in Kerrigan's own experiences as a member of Britain's 1990s rave scene) is so rooted in self-awareness that it constantly alternates between endearing and grating. Scenes where character have imaginary conversations play out do expose certain relatable insecurities (such as Simm's encounter with his ex-girlfriend), but they are just as likely to result in off-colour fantasy spots (including one where Simm imagines himself literally being raped by his boss). This extends to characters processing real-life events through understandable media such as one young character's understanding of the club scene playing out like a current-affairs program or the rigours involved in obtaining marijuana being framed like a game show. Sometimes, these moments get a little too indulgent for their own good; the most obvious instance of this is Simm leading an entire pub into singing an awfully on-the-nose lyrical parody of "God Save the Queen". It is a film that's almost entirely built on artifice with characters breaking the fourth wall constantly or blatantly unnatural motions serving to break any possible immersion. Sometimes that's in service to the film and its characters' cynical perception of reality, but that doesn't mean it doesn't look sophomoric as hell sometimes (such as Reynolds perceiving the co-workers at her fast food job as thoughtless automatons). While this does ironically make its portrait of alienated young people seem even more alienating in its own right, one can sort of tolerate it; then again, I'm currently the same age as Kerrigan was when he made this film and I can still see through its logistics so any depth on display is still pretty shallow). Attempts to reach some degree of transcendence (such as Simm's monologue about what it's like to be on ecstasy) still fall a bit flat, though.

Though it's easy to see through the incredibly basic treatise presented in Human Traffic (as well as some of the characters' more ridiculous qualities, such as Simm openly revering stand-up comedian Bill Hicks as a patron saint), I can't help but deny that there is something inherently solid about the film. It accurately captures the ways in which even assembling with your closest friends for a weekend of relentless hedonism is no guarantee against feelings of loneliness and insecurity. Making instant friends with strangers under the influence of some less-than-legal substances is also shown to not pan out as one would expect in the movies, especially when Dyer's attempts to interpret the original Star Wars trilogy through a stoner lens for a stranger's amusement putters out awfully quickly. Of course, this does mean that various conflicts are also resolved or dropped with relative ease, such as Parkes' jealousy or Simm's inadequacies, which is admittedly a concession to the fantasies that the characters indulge for themselves. The fantastic nature of things does get a little too ridiculous, such as the sequence where Simm bluffs his way into scoring free entry to an extremely exclusive club.

Human Traffic has a rather interesting visual style thanks to its director's relative inexperience, with shots tending towards the static with the occasional moment of flourish when it comes to camera movement of positioning. This also extends to the editing that quickly jumps between fantasies and non sequiturs, resulting in a rather patchy film as a result. As with any sub-culture film, considerable attention is paid to providing the best possible music and the film indulges a wide variety of electronically-based genres such as house, electro, jungle, gangsta rap, and more. The comedy varies quite wildly - Dyer's thickly-accented character steals the show quite easily ("Nice one, bruva!" (m.youtube.com/watch?v=qksndNDMDOw)), while the other characters vary pretty wildly in how interesting or likable they are. While I've seen it a few times now, I'm still not sure whether or not I truly enjoy it. The film is erratic and thus it might click with me one minute before proving obnoxious the next. As such, I can't quite give it a good rating but I think my feelings about it are too complex to adequately sum up in a numerical rating. One of the most ambivalent cinematic experiences I can think of.

2.5

Guaporense

10-05-15, 02:19 AM

I've had Gurren Lagann on my Netflix watchlist for a while now, but I did not know it was created by the same person who did Dead Leaves. Though I didn't give this film the most favourable rating, I still reckon I'd like to give it a chance. Not so sure about Kill La Kill, though.

Kill la Kill is widely regarded as being great, one of the best series of its year. I found it pretty amazing, not quote the level of awesomeness of Gurren Lagann which is frankly, impossible to match. Both are way above the level of Dead Leaves, which was more experimental stuff for Imaishi.

honeykid

10-05-15, 07:54 AM

Why watch it when one could just search for snapshots on the Internet. ;)

Because Uma, like most women, looks better when moving.

Friendly Mushroom!

10-05-15, 08:47 AM

Why watch it when one could just search for snapshots on the Internet. ;)

Because Uma, like most women, looks better when moving.

True - but personally I'd rather spend an afternoon watching something else.

honeykid

10-05-15, 09:22 AM

Well that's certainly understandable. :D

Daniel M

10-05-15, 09:35 AM

Rio Bravo is one of my favourite films, maybe what I'd consider #1 at the moment, so I'm glad you enjoyed it so much.

Iroquois

10-06-15, 04:04 AM

#617 - The Counselor
Ridley Scott, 2013

http://i.imgur.com/jnLFSrH.jpg

A legal counselor becomes wrapped up in a complicated plot involving the Mexican drug cartel.

After having a few of his novels adapted into films (the most notable one naturally being the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men), Cormac McCarthy decided to take a stab at writing an original screenplay. The result is The Counselor, so named after its protagonist (Michael Fassbender) who is only ever referred to as "counselor". As the movie begins, he's in a good place - he's about to propose to his girlfriend (Penélope Cruz) and making good money as a lawyer. Even so, he decides to team up with an associate (Javier Bardem) on not only building and running a club together but also on joining Bardem in his drug-dealing activities. From there, Fassbender and the various other characters are caught up in a ruthless game as they play off against one another and try to avoid unwanted attention from the cartel, especially in the case of Bardem's girlfriend (Cameron Diaz) who soon launches some criminal schemes of her own. It's a convoluted excuse for a thriller that naturally indulges McCarthy's tendencies towards verbose cynicism and violent nihilism, but one wonders if that's enough to save the film.

In short, it's really not. Despite the talent on display, it's mostly wasted. In my experience McCarthy protagonists are typically supposed to be passive and reactive to their increasingly dangerous crises and they are never the most important part of the story, but that's taken a bit too far with Fassbender turning out a pretty unremarkable performance, as does Cruz as his love interest. At the other end of the spectrum there are Bardem and Diaz, who take their characters in vastly different directions to equally unimpressive effect. At least Bardem has enough talent to sell his character, a fashion-victim criminal who is a cocky yet paranoid playboy that is far removed from his iconic No Country contract killer. He is paired with Diaz, who is the weak link in the main cast as she delivers a rather underwhelming performance even when it extends to the infamous scene where she gets extremely physical with a car windshield. Rounding out the top billing is Brad Pitt as an associate of Bardem's who actually makes for a fairly decent vessel for McCarthy's portentous ruminations between his sleazy drawling and all-white cowboy outfit. Other recognisable actors are peppered throughout but they don't get much of note to do beyond serve as glorified cameos.

One does wonder if McCarthy was deliberately trying to exaggerate the most distinctive qualities of his writing for the sake of cinema, but the results are extremely inconsistent in terms of actually being entertaining. When the film's not indulging some absurd moments of sex and violence (aside from Diaz's car "ride", there's an instance of a hitman setting up a lethal trap straight out of a Looney Tunes cartoon), it's featuring characters interacting with one another through such quasi-philosophical exchanges that fluctuate between gripping and boring. Despite some more darkly comical moments, it's a fundamentally grim affair in such a way that doesn't translate to consistently compelling entertainment. The film tries to make its strength out of the fatalistic examination of the criminal underworld and the people that either live in it or are simply passing through, but that's often shown up by the more graphically straightforward scenes (such as one scene involving a hitman's horrific contraption that is distinctive in a way that suggests it's aiming to stand out for its unorthodox nature like the cattle-gun from No Country). Respectable journeyman Scott goes about filming the proceedings in an extremely straightforward way with no real distinctions in terms of style, though he does lend the requisite energy to what I suppose could be considered action sequences. The Counselor is a very difficult film to like and I do have to wonder if it was by design (even though it probably wasn't). It's always a little disappointing to see an artist create a work that seems like self-parody or a fan's misguided homage, but the talent on display is just good enough to stop it from being a total disaster.

2

Iroquois

10-06-15, 04:39 AM

#618 - Enemy
Denis Villeneuve, 2013

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A6NlPz6JloU/maxresdefault.jpg

A college professor discovers that he has an identical double who works as a small-time actor.

It's interesting to see a director follow up their fairly accessible mainstream breakthrough with a film that seems deliberately engineer to alienate any newfound fans. Just as Nicolas Winding Refn followed up his slick crime thriller Drive with the incredibly difficult Only God Forgives, so too does Denis Villeneuve follow up the respectable ensemble drama of Prisoners with a weird little film called Enemy. The premise seems slightly familiar; college professor Adam (Jake Gyllenhaal) is leading a fairly boring life where the only issue is his emotionally distant relationship with his girlfriend (Mélanie Laurent). While watching a film recommended to him by a stranger, Adam notices that one of the background extras looks exactly like him. He soon discovers that the extra (Gyllenhaal again) is a small-time actor named Anthony, who lives in the same city with his pregnant wife (Sarah Gadon). Adam becomes a bit obsessed with the implications of Anthony's existence, struggling to think about how to handle the situation - meanwhile, when Anthony learns of the same thing he also starts to change...

I give Enemy credit for trying to offer an unorthodox mystery film that's built on an extremely minimal cast and script. There's also a lot to be said for the sickly colour scheme that only ever seems to consist of different shades of yellow (occasionally veering into light orange or light green), plus some significant use of light-dark contrast that evokes Roger Deakins' style even without his presence. Gyllenhaal pulls some strong double-duty as the vastly different doppelgangers, though he arguably works better as the neurotic Adam more so than the confident Anthony. Both performances are decent enough to compensate for a lack of other characters, though Laurent and Gadon do well enough in comparatively small roles as Adam and Anthony's respective partners. There's even a bit part for Isabella Rosselini as Adam's mother, which she naturally does well despite having a couple of minutes on-screen. Of course, thanks to the inherent vagueness of the central identity-crisis plot it struggles to be consistently compelling or intriguing across its extremely brief running time. Enemy does throw in the odd surprise here and there but it is ultimately a pretty standard excuse for an experimental thriller.

2.5

cricket

10-06-15, 10:17 PM

I just watched Apache last week; it was ok, but boy was that distracting with Lancaster in the lead.

Agree with you on The Counselor too, not terrible but still a waste of talent.

Iroquois

10-07-15, 09:52 AM

#619 - Universal Soldier: Regeneration
John Hyams, 2009

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IOw6pATyt74/TsHwphct-SI/AAAAAAAACRI/zKpHpIJaGmQ/s1600/universal-soldier+-regeneration-screenshot.jpg

When a Russian terrorist kidnaps an official's children and plans to set off a nuclear weapon inside the ruins of Chernobyl, an elite unit of commandos is brought in to handle the situation.

Every once in a while there's a cinematic proposition that sounds so weird that you're intrigued enough to check it out. The original Universal Soldier was a rather tiresome exercise in sci-fi action starring Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren as a pair of soldiers who die during the Vietnam War only to be brought back to life decades later as part of an experimental super-soldier program. The resulting film obvious drew unfavourable comparisons to similar thrillers such as The Terminator and RoboCop, but the core concept had enough untapped potential that various attempts were made to continue the story in one way or another. After a couple of disastrous made-for-TV movies and one notoriously awful theatrical release, the franchise found a surprising foothold in the direct-to-video market. Up-and-coming director John Hyams (son of prolific journeyman director Peter) got the chance to offer his own contributions to the franchise, which somehow gained some interesting word-of-mouth over how he was apparently able to take an infamously terrible B-movie franchise and spin out not one but two solid action films as a result. That's the proposition that sounded too intriguing to ignore, so of course I rented out Regeneration and its follow-up, 2012's Day of Reckoning.

Regeneration takes place in Russia, where a terrorist seeking the release of political prisoners theatrens to set off an explosive device inside the ruins of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant that'll not only create a radioactive cloud but also kill the Russian president's children, who have been kidnapped and brought to the heart of the ruins. To make matters worse, they have joined forces with a former scientist from the Universal Soldier project, who has brought with him a high-powered prototype that can and will make mincemeat of any regular soldiers. To this end, the military soon feels like they need to send a superman to do a superman's job, so they look up Luc Devereaux (Van Damme), the hero of the franchise who is currently being rehabilitated in a secure facility. It's not exactly the most complex of narratives, but it gets the job done and is at least preferable to the insultingly straightforward Terminator-like chase of the original film. Of course, the film does seem to relegate Van Damme to a supporting role for much of the film, instead spending much of its first half/two-thirds developing the central conflict around a first response team of commandos. The slow-burn nature is ultimately more of a hindrance to the film's plotting than a help, though of course the second half definitely pays off enough to redeem the whole film a bit.

In very much the same manner as the plot, the characterisation is pretty utilitarian for the most part as it sets up some stock players in its narrative about terrorism, with the key difference being that the terrorist leader and the rogue scientist do naturally end up having conflicting goals. This much extends to the performances, which are all serviceable and little more besides that. Van Damme's admittedly stiff and thickly accented demeanour has helped to sell him as a man who's been broken by the knowledge of what he's become and has struggled to both process and cope with it; even in his relatively small amount of screen-time, he's still able to communicate enough inner turmoil as he tries to recover only to be thrust back into the battle anyway (which might just be the only place he truly feels at home). Lundgren, whose turn as Devereaux's homicidally deranged arch-nemesis Andrew Scott was one of the original film's greatest strengths, manages to bring an even greater intensity when he eventually shows up and gives a stand-out performance greater than his limited screen-time would suggest (though he arguably follows a significantly condensed version of his arc from the original film as he quickly breaks free of his handlers and launches his own agenda). The two still have capable physical prowess, whether they're facing off against each other or the next-generation soldier (Andrei "Pitbull" Arlovski, whose turn as a mute hulk of a man doesn't require much in the way of acting chops but is still fairly intimidating anyway).

Still, the acting and writing doesn't need to be brilliant to make this film work and, whatever the film's other flaws may be, Hyams can definitely craft some decent-looking action on a minimal straight-to-video budget. The cinematography is grainy yet lurid and the editing is remarkable is that it is full of quick cuts between many different angles without being disorienting (a rare feat in an era where action directors are all too willing to use such techniques as a hollow short-cut to fast-paced excitement). Another strength of the original film was that the best action moments involved the superpowered characters duking it out with one another or with surprisingly capable normal humans, and the same strength is evident through the film's well-choreographed sequences that either feature the two leads or actual MMA fighters. The structuring of the action is also handled reasonably well, with the decision to confine it to a single location and present new threats and resolutions at a steadily escalating pace only getting stronger as the film progresses. While I definitely think that Regeneration makes fairly strong use of its source's potential to craft a half-decent action flick that has some good moments, it's still not quite enough to overcome its direct-to-video limitations and it is also perhaps a bit too dependent on its connection to the original film to be good in its own right. I mainly watched this as a warm-up to the more promising Day of Reckoning, and while there's no harm in doing that, it's not exactly essential.

2.5

Iroquois

10-07-15, 09:59 AM

#620 - Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning
John Hyams, 2012

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2012/11/30/30-universal-soldier.w529.h352.jpg

After his family is murdered during a home invasion, a man goes in search of the person responsible and finds himself in the midst of a conspiracy involved genetically engineered super-soldiers.

I imagine that "direct-to-video" does not generally conjure up favourable associations in the mind of the average film buff. The label carries an inherent implication of weakness where any movie it applies to is supposedly not good enough to deserve any recognition that would potentially come as the result of a widespread theatrical release. The stigma gets worse when you go into specifics, especially when it comes to sequels and action movies. Direct-to-video sequels get a bad reputation because they blatantly indicate that producers will churn out cut-rate entertainment in order to make an even greater profit off a successful original movie. Direct-to-video action movies are similarly cut-rate in that they are dedicated to providing the usual thrilling scenes of fighting or driving but without any of the other qualities that would otherwise make a classic film. Here, we have Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning, which is both a sequel and an action movie, and it's not like the original Universal Soldier was a particularly good movie in the first place. However, since there were people saying some surprisingly nice things about this movie, I figured it had to be worth a look.

Even if you weren't already familiar with the franchise's premise about an experimental super-soldier program involving dead commandos, Day of Reckoning is definitely sure to bring you up to speed, but not before delivering a serious shock to a viewer. The opening sequence, a homage to the first-person opening act of Gaspar Noé's Enter the Void (complete with the viewpoint character blinking constantly and washing his face in front of a bathroom mirror), follows a family man named John (Scott Adkins) as he investigates a noise in his house only for a group of masked men to attack him and his family. One of them removes his mask to reveal that he is...Luc Devereaux (Jean-Claude Van Damme), the hero of the Universal Soldier franchise. He then proceeds to shoot and kill John's wife and daughter. After John recovers from the physical and emotional trauma (although he still has some severe amnesia), he tries to go back to his life but is instead transfixed by his desire to exact bloody vengeance on Devereaux and soon enough ends up going on a search for the mysterious man. Meanwhile, there's...something going on that not only involves Devereaux, but also his arch-nemesis Andrew Scott (Dolph Lundgren) and the Universal Soldier project, but all of that becomes sort of clear. Let's be honest, the plot isn't really what you're caring about when you're settling down to watch a direct-to-video action sequel, but here it's worth mentioning because the ways in which it doesn't seem to matter actually come across as some relatively innovative weirdness.

What made Day of Reckoning gain my attention over all the other direct-to-video action sequels is because of how daring it manages to be despite its apparent trappings. Hyams, who had delivered a fairly straightforward sequel to the franchise with 2009's Regeneration, had turned the success of that movie into the excuse to create one seriously bizarre excuse for an action movie. The Enter the Void parallels are pretty obvious ones (especially when the film starts using similar tactics of sensory abuse through industrial humming and strobe lights), but the most obvious influence I get from this is David Lynch of all people. In very much the same way that a film like Mulholland Drive would pepper its core narrative with all sorts of scenes that are tangentially connected at best and still barely make sense by themselves, Day of Reckoning does the same thing, especially when it follows a sleeper agent (Andrei "Pitbull" Arlovski) as he grabs a rifle and storms a neon-soaked brothel run by Scott. The Lynchian overtones are evident in many other ways, whether it's through technical aspects such as unsettling sound design and carefully-constructed camerawork or in the plotting and characterisation as John suffers vivid hallucinations of Devereaux while also encountering various strange small-town characters. The plot may be about as far from making sense as it's possible to get without being frustrating, but it's still anchored by John's quest for revenge and the various troubles he encounters; as a result, any and all narrative difficulties that the movie runs into are shrugged off pretty easily.

Being able to accurately simulate arty influences like Noé or Lynch within the context of a low-rent action movie would be one thing, but it'd all be for naught if Hyams couldn't construct any decent action to go along with it. Fortunately, the same bloody intensity that came to define Regeneration has been escalated considerably for this installment. Though the movie's not exactly going to win any acting awards, it doesn't need them as it creates several extremely brutal and visceral fight sequences between its high-powered characters. Van Damme, Lundgren, Adkins, and Arlovski all make for extremely capable warriors as they fight it out in some incredibly tough scenarios; the scene in which Adkins and Arlovski duel with one another inside a sporting goods store is a good example of such a scene. The tightness of the fight choreography and the way in which it is captured has also improved from the scenes featured in Regeneration, with the film not only indulging the right balance of speed and coherence but also opting to trying doing more ambitious sequences (such as one memorable lengthy tracking shot that involves John fighting his way through a squad of enemies).

Though it is definitely better than its direct-to-video classification might suggest, Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning still has enough flaws that I can only think of it as good more so than great. It's a bit too long, the narrative twists tend to be slightly predictable thanks to the film's psychological elements, and the various cinematic homages can wear a little thin after a while (especially in the case of the film's third act, which is a pretty blatant recreation of a certain classic war film), but these honestly feel more like minor flaws rather than massive deal-breakers. The sheer amount of weirdness and ambition that's being used on such an unlikely movie are definitely enough to make it worth checking out. Most importantly, it more than delivers on the action front thanks to its collection of powerhouse fighters who can throw down for maximum cinematic effect thanks to Hyams' talent behind the camera. This isn't an example of a so-bad-it's-good movie or a campy free-for-all; despite its aggressively outlandish nature, Day of Reckoning is a solid action movie that accomplishes what it sets out to do in mixing arthouse influences with blood-soaked brawling.

3

Iroquois

10-07-15, 10:04 AM

#621 - The Long Riders
Walter Hill, 1980

http://thesupernaughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/the-long-riders1.jpg

Based on the true story of the famous gang of bank-robbing outlaws led by Frank and Jesse James.

I'm not sure how it happened, but for most of The Long Riders I was not aware that it was based on the James Gang. Instead, I somehow thought that I was watching a film based on a completely fictitious gang of outlaws. Given the presence of director Walter Hill, I thought that he had just attempted to craft another ensemble-driven action film on the heels of gangland hit The Warriors, only with the streets of New York swapped out for the lawless frontier of post-Civil War Missouri. It also has a nice touch in that the gang, being comprised of three different sets of brothers, also managed to collect a bunch of actors who were related in real-life such as the Carradines (Robert, David, and Keith), the Quaids (Dennis and Randy), the Keaches (Stacy and James), plus the Guests (Christopher and Nicholas). Together or apart, they embody a number of constantly conflicting personalities who threaten to alternately keep the gang together or tear it apart - all while the authorities are planning on taking them down by any means necessary.

Unfortunately, The Long Riders ends up being merely alright. Despite its fairly brief length, it still has a tendency to drag when it dares to shift focus away from anything remotely resembling action. The downtime is often spent on developing the various siblings' rivalries not just within their bloodlines but also with other members of the gang (such as Keith and Dennis getting into a love triangle over the same woman or David's complex relationship with a saloon worker), which is passable but doesn't feel essential to the film's strength. It's more than compensated for by the ways in which Hill translates his action sensibilities to a Western setting as he is capable of staging shoot-outs or horseback chases (as well as one memorable scene in which David gets into a knife-fight with James Remar). If nothing else, the film is worth watching for the climatic sequence alone. Said sequence alone comes along a bit too early and so the film more or less putters to an end after that. As such, The Long Riders is pretty decent for the most part but it doesn't exactly offer a whole lot of depth to go along with its admittedly well-executed thrills or its clever casting of multiple groups of brothers to accurately capture the unfolding drama.

3

honeykid

10-07-15, 10:44 AM

The main reason I remember The Long Riders is because my mum liked it. I was about 8 or 9 when I saw this and I thought it was ok. I think I saw it again in my late teens/early twenties, and it barely held my attention. I've not seen it since.

TheUsualSuspect

10-08-15, 12:16 AM

I'll take any JCVD movie any day of the week. :p

Also, in regards to Enemy. The car accident sequence...I drive down that road every damn day.

Iroquois

10-08-15, 01:16 AM

#622 - Good Morning, Vietnam
Barry Levinson, 1987

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OGbZYt_MiQA/UAlA3WXNSRI/AAAAAAAAD_k/lDiMsCKGC6k/s1600/tumblr_m4q50c0Qfm1qia44jo1_1280.png

During the U.S. military's police action in Saigon prior to the outbreak of the Vietnam War, a quick-witted airman is assigned to work at the military's official radio station.

Looking back, Good Morning, Vietnam seems to be the point at which Robin Williams managed to establish a serious side to his famous goofball persona that would go on to define him up until his passing last year, which only served to bring the dark side of his comical performances into extremely sharp relief. It does this in the context of a dramedy that takes place in 1965 Saigon before the United States' police action against the North Vietnamese Army threatens to escalate into the full-blown conflict that would come to be known as the Vietnam War. It is into this veritable powderkeg that enlisted Air Force man Adrian Cronauer (Williams) is assigned with the intention of working as a disc jockey in the military's official radio station. Being played by Robin Williams, Cronauer is a constantly irreverent individual who wins the approval of his fellow enlisted men and at least one commissioned officer (who is responsible for him getting the job in the first place), though he naturally clashes with a couple of humourless superiors (Bruno Kirby and J.T. Walsh). Despite his bosses' misgivings, Cronauer proves a hit with listeners as his fast-paced collection of one-liners and skits featuring multiple character voices mixes with his unorthodox selection of rock-'n'-roll tunes. In addition to his conflict with the military, Cronauer's time in Saigon is complicated a bit by his attraction to a local woman (Chintara Sukapatana) and his growing friendship with her brother (Tung Thanh Tran).

The film is still pretty reliant on Williams deploying his iconic schtick that includes a varied and constant supply of verbal jokes rooted in his talents as a stand-up comedian and, to be fair, he does deliver in that regard (though one's own tolerance of his scenes will naturally depend on one's tolerance of Williams in general). There's many a sequence dedicated to him commandeering the screen in such a manner (especially when he's in the midst of doing his show), though he gradually gets eased into displaying dramatic chops as he is made to confront harsher and harsher realities about the situation he's in. He's surrounded by some decent performers whether they're on his character's side or not. The film even indulges some relatively complex examinations of topics like censorship and wartime morality as seen through the eyes of , though that's pretty much weighed out by some of the more predictable developments of the narrative, which becomes a problem when the film flirts with the two-hour mark. Credit also has to go to the fact that there are some fairly choice '60s tracks. Though it's arguably been surpassed in terms of both comedic and dramatic weight by various other Williams films, Good Morning, Vietnam still holds up alright even now. Though a lot of its strength comes from Williams' star turn as a motor-mouthed source of comedy who still undergoes some considerable trials that test his happy-go-lucky attitude, it's still decidedly average in terms of its anti-authoritarian narrative. If you can handle Williams' preferred mode of comedy and its fairly appropriate place within a somewhat satirical framework, then by all means give this a look.

3

Iroquois

10-08-15, 01:29 AM

#623 - The Man From Nowhere
Lee Jeong-beom, 2010

http://cherrychappstick.com/glob/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/nolookshot1.jpg

An enigmatic pawnbroker springs into action when the young daughter of his drug-addict neighbour is kidnapped by a vengeful criminal organisation.

The cover art on the DVD of The Man From Nowhere that I rented sported a presumably favourable critic's quote that attempted to sum it up as "Taken meets Oldboy". Now, seeing as I didn't particularly like Taken yet liked Oldboy, this did some admittedly complicated things to my confidence in the film itself. The Man From Nowhere certainly doesn't hold any pretense to the complicated mystery narrative of Park's film, but I suppose that its version of vengeful action is at least a bit more palatable than that of Morel's film. The plot is relatively easy to follow; after a prologue that sees a team of police officers attempt a drug bust in a nightclub that falls apart when one dancer unexpectedly steals the drugs, the action switches to a Léon-like narrative where a mysterious pawnbroker (Won Bin) forges an unlikely connection with a schoolgirl neighbour (who just so happens to be the daughter of the dancer who stole the drugs at the beginning of the film). When mother and daughter are abducted by the gang looking to recover its merchandise, Won slowly but surely gets wrapped up in the proceedings and his ability to respond against his criminal captors makes him the nominal hero who can do what the police can't.

The Man From Nowhere doesn't do anything overly original in terms of its revenge-driven action narrative. It skimps a fair bit on the action front for a good chunk of its considerable running time, though it at least allows for a strong enough bond to form between Won and his young charge so that you can understand him willing to shift out of his quiet life in order to rescue her. The rest of the cast fill some fairly unremarkable stock characters such as determined law enforcers and vicious underworld figures, though one at least gets some distinction by his dialogue being entirely in English (and, perhaps unsurprisingly, he is set up as one of the main threats to Won). The action is captured rather decently but it is not exactly mind-blowing so much as managing to be not horrible. What action there is gets used sparingly and tends to involve Won being able to fight off aggressors using a mix of martial arts, knives, and guns. It may be directed and captured rather decently, but it's still infrequent enough that referring to The Man From Nowhere as an action movie seems a little disingenuous. The same arguably goes for calling it a thriller as it does run through some scenarios that are only just discomforting enough to keep one from boredom without going overboard into exploitative disgust. To this end, I don't really see that much to truly love about The Man From Nowhere. There's certainly enough depth to the characterisation that I'm invested enough in how things turn out for the cast, but in doing so I have to put up with a fairly patchy plot that is only occasionally elevated by some decently-choreographed action.

3

Iroquois

10-08-15, 01:35 AM

I'll take any JCVD movie any day of the week. :p

I'd certainly take him over Seagal or even Statham (though I bet not every film he makes is on the level of Day of Reckoning or Double Team).

Iroquois

10-08-15, 08:23 AM

#624 - Macbeth
Justin Kurzel, 2015

http://images.smh.com.au/2015/05/08/6515086/macbeth-wide-620x349.jpg

Based on the classic Shakespearean play about a Scottish lord who plots to murder his king in accordance with a prophecy told by a coven of witches.

Much like fellow Australian director Andrew Dominik, Justin Kurzel made the jump from local crime flick to international period-piece epic almost instantaneously. Having already reviewed his previous feature, the incredibly visceral serial-killer dramatisation Snowtown, I was alternately interested in and disdainful of what he would do when granted the power to make a film, especially when it ended up being a Shakespearean adaption. Snowtown was ultimately undone by its extremely repetitive nature as it followed its villainous leads spending the better part of two hours shifting around the titular town torturing and murdering individuals out of both vigilantism and profit. At least the relatively complex power struggle at the heart of Macbeth would presumably provide for a solid narrative structure with which Kurzel could work, especially when the cast included individuals as famed as Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard as the eponymous warrior-king and his meddling spouse respectively. Of course, when it comes to adaptations of Shakespeare (especially those as well-worn in that respect as Macbeth would be) one does expect a certain degree of innovation in order to keep the centuries-old tale at least moderately fresh, and in that regard Kurzel sort of succeeds.

Right from the opening moments, I couldn't help but be reminded of Nicolas Winding Refn's immensely slow yet captivating Viking drama Valhalla Rising. As if the same frequently grimy reproduction of the Europe of centuries past wasn't enough to seal the deal, there is also the incredibly drawn-out depiction of the bloody battle that sets the plot in motion. To Kurzel's credit, the film does look fairly good at times. It does have some dull-looking moments (mostly those taking place in the dark where the lighting is understandably poor) but there are some moments that stand out for the right reasons (such as the climatic confrontation taking place in the middle of a burning battlefield). The background score, which is composed by Kurzel's brother Jed, improves on the atonal drones and heavy drums featured in Snowtown by adding in a string-driven score that combines with the other elements to give the film a post-rock soundtrack that is actually fairly suitable despite the inherent anachronism. These are distinctive factors that help to provide the film with memorable distinctions, but that just makes the question of whether or not the film they surround deserves them.

In trying to provide a truly cinematic version of the Scottish play, Macbeth assembles some notable actors to deliver the Bard's tale of bloody power struggles and maddening prophecies, though it takes a bit too much advantage of the cinematic medium for its own good. It avoids the pronounced theatricality of the stage in favour of whispers in tight close-up, but in striving for a more realistic take on how characters would deliver this dialogue it seems to compromise said dialogue. It's a shame because the actors manage to have considerable stage presence anyway. Fassbender makes for a decent Macbeth even though his attempt at a Scottish accent threatens to slip and/or obscure his words, while Cotillard's frequently timid-sounding delivery is a theoretically sound choice so as to mask the character's more manipulative tendencies but doesn't always make her words resonate. There are a few other recognisable faces in the cast, such as David Thewlis doing a brief turn as the benevolent King Duncan and Paddy Considine providing an appropriately gruff and stony performance as Banquo (with his best moment arguably being his silent appearance at Macbeth's feast). The last time I saw Sean Harris he was providing an extremely charisma-free villain in a Mission: Impossible movie so it's good to see him sink his teeth into the emotionally demanding role of Macduff, though there was one instance of him doing some heavy emoting actually prompted one very spontaneous laugh out of me for some reason.

Out of the handful of cinematic Macbeth adaptations I've seen, Kurzel's is probably the weakest, but it's not for lack of trying. It avoids the dated fantasy-horror sensationalism of Roman Polanski's 1971 adaptation, though it does borrow a couple of that film's tweaks (both film's final images definitely feel similar). Its fairly close adherence to the text means that it lacks the intriguing looseness found in Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood (though there was a moment after a certain scene involving fire took place where I thought that the ending featured in Kurosawa's film stood a good chance of being repeated). Technical touches such as skillfully over-saturated and over-cranked cinematography or a post-rock score work well to make the film feel evocative, though one might wonder if that's to compensate for the more underwhelming aspects of the film's acting. I wonder if the frequently quiet acting is supposed to be rooted in the knowledge that the audience is more than likely familiar enough with the play that they can afford to distance themselves from saying every line loud and clear. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now, but you should be prepared for a film that will make you feel every second of its running time.

3

honeykid

10-08-15, 09:53 AM

I wouldn't say I was looking forward to Macbeth, but I was interested. Decidedly less so now. In fact, three witches have just told me I'll end up watching this on Film4.

I liked Good Morning, Vietnam a lot more when it came out than I did the last time I saw it. It's fine. It's ok, but I used to like it more than that. For the most part, it is all about those radio performances and the scene with the English class. "I'm waiting to die."

MovieMeditation

10-08-15, 11:08 AM

Too bad you didn't like Enemy more but I can see why some will find it more experimental and such than an actual great film. I'll have to revisit it mysel if I am to decide whether I really do love it or not.

Rep for Macbeth, but I have yet to see it so I'll wait with the read... Personally I look forward to it a whole lot, one of my most anticpated releases this year for sure.

Good Morning, Vietnam was pretty straight forward for me and I enjoyed it mostly. But I was a little surprised how serious and relevant it got as it moves along , which worked really well. Unfortunately, it doesn't go all the way with it and I went out wishing for a bit more. Still, it's a great film for Robin Williams to show all of his talents, dramatic and comedic, as well as an almost direct copy of his own persona (the personality as well as his support of the troops of which he used to perform for each year).

The Man from Nowhere I once started to watch but my copy f*cked up and I never got back to it. Seems like a movie I'd enjoy though for what it is. It was only just starting to get good when I was interrupted. Don't know when I'll return to it...

Iroquois

10-10-15, 06:51 AM

#625 - World War Z
Marc Forster, 2013

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/world%20war%20z%202.jpg

When a worldwide pandemic starts turning people into zombies, a specialist is brought in to trace the origins of the virus and find a cure.

I really liked Max Brooks' World War Z, which offered an interesting variation on the premise of a worldwide zombie apocalypse by depicting the whole crisis through the eyes of dozens of survivors located all over the world. By examining how zombies were dealt with on an international scale, Brooks' novel offered a complex and fascinating tale that went above and beyond the usual narrative conventions of the zombie sub-genre. As a result, enough acclaim and popularity followed that there was interest in making a live-action adaptation. Though the variety of stories taking place in many different countries could theoretically have worked as a television series, the adaptation instead took the form of a stand-alone feature film (albeit one that might promise sequels). Other factors such as a troubled production, a PG-13 rating, and the fact that the film was directed by the same man who did Quantum of Solace only served to make the prospect of World War Z being brought on-screen less and less promising. As such, I put off watching it for ages, only just getting around to watching it all the way through after recording it off free-to-air television the other day. It was basically a film that I felt obligated to check out no matter what.

While I can understand that a two-hour film wouldn't be able to contain even a small fraction of the events depicted in the source novel, World War Z drops everything except the core premise. Rather than depict multiple narratives, the film instead sticks to one: that of a former United Nations specialist (Brad Pitt), whose quiet life as a stay-at-home dad is threatened when he and his family are caught in the middle of a zombie outbreak in downtown New York. Before too long, Pitt is called upon by his former colleagues because he possesses a particular set of skills that make him important to the U.N.'s attempts to deal with the zombies. As a result, he is made to go on a mission where he travels around the world in order to trace the virus's origins in the hopes of finding either a cure or a vaccine. Deviating this far from the plot of the source material does not automatically guarantee that the resulting film will be terrible, but the sheer number of writers credited with writing and re-writing the film definitely does not bode well and serves to make the film's episodic nature come across as patchy. This becomes especially noticeable when the film indulges some all-too-familiar disaster movie clichés in terms of its plot and characterisation, with Pitt playing the everyman expert doing his best to not just save the world but also his family.

In addition to throwing out the plot of the book, World War Z changes up the nature of the zombies from the classic shuffling undead to the 28 Days Later... type of quickly-infected runners. While that's not the biggest deal-breaker, it does drag one out of the film at times when the bloodless carnage becomes especially distracting (such as one instance of Pitt being made to amputate a sidekick's infected hand, which compromises far too much between on-screen depiction and off-screen implication). It's not helped by the film's grating use of current trends in thrill-seeking filmmaking such as rapid editing and shaky camerawork (which also plagued Quantum of Solace). The globe-trotting narrative that shows how various nations have chosen to deal with the pandemic also leads to some questionable lapses in logic, such as Israel's decision to repel the menace using large walls (and, well, just look at that header image). Both these factors serve to undermine any possible tension and also any weight that the novel's sociopolitical commentary might have had (with the possible exception of David Morse's imprisoned spy revealing what he'd seen in North Korea, which deviates from the novel but provides a decent alternative). While abandoning pretty much everything about the source novel results in the cinematic version of World War Z promising a somewhat unpredictable experience, that also means that it tries to overcompensate for its over-budget production by being far too dependent on running every play in the disaster movie book. Pitt makes for a tolerable protagonist and the film has a few notable actors scattered throughout it (hey, it's Peter Capaldi!), but that can't wave away the air of wasted potential that hangs over its various international set-pieces.

1.5

Iroquois

10-10-15, 06:54 AM

#626 - Once Upon a Time in the West
Sergio Leone, 1968

http://tuesdaynightcigarclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/train.jpg

A widow is drawn into a conflict over her recently deceased husband's extremely valuable tract of land.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1337517#post1337517).

5

Iroquois

10-10-15, 07:01 AM

#627 - Upstream Color
Shane Carruth, 2013

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2012/10/29/upstreamcolor_bathtub.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg

A young woman is drugged and infected with a bizarre parasite.

Credit where credit's due, at least Shane Carruth does provide some unique cinematic experiences. His breakthrough feature Primer earned notoriety due to its promise of a complex time-travel narrative despite the film's actual budget being a mere $7,000. Of course, I checked it out, and while I didn't exactly hate it I still remember not actually liking it due to it being a bit too focused on its labyrinthine mythology to be entertaining (that and the apparent requirement for multiple viewings in order to fully understand it didn't exactly sweeten the deal). In comparison, Upstream Color is at least relatively easy to comprehend but it's still quite the perplexing film thanks to its avoidance of conventional storytelling in favour of creating a film that is less a story than an experience. It follows a young woman (Amy Seimetz) as she is abducted by a mysterious man (Thiago Martins). After being infected with a parasite and made to participate in a series of weird tests, Seimetz has some discomforting reactions to the parasite. Things happen that not only don't deserve to be spoiled but honestly defy my explanations, one of which involves her meeting and falling for a man (Carruth himself) who may have gone through the same ordeal as she did.

As with Primer, the plot of Upstream Color is perhaps a bit too complex for every single detail to be understood in the space of a single viewing, but that doesn't mean it's not a rather fascinating thing to behold. The emphasis on both Malick-like techniques and loosely-structured narratives means that it's both very easy and very hard to follow what's going on, though the independent production values can and do affect one's tolerance of proceedings. The camerawork may not be slick, but it lends a tangible warmth to the film even as it captures some uncomfortably clinical scenes. In a similar sense, the background music lacks complexity but doesn't need it. Though the film ostensibly develops a love story between Seimetz and Carruth, it proves both affecting and alienating depending on the scene. It also ties in rather well with the science-fiction elements even though the sum total is still initially confusing. While I definitely didn't dislike Upstream Color, I think that's more on the basis of it being a captivating experience rather than an interesting or immediately understandable one. Much like Primer, I'd argue that one would need more than one viewing to follow what's going on here but at the very least the first viewing is likely to provide a fairly distinctive film to watch. Definitely not recommended for the anti-pretentious crowd, though.

3

Iroquois

10-11-15, 01:34 AM

#628 - The Devil's Rejects
Rob Zombie, 2005

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Screen-shot-2014-08-25-at-2.06.58-PM-620x400.png

A family of serial killers are forced to go on the run after a vengeful sheriff decides to raid their homestead.

Rob Zombie's debut horror film House of 1000 Corpses definitely conjured up associations with Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre due to its plot about a family of murderous rednecks living out of a decrepit mansion. To this end, it made sense that sequel The Devil's Rejects opted to copy The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 by having its plot be about the family from the first film going on the run from said mansion while being pursued by a vindictive sheriff. Of course, where Zombie differs from Hooper is that he affords the family protagonist status as they go on the run; unfortunately, this ultimately ends up being what scuppers The Devil's Rejects for me. Fundamentally unsympathetic protagonists aren't an automatic hindrance to me appreciating a work of fiction, but in the case of the Firefly family the hindrance becomes especially pronounced. Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers is another film that tried to make mass murderers worthy of an audience's interest by not only being humanising them through their undying love for one another but also by the fact that their killing followed a perverse code of honour; this was borne out by the so-called "good" characters in that film frequently being shown as more vile than the protagonists. While I ultimately didn't think that Stone's film did the best job of pulling off that kind of sympathy for the devil, it still proved preferable to what Zombie does with this film.

The Firefly family consists of father "Captain Spaulding" (Sid Haig), son Otis (Bill Moseley), and daughter Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie). I could potentially make an exception in the case of veteran exploitation actor Haig as he plays an incredibly filthy excuse for a sideshow entertainer, but Moseley and Moon Zombie have an appalling backwater malevolence that is somehow even less charming than that of Mickey and Mallory Knox. This ends up being a problem when the film focuses on more of their actions than anything else, especially when a good chunk of the film follows the siblings as they visit a motel and terrorise the members of a traveling country band. There is some promise in the case of character actor William Forsythe as a sheriff whose desire for vengeance leads him to becoming just as much of a vicious, remorseless sadist as the killers he's after. However, he can only do so much with his character; even a scene where he tries to deduce the Firefly family's whereabouts by consulting an obnoxious film critic is still pretty irritating. Even the appearance of Dawn of the Dead alumnus Ken Foree as an associate of Captain Spaulding's isn't enough to salvage things on a characterisation front.

I do get the impression that Zombie is the kind of filmmaker whose willingness to recreate certain forms of cinema is rooted in sincere homage more so than ironic detachment, but that becomes extremely irrelevant when the genre in this case is Z-grade grindhouse horror. Grainy cinematography and haphazard editing may capture the vibe of the period just fine, but it succeeds a little too well at looking like a low-rent B-movie The more obvious examples of comedy do little to amuse, whether it's giving its "heroes" clever one-liners or by attempting to throw in some satirical elements (case in point - the scene with the film critic). Even the attempts to lend the film some degree of poignancy don't feel remotely justified. There is no better example than the notoriously elegaic ending that plays out to the tune of Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Free Bird", which was probably the one thing about this movie that I knew about ahead of time. While it's arguably the best scene in the whole movie, I think that's more or less by default; besides which, it still feels awfully hollow if you're like me and have already spent the rest of the film struggling to find any reason whatsoever to care about who comes out on top.

While it's entirely possible that I may have missed just what makes The Devil's Rejects such a beloved piece of work for so many people (to the point where my dismissing it in another thread resulted in fans unleashing a barrage of angry reaction images), I have trouble thinking about what that might be. I obviously don't think that it's supposed to be a sincere endorsement of its reprehensible characters and their actions, but I can't really see how I'm supposed to buy it as dark satire or a black comedy or anything like that. Even the least horrible characters are severely lacking in charm, not even managing significant exceptions in the form of Haig or Forsythe or Foree or even Danny Trejo. This becomes a problem when the film seems intent on trying to make us like the Firefly family despite their more horrendous actions, but it constantly fails for obvious reasons and ends up undercutting its supposedly iconic ending. As a straight horror, it is extremely lacking in suspense or thrills; I concede that the whole sequence of events involving the country band has a little of that, but even that isn't handled in a way that makes me think of the sequence as anything more than filler. It's not so much that the film is violent and disgusting so much as the fact that it feels fundamentally pointless, unless of course the point is just waiting for everyone to die in a presumably violent fashion. It may not be a generic slasher film like House of 1000 Corpses, but the attempt to change things up doesn't feel like a significant improvement. This marks three Zombie movies I've seen so far, and I seriously doubt I'm going to bother with any more.

1

TheUsualSuspect

10-11-15, 11:33 AM

I found The Devil's Rejects to be entertaining in a disgusting violent way. Zombie missed the mark a bit with House of 1,000 Corpses but I feel he finally hit his stride here.

MovieMeditation

10-11-15, 12:08 PM

Zombie has something about his films that I like, that atmospheric crazy colorful lunacy, which seems to be all over his works. But then there's also something about them I can't stand.

But, that said, I still hope he will make a "perfect movie" some time in the future. I think The Devil's Rejects was the closets he ever got and the only Zombie movie I kind of like, but I'm still not entirely convinced.

TheUsualSuspect

10-11-15, 12:28 PM

It's his best film for sure. Halloween 2 is his worst.

cricket

10-11-15, 12:39 PM

No point of trying to pick apart your review of The Devil's Rejects; even a fan like me should understand it's not for everyone. It just seems to suit my taste well, as does Natural Born Killers, which strangely is a movie I dislike. Go figure.

MovieMeditation

10-11-15, 01:48 PM

It's his best film for sure. Halloween 2 is his worst.
You got that right.

H2 is one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I don't mean that in an over exaggerated kind of way to prove a point. I actually do mean it's absolute garbage and beyond terrible...

TheUsualSuspect

10-11-15, 02:56 PM

You got that right.

H2 is one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I don't mean that in an over exaggerated kind of way to prove a point. I actually do mean it's absolute garbage and beyond terrible...

I totally agree. Here's my review (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=564802#post564802) of that crap.

Iroquois

10-12-15, 09:39 AM

I found The Devil's Rejects to be entertaining in a disgusting violent way. Zombie missed the mark a bit with House of 1,000 Corpses but I feel he finally hit his stride here.

I'll concede that it's probably the best of the three Zombie movies I've seen, though it doesn't really have much competition. At least Halloween had Malcolm McDowell in it, but that's about it. But yeah, to me it's the wrong kind of violently/disgustingly entertaining. I'll go in for the fantastically gory like Evil Dead or Story of Ricky, but the violence in The Devil's Rejects comes across as mean-spirited in a way that I can't really shrug off.

Iroquois

10-12-15, 09:44 AM

#629 - Beginners
Mike Mills, 2010

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/685zklWY_vU/maxresdefault.jpg

An anachronic tale of a man learning that his father is not only gay but also dying of a terminal illness.

For the most part, Beginners feels pretty standard for a quasi-independent dramedy. The protagonist (Ewan McGregor) learns that his recently widowed father (Christopher Plummer) has actually been in the closet the whole time that he was married, which leads to him immediately becoming very active in the LGBT community and taking on a much younger lover (Goran Višnjić). This is followed up very quickly by the revelation that Plummer has also contracted a malignant tumour that is slowly but surely threatening to kill him. The story mainly jumps back and forth between three different time periods; McGregor's childhood, his time with his ailing father, and also during his burgeoning relationship with a young woman (Mélanie Laurent). Juggling a number of anachronic narratives featuring McGregor is a bit of a gamble but it pays off just fine. This much is borne out by the repetitive use of motifs such as McGregor describing various time periods by referencing certain period-appropriate characteristics such as U.S. presidents and the changing of certain social norms.

There's nothing overly objectionable about the ways in which Beginners goes about delivering its narrative. The film ends up being middle-of-the-road despite its more experimental juxtapositions of different time periods in concurrence with McGregor's artistic sensibilities. It's also pretty standard as far as the filming techniques go. As such, Beginners' main strength becomes about its actors. Plummer understandably won an Oscar for his work here as he willfully embraces the various nuances of his Oscar-baiting character, conveying his character's highs and lows with equal aplomb. McGregor makes for a significant source of gravitas as a frequently conflicted protagonist even as he deals with various issues not just when it comes to his father's deteriorating condition but also through his difficulties in relating to Laurent (who is herself a very capable performer whose character gets her own difficult back-story). The technique on display is pretty straightforward when it's not indulging frequent time-shifts or expository montages, but it is said time-shifts and montages that give the film some personality. Beginners is ultimately a pretty decent example of an indie with some good performances (especially from the dog who serves as Plummer's pet) and also manages to prove tolerable despite its occasional concessions to quirk (such as the dog silently being subtitled as if he is responding to McGregor).

3

Iroquois

10-12-15, 09:46 AM

#630 - For a Few Dollars More
Sergio Leone, 1965

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AecNXXvVd7o/VBA1aUk5OaI/AAAAAAAAFQI/QYTsLkHVLJg/s1600/For%2Ba%2BFew%2BDollars%2BMore%2B25.jpg

A pair of rival bounty hunters - one a nameless cowboy, the other a former Army colonel - join forces to take on a gang of murderous thieves.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1304202#post1304202).

4.5

Iroquois

10-12-15, 09:52 AM

#631 - Legend
Ridley Scott, 1985

http://www.into-the-dark.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/screenshot-med-011-e1338301673930.jpg

In a magical fantasy realm, a young man must save a princess when she falls prey to an evil demon.

I do wonder how Ridley Scott's career might have gone if Blade Runner had managed to prove more of a success, especially now that I've seen his most immediate cinematic follow-up to that rather maligned science-fiction film. Legend thus shifts into far more accessible territory by having Scott helm a project that is very much rooted in the sort of fantasy trends that were prevalent during the mid-1980s. Here, the plot revolves around a young forest-dweller (Tom Cruise) showing a princess (Mia Sara) the unlikely sight of two unicorns. The unicorns are immediately attacked by goblins working in the service of a dark lord (Tim Curry), resulting in Cruise and Sara being separated. It is up to Cruise and a band of fairy folk to defeat the Lord and save the day. Unfortunately, the main flaw with Legend is that it fails to distinguish itself in any major way. A number of notable high-fantasy adventures from the era tried to justify their narratives by giving them realistic framing stories (with the most notable examples being Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, and The Princess Bride). Legend opts to play its tale of an enchanted forest incredibly straight, which is unfortunately reflected in just how flimsy it feels. This much is only borne out by the extremely lean running time, which barely scrapes the 90-minute mark and yet still feels padded out.

As I've noted in virtually every instance of my reviewing a Ridley Scott film, I definitely have to give some credit to the man's capacity for delivering some fairly impressive technical detail even when the various concepts of display threaten to look ridiculous. Some of the elements are a bit too silly-looking such as Cruise's Peter Pan outfit or his various good companions, but they are compensated for by Curry's impressive appearance as a bright-red devil and even one well-done scene involved a possessed black dress (it makes sense in context). There's a lushness to the cinematography that at least means the film is fairly pretty to look at as well. Veteran composer Jerry Goldsmith sadly delivers one of his lesser scores here. Cruise and Sara may not be the strongest leads - the former seems to be on autopilot in his extremely simple role while the latter at least gets some room to stretch that is at least more interesting than the usual damsel routine - but Curry's trademark deep voice lends his villain even more menace. Legend may have well-captured visuals but they are in service to an incredibly weak story and characters that are not good enough to carry a film, even a short one like this. Recommended for major fans of high fantasy and Scott obsessives.

2

Iroquois

10-12-15, 10:01 AM

#632 - Highlander: The Final Dimension
Andrew Morahan, 1994

http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/6/23//highlander_3_001.jpg?itok=e8_q_lGB

An immortal swordsman must confront his past when a vicious adversary who has been buried for hundreds of years unexpectedly resurfaces.

The original Highlander was a fun little B-movie with a good high concept about a secret race of immortals who must duel each other to the death in the hopes of being the last one standing and thus acquiring a magical prize. The problem with such a concept is that its narrative and conclusion don't exactly open up a lot of room for sequels. This is why Highlander 2: The Quickening is especially reviled among sequels because of how drastically it had to change the existing canon in order to accommodate a sequel (most notably dropping the low fantasy angle of immortal warriors in favour of some nonsensical sci-fi premise that recast said immortals as amnesiac aliens banished from their home planet). While Highlander 2 is a prime example of a sequel that goes off the rails completely, its immediate successor Highlander: The Final Dimension goes in the complete opposite direction by choosing to shamelessly rehash the first film. Taking place eight years after the events of the original Highlander (and disregarding the events of Highlander 2 in the process), The Final Dimension starts by showing series protagonist Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) traveling to Japan to visit a wise immortal (Mako) only to be tracked down by an extremely vicious immortal named Kane (Mario van Peebles). Eventually, Kane and his crew of evil immortals are sealed inside a mountain for centuries and are only broken out during an excavation being overseen by archaeologist Alex Johnson (Deborah Kara Unger). Kane then makes it his mission to find MacLeod and travels to New York in order to find him and kill him.

While I can't blame the creators for wanting to recreate the same kind of magic that made Highlander a cult hit in the first place, this mainly extends to empty replication. It's pretty obvious that Kane is meant to be the same kind of vicious barbarian as the original film's Kurgan and any differences that van Peebles brings to the proceedings are either negligible or too ridiculous (such as his centuries-old character's reaction to a condom). Unger's character is also familiar in that she is supposed to be the civilian scientist who stumbles upon the secret of the immortals while also becoming something of a love interest for MacLeod (which is made extremely straightforward when MacLeod has flashbacks to his romancing of an 18th-century French noblewoman who also happens to be played by Unger). MacLeod, well, he's still MacLeod and Lambert's Wiseau-like accent is still in full force. Even Mako channeling the same kind of wizened mysticism he displayed in Conan the Barbarian makes very little difference here. Other sub-plots are recycled, such as MacLeod once again becoming the prime suspect in a police investigation (which naturally doesn't go anywhere). The addition of Kane being able to perform illusions and sorcery does little to spice up the sword-fighting aspects and its application is frequently baffling (especially when taking into account the shoddy effects work involved).

Though you'd think it'd be hard to overtake or even measure up to Highlander 2 when it comes to being a bad sequel, Highlander: The Final Dimension manages it just fine. For all its faults, at least Highlander 2 took a stab at trying to do something different, which makes its failure weirdly admirable. The Final Dimension, on the other hand, feels like an attempt to apologise for its predecessor's weirdness by attempting to restart the continuity and play things extremely safe (use of sorcery notwithstanding). Of course, in doing so it still plays serious havoc by contradicting the established rules of the game (apparently MacLeod was able to win despite Kane still being alive, which is pretty ridiculous even for this franchise). The action is also pretty weak and the film feels very dated in a lot of ways, especially that score (which seems to rip off Mötley Crüe completely during the final fight) and the cinematography, which is occasionally eye-catching in its garishness but often feels as trashy and '90s as you'd expect from this film. Very difficult to recommend even to people who liked the original.

1

Iroquois

10-13-15, 03:26 AM

#633 - Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
George Lucas, 1999

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/film/starwars_thephantommenace/phantommenace2-xlarge.jpg

Two Jedi knights are brought in to solve a trade dispute that soon escalates into a major military conflict.

Yep, I'm running the series and in chronological order. The saga begins with The Phantom Menace, which I'm not entirely sure I could truly bring myself to hate purely on the basis of nostalgia value. I was nine when this came out in theatres and naturally in the middle of the target audience, so of course I really liked it. Of course, I aged out of that before too long (but not before seeing it a lot, and not always of my own accord) but of course I'm still willing to re-watch it just to see how it holds up even now. Unfortunately, nostalgia and fond memories only go so far when it comes to this film. Everything that I was willing to overlook back in the day has now come roaring back in full force as I re-entered a galaxy far, far away. The tale starts off with the introduction of Jedi knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) who start the film trying to resolve a trade dispute between the small planet of Naboo and an opportunistic corporation. Action breaks out before too long, with Neeson and McGregor being forced to rescue the planet's queen and attempt an escape to the galaxy's capital city-planet Coruscant, but circumstances maroon them on a desert planet called Tatooine where they encounter a young slave named Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) whose gifts as both a pilot and mechanic prove to be quite advantageous.

To be fair, there are some qualities that I do like about The Phantom Menace. Some good actors are assembled here and they are able to elevate some of the material on display, especially Neeson and McGregor as the calmly confident master and his fresh-faced but capable apprentice respectively. Lucas' tendency towards visual perfectionism is shown off frequently, resulting in some decently-crafted production design and practical effects. Though the computer-generated effects are naturally more pronounced, they are handled with competence more often than not (even if they are a bit too obvious in some instances). This extends to a fair bit of the action as a lot of the usual Star Wars action set-pieces are indulged, whether it's high-speed pursuits or lightsaber duels. Some moments are handled well, whether it's an underwater chase that sees the Jedi heroes attempting to escape from a series of dangerous deep-sea creatures or the climax involving their two-against-one duel against malevolent Sith lord Darth Maul (Ray Park). There's also something to be said for series composer John Williams' score, which evokes all the original trilogy's leitmotifs while also providing solid additions of his own (most notably during the aforementioned climatic duel).

Of course, these moments are all but cancelled out by a lot of the less impressive things on display. The film's pacing is alternately quick and slow, either pushing through a story quickly (especially during the first act) or getting bogged down in seemingly extraneous matters (most notoriously during the sections on the city-planet Coruscant, which mainly consist of political diatribes and various council meetings, though the entire Tatooine sequence is pretty sluggish as well). The attempt to set up a climax that has four separate sections is ambitious but doesn't exactly pay off when at least one or two of them aren't too interesting anyway (and that whole ten-minute pod-racing segment used to be so amazing but now it does feel unnecessarily long). The character of Jar Jar Binks naturally becomes less tolerable with each viewing, especially once I realise how forced his presence is in some cases (this was the viewing where I finally realised how little sense it made for an amphibious creature to be out and about on Tatooine, but hey, this movie needs to feature its comic-relief character somehow). The same goes for Portman and Lloyd as the youngest heroes, who do their best but just aren't that good. Solid actors like Samuel L. Jackson and Brian Blessed aren't put to the best use as they are relegated to small roles. These are just a few of the factors that lead to me realising that, while I don't really hate The Phantom Menace, I definitely feel like I've seen it more than enough times. It's visually decent, but there really isn't anything here to make me want to revisit it...until the lead-up to the next film or trilogy, that is.

1.5

Iroquois

10-13-15, 03:32 AM

#634 - Red River
Howard Hawks, 1948

http://craigerscinemacorner.com/Images/red%20river.jpg

A cattle baron plans on conducting a massive cattle drive but runs into trouble when his draconian demands cause his subordinates to mutiny.

John Wayne might just be the most iconic actor in the Western genre, serving as a strong representation of the classic pre-revisionism Western as a result. Despite that, he was still able and willing to appear in films that challenged his status as the strident hero of the wild frontier. Red River is a prominent example of a film where Wayne is made to play a character with more depth and flaws than usual that push him beyond being a mere anti-hero. He starts off as a member of a cattle-driving operation whose decision to strike out on his own proves fortuitous when his former convoy is attacked. Starting off with only two cattle and a couple of subordinates, he soon carves out a large tract of land for himself and becomes a prominent cattle baron in his own right. Years later, he plans to launch what is then the largest cattle drive to ever happen along with his faithful offsiders (Montgomery Clift and Walter Brennan). The ambitious nature of the undertaking proves troublesome for numerous reasons and Wayne's intention of keeping control of his outfit by any means necessary eventually leads the men under him to question his authority; this of course includes Clift, an orphan who had grown up with Wayne as a father figure and thus finds himself torn between loyalty and pragmatism.

Under the guidance of malleable genre filmmaker Hawks, Red River proves a decent example of a Western. It does have its flaws - in many respects it's a little too long and monotonous as it captures the details of the cattle drive in excruciating detail, which can get a little boring at times (especially taking into account how it's shorter than Hawks' later Western Rio Bravo yet somehow feels longer). Wayne gets the chance to play a character with some depth as he is also haunted by the woman he lost to a murderous Native, while Clift gets his own fairly complex journey as he is forced to stand up to the domineering Wayne not just out of necessity but also out of an inner need to prove himself not just to Wayne but to himself. His defiance of Wayne is also complicated by his relationship with Joanne Dru's feisty pioneer woman, who definitely stands out here as she delivers a memorably strong performance. Other recognisable Western players pop up and deliver decent turns; between this and Rio Bravo, Brennan certainly seems to have cornered the market on playing toothless old fusspots who make for great comic relief, while the very distinctive Hank Worden does some good work in a small part. The monochromatic photography works alright, as does the typically Western score.

Red River ends on a note that does feel more than a little schmaltzy even by the standards of classic Hollywood, standing out even amidst the generally idealistic myth-making that characterised Westerns of the era. Even though it's easy to look at such a resolution and roll one's eyes, one can't help but appreciate how it subverts the expected and set-up conclusion in one fell swoop. The film as a whole may be a bit by-the-numbers as far as classic Westerns go, but it's still an enjoyable enough piece of work more often than not. It might stand to be tighter, but there are still some well-handled moments that not only work well at defining the characters but also have greater ramifications for the story at large (the most obvious instance of which being one minor character's habit of casually stealing tiny amounts of sugar ultimately leading to shockingly major consequences). Hawks would arguably refine this capacity for conveying smaller stories within a more basic overarching narrative and depicting character development with later films (especially Rio Bravo), but even for a rough draft Red River proves fairly watchable.

3

Iroquois

10-13-15, 03:39 AM

#635 - Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
George Lucas, 2002

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/0/06/Star_Wars_Episode_II-_Attack_of_the_Jedi-659192.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20140411040827

Two Jedi knights find themselves at the heart of a conflict that involves political assassinations and the threat of all-out war.

I honestly don't think I've seen Attack of the Clones in full since it first hits cinemas back in 2002. I definitely remember seeing The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith more than once, but I honestly could not say the same for this film. Whether that's because of a genuine lack of opportunity or because I might have actually blocked out my memories, that's open to interpretation. Attack of the Clones picks up several years after the events of The Phantom Menace, with Jedi knight Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) still in the process of mentoring his apprentice Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), who harbours a serious affection for Queen Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman). The political intrigue from The Phantom Menace has only grown stronger; after an assassination attempt is made against Padmé, the Jedi council is brought in to find out who's behind it and it leads to the unexpected discovery of an army of clones among other things.

It seems like I was right to avoid re-watching Attack of the Clones properly for so many years. Being the middle part of an intended trilogy, it's very easy to see it as an unfortunate compromise between the family-friendly adventure of The Phantom Menace and the relative complexity of Revenge of the Sith. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the film is now afforded an excuse to explore the relationship between Anakin and Padmé, which is of course given over to several scenes of frolicking on her home planet of Naboo and also the sub-plot where Anakin returns to his home planet of Tatooine and starts to embrace his inner darkness. Though these are arguably necessary to explore how Anakin makes the transition from bright-eyed boy to one of the most iconic villains in cinema history, they certainly don't feel necessary within the context of this film, and Christensen feels a bit too wooden to be selling such qualms effectively (though that could just be down to Lucas's poorly-handled writing of the pair's scenes together). Even the main plot involving Obi-Wan working to uncover the truth behind an army of clones made from the DNA of an amoral bounty hunter (Temeura Morrison), which also manages to tie in with a Sith conspiracy, feels awfully underweight even when the implications should prove engaging.

Though it's arguably not any worse than the work displayed in The Phantom Menace, the effects shown in Attack of the Clones don't even feel like enough to redeem the film's lesser qualities. While there's definitely some strength to them, any actual action sequences feel awfully free of substance, whether it's Obi-Wan and Anakin chasing an assassin through the crowded metropolis of Coruscant (in a sequence that feels like something out of The Fifth Element) or an instance in which the trilogy's various heroes must fight their way out of a gladiatorial arena filled with vicious monsters. Any actual thrills or excitement over what's going on feel like they're coming from an area of resignation, like I have to force myself to enjoy what's going on because that's what's going on here. As such, I am liable to think of Attack of the Clones as my least favourite of the currently-available Star Wars films. Even with such promising elements as Christopher Lee playing a menacing villain or seeing wrinkled old Jedi master Yoda actually show off his formidable combat abilities, the film feels like an absolute chore to get through. It does little to justify its considerable length and the odds of it being worth an additional watch are pretty damned minimal.

1

Iroquois

10-13-15, 03:50 AM

#636 - Pineapple Express
David Gordon Green, 2008

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/dvd/sony/PineappleExpress/PineappleExpress_1lg.jpg

A slacker witnesses a murder and must go on the run with his drug dealer.

Pineapple Express definitely seems like a film that I should like in theory but struggle to appreciate in practice. After a prologue set during the 1950s in a top-secret research facility dedicated to studying marijuana, it cuts to the modern day where a twenty-something process server (Seth Rogen) is about to contact the latest person (Gary Cole) on his list, only to see Cole and a police officer (Rosie Perez) murder an Asian man. He speeds off in horror, but soon realises that he left behind a joint made of a rare type of weed that can easily be traced back to him through his dealer (James Franco), so of course it leads to both Rogen and Franco going on the run and trying to find a solution to their problems. Much like Superbad (which was also written by Rogen and frequent writing collaborator Evan Goldberg), this results in a film that has an admittedly interesting premise but is undone by a variety of factors, especially the individuals involved in the production. I think if I watch a movie and find myself thinking "what if _______ had written/directed/starred in this instead" then that's a pretty significant problem, and Pineapple Express has that in spades.

For starters, it's a bit too long. I've noted that films featuring Judd Apatow's involvement to one extent or another tend to be a little too long for their own good and Pineapple Express is no exception in that regard. It's mainly because there are a few sub-plots that don't go anywhere, the most prominent of which is Rogen's character's tenuous relationship with a high-school student (Amber Heard), which chews up a lot of time and doesn't yield a lot of amusement in the process (except maybe when one of her parents stabs Franco with a fork...don't worry, it makes sense in context). The same extends to the entire first act, which always feels like a chore to get through. Despite the emphasis on stoner comedy and the typical Apatow brand of semi-improvised conversational humour, I honestly think this film's a lot better when it opts to focus on its action-parody comedy. It hits a few of the expected action beats - a fistfight here, a car chase there - and I would genuinely like it a lot more if it cut down on the more extraneous excuses for comedy and focused on that kind of thing. Of course, you still have to sit through a lot of odd-couple comedy as Rogen's relative straight-man must contend with the fact that he's more or less stuck with Franco's overly friendly and incompetent dealer, who Rogen sees less as a friend than as a necessary evil when it comes to acquiring weed. Various other performers, such as Danny McBride as an associate of Franco's or Kevin Corrigan and Craig Robinson as a pair of relentless hitmen, do what they can with the material but it never quite feels like enough.

Though I've given it more than one chance to truly impress me, Pineapple Express still feels like an aggressively mediocre waste of a truly promising narrative concept. It's still got some laughs, but their distribution across a two-hour film is a bit too haphazard to guarantee that this is a truly worthwhile comedic experience. It's a shame, because there are some inventive twists on existing action-movie clichés (most notably Franco's attempt to kick out a damaged windshield during a car chase). Of course, some of them just keep falling flat (such as McBride's ability to take a seemingly endless amount of fatal-looking punishments across the course of the movie), and that's without mentioning the stuff that doesn't go anywhere (case in point - everything involving Heard's character). The sheer amount of wasted potential on display is just so frustrating that I've managed to watch this movie multiple times and still can't feel like I honestly enjoy it, which is a problem when it's a fairly straightforward comedy. To be fair, it gets enough laughs to stop me from thinking that I can truly hate it, but that's not enough to significantly redeem it.

1.5

Iroquois

10-13-15, 08:30 AM

#637 - Lockout
Stephen St. Leger and James Mather, 2012

http://righteousfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lockout.jpg

A roguish convict is sent to infiltrate a maximum-security prison located in space in order to rescue the President's daughter.

At this point, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that there isn't going to be another original Escape From... movie. If the past decade or two of his career is any indication, it's obvious that John Carpenter doesn't really give a damn about the idea (especially when Escape From L.A. seems explicitly designed to sabotage the possibility of a third film). Unsurprisingly, other individuals would jump at the possibility to make their own versions that would have the proverbial serial numbers filed off. Despite the opening credits citing that Lockout is "based on an original idea by Luc Besson", there's no fooling me. I wouldn't have bothered with this film if I didn't already think that it would be Escape From New York in space, so the idea that Besson would either use or even require this credit feels especially patronising to an audience. It really is a very similar plot, with a smart-mouthed convict (Guy Pearce) being coerced into infiltrating a space station dedicated to housing the most dangerous criminals in existence (who have naturally broken out of their containment units). His mission is to rescue the President's daughter (Maggie Grace), who is visiting the station as part of a humanitarian mission. As Carpenter's films have shown, that's more than enough of a set-up, and by the signs of this film's incredibly brief length, it's not an overly necessary one.

Unfortunately, the execution results in Lockout becoming a largely forgettable mess. Pearce plays an anti-hero whose capability borders on the divine even as he fights in search of a self-interested goal involving a locked briefcase and wrongful arrest (which does make him somewhat sympathetic but still feels like a fundamentally empty sub-plot), while Grace gets little more to do than play the damsel-in-distress role with the occasional moment of contribution thrown in for good measure. Attempts to stack the cast with recognisable character actors don't pan out too well; Peter Stormare fills the Lee Van Cleef role as Pearce's duplicitous handler while Joe Gilgun fills the Isaac Hayes role as the insanely violent villain who is only kept under control by his more cool-headed but no less dangerous brother (Vincent Regan). The slick space-station visuals are pretty sterile and only serve to make much of the film's action extremely difficult to remember with its generic mix of gun-play, hand-to-hand brutality, and space-faring action. Aside from Pearce getting in a decent amount of scenery-chewing as the sardonic anti-hero, there's virtually nothing to recommend about Lockout. In very much the same way that Besson's Lucy proved an aggressively poor substitute for an official Black Widow movie, Lockout is aggravating for not being able to provide a particularly watchable Escape From New York clone. At this point, I'd welcome a straight remake of Carpenter's film - it could hardly be worse than its imitators.

1

TheUsualSuspect

10-13-15, 02:20 PM

How much time off do you have?

MovieMeditation

10-13-15, 02:58 PM

I don't agree too much with your Pineapple Express review, though I do think that Apatow movies are often too long. That's true.

Amber Heard may not be so important as a character to herself, but it says more about Rogen's character and I think she works fine as this obvious but small plot device that she is, without feeling too much pushed in there. It's obvious this movie is about Rogen and Franco's journey so I'm fine with her not being a majorly developed character or anything.

I don't know why but last time I checked I kind of liked Attack of the Clones and also liked it the most out of all the prequels. I haven't read all of your Episode 1 yet and have still to read Episode II, so I'll check in on those later.

Iroquois

10-13-15, 11:53 PM

How much time off do you have?

Too much.

Iroquois

10-14-15, 12:08 AM

#638 - Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
George Lucas, 2005

https://moviesfilmsmotionpictures.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/revengeofthesithbdcap9_original.jpg

During an interplanetary conflict, a Jedi knight is forced to choose between his rigidly dogmatic order and a seemingly benevolent politician as he works to prevent his tragic visions from coming true.

Die Hard. Casablanca. Midnight Cowboy. 12 Angry Men. Alien. The Incredibles. Planet of the Apes. Ghost in the Shell. If you're wondering what all these films have in common, it's that when I first decided to contribute a Top 100 thread to this website about ten years ago I not only included those films at the bottom of my list but also managed to rank a certain film just above all of them. Take a wild guess what that film was...Aside from taking my relative youth and inexperience into account, it would naturally be easy to overrate Revenge of the Sith after taking into account its two predecessors, the colourfully fluffy The Phantom Menace and the dully inconsistent Attack of the Clones. As if knowing what it's got to compensate for, the film starts by plunging audiences into the midst of a massive space battle, once again following Jedi knights Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) as they launch a rescue mission for the republic's chief executive, Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid). After completing the mission, Anakin learns that his true love Padmé (Natalie Portman) is expecting a baby, which leads him to have all sorts of troubling visions that portend a future in which she dies. Willing to do anything to counter the possibility of these visions coming true, he allows himself to fall under the sway of the affable Palpatine, who promises him the ability to avoid such a fate.

The whole plot of Anakin enacting what would turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy initially struck me as compelling tragedy, but looking at it now does make it seem quite simplistic. To the film's credit, it doesn't completely mess things up in this regard, but it's still underwritten enough to make Anakin seem like a gullible dope more so than a desperate man being twisted into another person entirely (though this might have something to do with Christensen's performance as well). The other narratives running throughout the film also feel like they exist to pad out the narrative - Obi-Wan and Yoda's journeys to snuff out pockets of villainous rebels are sporadically entertaining (especially in the former's case), while Palpatine's plots to consolidate his power are thankfully pushed into the background for the most part. At the very least, I'm grateful for it being a little tighter in every regard than Attack of the Clones. Though this is understandably intended to be the darkest of the three prequels, one can't help but marvel at some of the goofier attempts at drama, such as the incredibly serious use of the word "younglings" or the pointed exchanges that take place during the film's fiery climax.

Revenge of the Sith earns the distinction of being the best Star Wars prequel, even if it does so mainly by default. At the very least, its most memorable moments are pretty evenly split between the genuinely entertaining and the unintentionally silly, with the former just edging out the latter. The split between good and bad also exists on a technical level, as this film does feature considerable ambition right out of the gate with its lengthy opening sequence involving a space battle that segues into a virtual tower siege and at least manages to outdo that with the climatic lightsaber duel on a damn lava planet. Those are the moments that define Revenge of the Sith for better or worse. It at least provides a somewhat satisfactory conclusion to a collection of films that were admirably independent misfires at best and mindlessly vapid blockbusters at worst (regardless of their connection to one of the most beloved cinematic franchises in existence). In my review of The Phantom Menace, I pointed out that I couldn't really bring myself to hate that particular movie because of the nostalgia involved, which is a sentiment that applies in greater force to Revenge of the Sith if only because, well, it is a genuinely better movie.

2

Iroquois

10-14-15, 12:29 AM

#639 - Black Mass
Scott Cooper, 2015

http://rtrfm.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/JOnny.jpg

Based on the true story of James "Whitey" Bulger, a career criminal operating out of South Boston who agrees to co-operate with an FBI agent towards mutually beneficial goals.

Two major factors threatened to doom Black Mass for me before I got around to watching it. The most prominent factor was the fact that Johnny Depp had spent much of the last decade of his career devolving into a parody of himself, whether through his multiple lucrative appearances as Captain Jack Sparrow, his collaborations with fellow walking punchline Tim Burton, or quite simply his choice of roles that emphasised quirk over quality. Prior to Black Mass, the most recent Depp role I'd seen was his extended cameo as an Inspector Clouseau-like detective in Kevin Smith's Tusk. His broadly comical gurning was enough to make me think that, yes, this might just be the worst part of a movie where a man is surgically altered into a constantly-screaming half-human/half-walrus abomination. The other factor was the fact that I'd seen three other true-crime films where Depp played the lead and I honestly disliked all three of them. Undercover-cop tale Donnie Brasco was somewhat tolerable, but Dillinger biopic Public Enemies was a major disappointment and the less said about the drug-dealing drama of Blow, the better. At least Black Mass looked intriguing in its first teaser, which featured a near-unrecognisable Depp turning a casual dinner-table discussion about family recipes into a coldly menacing and suspenseful monologue. Of course, the question remained as to whether or not the rest of the film could live up to this hype...

Black Mass is based on the true story of James "Whitey" Bulger (Depp), a notorious gangster who dominated the South Boston area while preparing to make inroads in different parts of the United States so as to consolidate his criminal empire. His success is due not just to his reputation as an intimidating underworld figure but also to his willingness to co-operate with FBI agent John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) in providing information that'll allow the FBI to crack down on Bulger's rivals while leaving Bulger himself free to operate within certain constraints (which he naturally ignores). From there, the film becomes a series of problems that either Bulger or Connolly have to solve, whether it's unreliable criminal associates (such as Peter Sarsgaard's drugged-up wild-card) or official threats to Connolly's left-field plan (as represented by various colleagues played by Kevin Bacon, Adam Scott, and Corey Stoll). Meanwhile, Bulger has to contend with various personal issues, whether it's his difficult relationship with the mother (Dakota Johnson) of his son or the problems that his criminal activities pose for his senator brother Billy (Benedict Cumberbatch).

To be fair, Depp does deserve at least some of the accolades he's earned for committing to a somewhat challenging role. A fair bit of the credit has to go to the make-up artists responsible for burying the distinctive-looking Depp under icy blue contact lenses and straw-like hair that is both slicked-back and receding. As other Depp roles can attest, make-up only goes so far and Depp is at least capable of delivering the goods from underneath his uncanny appearance. Even something as simple as watching Bulger do crunches during his downtime is made believable by the combination of competent make-up work and Depp's physical intensity. The rest of the cast assembles a collection of recognisable faces to pull off the story, though their capacity for doing so is pretty relative. As the film's deuteragonist, Edgerton arguably has a more difficult job than Depp as he plays the morally-conflicted straight-man Connolly, who is torn between his dedication to upholding the law and an admittedly immature concept of street-based loyalty that he thinks exists within the world of organised crime. For all his strengths, Edgerton doesn't sell that kind of conflict well from underneath an extremely nasal American accent (nor does Cumberbatch, whose own role is similar in terms of conflicting loyalties between both his office and his black-sheep brother). Being a true-crime movie, you don't get a lot of variations in terms of characterisation, with the actors doing their best to infuse fairly basic characters with any small degree of notability. Actors like Jesse Plemons and Rory Cochrane get somewhat thankless roles as Bulger's associates Kevin Weeks and Steve Flemmi respectively, while Stoll stands out as an incredibly flat character if only because his right-minded attorney isintroduced late in the film with no other characteristics other than his refusal to indulge Connolly's friendly compromise with Bulger.

While there is admittedly so much you can do when it comes to basing a film off a true story, Black Mass does go about it in a rather pedestrian manner. Much of the film is told in retrospect as various associates of Bulger's give testimony about his activities to an investigator. While this is theoretically a sound manner in which to frame the actual narrative (especially considering its shifting around from year to year), it does suck the tension out of some sequences in ways that the dramatic effect can't adequately compensate for (with the exception being one sequence in which Bulger and Flemmi must deal with a potential loose end). Pacing things out by jumping between separate eras doesn't quite work, nor does the attempt to cover so many different yet formative experiences in Bulger's life (such as his son falling prey to severe illness). The structuring of such a narrative tends to be defined by instances of violence or threats of such, whether it's Bulger personally disposing of disagreeable individuals or trying to figure out technically appropriate ways of avoiding conflict. Even moments that serve to humanise Bulger or Connolly are shrugged off in order to continue to the next sequence of visceral retribution or sterile bureaucracy respectively. This inability to frame the course of events in a satisfactory manner extends all the way into the denouement, where the revelations of what happened to all the films' major players lands with a dull thud more so than a sharp bang.

Though it may look like a tour-de-force crime drama set to re-establish Depp's status as a serious actor, Black Mass does fall apart due to its indulgence of far too many of the usual biopic trappings. In attempting to convey many of the smaller details of the story (especially on Connolly's side of the situation), it does veer into genuinely dull territory. The technical execution is straightforward but largely uninteresting, with the odd spot of decent camerawork or semi-solid soundtrack choice doing little to leave a generally favourable impression. The incredibly stolid progression through the narrative is salvaged somewhat by the performances; at the very least, I could suspend my disbelief and see Whitey Bulger stalk the screen with steely-eyed menace instead of Johnny Depp. Unfortunately, the problem with having such a distinctive character in the film is that every other character can't help but look bland in comparison and one must try to figure out whether that's intentional or simply a design flaw. As such, Black Mass is tolerable enough for the most part but it's still surprisingly empty and by-the-numbers underneath its chilly surface.

2

MovieMeditation

10-14-15, 12:39 PM

Great review of Black Mass, Iro!

Our opinions look to be very similar and I mostly agree with many of the flaws you point out, which I also noticed. I'm a little more fond of the soundtrack, even for its predictability, than you are and I thought the visuals/technical work was pretty solid, but ultimately didn't do nothing new or too interesting.

But yeah, I'm currently finishing up the english version of my review (finished the danish one yesterday). I hope to post it later today, but if not, then tomorrow.

I also got to get around your Star Wars prequel reviews, but man you are just shooting those reviews out so fast I can't keep up. :D

Iroquois

10-15-15, 01:57 AM

#640 - Scream
Wes Craven, 1996

http://www.drunkmoviezone.com/images/movies/scream.jpg

A small town is shocked when a masked villain who is obsessed with horror movies starts to commit seemingly random murders.

It's a familiar cry, that of "I was born in the wrong generation". I feel like that's an accurate summary of my attitude towards Scream, a film that was intended to turn the tiresome slasher film formula on its head by not only deconstructing the staleness of the genre's conventions but also by rebuilding said formula for a newer and more jaded generation. To this end, Scream does indulge both its self-awareness and capacity for suspense through its opening sequence, in which a bubbly teenager (Drew Barrymore) is made to defend herself against the threat of a murderous villain by answering said villain's questions about horror-movie trivia. The attention soon shifts to one of her classmates (Neve Campbell) as she contends with the threat herself even as she has to deal with a prior trauma and the adolescent pressures put upon her by her boyfriend (Skeet Ulrich). Between the sensationalist murders popping up around town, Campbell's own attempts to avoid scrutiny from a gawking public, and the arrival of an opportunistic current-affairs reporter (Courteney Cox), there's obviously a lot going on as the local populace deal with the threat in various ways, even if that does extend to dressing as the villain for laughs or holding massive house-parties.

While Scream isn't really the first film to deconstruct horror-movie logic, it's arguably the most notable example of such a film. Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that it goes after the low-hanging fruit that is the slasher sub-genre, which has always been about the cheap thrills associated with seeing photogenic co-eds be hacked apart by a vindictive person in a mask. The characters featured in this film might not always know the exact details of every slasher movie, but they are familiar enough with the conventions to the point where one of the characters outlines the "rules" which every such film supposedly obeys. The rigidity of the rules and conventions guides the development of not just the overarching narrative but also the direction of various sequences, such as Campbell wryly remarking on the stupidity of horror-movie heroines before being forced into making the exact same mistakes when she herself is attacked by the villain. It's the kind of humour that comes across as clever more so than funny, and it's very easy to get tired of cleverness, especially when it's exemplified by Jamie Kennedy's film buff who will literally stop a film in order to explain horror movie rules to a semi-interested audience. This isn't enough to stop the film feeling like it's got to throw in some self-awareness to justify its willingness to follow what is otherwise a relatively standard slasher narrative.

On its own terms, Scream doesn't really hold up on a repeat viewing. In my experience, films that are as predicated upon the reveal of the villain's true identity as this one is tend to be a bit underwhelming a second time around. Sure, there's the odd line or action that stands out but it doesn't do so in a way that significantly supplants the core narrative. It's still a decent enough plot as Campbell must deal not only with her past trauma but also with the various threats against her, whether it's the actual killer or the other townspeople's various hurtful reactions to her crisis. The cast is peppered with performances of varying quality, with Kennedy and Matthew Lillard providing the main sources of comic relief (with the latter's zaniness compensating for the former's geeky snark) while other characters play some fairly rote roles (such as Rose McGowan as Campbell's fiercely loyal best friend). Between that and Craven's technical competence (which is definitely on show during the film's bloody finale), the film is still very much watchable but it's not scary and not that funny either. While I would say that it doesn't really need to be scary to be an effective parody of horror's faults, it definitely doesn't feel like said parody has aged all that well.

2.5

TheUsualSuspect

10-15-15, 02:07 AM

Boo-urns.

I won't go into detail why I love this film, I feel like my thoughts HERE (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=38503)clearly state my opinions.

Iroquois

10-15-15, 02:17 AM

#641 - Man of Tai Chi
Keanu Reeves, 2013

http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/80/f4/a24059b3422585a076a20da01599/the-man-of-tai-chi.jpg

A talented but impoverished student of Tai Chi is encouraged to engage in underground fights for the money needed to save his temple.

After decades of starring in popular action movies such as Point Break, Speed, and The Matrix, Keanu Reeves made the not-altogether-unreasonable decision to direct his own. Having had to learn extensive amounts of martial arts for his role in the Matrix series, Reeves' film ended up being a Hong Kong-based martial arts film starring one of his Matrix collaborators, Tiger Hu Chen. Chen plays the last student of the martial art of Tai Chi; when he's not learning from his master at the centuries-old temple, he's supporting himself and his family by working a dead-end delivery job and entering into martial-arts competitions. This latter activity draws the attention of a shadowy businessman (played by Reeves himself), who then approaches Chen with a simple proposal; engage in fights with random opponents in a small room for money. Though Chen is naturally suspicious of the whole affair, he becomes desperate enough when it turns out that a real estate company wants to redevelop the land on which his temple is located and he must do what it takes to save who and what he cares about, even if he is in danger of losing himself in the process...

Man of Tai Chi is a theoretically sound proposition with a plot that adapts the sensibilities of your typical Bruce Lee vehicle for the Information Age and is seemingly custom-built to excuse fight scene after fight scene as Chen either fights in official competitions or as part of Reeves' clandestine operation. It also builds off a decent theme where Chen's willingness to fight for what he believes in tragically threatens to undermine his whole struggle on a number of levels. Chen is a capable enough fighter and a serviceable actor, while Reeves seems ready and willing to mock his image as an incredibly wooden action star (one of the film's most memorable scenes is a brief shot where Reeves stares into the camera before unleashing a very sudden shriek of rage). Filming the action also takes a somewhat old-school approach with just enough fluidity and cutting to add a sense of immersion without being shaken and slashed into barely-comprehensible messes like certain other action films have tended to do in recent years. Even the addition of an extraneous sub-plot involving a pair of detectives (Simon Yam and Karen Mok) trying to investigate Reeves doesn't feel like padding. Basically, there's a lot of things that Man of Tai Chi seems to be doing right.

Despite these apparent strengths, I actually found Man of Tai Chi to be a very underwhelming piece of work. Though the premise allows for Chen to go up against a variety of enemies with their own distinctive styles, even the careful camerawork and choreography (by legendary Hong Kong choreographer Yuen Woo-ping, no less) don't provide enough raw excitement to feel especially entertaining. The premise may allow for constant fight scenes to take place, but it can easily have a numbing effect that can cause one's interest to wane. The breaks in which the film tries to develop its plot aren't completely without merit, but they still have the potential to drag the film down as much as give weight to its conflict (which does have shades of Bruce Lee films where the main character is torn between material wealth and loyalty to that which he holds dear, but if The Big Boss is any indication then that's not enough to automatically make a film work). As such, Man of Tai Chi felt like a bit of a slog when all is said and done. I'd still recommend it to people with a strong interest in martial arts films as it's still pretty clear that Reeves cares about delivering the goods and someone with a more vested interest might find more of worth here than I did. Still, there's only so many concessions you can make for a film that teases a fight between Chen and The Raid's Iko Uwais only to cop out on it for story reasons.

2

Iroquois

10-15-15, 02:17 AM

Boo-urns.

I won't go into detail why I love this film, I feel like my thoughts HERE (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=38503)clearly state my opinions.

Duly noted, I'll be sure to give it a read.

TheUsualSuspect

10-15-15, 08:41 AM

I like Keanu Reeves, but his age is finally showing in this film. He is too slow to be fighting those guys. Decent directorial effort from him though.

Iroquois

10-17-15, 07:54 AM

#642 - Breaker Morant
Bruce Beresford, 1980

https://periscopedepth.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/breaker-morant.jpg

During the Boer War, a group of Australian army officers are put on trial for war crimes.

Breaker Morant has a reputation for being one of the classics of Australian cinema and not without obvious reason. Based on actual events, it follows the titular Morant (Edward Woodward), an officer in the Australian army who leads a regiment during the Boer War, a war that broke out in South Africa between the British Empire and the Dutch-origin occupants of the region. The film sees Morant and his fellow officers being put on trial for war crimes involving the unlawful execution of enemies in the line of duty. As such, much of the film's events are told in flashback as they are recounted by various witnesses during the trial. Though the case against Morant is strong, this does nothing to deter his defence attorney (Jack Thompson) from giving a spirited counter-argument. In addition to Woodward and Thompson, the film assembles a fairly talented and recognisable collection of Australian actors to deliver this tale that includes Bryan Brown, Charles "Bud" Tingwell, John Waters, and Ray Meagher.

The courtroom setting does mean that actors frequently get to deliver impassioned performances full of grand-standing monologues and intense cross-examining dialogues. The scenes that actually take place out on the battlefield do tend to capture the visceral nature of war, not just through riflemen shooting it out but also through scenes such as Morant's attempts to deal with the prisoners in ways that he knows are justifiable under the established codes of wartime conduct (even as they still result in him being put on trial). In addition to juggling its displaced narratives with competence, the film also bears things out with some crisp photography that is admittedly rather utilitarian in its depiction of military garrisons or drab-looking wilderness, though one wonders if that is by design. While Breaker Morant definitely has enough of the hallmarks of a compelling wartime legal drama, that's not enough to really make it stand out as an immediately classic film to me. It definitely has some indelible scenes (that ending, which I knew about ahead of time, is very well-done) and some good performances that give its characters enough depth, but I can't help but feel like it doesn't really click with me. I'll undoubtedly give it another chance at some point but right now it just feels...okay to me.

3

Iroquois

10-17-15, 08:07 AM

#643 - The Secret World of Arrietty
Hiromasa Yonebayashi, 2010

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Vp2nb9Vq0yY/maxresdefault.jpg

A family of "borrowers" - tiny human-like creatures living inside the walls of a house - find their existence threatened by the arrival of a sickly but kind young boy.

Studio Ghibli built its reputation off the back of Hayao Miyazaki's various cinematic adventures full of wonder and majesty, which means it's more than a little easy to overlook any Ghibli films that were helmed by different directors. Isao Takahata's Grave of the Fireflies definitely earned a name for itself with its tragic tale of two Japanese children trying to survive the effects of World War II, but otherwise it's easy to watch the studio's non-Miyazaki films and find them wanting in comparison to most of the master's own output. I'm not so sure - after all, I did like The Cat Returns and When Marnie Was There quite a lot, so I figure that the studio's output doesn't suffer greatly without their most renowned creative type running the show. The Secret World of Arrietty challenges that notion because its central plot lacks a lot of the innovation that one has come to associate with the name Ghibli (even though Miyazaki is credited with co-writing the screenplay instead of directing). This probably has something to do with the fact that it was adapted from the English children's novel The Borrowers, which had already seen several book-to-screen adaptations before Ghibli's take on it (which is notably the only adaptation to not use the title).

The plot focuses on the concept of "borrowers", who are similar to humans in every way except that they happen to be only a few inches tall. The film follows three such borrowers as they go around their everyday lives. Everyday life for them involves residing in a small dollhouse-like dwelling built within the foundations of a normal-sized house and sneaking into the house proper at night in order to acquire any supplies that they need. The family consists of a father who goes out borrowing when the family needs supplies, a mother who takes care of their dwelling, and their daughter (the Arrietty of the title), who has just reached the age where she can join her father on his borrowing trips. However, it is around this time that a sick young boy named Shô comes from the city to live with his grandmother, who just so happens to live in the very same house as the borrowers. Shô slowly learns about the existence of the borrowers, though his interest in them is a benevolent one borne of kindness, curiosity, and loneliness. Though Shô seems like a nice boy, the borrowers understandably treat him as a liability and must figure out how to deal with the looming threat of discovery, especially when the house's nosy old housekeeper presents a much more obvious threat as she plans to capture the borrowers.

The Secret World of Arrietty is undermined a bit by how much it sticks to conventional storytelling. The most notable example of this is in how the film provides a straightforward antagonist in the form of the housekeeper, whose actions are basic and her motives are a bit muddled. Fortunately, the film is not dependent on the standard hero-versus-villain conflict in order to generate interest. It gets so many other things right, such as Arrietty's wonder at experiencing the various thrills associated with borrowing missions or her quandary that arises from Shô not only spotting her but trying to innocuously reach out to her. Between the tightly-focused world-building and the earnest emotional core at the heart of the story, The Secret World of Arrietty is still a worthwhile addition to Ghibli's repertoire even if it doesn't reach "instant classic" status. It infuses its fairly simple and familiar narrative with some colourful and elaborate visuals that definitely make it worth checking out regardless of your experience with Ghibli. It may not be the best that Ghibli has to offer, but it is certainly accessible and holds up well on its own merits.

3.5

Iroquois

10-17-15, 08:15 AM

#644 - Baraka
Ron Fricke, 1992

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdryzxFKDr1r8g9quo1_r1_1280.jpg

A documentary dedicated to depicting the details of various different countries and cultures spread across the world.

I first remember being introduced to Baraka in a film class a few years ago. A clip was screened of the sequence that intercut time-lapse footage of people in train stations with footage of chicks moving along a long and painful-looking factory line before eventually winding up as battery hens. Even if I had managed to see the whole film before that, I imagine that such a sequence would still prove an extremely indelible image even for a film that seems custom-designed to provide nothing but indelible imagery for its brief running time. Baraka is an ambitious work of ethnographic cinema by Fricke, who had worked as the cinematographer on Godfrey Reggio's already-ambitious art-house documentary Koyaanisqatsi. It is very much like Reggio's film in that it is less concerned with conventions like plot or characters and instead seeks to deliver a film that can be considered no less than a sumptuous audio-visual experience. It does so by traveling around the world to dozens of different countries and filming a variety of people, creatures, and objects on striking 70mm stock.

I'm not sure if Baraka is really the kind of film that can be done justice with a proper review. The shooting on 70mm is evident in just about every frame, even the ones where time-lapse photography is being employed. It tends to be concerned with lingering shots of nature more so than the rapid movement of urban culture, which is definitely interesting as it jumps across continents in search of cultures to depict. In addition to the crisp photography on display, the soundtrack that features various different international artists also deserves some credit for managing to introduce subtle innovations while still staying fundamentally consistent. If you have no qualms about watching a ninety-minute nature documentary interspersed with the occasional sequence about cities and whatnot, then this is most definitely recommended. Even if you do have such qualms about whether or not you'd enjoy such a film, then give it a try anyway as it proves to be more captivating than you might expect a film with no plot of characters to be.

3.5

Iroquois

10-17-15, 08:36 AM

#645 - The Big Country
William Wyler, 1958

https://michaelpippa.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/the-big-country.jpg

An affluent sea captain from Baltimore travels west to visit his girlfriend in her hometown only to find himself in the middle of a conflict between two feuding ranchers.

Epic Western melodrama The Big Country certainly lives up to the scale implied by its title as it follows an urbane sea captain (Gregory Peck) as he travels out west to be with his girlfriend (Carroll Baker), who he met while she was visiting his hometown of Baltimore. While in her western hometown, he encounters the local schoolteacher (Jean Simmons) before being attacked by a handful of brothers (featuring Chuck Connors as the eldest and most vicious). Peck soon learns the reality of the situation; that his girlfriend's father (Charles Bickford) is a land baron who is constantly doing battle with another land baron (Burl Ives) over who gets the rights to access the large body of water on a tract of land that just so happens to belong to Simmons. Other factors threaten to complicate things, whether it's the fact that Ives is the father of Connors and his ilk also complicates matters severely or the rivalry that develops between Peck and the brutish foreman (Charlton Heston) for Bickford's estate.

i]The Big Country[/i] is ultimately pretty standard fare as far as bombastic Hollywood epics go.This much is clear in the way that it handles the various relationships between the principal characters, relying on the actors' talents to save them more so than any particularly smart writing. Peck proves a solid lead for the film to build around, with his deep but smooth delivery carrying a fundamentally stubborn character who still manages to be charming when he needs to be. Simmons is a major player in this instance as she starts off the film in a way that pretty much guarantees she'll figure into the film's greater plot, whether she's fending off advances from Connors' love-to-hate bully or expressing her concerns about her vital role in a turf war between two patriarchs (and she has good chemistry with Peck to boot, especially in the scene where they trade disturbing anecdotes). Bickford and Ives manage to embody two very different sides of the film's main conflicts as the fairly posh yet morally inscrutable military man and his slovenly yet weirdly honourable rival respectively. It's very easy to see how Ives won an Oscar for his turn as the man who is ostensibly set up as the villain of the piece, but it's to the film's credit that he does amply deliver a depth that only becomes deeper with each passing scene. Even though the plot ultimately leaves Baker to flounder, she at least gets in some decent moments, especially when she's put in contact with Heston, who can communicate volumes through his steely blue eyes and can play a violent bastard as well as anyone.

When you watch a film as long as The Big Country, you might have to question whether or not it needs to be as long as it does, and in this film's case I question it quite seriously. Despite the clearly epic scale on display as it fills its frames with grassy countrysides or stony canyons, it's easy to wonder whether or not some of the more extraneous scenes could've been redone or even cut completely. There are plenty of good moments peppered throughout, such as Peck's inevitable brawl with Heston or his attempts to tame a particularly unruly horse. Ives steals pretty much every scene he's in right from his introduction that sees him crash Bickford's party and only gets better as it heads towards its rather engrossing third act. The Big Country thus ends up being a fairly decent example of a grand-standing Hollywood period piece, but its considerable length ends up undermining strengths such as a solid acting ensemble or its collection of well-done stand-alone scenes.

3

Iroquois

10-17-15, 09:45 AM

#646 - The Chronicles of Riddick
David Twohy, 2004

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Chronicles-Of-Riddick.jpg

Five years after barely escaping from a dangerous alien planet, a wanted criminal earns the unwanted attention of a death cult while searching for his fellow survivors.

In my review of Pitch Black, I noted that, while I didn't think Pitch Black itself was particularly great, I would have been interested to see how later films would have developed the mythology of this particular universe. Well, you know what they say, "Be careful what you wish for", etc. The Chronicles of Riddick takes place five years after the events of Pitch Black, with Riddick (Vin Diesel) starting the film trying to evade some bounty hunters before eventually making his way to a different planet in search of his fellow survivors from the previous film. After finding one, he becomes intent on finding the other, even though various factors threaten to complicate matters such as said other survivor being trapped in one of the worst known prison-planets or the presence of a militant death cult that seeks to oppress any possible opposition through either death or indoctrination. Here is where The Chronicles of Riddick differs greatly from Pitch Black in that it abandons its predecessor's fairly tight focus on alien horror in favour of providing a somewhat ridiculous-looking space-opera that briefly delves into prison drama during its narrative's progression.

The space-opera elements are what threaten to sink The Chronicles of Riddick, whether it's Judi Dench's ultimately inconsequential appearance as an enigmatic mystic or the various ornate warrior-like elements that come to define the army of fanatical antagonists. Things don't get much better even when the film returns to the grim sci-fi elements of Pitch Black by having Riddick spend a large chunk of time on a prison planet with a decidedly lax approach to the scientific realities of a planet with lethal rays of sunlight. Even the inevitable reveal of what happened to his fellow survivor lacks any serious resonance within the context of this narrative except to serve as one of two very tenuous connections to the original film, though this can be credited to the unfortunate combination of sub-par acting and bland writing. The upgraded budget does seem promising but it results in a neutered product as it trades in the dark and bloody thrills of its predecessor for a film that tries to go for some very straightforward action instead, emphasising rapid close-quarters fighting with the odd chase or spaceship scene thrown in for good measure. Even point-of-view tricks such as Riddick's distinctive night-vision eyes or the enemies that see in Predator-like infrared don't make much positive difference. The flashy and elaborate art direction is a good idea in theory but it goes too far in trying to differentiate itself from its utilitarian predecessor and somehow ends up being blander. As a result, The Chronicles of Riddick ultimately ends up being a very passable excuse for a film that is offered the chance to expand its universe in an interesting manner yet its attempt to do so ends up being a fundamentally hollow experience that is reliant on genre clichés and lacks excitement or intrigue. Despite this film's considerable shortcomings, I still hold out some hope for follow-up Riddick, but we'll see if that film manages to make up for the tiresome space-fantasy that's on display here.

1.5

Iroquois

10-18-15, 06:49 AM

#647 - Cabin Fever
Eli Roth, 2002

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cabin-Fever-2002-620x400.jpg

Five college-aged friends plan to spend a week on holiday at a remote cabin in the woods only to have their trip ruined by a run-in with a flesh-eating virus.

Maybe it's because I haven't been all that invested in modern horror in general, but I have somehow managed to avoid watching any movies that have been directed by Eli Roth (provided you don't count Thanksgiving, his brief mock-trailer contribution to Grindhouse). I figured that I'd focus on his break-through feature Cabin Fever because its premise at least had the potential to prove more interesting than seeing people get flat-out tortured as they did in his most notorious film, Hostel. As such, it ends up being the kind of film that would naturally be taken down a peg by Drew Goddard's The Cabin in the Woods almost a decade later (despite having its own comical bent, though it's not an effective one). It follows five friends as they plan on taking a week-long vacation to a cabin in the woods, which naturally leads to them encountering some very antagonistic locals. Unfortunately, it turns out that their week away coincides with a backwoods hermit getting infected with some sort of flesh-eating virus, which causes some serious problems when said hermit shows up on the cabin's doorstep desperately begging for help. Things only get worse from there...

I'll grant Cabin Fever at least one concession; at least it introduces an element of unease through the fact that the main enemy here is not an unbelievably supernatural threat so much as a very plausible threat in the form of an unknown virus that just comes out of nowhere, especially when it ends up being spread through the area's water supply. At the very least, I've had at least a couple of moments since watching this film where I've regarded glasses of water with suspicion, which has to count for something. The effects needed to convey the virus's gory effects on people are serviceable (but I expect nothing less from the KNB group), though any shock value the gore causes does start to wear off eventually. Of course, the film still feels that the virus alone is not enough of a threat and has to throw in some dangerous locals in order to provide another threat. Obliviously racist shopkeepers, rabid children, violent neighbours, and difficult law enforcement figures abound, though their presence is a bit of a double-edged sword in that they not only indicate that the virus itself isn't enough of a threat to sustain the film but they also tend to prove distracting at times; the most prominent example is the comic-relief police deputy who seems more interested in chasing cheap thrills than actually doing any police work and the fact that he gets his own jazzy Twin Peaks-style leitmotif (composed by Angelo Badalamenti himself, no less!) comes across as awfully jarring and not in a good way.

I'm not such a big fan of the trend of horror films trying to introduce main characters who are so reprehensible that their gradually being picked off by the film's threat ultimately proves to be cathartic more so than frightening. I'll grant that the logic is sound - since you're definitely going to see the characters in a horror movie suffer, they might as well be bad people that arguably deserve whatever horrible fates befall them. Of course, the flip-side is that making them too irritating can make the non-horror bits difficult to tolerate and thus lower your opinion of the film as a whole. Cabin Fever is pretty unapologetic in its use of such characters that fit into such easily recognisable stereotypes, such as having both female characters fit into the classic molds of both virginal final girl and easy-going obvious victim. The male characters don't fare much better with not one but two characters fitting into the obnoxious alpha-male stereotype (engaging in beer-swilling, pranks, and wildlife-shooting to boot), though I give the film some credit for at least painting its ostensible nice-guy protagonist as being just as subtly pathetic and predatory in his attempts to win over the final girl.

Cabin Fever at least avoids the usual jump-scares for the most part but it doesn't really provide much beyond that. There's a certain degree of inevitability to the virus's infection rate, though it does cause its own plot holes as to how much of the tainted water each main character ends up consuming or being exposed to over the course of the film. The gory nature of the virus's effects once again makes me question whether or not repulsion is an adequate substitute for fear. Horror is a genre that's built on being unpleasant, but I feel like certain types of unpleasant threaten to make the film difficult (if not impossible) to enjoy in any capacity. Aside from that, the film's attempt to provide another variation on the conflict between rural savagery and urban superiority is only marginally effective, whereas attempts to wring some dark humour out of the situation fall flat for the most part and thus become one more reason why I don't feel like I can honestly like the film. I feel like any attempt to praise Cabin Fever ends up coming across as a grudging concession more so than a genuine compliment, and said good qualities are minor enough that I don't feel like they can adequately compensate for the rest of the movie's shortcomings. It's pretty telling that I was originally considering giving this one-and-a-half popcorn boxes but even then I couldn't help but feel like I was somehow overrating it.

1

Iroquois

10-19-15, 01:20 AM

#648 - The Last House on the Left
Dennis Iliadis, 2009

http://fieldingonfilm.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lastHouseOnTheLeft.jpg

Two teenage girls end up becoming victims of a family of vicious criminals.

It's quite the person who looks at a film like Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring and decides to make a more directly graphic and exploitative version of that, then it's yet another person who decides that said version could use its own remake. Such is the case with The Last House on the Left, which takes Wes Craven's 1972 cinematic debut and presumably decides to update it so as to match up with the sensibilities of a modern horror-movie audience. I saw Craven's version several years ago and remember liking it at the time, though I'm not entirely sure I'd extend it such favour these days. As such, it falls to the remake to suffer my ire. It follows the same basic plot about a teenage girl (Sara Paxton) and her overprotective parents (Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn) going on holiday to their vacation home located in - where else? - the woods. Despite her parents' well-meaning objections, she opts to hang out with her friend (Martha MacIsaac). However, their rebellious venture takes a turn for a worse when MacIsaac's plan to smoke weed with a hoodie-wearing loner (Spencer Treat Clark) is disrupted by the arrival of his incredibly deranged and violent family, which consists of his father (Garret Dillahunt), mother (Riki Lindhome), and uncle (Aaron Paul), all of whom have just come from busting Dillahunt out of police custody. From there the two girls are tormented by this extremely dysfunctional family before things take an extremely troublesome turn...

It's been long enough that I've forgotten a lot of what happened in Craven's version, though the tone stuck out because of its nature as a low-rent '70s horror. This extended to a humourous element that did stick out like a sore thumb, especially when the film cut away from its more tense and horrific scenes to a broadly comical sub-plot involving a hapless sheriff and deputy. There's no such respite in Iliadis' version, which is at once a benefit and a hindrance in this case. The plot is simple, which made sense when Bergman was using it as a backbone for another one of his films examining themes such as the human condition and the complexities of morality and religion; in the context of a straight horror, there's not much examination of anything that hasn't already served as the basis for many horror movies before it. There's the usual implicit demonisation of drug use and youthful irresponsibility in the first half; meanwhile, the second half is built on a very literal example of class warfare that probably doesn't bear spoiling if you're not familiar with this film or its aforementioned predecessors. As such, the first half becomes a rather unpleasant chore to put up with as the villains put the film's heroines through a fairly graphic ordeal (complete with the odd escape attempt). As a result, the film doesn't really become worth watching until its back half, where the family are forced to take refuge from a rainstorm and unwittingly initiate a dangerous game with the owners of the home they visit.

There are a couple of interesting tweaks in this version of The Last House on the Left, especially in how it plays things extremely seriously; there's no diverting to wacky sheriff shenanigans whatsoever, while the violence on display isn't comically gruesome (with the possible exception of the film's final scene, which does undermine all that's come before it in its grossly excessive execution). Having some recognisable career actors thrown into the mix rather than a bunch of unknowns does at least guarantee some decent performances, especially from the incredibly versatile Dillahunt (though it's difficult to watch Paul and think of him as anyone but Jesse Pinkman even in this particularly nasty role). Unfortunately, while the dedication evident in this film's approach is somewhat respectable, it's ultimately wasted in this context. The film obviously isn't aiming for the same lofty artistry that defined The Virgin Spring, but its attempt to provide a more serious reiteration of Craven's pulpy shocker is compromised a bit too frequently for its own good. I'm willing to consider the possibility that Craven's film wasn't that good to begin with and that Iliadis' feature was especially doomed as a result, but even on its own merits it's an erratic excuse for a thriller that can't escape its exploitative origins no matter how hard it tries (and that's assuming it even is trying).

1.5

nebbit

10-20-15, 06:36 AM

#647 - Cabin Fever
Eli Roth, 2002

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cabin-Fever-2002-620x400.jpg

1

Not a fan of this either :yup:

cricket

10-20-15, 09:43 AM

I love Cabin Fever and the original Last House on the Left, but thought the latter's remake was fairly lame.

Iroquois

10-22-15, 02:24 AM

#649 - Johnny Guitar
Nicholas Ray, 1954

http://altscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CrawfordJohnnyGuitar.jpg

A guitar-wielding cowboy rides into a frontier settlement where his old flame, who has managed to build her own saloon, is being hassled by a cattle baron and an heiress.

Having already seen Nicholas Ray's somewhat left-field takes on the film noir and teen movie genres with In a Lonely Place and Rebel Without a Cause respectively, I was of course expecting him to do something appropriately off-kilter with the Western in 1954's Johnny Guitar. At its most basic, it follows the tried-and-true Western formula of a lone rider (here the eponymous character played by Sterling Hayden) riding into a tense situation. He's been employed to work as a guitar player at a saloon at the request of its no-nonsense owner (Joan Crawford) because she just so happens to have had a prior relationship with Hayden. Crawford has managed to carve out a fairly successful living for herself, but she still faces considerable opposition from a local heiress (Mercedes McCambridge) and a cattle rancher (Ward Bond). Throw in a gang of outlaws, the leader of whom (Scott Brady) is fixated on his erstwhile lover Crawford while also apparently indifferent to McCambridge's apparent affection for him (which also fuels her hatred of Crawford, but I'll come back to that), and you have a complicated enough situation to sustain a feature film, and that's before Hayden demonstrates how fast he is with a gun...

On a superficial level, Johnny Guitar ticks all the boxes for being a solid Western. Characters cover the spectrum of morality and motivations without resorting to bland heroics or villainy; they are developed through some extremely melodramatic turns of phrase and countenances that make the film seem overly artificial even by the standards of your average Hollywood Western. This is not a strike against the film as there's a craft to the diction that makes it catch the ear in most of the right ways. The characterisation is also surprisingly solid as it builds around a web of complex romances. It's all too easy to interpret a suppressed lesbian subtext between McCambridge and Crawford (especially considering how the former's interest in Brady has to be mentioned by the characters rather than be immediately evident, though this can also be justified by her being an extremely uptight and conflicted puritan). In any case, McCambridge turns her bloody-minded hatred of Crawford into the core of her character and makes for one of the most love-to-hate characters I've seen in a while. The relationship between Crawford and Hayden, meanwhile, is only just given the slightest of justifications but it still works just fine as the two swap verbose declarations of their feelings that are questionable in their sincerity but are still fun to watch. Other characters are given just enough definition to keep the film going, whether it's Ernest Borgnine as Brady's brutish sidekick who develops his own bitter rivalry with Hayden or Ben Cooper as the youthful member of Brady's gang who has his own complicated attitude towards Crawford.

Johnny Guitar may not be all that great in its own right but it deserves acknowledgement for providing a decent enough variation on what could have been yet another generic 1950s Western. The relatively bizarre subversions that are put into place in regards to both plot and characterisation definitely make it stand out, though it's arguably a bit too long and drawn-out for its own good. Even though I felt like I might have fallen asleep during the film's second half (which is admittedly where the action picks up as buildings are destroyed, people are lynched, and tense shoot-outs unfold), I would put that down to just being tired rather than anything seriously wrong with this film. In short, Johnny Guitar may look just like every other Western that was being churned out to feed an expectant demand during the 1950s, but it manages to be anything but that as it weaves a tale of complex relationships and morally difficult conflicts. Definitely worth checking out if you're looking for a Western that's different to all the others in just about all the ways that count.

3

Iroquois

10-22-15, 02:29 AM

#650 - Modern Times
Charlie Chaplin, 1936

http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/inside_out/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Modern-Times.jpg

An impoverished factory worker gets into a series of misadventures.

Classic Charlie Chaplin - you can't really write reviews about his films in 2015. Modern Times arguably has the strongest claim to being his best film, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. It sees Chaplin as an ordinary factory worker who tirelessly toils away on an assembly line. From there, he gets into a series of misadventures at the factory that leads to him getting fired and bouncing around between a variety of jobs, homes, and even prison (which he becomes so used to that he co-operates with the personnel and even tries to get himself arrested again after his release). He also ends up crossing with paths with a young woman (Paulette Goddard) who has to resort to petty crime in order to take care of her impoverished family. That's basically all the plot that this movie has as it progresses through a series of tragicomic segments until it decides to just end. Given its comedic nature, I can understand that plot is not the most important aspect. That's where Modern Times falls prey to the same problem I've had with the other Chaplin films I've watched - I just don't find it that funny.

That's not to say that Modern Times isn't completely devoid of mirth because there's clearly a cleverness to the proceedings that helps the film stay somewhat fresh even now. A lot of that has to do with how many of the sequences are derived from Chaplin's concerns with the state of the nation in the time of the Great Depression and even now feel sadly relevant. Something like Chaplin's character being institutionalised by his time in prison is played for laughs, but considering how hard things are on the outside with unemployment and whatnot, it seems somewhat plausible that going to prison isn't something to be avoided at all costs but actually sounds like a valid way to survive such a screwed-up world. There's also a satirical bent to a lot of the sequences even if they don't elicit much in the way of actual chuckles. The most obvious instance would be an early scene where an inventor creates an automated feeding machine designed to make workers more efficient by making them eat faster and waste less time on lunch; this obviously gets played for laughs when Chaplin is strapped into the machine and it naturally starts going haywire. Of course, not every gag in the film requires some sort of analytical subtext to pay off and are sometimes just nothing more than Chaplin and Goddard trying to find a moment of joy amidst their difficult existences (most memorably in a scene where they try on roller-skates in a department store where there's a conspicuous absence of guard-rails...).

Arriving after the advent of talking pictures, Modern Times does attempt to balance speech with silence but it doesn't exactly work. The film initially seems to rely on speech when it comes to having the factory boss address workers or in having a recording that describes the feeding-machine to the factory boss, but it all but abandons that conceit as the film wears on and it starts relying on title cards like a regular silent film. The gags are pretty sporadic in terms of quality, with a lot of the usual slapstick that does veer into surreal territory at times, especially when it involves factory machinery (including one gag where Chaplin falls into a conveyor belt and travels through a cross-section of the machine) - and, this being a silent comedy, there's also a fantasy sequence or two. The emotions on display may be broad, but they admittedly work as the unlikely bond that forms between Chaplin and Goddard over the course of the film still carries some genuine emotional weight. Between the solid emotional core and the cleverness of the writing, Modern Times may not prove to be a laugh riot and it does have moments that don't really work (such as that whole sequence where Chaplin and Goddard must work in an upscale club/restaurant) but it's a fairly dependable little film. I do have to wonder if the reason Chaplin's films are considered great is because there's nothing about them that is obviously great - they're just these films about this funny-looking little fella getting into mishaps without ever losing heart. That heart is a vital component that guarantees a certain dependability to Chaplin's films that adequately compensates for any shortcomings.

3

nebbit

10-22-15, 06:59 PM

I :love: Modern Times :yup:

carlspackler

10-23-15, 11:13 AM