Iro's One Movie a Day Thread
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
#327 - The Face of Another
Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1966
After his face is horribly disfigured by a workplace accident, a man seeks out a scientist with the intention of asking him for a new face.
Though it could loosely be considered science-fiction due to its reliance on the invention of artificial faces that are indistinguishable from the real thing (which is still a while away from existing even in 2015), The Face of Another sure doesn't feel like science-fiction. Instead, it's more of a rumination on how people live with their identities, especially when those identities may be changed by physical deformity or the concealment of said deformity through scientific endeavour. It is shot through with a sort of magical realism defined by its quasi-documentarian black-and-white camerawork and its weird score that alternates between atonal clangs and a leitmotif that uses a Bavarian-sounding waltz. As per its artistic sensibilities, it is a slow-moving piece that stretches out its high concept by taking at least a third of the two-hour running time to even get to the point where the protagonist receives his lifelike mask. As befitting such an artistically-minded film, it is often packed out with strikingly surreal images and verbose dialogues examining the nature of the experiment at the heart of the film.
The performances are appropriately understated for the most part, with the protagonist initially garnering some sympathy due to his situation but quickly squandering it as his disfigurement leads to him becoming more and more discourteous towards others in an effort to prove something. Hardly the most sensitive portrayal of physical disability, especially when it's combined with a disconnected sub-plot about a similarly disfigured young woman that comes across as largely irrelevant save for the occasional counter-point to the protagonist's storyline (which does add to the feeling that this film is a bit too long). Thanks to the arty nature of the film, it stays unpredictable up until its finishing minutes and proves an interesting enough piece of hyper-realistic sci-fi with some interesting little dialogues and viscerally unsettling scenes, but it doesn't quite manage to be a classic thanks to some rather outdated modes of thinking (such as another sub-plot involving the protagonist's interactions with a mentally challenged neighbour) and a relative lack of tightness.
Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1966
After his face is horribly disfigured by a workplace accident, a man seeks out a scientist with the intention of asking him for a new face.
Though it could loosely be considered science-fiction due to its reliance on the invention of artificial faces that are indistinguishable from the real thing (which is still a while away from existing even in 2015), The Face of Another sure doesn't feel like science-fiction. Instead, it's more of a rumination on how people live with their identities, especially when those identities may be changed by physical deformity or the concealment of said deformity through scientific endeavour. It is shot through with a sort of magical realism defined by its quasi-documentarian black-and-white camerawork and its weird score that alternates between atonal clangs and a leitmotif that uses a Bavarian-sounding waltz. As per its artistic sensibilities, it is a slow-moving piece that stretches out its high concept by taking at least a third of the two-hour running time to even get to the point where the protagonist receives his lifelike mask. As befitting such an artistically-minded film, it is often packed out with strikingly surreal images and verbose dialogues examining the nature of the experiment at the heart of the film.
The performances are appropriately understated for the most part, with the protagonist initially garnering some sympathy due to his situation but quickly squandering it as his disfigurement leads to him becoming more and more discourteous towards others in an effort to prove something. Hardly the most sensitive portrayal of physical disability, especially when it's combined with a disconnected sub-plot about a similarly disfigured young woman that comes across as largely irrelevant save for the occasional counter-point to the protagonist's storyline (which does add to the feeling that this film is a bit too long). Thanks to the arty nature of the film, it stays unpredictable up until its finishing minutes and proves an interesting enough piece of hyper-realistic sci-fi with some interesting little dialogues and viscerally unsettling scenes, but it doesn't quite manage to be a classic thanks to some rather outdated modes of thinking (such as another sub-plot involving the protagonist's interactions with a mentally challenged neighbour) and a relative lack of tightness.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
#328 - Green Lantern
Martin Campbell, 2011
A human fighter pilot is recruited into an intergalactic league of law enforcers around the same time that a villainous alien escapes from captivity.
It's hard not to think of the existence of a Green Lantern movie as a cynical exercise on the part of DC Comics to keep up with Marvel's plan to create its own superhero-filled cinematic universe. Such a motivation would certainly go some way towards explaining the general lack of quality to this particular film, but even if this is the result of DC's best intentions then it doesn't really show. A lot of that might have to do with the fact that the premise of Green Lantern involves it going beyond the stark realism of Christopher Nolan's Batman films and instead plunging headlong into garish sci-fi fantasy by introducing the Green Lantern Corps and their ability to harness the power of will (which looks like green energy) for the purpose of fighting evil across the galaxy. The focus on an extraterrestrial mythos guarantees that there is a lot of CGI packed into the movie, and while some of it does look fairly slick (read: some), it's probably the only worthwhile thing about this movie.
The story is a pretty standard superhero origin story that is sorely lacking in any kind of personality. Our hero is a cocky fighter pilot (Ryan Reynolds) whose supposedly fearless attitude masks some insecurity about his past, which of course complicates things. Aside from him, the characters do tend to be clichéd and poorly acted, whether it's Blake Lively as the slightly-more-capable-than-your-average-damsel love interest or Peter Sarsgaard as the nominal misunderstood villain whose talent is wasted underneath a heap of prosthetics and ear-piercing shrieks. Not even the CGI characters and their respective voice actors such as Geoffrey Rush or Clancy Brown can do anything of worth with the material. It's a shame because I was hoping that this would be better than the "hype" but, despite the clearly expensive levels of special effects on-screen, it still feels woefully underweight and doesn't even offer any memorably glaring flaws like, say, Daredevil. Kind of hoping the next time DC attempts to bring a superhero that isn't Superman or Batman to the big screen isn't such a mess, but obviously I'm not hoping too hard.
Martin Campbell, 2011
A human fighter pilot is recruited into an intergalactic league of law enforcers around the same time that a villainous alien escapes from captivity.
It's hard not to think of the existence of a Green Lantern movie as a cynical exercise on the part of DC Comics to keep up with Marvel's plan to create its own superhero-filled cinematic universe. Such a motivation would certainly go some way towards explaining the general lack of quality to this particular film, but even if this is the result of DC's best intentions then it doesn't really show. A lot of that might have to do with the fact that the premise of Green Lantern involves it going beyond the stark realism of Christopher Nolan's Batman films and instead plunging headlong into garish sci-fi fantasy by introducing the Green Lantern Corps and their ability to harness the power of will (which looks like green energy) for the purpose of fighting evil across the galaxy. The focus on an extraterrestrial mythos guarantees that there is a lot of CGI packed into the movie, and while some of it does look fairly slick (read: some), it's probably the only worthwhile thing about this movie.
The story is a pretty standard superhero origin story that is sorely lacking in any kind of personality. Our hero is a cocky fighter pilot (Ryan Reynolds) whose supposedly fearless attitude masks some insecurity about his past, which of course complicates things. Aside from him, the characters do tend to be clichéd and poorly acted, whether it's Blake Lively as the slightly-more-capable-than-your-average-damsel love interest or Peter Sarsgaard as the nominal misunderstood villain whose talent is wasted underneath a heap of prosthetics and ear-piercing shrieks. Not even the CGI characters and their respective voice actors such as Geoffrey Rush or Clancy Brown can do anything of worth with the material. It's a shame because I was hoping that this would be better than the "hype" but, despite the clearly expensive levels of special effects on-screen, it still feels woefully underweight and doesn't even offer any memorably glaring flaws like, say, Daredevil. Kind of hoping the next time DC attempts to bring a superhero that isn't Superman or Batman to the big screen isn't such a mess, but obviously I'm not hoping too hard.
X
Favorite Movies
#329 - The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Steven Spielberg, 1997
After the events of Jurassic Park, Dr. Ian Malcolm is brought back in to join an expedition to investigate a second island filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs.
The original Jurassic Park has always been a favourite of mine to some extent or another but this is actually the first time I've seen any of its cinematic continuations (and I'll probably end up catching the third film before Jurassic World comes out as well), but now that I've seen it I can't help but wonder if I should have kept it that way. The Lost World hits a lot of the narrative beats common to those most redundant of sequels - a convenient semi-recycling of the premise (there's a second island full of dinosaurs that wasn't previously mentioned?), an almost entirely new cast of characters (there are four characters returning from the first film, and only one of them is in the film for more than a minute or two), and most obviously an attempt to escalate the scale on every conceivable level that ironically does nothing to actually increase the excitement. There are more characters of varying degrees of sympathy but few are of any genuine interest with the possible exception of Pete Postlethwaite's game hunter, whose interest in the human antagonist's expedition is motivated more by the chance to hunt a T-rex rather than capture it for a rival dinosaur theme park.
One of the main flaws with the original Jurassic Park is that it did spend a lot of time on not just building up to the inevitable dinosaur rampage but also playing up the spectacle. The Lost World does try to compensate by jumping straight into the action thrills (after a lengthy sequence of scenes introducing the conflict and characters, of course). Unfortunately, it doesn't manage to sustain said thrills for long as the dinosaur effects don't hold up all that well under the pressure of action sequences. In addition to the repetition of the jungle island setting, the action often involves repeating setpieces from the last movie - the most memorable one involves an RV dangling over a cliff while being besieged by a T-rex (you know, instead of a jeep). Even the attempt to stage a finale involving a T-rex rampaging through an urban centre (and it's not like this is much of a spoiler considering how the trailer I saw years back played up the T-rex getting into a suburban backyard) just comes across as excessive in the film's greater context, but it does make for an eye-catching trailer. I'm not sure if it's an age thing or if it really is just a very lacklustre sequel, but I just felt extremely underwhelmed by The Lost World and its almost complete inability to recapture the charm of the original. There's enough going on that I don't hate the film, but there's not enough here that makes me think it really needed to exist either. Still going to watch Jurassic Park III when it airs on TV later this week, though.
Steven Spielberg, 1997
After the events of Jurassic Park, Dr. Ian Malcolm is brought back in to join an expedition to investigate a second island filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs.
The original Jurassic Park has always been a favourite of mine to some extent or another but this is actually the first time I've seen any of its cinematic continuations (and I'll probably end up catching the third film before Jurassic World comes out as well), but now that I've seen it I can't help but wonder if I should have kept it that way. The Lost World hits a lot of the narrative beats common to those most redundant of sequels - a convenient semi-recycling of the premise (there's a second island full of dinosaurs that wasn't previously mentioned?), an almost entirely new cast of characters (there are four characters returning from the first film, and only one of them is in the film for more than a minute or two), and most obviously an attempt to escalate the scale on every conceivable level that ironically does nothing to actually increase the excitement. There are more characters of varying degrees of sympathy but few are of any genuine interest with the possible exception of Pete Postlethwaite's game hunter, whose interest in the human antagonist's expedition is motivated more by the chance to hunt a T-rex rather than capture it for a rival dinosaur theme park.
One of the main flaws with the original Jurassic Park is that it did spend a lot of time on not just building up to the inevitable dinosaur rampage but also playing up the spectacle. The Lost World does try to compensate by jumping straight into the action thrills (after a lengthy sequence of scenes introducing the conflict and characters, of course). Unfortunately, it doesn't manage to sustain said thrills for long as the dinosaur effects don't hold up all that well under the pressure of action sequences. In addition to the repetition of the jungle island setting, the action often involves repeating setpieces from the last movie - the most memorable one involves an RV dangling over a cliff while being besieged by a T-rex (you know, instead of a jeep). Even the attempt to stage a finale involving a T-rex rampaging through an urban centre (and it's not like this is much of a spoiler considering how the trailer I saw years back played up the T-rex getting into a suburban backyard) just comes across as excessive in the film's greater context, but it does make for an eye-catching trailer. I'm not sure if it's an age thing or if it really is just a very lacklustre sequel, but I just felt extremely underwhelmed by The Lost World and its almost complete inability to recapture the charm of the original. There's enough going on that I don't hate the film, but there's not enough here that makes me think it really needed to exist either. Still going to watch Jurassic Park III when it airs on TV later this week, though.
X
Favorite Movies
#330 - Superman Returns
Bryan Singer, 2005
After leaving Earth five years previously to search for the remains of Krypton, Superman comes back to Earth and must stop Lex Luthor from pulling off another evil scheme.
The flaws inherent in trying to make a compelling narrative about Superman have been picked over time and time again and Superman Returns not only brings them crashing back, but it adds them into a bloated and alienating excuse for a superhero film. Superhero movies that nudge the 150-minute mark often have a bit of trouble staying compelling for a significant enough portion of that time, but this one doesn't have trouble staying compelling because it never gets started. Learning that the makers were trying to stay true to the first two films doesn't exactly excuse how closely the main conflict mirrors that of the original film, with Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, here proving to be the best thing about the film, even if seeing him play a bald supervillain just reminded me of when he did a cameo as a Hollywood version of Dr. Evil in Goldmember) planning a scheme that makes even less sense than that of the original Superman film. Fortunately, Superman (Brandon Routh, doing a serviceable Christopher Reeve impression) comes back to Earth just in time to fail Luthor's plan while also reconnecting with Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who has since had a son and is now engaged.
Of course, several of the weaknesses common to Superman stories (chiefly his overpowered nature leading to incredibly contrived situations where he must rescue others and also the re-introduction of Kryptonite in order to make him momentarily weak) make unwelcome re-appearances in ways that don't often make sense. The actual action hasn't really held up even over ten years with a lot and the warmed-over romantic sub-plot between Superman and Lois is utterly forgettable even with the introduction of Lois' new fiancé (James Marsden) to shake things up. Unfortunately, it's not enough to stop Superman Returns from being an extremely tedious excuse for a massive blockbuster. The only reason I'm not rating this lower is because, for all its narrative flaws, it can never be as bad as Superman IV, but then again, what can be?
Bryan Singer, 2005
After leaving Earth five years previously to search for the remains of Krypton, Superman comes back to Earth and must stop Lex Luthor from pulling off another evil scheme.
The flaws inherent in trying to make a compelling narrative about Superman have been picked over time and time again and Superman Returns not only brings them crashing back, but it adds them into a bloated and alienating excuse for a superhero film. Superhero movies that nudge the 150-minute mark often have a bit of trouble staying compelling for a significant enough portion of that time, but this one doesn't have trouble staying compelling because it never gets started. Learning that the makers were trying to stay true to the first two films doesn't exactly excuse how closely the main conflict mirrors that of the original film, with Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, here proving to be the best thing about the film, even if seeing him play a bald supervillain just reminded me of when he did a cameo as a Hollywood version of Dr. Evil in Goldmember) planning a scheme that makes even less sense than that of the original Superman film. Fortunately, Superman (Brandon Routh, doing a serviceable Christopher Reeve impression) comes back to Earth just in time to fail Luthor's plan while also reconnecting with Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who has since had a son and is now engaged.
Of course, several of the weaknesses common to Superman stories (chiefly his overpowered nature leading to incredibly contrived situations where he must rescue others and also the re-introduction of Kryptonite in order to make him momentarily weak) make unwelcome re-appearances in ways that don't often make sense. The actual action hasn't really held up even over ten years with a lot and the warmed-over romantic sub-plot between Superman and Lois is utterly forgettable even with the introduction of Lois' new fiancé (James Marsden) to shake things up. Unfortunately, it's not enough to stop Superman Returns from being an extremely tedious excuse for a massive blockbuster. The only reason I'm not rating this lower is because, for all its narrative flaws, it can never be as bad as Superman IV, but then again, what can be?
X
Favorite Movies
#331 - The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
John Huston, 1972
A drifter names himself a judge and proceeds to build and preside over a frontier town by using an especially bloody sense of justice.
John Huston had always been something of a maverick when it came to filmmaking and his attempt at making the kind of revisionist Western that was becoming popular in the late '60s and early '70s certainly plays to that reputation. What distinguishes The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean is its blackly comic energy that manages to sustain its otherwise bleak tale quite well. Paul Newman gets to play very much against type as the eponymous judge, who starts the film getting lynched by the surly inhabitants of a remote brothel before recovering and proceeding to massacre the lot of them in revenge. He then reinvents the building to be a courthouse that serves as the foundation of a small town, consolidating his power with a collection of outlaws-turned-lawmen and frequently getting into all sorts of mishaps that become the stuff of legend.
The film is rather episodic in nature and seems like a lot of vignettes that are loosely knitted together, with a serious plot only emerging with the introduction of a mayor (Roddy McDowall) who serves as a major antagonist to Newman during the back half of the film. As a result, it's hard to think of this as anything approaching a genuine classic but it's definitely got enough distinctive moments to stop it from getting boring. There's a collection of recognisable faces scattered throughout the film to back up Newman's wild-eyed protagonist and Huston definitely has the talent behind the camera to back up the somewhat weird story playing out on-screen. Of course, the novelty of this "comedy" (which is what I feel inclined to call this film despite its rather twisted nature) inevitably wears off over the course of two hours and its conclusion feels anticlimatic despite it being clearly not being intended as such, so it's caught between two modes a lot of the time and is thus only worth one watch.
John Huston, 1972
A drifter names himself a judge and proceeds to build and preside over a frontier town by using an especially bloody sense of justice.
John Huston had always been something of a maverick when it came to filmmaking and his attempt at making the kind of revisionist Western that was becoming popular in the late '60s and early '70s certainly plays to that reputation. What distinguishes The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean is its blackly comic energy that manages to sustain its otherwise bleak tale quite well. Paul Newman gets to play very much against type as the eponymous judge, who starts the film getting lynched by the surly inhabitants of a remote brothel before recovering and proceeding to massacre the lot of them in revenge. He then reinvents the building to be a courthouse that serves as the foundation of a small town, consolidating his power with a collection of outlaws-turned-lawmen and frequently getting into all sorts of mishaps that become the stuff of legend.
The film is rather episodic in nature and seems like a lot of vignettes that are loosely knitted together, with a serious plot only emerging with the introduction of a mayor (Roddy McDowall) who serves as a major antagonist to Newman during the back half of the film. As a result, it's hard to think of this as anything approaching a genuine classic but it's definitely got enough distinctive moments to stop it from getting boring. There's a collection of recognisable faces scattered throughout the film to back up Newman's wild-eyed protagonist and Huston definitely has the talent behind the camera to back up the somewhat weird story playing out on-screen. Of course, the novelty of this "comedy" (which is what I feel inclined to call this film despite its rather twisted nature) inevitably wears off over the course of two hours and its conclusion feels anticlimatic despite it being clearly not being intended as such, so it's caught between two modes a lot of the time and is thus only worth one watch.
X
Favorite Movies
#332 - Bronson
Nicolas Winding Refn, 2008
Based on the true story of "Charles Bronson", who is described as England's most famous prisoner.
Bronson is definitely one of those films that deserves to be lauded for its lead performance and little else. The only other Refn film I've seen is of course his "biggest" film Drive, which was pretty much the exact opposite in terms of what it demanded from its (admittedly rather talented) cast. While this film still showcases his capacity for capturing high-contrast images and mixing in some eclectic soundtrack choices, none of it would come together as well as it did if it wasn't for the presence of Tom Hardy as the eponymous prisoner and elevates this rather simplistic film to a greater height. As "Bronson" (real name: Michael Peterson), Hardy gets a chance to show considerable range inside a seemingly basic and restrictive role. Using an interesting framing device where Bronson takes the stage in a crowded theatre and tells his life story to a rapt audience (complete with several make-up changes to accentuate his tale as necessary), it starts from his normal upbringing (where the only violence comes from him apropos of nothing) and soon enough shows him going to jail over a small-time hold-up. What starts as a commutable sentence of a few years balloons into a decades-long career as Bronson decides to try to make a name for himself within the prison system, which leads to several transfers, a couple of institutionalisations, at least one full-scale riot, a brief window of time on the outside, and - last but not least - countless instances of violence perpetrated by and against Bronson throughout that time.
Bronson is a fairly thin and episodic affair that more or less has to be carried by both Hardy's performance and the technical flair of Refn and co. The colours alternate quite frequently between oversaturation and desaturation (though there's more or the former than the latter) while the depiction of various events tend to be composed of elaborate and artificial (but no less eye-grabbing) tableaux, often as a result of Bronson's deranged yet creative designs. Other performances are serviceable, with the only other character that remotely stands out being Matt King of Peep Show fame as a suave-talking fellow inmate that Bronson connects with on the outside. The soundtrack is rather inspired, whether it invoke period-appropriate synth-pop or dramatic classic compositions. While it's ultimately a bit too shallow to be considered a genuine modern classic, it's worth a look if you want to see a remarkable portrait of a man whose inconsistent nature and grandiose sense of self-importance makes for fascinating viewing.
Nicolas Winding Refn, 2008
Based on the true story of "Charles Bronson", who is described as England's most famous prisoner.
Bronson is definitely one of those films that deserves to be lauded for its lead performance and little else. The only other Refn film I've seen is of course his "biggest" film Drive, which was pretty much the exact opposite in terms of what it demanded from its (admittedly rather talented) cast. While this film still showcases his capacity for capturing high-contrast images and mixing in some eclectic soundtrack choices, none of it would come together as well as it did if it wasn't for the presence of Tom Hardy as the eponymous prisoner and elevates this rather simplistic film to a greater height. As "Bronson" (real name: Michael Peterson), Hardy gets a chance to show considerable range inside a seemingly basic and restrictive role. Using an interesting framing device where Bronson takes the stage in a crowded theatre and tells his life story to a rapt audience (complete with several make-up changes to accentuate his tale as necessary), it starts from his normal upbringing (where the only violence comes from him apropos of nothing) and soon enough shows him going to jail over a small-time hold-up. What starts as a commutable sentence of a few years balloons into a decades-long career as Bronson decides to try to make a name for himself within the prison system, which leads to several transfers, a couple of institutionalisations, at least one full-scale riot, a brief window of time on the outside, and - last but not least - countless instances of violence perpetrated by and against Bronson throughout that time.
Bronson is a fairly thin and episodic affair that more or less has to be carried by both Hardy's performance and the technical flair of Refn and co. The colours alternate quite frequently between oversaturation and desaturation (though there's more or the former than the latter) while the depiction of various events tend to be composed of elaborate and artificial (but no less eye-grabbing) tableaux, often as a result of Bronson's deranged yet creative designs. Other performances are serviceable, with the only other character that remotely stands out being Matt King of Peep Show fame as a suave-talking fellow inmate that Bronson connects with on the outside. The soundtrack is rather inspired, whether it invoke period-appropriate synth-pop or dramatic classic compositions. While it's ultimately a bit too shallow to be considered a genuine modern classic, it's worth a look if you want to see a remarkable portrait of a man whose inconsistent nature and grandiose sense of self-importance makes for fascinating viewing.
X
Favorite Movies
#333 - Throne of Blood
Akira Kurosawa, 1957
After a pair of high-ranking military commanders encounter a forest spirit who tells them their futures, one of them starts taking extreme measures to guarantee the safety of his future.
At its base, Throne of Blood is fundamentally a retelling of Macbeth set in feudal Japan, but Kurosawa and his collaborators adapt it to the setting reasonably well and make for a film that I think might just top The Tragedy of Macbeth as my favourite adaptation of the Scottish play. Seeing as Macbeth was one of the plays I studied in high school, I'm exceptionally familiar with it and was able to pick how this film streamlines the plot and keeps it nice and relatively short. Some of the changes are rooted in cultural and historical differences, with the dialogue (or at least the English subtitles) becoming much more prosaic by swapping out the various Scottish place names for numbered castles and a simplified ranking system involving lords and commanders. It still manages to invoke some flowery turns of phrase when the forest spirit (here standing in for the trio of witches) is involved. There are also some changes that influence the endgame considerably (putting them under spoilers because I figure they are worth mentioning):
Otherwise, Throne of Blood is a solid adaptation where the makers make enough of their own mark on the material to keep it interesting without doing any injustice to it in the process. A variety of performers, several of whom are dependable Kurosawa regulars like Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura, deliver good performances that are appropriately theatrical without being overdone. The monochromatic look of the film is decent enough and, while there are few action scenes, many of the sequences are shot through with clarity and professionalism. It's not about to become my favourite Kurosawa in a hurry, but it might just push me to watch more of his work before too long.
Akira Kurosawa, 1957
After a pair of high-ranking military commanders encounter a forest spirit who tells them their futures, one of them starts taking extreme measures to guarantee the safety of his future.
At its base, Throne of Blood is fundamentally a retelling of Macbeth set in feudal Japan, but Kurosawa and his collaborators adapt it to the setting reasonably well and make for a film that I think might just top The Tragedy of Macbeth as my favourite adaptation of the Scottish play. Seeing as Macbeth was one of the plays I studied in high school, I'm exceptionally familiar with it and was able to pick how this film streamlines the plot and keeps it nice and relatively short. Some of the changes are rooted in cultural and historical differences, with the dialogue (or at least the English subtitles) becoming much more prosaic by swapping out the various Scottish place names for numbered castles and a simplified ranking system involving lords and commanders. It still manages to invoke some flowery turns of phrase when the forest spirit (here standing in for the trio of witches) is involved. There are also some changes that influence the endgame considerably (putting them under spoilers because I figure they are worth mentioning):
WARNING: "Macbeth/Throne of Blood" spoilers below
The most significant change that Throne of Blood makes to its source is what appears to be the complete removal of Macduff's subplot. Though Wikipedia indicates that there is a Macduff equivalent, I missed the connection since he does not get the whole "no man of woman born" prophecy that defines Macduff's character arc. Instead, the film's Macbeth equivalent is shot full of arrows by his own men before his enemies can even breach his defences. An interesting variation and not in a bad way, especially since it makes for the film's most undeniably iconic moment.
Otherwise, Throne of Blood is a solid adaptation where the makers make enough of their own mark on the material to keep it interesting without doing any injustice to it in the process. A variety of performers, several of whom are dependable Kurosawa regulars like Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura, deliver good performances that are appropriately theatrical without being overdone. The monochromatic look of the film is decent enough and, while there are few action scenes, many of the sequences are shot through with clarity and professionalism. It's not about to become my favourite Kurosawa in a hurry, but it might just push me to watch more of his work before too long.
Last edited by Iroquois; 06-05-15 at 09:29 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
#334 - Jerry Maguire
Cameron Crowe, 1996
A wildly successful yet emotionally stunted sports agent has a crisis of conscience and is forced to restart his business from the ground up with the help of one of his assistants and the one client who hasn't abandoned him.
Almost twenty years after its most memorably schmaltzy and overdone lines of dialogue leaked into the cultural consciousness, I am finally getting around to watching Jerry Maguire and...well I guess it's not quite as bad as I'd expected, but the sentimentality and idealism on display only go so far to prop up an otherwise heavy-handed film. Despite earning an Oscar nomination for his role here, this is Tom Cruise running through all his usual acting tricks to bring the eponymous character to what I guess can be called life and thus there is nothing about his work here that stands out against either his other Oscar-nominated turns or any other halfway-serious role he's played. The supporting cast is debatable at best - though Cuba Gooding Jr. does deliver a decent enough performance that I suppose could be worthy of an Oscar, he doesn't seem to get much of an arc of his own beyond serving both Cruise's personal and professional journeys. At least Regina King makes the most of her relatively small role as Gooding Jr.'s wife and definitely comes across as one of the best performances in the film, which stands in stark contrast to Renée Zellweger's extremely underwhelming turn as the single mother who is inspired by Cruise's principled stand and joins him as he attempts to restart his business. Otherwise, the cast involves a bunch of unremarkable characters with varying levels of antagonism towards Cruise and his mission, whether it's Bonnie Hunt as Zellweger's distrustful but supportive sister through to Jay Mohr as Cruise's insufferable business rival.
I don't know whether or not I should commend or condemn Crowe's capacity for sentimentality and idealism, which is more that ably demonstrated through this film. This film does go through the effort of showing the difficulty of trying to deliver a personalised approach in an extremely impersonal and greedy field, as well as Cruise's struggle to stick with his newly discovered principles even after they get him fired, though these developments aren't often compelling enough to feel like they justify their continued presence. The behind-the-scenes sports drama generally doesn't feel too compelling, if only because it feels like it's being sidelined and underdeveloped in favour of the rather desperate-looking romance that gradually unfolds between Cruise and Zellweger. I guess there's just enough quality so that it doesn't feel completely awful, but it's still an awfully saccharine, obvious and overly long excuse for a dramedy that I definitely don't need to see more than once.
Cameron Crowe, 1996
A wildly successful yet emotionally stunted sports agent has a crisis of conscience and is forced to restart his business from the ground up with the help of one of his assistants and the one client who hasn't abandoned him.
Almost twenty years after its most memorably schmaltzy and overdone lines of dialogue leaked into the cultural consciousness, I am finally getting around to watching Jerry Maguire and...well I guess it's not quite as bad as I'd expected, but the sentimentality and idealism on display only go so far to prop up an otherwise heavy-handed film. Despite earning an Oscar nomination for his role here, this is Tom Cruise running through all his usual acting tricks to bring the eponymous character to what I guess can be called life and thus there is nothing about his work here that stands out against either his other Oscar-nominated turns or any other halfway-serious role he's played. The supporting cast is debatable at best - though Cuba Gooding Jr. does deliver a decent enough performance that I suppose could be worthy of an Oscar, he doesn't seem to get much of an arc of his own beyond serving both Cruise's personal and professional journeys. At least Regina King makes the most of her relatively small role as Gooding Jr.'s wife and definitely comes across as one of the best performances in the film, which stands in stark contrast to Renée Zellweger's extremely underwhelming turn as the single mother who is inspired by Cruise's principled stand and joins him as he attempts to restart his business. Otherwise, the cast involves a bunch of unremarkable characters with varying levels of antagonism towards Cruise and his mission, whether it's Bonnie Hunt as Zellweger's distrustful but supportive sister through to Jay Mohr as Cruise's insufferable business rival.
I don't know whether or not I should commend or condemn Crowe's capacity for sentimentality and idealism, which is more that ably demonstrated through this film. This film does go through the effort of showing the difficulty of trying to deliver a personalised approach in an extremely impersonal and greedy field, as well as Cruise's struggle to stick with his newly discovered principles even after they get him fired, though these developments aren't often compelling enough to feel like they justify their continued presence. The behind-the-scenes sports drama generally doesn't feel too compelling, if only because it feels like it's being sidelined and underdeveloped in favour of the rather desperate-looking romance that gradually unfolds between Cruise and Zellweger. I guess there's just enough quality so that it doesn't feel completely awful, but it's still an awfully saccharine, obvious and overly long excuse for a dramedy that I definitely don't need to see more than once.
X
Favorite Movies
I wonder how I would feel about Jerry Maguire if I saw it today for the first time. As it is I have seen it about ten times before today and I find it infinitely re-watchable. I love Cruise and Gooding's characters. The scenes with them together really shine for me. Not the biggest Zellweger fan, but this is certainly the most I have liked her. Most of the movies I love have a comedic element to them that I really respond to. Maguire is no different. One of my faves.
__________________
Letterboxd
Letterboxd
X
Favorite Movies
#335 - The Endless Summer
Bruce Brown, 1966
A documentary about a pair of American surfers, Mike Hynson and Robert August, who plan to continue their surfing season by traveling to other continents in the Southern Hemisphere.
I'm really not sure how to feel about The Endless Summer. I didn't really have much interest in surfing before watching it, but I heard it was a good documentary and I figured that if it was good enough then it would be able to make me interesting. Brown acknowledges that the film's audience may be looking to gain an insight into the surfing sub-culture of the time and is sure to pack out the start of the film with an introductory vignette depicting various techniques and methods of surfing before introducing Hynson and August, then proceeds to intercut other informative segments throughout the rest of the film. Of course, the bulk of the film does document the pair's whimsical attempt to chase summer across the Equator and several different continents. Of course, with this being a documentary from the 1960s, it does indulge in some fairly annoying little voice-overs and cut-aways courtesy of Brown. The score is no different in that regard - it's the kind of plinky instructional film music that does get more than a little annoying as the film progresses.
Otherwise, I can't really fault it as far as being a depiction of surfing goes. It doesn't offer a lot of in-depth insight on the subject; instead, it's content to just spend most of its running time following Hynson and August around the world as they have all sorts of encounters with the locals, many of whom tend to be enamoured with surfing either before or after the duo's arrival. Your interest in the film will definitely be dependent on how much you like to watch people surfing since it comprises the bulk of the film and may get a little repetitive depending on your interest in the topic or lack thereof. They may travel to several different countries and continents but since much of the footage tends to consist of beaches it's not like the film is all that visually interesting for a good chunk of the film's running time. It's got enough going on that it never gets too boring, but yes, it will be entirely up to how much interest you have in surfing - even then, you have to be fine with a fairly simplistic portrayal of the sport and the people who love it.
Bruce Brown, 1966
A documentary about a pair of American surfers, Mike Hynson and Robert August, who plan to continue their surfing season by traveling to other continents in the Southern Hemisphere.
I'm really not sure how to feel about The Endless Summer. I didn't really have much interest in surfing before watching it, but I heard it was a good documentary and I figured that if it was good enough then it would be able to make me interesting. Brown acknowledges that the film's audience may be looking to gain an insight into the surfing sub-culture of the time and is sure to pack out the start of the film with an introductory vignette depicting various techniques and methods of surfing before introducing Hynson and August, then proceeds to intercut other informative segments throughout the rest of the film. Of course, the bulk of the film does document the pair's whimsical attempt to chase summer across the Equator and several different continents. Of course, with this being a documentary from the 1960s, it does indulge in some fairly annoying little voice-overs and cut-aways courtesy of Brown. The score is no different in that regard - it's the kind of plinky instructional film music that does get more than a little annoying as the film progresses.
Otherwise, I can't really fault it as far as being a depiction of surfing goes. It doesn't offer a lot of in-depth insight on the subject; instead, it's content to just spend most of its running time following Hynson and August around the world as they have all sorts of encounters with the locals, many of whom tend to be enamoured with surfing either before or after the duo's arrival. Your interest in the film will definitely be dependent on how much you like to watch people surfing since it comprises the bulk of the film and may get a little repetitive depending on your interest in the topic or lack thereof. They may travel to several different countries and continents but since much of the footage tends to consist of beaches it's not like the film is all that visually interesting for a good chunk of the film's running time. It's got enough going on that it never gets too boring, but yes, it will be entirely up to how much interest you have in surfing - even then, you have to be fine with a fairly simplistic portrayal of the sport and the people who love it.
X
Favorite Movies
Iro, for someone who has some keen insight on films when he sets his mind to it, you don't seem to pay attention or even understand others you don't really care about. The Endless Summer is an anthropological tour of the world, basically a human comedy. That's why Brown's self-effacing narration is so central to the film. I have no idea why or how you're criticizing the Sandals' classic music or the narration, but you seem to get annoyed at the drop of a hat. I think the movie is a great way to spend an hour and a half and have a mini world-wide vacation, and I have no interest whatsoever in surfing. I guess I'm going overboard though since you rated it a lot higher than many others. 
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yeah, I guess I just have to admit that I'm not all that interested in such films and the comedic overtones of those particular aspects didn't do anything to add to my positive impressions of the film.
X
Favorite Movies
#336 - Coogan's Bluff
Don Siegel, 1968
An Arizona lawman is called to New York in order to extradite a criminal.
I wasn't particularly impressed with Coogan's Bluff when I first saw it and it's sad to say that a second viewing hasn't done it any favours. It's a none-too-creative fish-out-of-water tale starring Clint Eastwood as the eponymous Coogan, a gruff womaniser who carries out his own brand of rough (but not deadly) justice against the crooks on his turf, which naturally makes his superiors want to send him to New York almost as a means of getting rid of him. From there the film becomes a series of vignettes where Coogan, standing out in a ten-gallon cowboy hat and a bolo tie, navigates the mean streets of 1960s New York while butting heads with both the local fuzz and hoods alike. The film has a very thin plot that invokes a lot of cop movie clichés and it's padded out with Coogan making cool-headed advances on whatever women take his fancy and occasionally dealing with inner-city grifters and hippies.
As a result, Coogan's Bluff is a very lightweight film underneath its tough and somewhat conservative exterior. Granted, it has the occasional interesting or amusing moment such as Coogan making his way through a psychedelic nightclub (resulting in one of the best one-liners of Eastwood's career) or the finale where Coogan chases down the perp. Some of the film's more dated aspects do undercut one's enjoyment of the film, such as Coogan's off-putting treatment of his target's girlfriend during the later stages of the film even after taking into consideration how his actions are supposedly justified by his need to track down his man. His cavalier attitude towards other female characters he encounters does make him a difficult character to like, and not in the same complicated manner that defined a character like Harry Callahan. Considering the presence of both Siegel and Eastwood, it's easy to just write this off as a practice run for Dirty Harry with a lot of rough edges to both its plot and characterisation. It's not too boring or offensive to be truly awful, but it is just enough so that I have trouble saying I genuinely enjoyed it. Good if you really want more of Eastwood being something of a badass, but he's definitely done it far better in many other films.
Don Siegel, 1968
An Arizona lawman is called to New York in order to extradite a criminal.
I wasn't particularly impressed with Coogan's Bluff when I first saw it and it's sad to say that a second viewing hasn't done it any favours. It's a none-too-creative fish-out-of-water tale starring Clint Eastwood as the eponymous Coogan, a gruff womaniser who carries out his own brand of rough (but not deadly) justice against the crooks on his turf, which naturally makes his superiors want to send him to New York almost as a means of getting rid of him. From there the film becomes a series of vignettes where Coogan, standing out in a ten-gallon cowboy hat and a bolo tie, navigates the mean streets of 1960s New York while butting heads with both the local fuzz and hoods alike. The film has a very thin plot that invokes a lot of cop movie clichés and it's padded out with Coogan making cool-headed advances on whatever women take his fancy and occasionally dealing with inner-city grifters and hippies.
As a result, Coogan's Bluff is a very lightweight film underneath its tough and somewhat conservative exterior. Granted, it has the occasional interesting or amusing moment such as Coogan making his way through a psychedelic nightclub (resulting in one of the best one-liners of Eastwood's career) or the finale where Coogan chases down the perp. Some of the film's more dated aspects do undercut one's enjoyment of the film, such as Coogan's off-putting treatment of his target's girlfriend during the later stages of the film even after taking into consideration how his actions are supposedly justified by his need to track down his man. His cavalier attitude towards other female characters he encounters does make him a difficult character to like, and not in the same complicated manner that defined a character like Harry Callahan. Considering the presence of both Siegel and Eastwood, it's easy to just write this off as a practice run for Dirty Harry with a lot of rough edges to both its plot and characterisation. It's not too boring or offensive to be truly awful, but it is just enough so that I have trouble saying I genuinely enjoyed it. Good if you really want more of Eastwood being something of a badass, but he's definitely done it far better in many other films.
X
Favorite Movies
I think it might also be worth keeping in my that, when this was made, those shots of beaches and the like were so exotic to the vast majority of people, that simply sitting there and looking at them would've been worth the price of admission alone. A lot/most tv was black & white, so even if you saw the beaches or jungles or whatever, it still wouldn't have been so striking. The locations were a big part of the attraction in things such as the 60's Bond movies.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.
5-time MoFo Award winner.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
X
Favorite Movies
#337 - Ride the High Country
Sam Peckinpah, 1962
A pair of ageing gunslingers team up and take part in an expedition that involves transporting gold bullion from a mine to a bank.
Sam Peckinpah directing a movie about old cowboys? Colour me shocked. But seriously, it's interesting to see him working on what looks like a transitional film not just for him but for the Western genre at large. The '60s in general marked a pivotal shift for the genre as they took on more and more complex themes and narratives. As a result, Ride the High Country does offer considerable complexity with its tale of Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott taking on a gold transport and having a couple of young folks tag along on the way. Even for 1962, it seems to showcase the darker direction in which Westerns were going by showing the trials of Mariette Hartley as the abused daughter of a fundamentalist farmer whose engagement to a rough-housing miner and growing attraction to McCrea and Scott's young companion (Ron Starr) complicate what was originally going to be a simple retrieval.
It's interesting how Ride the High Country has the look and feel of a classic 1950s Western even when it's dealing with some rather serious subject matter as part of its narrative. The performances are well-done by veterans and newcomers alike, while Peckinpah manages to define his style and predilections even within the confines of an approved film. It's a lean film that's barely 90 minutes in length and never drags even while exploring its seemingly ancillary sub-plot involving Hartley's engagement and eventual marriage, which proves more unsettling than any actual gunfight. What action there is may not match up to Peckinpah's later efforts in terms of viscera and mastery but it's still some dependable old-school action. The transitional nature of the film means that there's something here for fans of old and new Westerns alike.
Sam Peckinpah, 1962
A pair of ageing gunslingers team up and take part in an expedition that involves transporting gold bullion from a mine to a bank.
Sam Peckinpah directing a movie about old cowboys? Colour me shocked. But seriously, it's interesting to see him working on what looks like a transitional film not just for him but for the Western genre at large. The '60s in general marked a pivotal shift for the genre as they took on more and more complex themes and narratives. As a result, Ride the High Country does offer considerable complexity with its tale of Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott taking on a gold transport and having a couple of young folks tag along on the way. Even for 1962, it seems to showcase the darker direction in which Westerns were going by showing the trials of Mariette Hartley as the abused daughter of a fundamentalist farmer whose engagement to a rough-housing miner and growing attraction to McCrea and Scott's young companion (Ron Starr) complicate what was originally going to be a simple retrieval.
It's interesting how Ride the High Country has the look and feel of a classic 1950s Western even when it's dealing with some rather serious subject matter as part of its narrative. The performances are well-done by veterans and newcomers alike, while Peckinpah manages to define his style and predilections even within the confines of an approved film. It's a lean film that's barely 90 minutes in length and never drags even while exploring its seemingly ancillary sub-plot involving Hartley's engagement and eventual marriage, which proves more unsettling than any actual gunfight. What action there is may not match up to Peckinpah's later efforts in terms of viscera and mastery but it's still some dependable old-school action. The transitional nature of the film means that there's something here for fans of old and new Westerns alike.
X
Favorite Movies
#338 - Margin Call
J.C. Chandor, 2011
In the lead-up to the Global Financial Crisis, a laid-off employee of a Wall Street bank passes on an unfinished project to a co-worker and starts off a corporate crisis in the process.
It's hard to know which of the film's rather impressive stable of actors delivers the best performance: Kevin Spacey seems like the obvious choice as an especially conflicted executive who is one of the first to learn of the crisis and is caught between caring for subordinates and preserving his own position due to his somewhat trite but effective motivation of paying his pet dog's expensive medical bills. Zachary Quinto and Penn Badgely more than hold their own against more experienced performers as the young analysts who first discover the problem at the heart of the film, and their interplay with Paul Bettany's embittered superior makes for some good scenes (most memorably the one on the rooftop of their company's building). Jeremy Irons also gets in a good turn as the company's crusty-voiced CEO, whose speech at the end of the film also makes for a highlight of the film. Simon Baker and Demi Moore also show up as well, neither of which gets any particularly distinctive material but both put in decent turns.
Despite the considerably talented ensemble, Margin Call is a decent but not amazing film that involves a lot of its drama being built around exchanges of financial jargon and will of course demand a lot of attention to follow along with its dialogue-driven plot. The strong cast of veteran actors (with a couple of newcomers thrown in for good measure) do their best to deliver such complex dialogue without talking down to audiences or going too far over their heads. In addition to the strong actors, first-time director Chandor demonstrates considerable talent behind the camera, making the film not too stolid or erratic in its depiction of events.
J.C. Chandor, 2011
In the lead-up to the Global Financial Crisis, a laid-off employee of a Wall Street bank passes on an unfinished project to a co-worker and starts off a corporate crisis in the process.
It's hard to know which of the film's rather impressive stable of actors delivers the best performance: Kevin Spacey seems like the obvious choice as an especially conflicted executive who is one of the first to learn of the crisis and is caught between caring for subordinates and preserving his own position due to his somewhat trite but effective motivation of paying his pet dog's expensive medical bills. Zachary Quinto and Penn Badgely more than hold their own against more experienced performers as the young analysts who first discover the problem at the heart of the film, and their interplay with Paul Bettany's embittered superior makes for some good scenes (most memorably the one on the rooftop of their company's building). Jeremy Irons also gets in a good turn as the company's crusty-voiced CEO, whose speech at the end of the film also makes for a highlight of the film. Simon Baker and Demi Moore also show up as well, neither of which gets any particularly distinctive material but both put in decent turns.
Despite the considerably talented ensemble, Margin Call is a decent but not amazing film that involves a lot of its drama being built around exchanges of financial jargon and will of course demand a lot of attention to follow along with its dialogue-driven plot. The strong cast of veteran actors (with a couple of newcomers thrown in for good measure) do their best to deliver such complex dialogue without talking down to audiences or going too far over their heads. In addition to the strong actors, first-time director Chandor demonstrates considerable talent behind the camera, making the film not too stolid or erratic in its depiction of events.
X
Favorite Movies
#339 - The Hill
Sidney Lumet, 1965
During World War II, a handful of new inmates are sent to an especially brutal military stockade in North Africa.
The Hill is an impressively grim little film thanks to its combination of both prison and war tropes under the supervision of Lumet's characteristically unsentimental direction. Sean Connery headlines the film, but this is a far cry from almost any other role I've seen him play (with the possible exception of Zardoz, but at least this role is anchored to a realistic drama for a change). He plays a disgraced NCO whose refusal to follow suicidal orders lands him in military prison under the care of a sadistic overseer (Ian Hendry). The titular hill is a brutal disciplinary measure that Connery and his fellow inmates are made to run up and down repeatedly while carrying heavy objects. It makes a good couple of hours of extremely realistic drama that is shot by quasi-documentarian monochrome camerawork and with a complete absence of music.
There is a good cast at work here, but it's hard to ignore Connery's very against-type performance whose turn as a roguish soldier has more depth to it than you'd expect (especially in the film's final half-hour, which I can't believe comes from the same man who defined the world's most suave fictional character). Another actor of serious note is Ossie Davis as a West Indian inmate who not only has to deal with the standard rigours of the stockade but also with the relentless racism of guard and prisoner alike. The Hill deserves credit not just for its stark depiction of a World War II stockade and its inhabitants, but also because of a narrative that still seems to subvert a lot of typical prison/war tropes even in a film from 1965. It's not particularly graphic in its depiction of prison brutality but it's still not a particularly easy watch as it explores the cruelty of old prisons as filtered through the dangerous jingoism of old-school British imperialism. I also can't believe how it ended. Definitely recommended.
Sidney Lumet, 1965
During World War II, a handful of new inmates are sent to an especially brutal military stockade in North Africa.
The Hill is an impressively grim little film thanks to its combination of both prison and war tropes under the supervision of Lumet's characteristically unsentimental direction. Sean Connery headlines the film, but this is a far cry from almost any other role I've seen him play (with the possible exception of Zardoz, but at least this role is anchored to a realistic drama for a change). He plays a disgraced NCO whose refusal to follow suicidal orders lands him in military prison under the care of a sadistic overseer (Ian Hendry). The titular hill is a brutal disciplinary measure that Connery and his fellow inmates are made to run up and down repeatedly while carrying heavy objects. It makes a good couple of hours of extremely realistic drama that is shot by quasi-documentarian monochrome camerawork and with a complete absence of music.
There is a good cast at work here, but it's hard to ignore Connery's very against-type performance whose turn as a roguish soldier has more depth to it than you'd expect (especially in the film's final half-hour, which I can't believe comes from the same man who defined the world's most suave fictional character). Another actor of serious note is Ossie Davis as a West Indian inmate who not only has to deal with the standard rigours of the stockade but also with the relentless racism of guard and prisoner alike. The Hill deserves credit not just for its stark depiction of a World War II stockade and its inhabitants, but also because of a narrative that still seems to subvert a lot of typical prison/war tropes even in a film from 1965. It's not particularly graphic in its depiction of prison brutality but it's still not a particularly easy watch as it explores the cruelty of old prisons as filtered through the dangerous jingoism of old-school British imperialism. I also can't believe how it ended. Definitely recommended.
X