Viddy's Views

Blood Work (2002, Clint Eastwood)



This is a bit of a misstep in Eastwood's career as he tries to do a bit of sun drenched neo-noir in vein of Chinatown, Body Heat, Blood and Wine, and so on. It doesn't quite work out. I will say the biggest thing that irked me about the film was the casting of Jeff Daniels and his character who's sole purpose it seems is to add comic relief to the film. This doesn't pan out very well as he is used as Eastwood's hapless dumb buddy while he goes on investigating a murder.
The plot could have been something interesting if better written and if the "surprise" at the end didn't cop out. Eastwood plays a tired old FBI detective who is an excellent crime scene man in piecing together clues. While on a foot chase he has a heart attack and awaits transplant. After receiving his heart he discovers the woman who's ticker he has was murdered and as the film goes on he finds out why. The film fails to have a lot of charm to it, like many Eastwood movies. By keeping the antagonist as a hidden character for the big reveal, the film avoids what could have been a nice cat and mouse type thing such as what we had in In the Line of Fire. Nope, the film tries to pull a Usual Suspects type of "gotcha" moment in there, but the viewer easily sees it coming and this film really doesn't need one. The finale also resorts to a poorly staged shoot em' up, where I lost most of my interest.
A few things I enjoyed about the film were the moments when Eastwood was investigating the crime tapes and piecing together the clues. If the film would have tried to stay as a low-key detective mystery with less cliche' plot devices, it may have been something special. Oh well.

Grade: C

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

The Edge (1997, Lee Tamahori)



Well one thing is for certain, David Mamet can write one hell of a picture. Actually The Edge doesn't even come close to showcasing the writer's true talent, but there's hints at it, and there's also hints that this movie may have been slightly changed to water down the satire and psychological warfare between Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin.
This is their movie really, and a showcase for two wonderful actors, but the wilderness always looms. Part of the movie plays like a satire of nature survival movies. The plot is very, very simple. Hopkins is a billionaire who's young wife married him for the money. He's tagging along with her by offering his own jet to fly her along with her photographer (Baldwin) and staff for a photo-shoot up in Alaska. The audience never figures out why Hopkins is a billionaire, but I get the sense he's not a self-made man - which explains why he has so much time to read on any subject. His all-knowing character is more of a lawful and subdued Hannibal Lector if you will.
While Hopkin's is good, Baldwin is excellent in the movie as he plays the right note between admiration and jealousy and is completely believable as being stranded in the wilderness with an internal conflict - to kill or not to kill the rich old billionaire and marry his wife.
The movie doesn't go far enough with this angle which is probably my biggest complaint. There is some excellent stuff going on here as Hopkins knows Baldwin's character wants to murder him. This could have played out like Sleuth set in the wilderness, but it's turns into more of a satire on wilderness flicks. Yes there's the bear, the necessity of fire, the compass made from scratch scene and so on. It's easy to see that these moments in the film are second nature. Actor Harold Perrineau (excellent in Romeo + Juliet and "Lost") shows up but is playing the token third man part so we know he's going to die first. It doesn't even ring a shed of emotion - other than laughter - when he is brutally mauled and toss around by a bear.
I enjoyed this movie. I appreciate the ending. A lesser film would have featured the climax with the battle between the two men and the bear. The Edge gets this out of the way at around the 3/4 mark, so it can focus on what the film is really about. It is also noteworthy to add how delightful it was to see the writing not take a cliche' turn when the victimizer needs the victim - when Alec Baldwin's attempt doesn't go quite as planned. Instead of using this moment to have Hopkins play the ill-slighted man who now has the last laugh, it plays out something like a scenario may in real life. All around a very good movie, with some wasted potential and genuinely silly moments. And the last moments of the film with Hopkins coming back alive to a media frenzy and the "warm" arms of his wife should have been more cerebral. Oh well.

Grade: B-

Blade II (2002, Guillermo Del Toro)



This is the Blade movie that doesn't really suck. Sure it still contains the main element in the films which is the weakest link - mainly Blade the character and Wesley Snipes. Snipes is and can be such an interesting and charismatic actor - see White Men Can't Jump, The Fan, even Demolition Man so it's too bad he can't bring any real charm or interest to the character of Blade. I don't know if it's the writing or acting, but Blade is one of the most wooden and boring characters in a comic book movie that I have ever watched.
Regardless, this film is a moderate success because Del Toro brings enough flashy style to it. The fight scenes are very well done and coreographed. The action is easy to spot and follow as instead of using entirely tight close ups and quick flashy editing, the camera in Blade II is not afraid to stay on the action from a mid-level distance, which means the viewer can see each fluid action - each kick, and each punch. And why not right? Snipes is well trained in martial arts.
The plot is decent with vampires evolving into reapers, who feast and kill off vampires. Luke Goss plays the main villain and reaper - he's very underused in the film unfortunately. There's a father making the son as a reaper subplot too toward the end of the film which is poorly done.
Actor Norman Reedus (Boondock Saints) adds a bit of wit and sarcastic cynicism to the film that is much needed to play off of Snipe's straight character. Kris Kristofferson continues to play the archetype "tough old guy vampire hunter" though it's really a nothing role. Ron Perlman, a wonderful character actor, does well in his bit as the vampire with a grudge and makes a lot of the middle part of the film work on more than just an action level.
Like I said, these movies don't really work for me, the third one was about as bad as the first, but Blade II is able to shine through the direction and well filmed action scenes. It's a visual feast and the best looking Blade movie with a strong and sparing use of special effects. The writing is unfortunately a fail, but if you must watch a Blade movie, watch this one.

Grade: C+

Nice review of The Edge. I really, really dig that movie. And I agree on almost all counts, but like what the film does well enough that the little things don't really bother me much at all. And, of course, Charles is a truly fantastic character.

Eeek, I got a few pages behind on Viddy's Views... Gotta catch up...

__________________

Loved the Columbine review - it pretty much sums up my ambivalence with Moore...

The Hit (1984, Stephen Frears)



Terence Stamp stars as a gangster who is offered protection to rat out his boss and peers. Years later he is living a peaceful life in Spain until his old mob connections are released and send two hitmen (John Hurt and Tim Roth) to execute him.
Most of the movie is spent on the road as Hurt and Roth are tasked with delivering the x-gangster and rat to Paris where he will be executed. The drama comes from Stamp's seemingly fearless posing - if and how he will escape. Hurt plays the veteran hitman and Roth is the overly ambitious rookie. Roth seems a bit chatty and maybe miscast in the part, or his character seems poorly written. Hurt seems a bit unprofessional at times.
There's some great tension during a scene where the three men go up into a high rise penthouse to meet an old acquantiance. It's during this part of the film where it takes on another character - a female hostage and the movie starts to falter. It seems out of place, and detracts from the main story. In fact it feels like the movie ran out of story to tell, so the female part was thrown in as a plot device. The ending is solid, even a bit unpredictable. Hurt is good as the silent hitman and Stamp is solid as always. The story just seems a bit thin and underwritten. Fernando Rey also has a nothing role as a police detective on the trail of the men. Very underused and these bit sections of the film play almost as an afterthought.

Grade: B-

opps, I started to write this the day after I saw it, but got lazy. Anyway, my thoughts on The Tree of Life.

The Tree of Life (2011, Terence Malick)



I enjoy director Terence Malick's films, but I'm not one of his cult followers who await each new movie of his like the second coming of Christ. In his 40 year career he's only directed five pictures. Two of them are masterpieces, and the others are very good, but no better than any other filmmaker's top film. In The Tree of Life, which is getting a lot of comparison to 2001 - some of it justified, some not so much, the story centers around a father, mother, and their three children. The father is played by Brad Pitt in one of his best performances as a type of strict Ward Cleaver type living in a quaint suburban neighborhood in the 1950s and 60s. It's straight out of a postcard or "The Wonder Years" where the kids have backyards, a dog to run around with, a tree house, and a nearby woods to go exploring in. During these scenes which make up a majority of the film, the narrative really shines. The father is raising his kids the best he can with harsh rules and punishment, the mother is the helpless bystander who is as apt to receive the whip of discipline as the kids are, and the young actor Hunter McCracken plays the eldest and most visible of the three sons.
There is good tension built up during these scenes. One of the reasons is because it has been revealed that the middle son will die when he is 19 years old. We find out early in the film through a telegraph to the mother and a phone call to the father. It's handled nicely and relies on viewer intelligence to make the deduction. We assume the death is during the Vietnam war, but that is never stated, probably because it really doesn't matter. This creates impending doom during the majority of the film when we know the family will face tragedy at some point. It makes the relationship between the eldest and middle son more poignant. Unfortunately the youngest son is only an afterthought and is rarely included in the film.
Like all of Terence Malick's' movies the camera is on dollies and follows the characters around, there is narration, long lingering shots on trees and nature and light being filtered through material. It’s heavy on symbolism, which is fine, but it seems to disrupt from the flow of the story. The middle part of the film is excellent, but the moments with the child grown up as played by Sean Penn linger a bit and the film does not do a great job in connecting the child with the man and how the father influenced him as an adult. I get what the film is going for with the lingering metaphorical ghosts of his father and brother as he lives a somewhat searchful adulthood, but again it’s not handled the best as Malick seems more interested in provided images than creating a narrative or emotions through the characters. A few of these images such as Penn walking around in the desert, or walking along the coast with the waves crashing, and an image of the mother holding her hands up to the sun with the light streaming through are nice, but come across as too pretentious.
Somehow the sequences of the creation of the universe worked with me, but only when I think of them isolated. If the entire film was three hours of that material with beautiful sound I would have been happy, but it feels out of place with the other two sections of the film. The dinosaur bits were a nice touch as it shows what life has evolved from and into, but like most of the film it was disjointed and disconnected. Badlands is Malick’s best film, followed by The Thin Red Line. I don’t know if I could say this is his worst film, as his “worst” film is about as good as any other filmmaker’s best film, but I was a bit disappointed by the lack of humanity in some of the more pretentious and overly symbolic moments.
The reason 2001 works better than this movie is because Kubrick never tried to add humanity in his work. The audience had to find it for themselves, as each character was cold, distant, and dutififul in Space Odyssey. Still the audience's imagination is triggered and emotions are full as we contemplate the meaning of the universe within cold space, and HAL's murderous plotting. The Tree of Life seems like the message is too heavy handed and does too much work by not trusting the audience to find meaning in the message. The worst shot in the film is at the end with the sunlight shining through the hands of the mother. God how I hated that shot. I don't need that forceful symbolism to tell me the universe and life is beautiful. It undermines me as a viewer.

Grade: B-

Great review Viddy thanks

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Iron Man 2 (2010, Jon Favreau)



Despite the charm and charisma of Robert Downey Jr. in the main role, as the sly and witty scientistic with a suit of iron, the basic formula of the movie is boring. A lengthy action scene and typical climatic confrontation between the heroes and the main villain - a wasted role for Mickey Rourke, end the film on a sour note.
I haven't seen the first Iron Man, as I didn't have a lot of interest, but I may enjoy it more than this follow up. Tony Stark is an interesting character, but I didn't like how paint-by-numbers the action seemed. Mickey Rourke could have made an interesting villain and aside from one scene, when he's in jail, there is no conversation/dialogue between the two leads.
The film has a great cast, also including Don Cheadle as a military type and friend whose loyalty waivers but ultimately comes around in support of Iron Man. Gwyneth Paltrow has bored me for years on screen. I enjoy her in parts that fit her personality as the apathetic and stuffy uppity type which is why her roles in The Royal Tenenbaums and Proof were well suited for her casting, but in this film she seems wrong. She attracted little audience sympathy - at least not for me. Sam Jackson and Scarlett Johansson pop up in the film with little to do, except collect a paycheck. Sam Rockwell's part was good, but should have been expanded. His moment in the hearing with Downey Jr early on in the film regarding whether to contract the Iron Man suit with the military is the film's shining scene.
As I watched the film it felt like I was watching two movies... one a low-key and character driven piece and the other a silly action flick with jet packs. Oh well. Robert Downey Jr.'s dialogue makes some of it worthwhile.

Grade: C-

The Man From Nowhere (2010, Lee Jeong-beom)



Despite a slow and slightly confusing first third of the film with a lot of plotting and exposition, this high grossing Korean film is an excellent and clever actioner. Think of something like Taken, but with a smart writing, far superior fight scenes, and less cliche'. Actually after reading online, I saw that this movie was Korea's highest grossing film of last year. That's pleasing, as I'd recommend it to most anyone.
How to describe the plot. Well basically a former killing machine/government agent - Cha Tae-sik (Won Bin) is living a quiet life as a pawn shop owner when his neighbors (a mother and her daughter - So-mi) smuggle drugs from a cartel, upset them, and use Tae-sik as the mule. One thing leads to the next - a shootout with a rival gang, police, etc and eventually we discover the girl has been kidnapped and the mother murdered and cut open to harvest her organs. Nice. There's shades of Leon and Dirty Pretty Things here, but it's more violent and fight-oriented than either of those two. Without all the style and great photography, etc this could have been another Steven Seagal movie, but it has more heart than that. The relationship between the girl and Cha Tae-sik is well built up as it's at least 30-minutes and several scenes of theirs into the film, until she's kidnapped. The young girl is likable and clever, therefore the audience identifies with her and wants her to be rescued. Actress Kim Sae-ron is very interesting in the part and I'd rate it up there with Natalie Portman in Leon.
And like all good martial arts/action films of these types a good villain, equally as skilled fighter is needed. The climatic sequences are excellent with some brutal knife/gun play in full gory blood letting glory, and despite the predictable and maybe a bit too forced happy ending, it's a darn good flick. The Korean actor Won Bin, who I don't think I've seen before, is very good at holding the audience's attention as he's in nearly every scene.

Grade: A-

M (1931, Fritz Lang)




Really there's not much I can say about this classic film. Actor, Peter Lorre's first major international role and Lang's first talking film after working on many classic silents including Metropolis. The story is simple. There is a child-murderer on the loose and the growing fear among the public is so intense and in the conscious mind that parents pull their children off the street and the songs they sing even allude to the mysterious child murderer.
Peter Lorre plays the killer, but to my surprise he was featured very little in the film. This may or may not be a good thing, but the focus of the movie is not on him as the killer at all - contrary to my preconceptions of what this film is. With the exception of a couple of scenes showing his impulsive murderous nature, and his chilling monologue in defense of his life at the film's conclusion, M largely focuses on the search for the killer.
One thing that impressed me most about the film was how editing and juxtaposition of scenes served to push the narrative forward. For example there's a lengthy sequence in which the police and criminals both sit at their tables and devise plans on how to capture the murderer. The police want the criminal for obvious reasons and the crime lords want him because he inadvertently causes heat from the police in their search to come down on them with speakeasy-like raids. It's a nice plot element and works perfectly. The editing is used to show that the police and crime bosses are speaking along similar lines and the movies jumps from one character to the next showing them finishing each other's sentences. This has been done countless times since M, but I wouldn't be surprised if M is the first movie to use this technique.
Reflections are used well and are a motif in the film, so much so that we finally see Lorre's face for the first time as he's coming out of a trance and looking at himself in disgust.
I really wish the film would have focused more on him. Some of the investigation moments, while well done do tend to drag. Is this film an allegory for the rising tide of Nazism in Germany? Probably, some of the police raids, interrogation scenes, and mobs might lead to that conclusion. Actually Lang went on to explore mob mentality in what I think is a superior film several years later, Fury. Anyway. Lorre is perfectly cast and his acting seems to still have the expressionistic silent style to it as he is bug-eyed and screaming to the maximum while explaining he cannot control his actions. He avoids parody however despite being clearly over-the-top, it's almost pantomime. Probably the most frightening thing is seeing the criminals demand "justice" for the murderer as they even get caught up in hypocritical human nature in being out for blood using law as its guise. Good stuff here, but maybe not fully explored. And the last scene with the mother of the murdered girl calling for parents to be watchful of their children, in my mind, almost seems more satirical than anything else.

Grade: A-

Thief of Bagdad (1924, Raoul Walsh)



Rip-roaring adventure out of the Arabian Nights and the film has influenced countless other swashbuckling adventures including; Indiana Jones, Aladdin, Baron Munchausen, and so on. Douglas Fairbanks is spectacular as the title character who slides, dashes, and dances his way through the film. He really doesn't get many closeups which is too bad. Generally silent films have a tendency to feature beautiful expressive faces and it's one of the faults I find with this film, that it doesn't exploit this well. Lead actress Julanne Johnston is gorgeous as the princess of Bagdad but the film seems to fail to capitalize on that.
The adventure is what matters here as the thief desires the hand of the princess and goes on a fantastical journey to recover a magic box to win her hand. The three other suiters are handled well; the Prince of the Indies, Prince of Persia, and the evil Prince of the Mongols. Some good comic stuff here with the Persia prince, in his slothful eating character, but the Indies prince has little to no characteristics. The Prince of the Mongols makes a suitable villain, but toward the end resorts to a bit of slapstick. My favorite scene in the movie was the old man of the midnight sea and the ensuing journey into the depths of the ocean. Some really good set pieces here and nifty effects for the time, which is what makes this film stand out among silent pictures, yet it's not the very best.

Grade: A

Metropolis (1927, Fritz Lang)



This movie was an A+ to me. Brilliant. The set pieces were so well done that it was difficult to see where the set began and the backdrop/matte paintings began.

Very imaginative. Some of the most iconic shots in all of cinema. Maria coming to life, and of course the Tower of Babel. So much activity with trains, planes, and automobiles moving around within that lingering long held shot.

I liked the idea of the rich spoiled kid going to lower himself to work with the people and common. It's an archetype right out of the Bible, as mark pointed out, the word Mediator does mean Christ. I dig the head and hands need a heart symbolism and imagery.

The sequence with the machine becoming an exotic dancer edited to the delirious reactions of Freder laid up in best are amazing. The actress' dance is spectacular and super imposed with the eye shots and ghasts and jealous lust-filled screams is something altogether new at the time and very cool. Framing this is are the actors doing the creepy seven sin's costumes and death, enhancing the Biblical allegory... does Maria even becoming an Eve figure tempting the men into sin? Probably.

At this point the film was an "A+" for me. Easy, but the last 40 minutes melt into mechanism and clockwork - pun intended. Maria drives the workers to revolt and the last 1/3 of the film with mayhem, mobs running around, and frantic music take me a bit out of the picture. To me this was an exercise in herding extras around the movie set as much as anything else. Not only did it take me out of the movie, but the sequence just went on and on and on. It resorts to the woman tied up scenario, a typical fist fight between Freder and Rotwang and the nice "hey suddenly everything is OK" contrived happy ending and the overly pushy and staged "Hey mediator make the head and hands shake hands" bit was too forced at the end. And then that's it. Very weak ending, of course the first 2/3s of the movie are top 100 material.

Grade: A- but withstanding the influence of the movie I can easily forgive the bits that appear weak to me.

I went to a Fritz Lang day at Sydney Uni some months ago saw 4 of his movies we saw a new version of Metropolis with new footage found in South America was fab

Diary of a Lost Girl (1929, G.W. Pabst)

I was left cold by this film, and not even the gorgeous gazing into the camera of actress Louis Brooks did much for me beyond asthetically appreciating her features. The first thing is the movie is paced oddly and is burdened down with too much plot for a silent feature. I don't think the story of a girl who gets raped (off screen), gets pregnant, enrages her sister, is cast off by her family, sent to a woman's shelter, has her baby taken from her runs away with a potential beau who has also been ostricized, makes a friend, becomes a prostitute, is caught by her father hooking, her father dies, she gets money, and AHHHHH!!!
I kept track of the events in the movie, and managed to follow the ever moving plot, but I could not get emotionally involved. The movie also seems void in that department. Having your baby taken away and later discover it to be dead would be life-shattering and I don't think the film or Brooks as an actress conveys it that well. Yes people respond to grief in different ways, but I didn't believe it in this film. I wanted more and I wanted less. Really this should have been a great film. Some people even say it is, and I am surprised to find it listed on a lot of top lists as I go on my minor silent movie kick.
Diary of a Lost Girl has an ironic title if I stop to think about it. This film plays out like a diary in that the scenes are loosely connected as Brooks travels from one situation to another. It's disjointed like a diary and about as sporadic. This is a shame, I thought there was some really good stuff here. The scene where she is found tramping by her father is excellent and it's one of the few places in the film where I feel Brooks gets the emotion correct.
Last year I also tried to watch Pandora's Box and couldn't get far into it. Maybe she's one these actresses I don't get, but in my mind she's overrated (as a thespian NOT a glamour beauty) or mishandled.

Grade: C+

I Walk Alone (1948, Byron Haskin)



Burt Lancaster plays an ex-con who has been locked up 14 years after his partner, Kirk Douglas, left him the fall guy while bootlegging. Douglas becomes a wealthy and successful nightclub owner, and Lancaster wants his promised cut of the profits. That's the setup for this solid little film noir co-starring the exquisite and uniquely warm Lizabeth Scott. Scott's very good here, playing against the typical film noir femme fatal type as she aligns herself with the good guy and in doing so develops a nice romance subplot.
I always enjoy these little revenge/falling out movies. It's similar to the material in one of my favorite films, The One Eyed Jacks. A smart screenplay avoids a lot of gunplay until all other avenues have been dried up and it's unique to find a lot of legal talk in these film noirs where the villain draws his lawyers and contracts before his Smith and Wesson. Douglas is excellent as the smooth and level headed heavy, playing opposite of the emotional firecracker of Burt Lancaster. The two have excellent chemistry together. I really enjoyed this movie and as of this posting it's on Netflix streaming so go watch it.

Grade: A-

Hobo With a Shotgun (2011)

There's nothing especially interesting about this film which was invisioned by a fake Grindhouse trailer along with Machete. Machete wasn't that great either, but it was far more entertaining than this film. Rutger Hauer seems right for the role, as the film evokes 1980's cheese, and Hauer himself played in a not to different film, Blind Fury, though that movie was infinitely better. As an homage and pastiche throwback to the 80's which nearing 30 years is a distant enough decade to almost seem "classic" Hobo With a Shotgun strives to hit the mark, but it doesn't. Despite a few clever insults and some dialogue that's not funny at all despite the intention, but is just too bizarre to be considered bad, there's really not much to offer here.
The lead villain, a gangster named Drake, commits a worse crime than simply being cliche - he's a boring character and is not enjoyable to watch nor is he threatening in even a comical manner. The two sunglass wearing sons who are heirs to his Hope Town empire, drop one-liners and grimace and scowl at the camera with the pizaz of a "Power Rangers" bad guy. There are similarities to 80's films including Repo Man, They Live, and even Robocop, with a bit of Japanese style blood spurting thrown in.
I think the problem with the film is that it doesn't want to be an homage to 80's cheese, but it wants to be 80's cheese. The problem is that it's not the 80's and what seems bad then is really bad now, without any of the charm. The plot is non-existence and serves no purpose than to plod along to an ending. Rutger Hauer talking to the babies in the delivery ward was nice and I did enjoy seeing him in a lead role all these years later. A good idea, but it's executed wrong.

Grade: D +

I really like your prose and your style of writing. Of the movie review threads ive read, this one is the best. Keep it up!

That's so crazy...Why he is slapping her in one picture.