FangsFirst reviews movies

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

2009-12-05T01:04:50Z

I've no idea, really, how Michel Gondry or Spike Jonze came to my attention. I know I saw handfuls of music videos from both of them when music videos used to air regularly, once upon a time. But at the time I couldn't name the directors of any movies I'd seen, barring, perhaps, Steven Spielberg, so I certainly didn't know music video directors. I know "The Directors" label releases caught my attention, but I ignored Gondry and Jonze, caring only for Chris Cunningham--because, of course, he directed some videos for The Aphex Twin. Still, I think the association was enough to catch my attention in all honesty, and I do think, at least, that it's what planted their names so firmly in my head. While both worked with Charlie Kaufman (which generally sits quite well with me), I didn't know his name either, though Gondry and Kaufman were brought most firmly to my attention with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I don't think either name was really entrenched in my list of "names to follow" by the film, but it was definitely a film I recognized at least retroactively.

Mike (Mos Def) and Jerry (Jack Black) have a tendency to hang around the severely outdated video rental shop Be Kind Rewind, owned by Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover), with Mike actually being employed there. Being in a slum-like building in Passaic, NJ, Mr. Fletcher is threatened with condemnation of the building he occupies, the birthplace of jazzman Fats Waller according to Mr. Fletcher. He goes off to research the video rental business via big-box rental stores (a la Blockbuster) while Mike runs the store. Neither Mike nor Jerry is terribly bright, but Jerry also happens to be a conspiracy theorist, convinced the local power plant is sending out microwaves that are brainwashing the public. He enlists Mike to help him sabotage the plant against Mike's own thoughts, but finds himself alone in an accident there instead, which magnetizes his body completely, leading him to enter Mr. Fletcher's shop and accidentally erase every tape there. When regular Mrs. Falewicz (Mia Farrow) comes in attempting to rent Ghostbusters, the pair is left with no choice but to find an alternate copy of the film. Being so terribly outdated, finding it on VHS is nearly impossible* and so Mike suggests that they take an elderly VHS-based camcorder and re-record the film themselves with homemade special effects. When another customer comes in demanding Rush Hour 2, they take the successful completion of their rendition of Ghostbusters and continue the process. When Jerry refuses to kiss his mechanic Wilson (Irv Gooch), they are forced to recruit the help of local female Alma (Melonie Diaz). Soon it catches on with the Passaic locals and brings them hope for saving Mr. Fletcher's store.

I think a lot of people took from the trailer that the primary focus of the movie was the versions of famous films the boys film with each other. Of course, they do just that, and they are a strong part of the film, but it's a little more of the "heartwarming save the old homestead" trope. I don't mean that as disparaging--insert discussion of the limited number of stories in existence here--but rather to clarify the film's intents, motivations and methods. The device of the "Sweded" films (their term for these "imported" versions) is part of the whole rather than the whole itself. None of them appears in their entirety within the film. It's really about love, love of film (for the viewer and one suspects the cast and crew), love of home (both Passaic and the Be Kind shop), and losing these things to homogenization, legalities and money in general. There are some rather nasty digs at Blockbuster and its ilk when Mr. Fletcher is doing his research--talking about reducing the store to "action" and "comedies." It doesn't paint "West Coast Video" as anyone in particular, nor does it specifically insult anyone working in the imagined store, so it comes off as a general, cultural criticism rather than an indictment of anyone or anything in particular. It's a little more comfortable for that, feeling like a poke at marketing trends rather than pointing fingers at big business X, Y or Z.

There's a very peculiar nature to the relationship between Mike and Jerry. It's a lot more innocent--as the film itself is--than usual, with a relatively PG vocabulary and less clever sniping between the participants. Both of them are really complete doofuses, though. Not utter idiots, but lacking in some things that just about any average viewer would realize or know better how to deal with. It's not condescending to them, though, nor to the viewer. As long as you are willing to take the film and its characters only as seriously as they ask to be taken, it's a good bit of harmless fun. It doesn't feel like we're intended to point and laugh at Mike and Jerry like they are a trainwreck or pathetic, but at their earnestness and willingness to try. Jack Black manages this--just barely--despite my reservations about him as, well, anything. I don't write him off completely (there are few actors I do, possibly none, but he's way up that list, though this makes three movies I have no real problem with him in) but I am very wary of his over-enthusiastic shtick. Jerry, though, is kind of a jerk, so once again Black's natural tendency to be an ass works for the character instead of against the movie. Mos Def is odd, being terribly subdued and almost comatose in the role of Mike, seeming almost like another local--as there are many--pulled in from the area to work on the film. It never comes off as false, just amateurish, even if deliberately so.

But if you can't accept the idea of a video store existing in the modern age, well, this movie is not going to be for you. It's not about "realism" by any stretch of the imagination, something a little refreshing to me in this day and age, taking an utterly absurd accident (the power plant one) and pretending it could have the absurd effect it does. The whole film is that way--the efforts of the boys to film are simultaneously charmingly homemade and yet unbelievably creative and perfectly made. Gondry's specialty is visuals, though, so it isn't surprising. Of course he can put these things all together properly, and make us both believe in them and marvel at them--which is the reason I check out Gondry's work. It's always simutaneously grounded and whimsically awesome--in the sense of inspiring awe, not being "totally bitching."

*I think my copy is still hanging around, actually.

An Education (2009)

2009-12-03T03:58:25Z

I had two free passes to the local arthouse styled theatre that were running out Monday, so I decided to go see whatever the heck was showing. One film was House of the Devil, a throwback horror film that I truly loved, the other was a film that I thought sounded like the kind I might pick up on a whim (lo, it was released by Sony Pictures Classics, an arm of Sony I trust pretty blindly to do right by me)--this one. I knew the essence of the plot, but tried to keep my readings vague, so as to avoid spoiling any of it, this being my preference when I see any film. I knew only the name Peter Sarsgaard of the primary cast and had never heard of Danish director Lone Scherfig.

Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is a 16 year old prep school student in 1961 Twickenham, London who plans to go to Oxford and then "become French," living in France, reading French literature, speaking French, eating French food, and smoking constantly. Her father Jack (Alfred Molina) discourages her from doing anything that does not further her education (barring those things which are appreciated by acceptance boards at Oxford), even things like playing her cello, which he notes will impress Oxford as a "hobby," but then continues need not be practiced as it is a "hobby." Her mother Majorie (Cara Seymour) tries to smooth things between them as Jenny tests her father's "rules," attempting to reason him into allowing her some ideas. Jenny has a fledgling romance with orchestra-mate Graham (Matthew Beard) until the poor boy makes the mistake of suggesting he might take a year off from school, which does not earn the respect of Jack. One rainy day after orchestra rehearsal, Jenny is approached from a car by a man who offers to at least shield her cello from the rain as she walks home by placing it in his car. Jenny's amused by the man's charm, and he introduces himself as David (Sarsgaard) and strikes up a conversation, eventually getting herself out of the rain alongside her cello in David's sportscar. Slowly taken with him and running into him periodically, Jenny begins to accept offers from David when he gives her the opportunity to experience the culture she so loves and admires--concerts, jazz bars, art auctions and so on. He introduces her to his friends Danny (Dominic Cooper) and Helen (Rosamund Pike), and begins to take her further and further out into the world, all the while slowly romancing her. His charm works even on Jack and Majorie, allowing this to happen with their consent. A trip to Oxford pushes at Jenny's principles, but she finds herself torn between a small moral capitulation and the chance to have a "real life."

Of course, once I saw the cast appear onscreen, I realized instantly that there was another name here I knew very well: Alfred Molina. In fact, this knowledge was humourous to me as I watched Jim Jarmusch's Coffee and Cigarettes and the segment with Molina and Steve Coogan showed, where the joke was how unknown Molina was--when the opposite was true for me. Of course, I also know the screenwriter, Nick Hornby, albeit primarily from the Americanized film version of High Fidelity. Still these were primarily passing knowledge, especially Hornsby and Sarsgaard. The synposis I read led me to expect something far more drastic was hiding behind these scenes than actually turned out, so I was surprised in this respect, and it probably helped to keep my understanding of the film "in line" with its intentions. It's worth noting here that it is an adaptation of journalist Lynn Barber's actual experiences, and that this often shores up some seemingly unusual choices.

The most interesting role by far is that of David, as Sarsgaard is forced, as many have put it, to walk the line between charming and creepy. He is charming and does not come across as purely sleazy, despite being a 30-something man romancing a 16 year old girl, though I did spend half the movie with fingertips placed at my forehead in a sort of preliminary (or perhaps vestigial?) representation of the desire to hide the film from my eyes. I was hideously uncomfortable for a lot of it. I was perhaps too charmed by David myself, but could not shake the feeling that something was very, very wrong anyway. I'm a little more open-minded than most, I suppose, as I roll my eyes at those who called American Beauty a sick film about a pedophile, but I had great difficulty stopping myself from slumping down further and further into my seat and squirming at many moments (the scene involving pet names was particularly excruciating). I can't say it was a flaw, but it was a bit of a problem. I suppose I was really directed very perfectly into the place of Jenny herself, torn between the allure of an exciting life and the responsibility of the one that is hard and boring but theoretically the "best" choice. At the same time, there was a definite feeling that it was entirely too easy to see how she was deceived, and yet wish she wouldn't be. Jenny is not stupid, she is very clever in her interactions with everyone, but she's so thoroughly charmed by David that she's easily taken in by him, but especially because he brings her all the things she wants.

The central concept is the variable defintion of "education," being either the worldly education offered by David or that of Oxford, with various tangential definitions, such as learning about life via the parts of David that were not showing originally. It's a valid argument that Jenny gives her Headmistress--that there is no one telling the students why, exactly, they must get an education--except to go on and use that dull, hard, boring education to live a dull, hard, boring life. It makes the choice of David seem obvious, yet, at the same time, we know (hopefully!) is not so simple as all of that. There's no good argument (at least none I've heard) against Jenny's, but at the same time there's an understanding, for me at least, that other paths are more difficult or simply aren't as good as they seem to be. It's nice that the film doesn't attempt to truly explain or answer this question, even if it does show Lynn Barber's actual decisions and life at the end, what she chooses to pursue and follow for her life. She admits that she has aged but not become experienced or wise because of the events she takes part in, which seems a good way of putting it.

House of the Devil (2009)

2009-12-03T03:14:36Z

"Throwback" is a lovely little term that is, er, thrown around quite a lot these days. So are terms like "rip off" and "homage," but at least "throwback" is generally a positive term--at least when describing media. I suppose one could use it condescendingly, but it's typically seen as at least neutral, if not generally positive. Horror fans in particular tend to sigh contentedly when using the term to describe a film. Most of us seem to have very set and distinct ideas of what horror film should do based on the ones we saw in our youth. Of course, I was an older youth (if you will) when I began to earnestly watch horror films, so I still can't quite lay claim to such an idea. Still, I was raised less on contemporary films and more on ones made before I was born (or old enough to follow movies). That said, the term usually applies to a tonal throwback, like Wrong Turn (I'm too lazy to double check myself, but I believe I described that film in such terms. You can dig up my review on it if you wish to come back and smarmily inform me I'm mistaken*). This is a throwback of a different kind.

An opening block of text informs us that a great majority of the American population allegedly believed in Satanic cults in the 1980s, and that a large minority believed many of them were covered up. From this, we see young Samantha (Jocelin Donahue) looking at a house she's hoping to move in to under the eye of the home's landlady (Dee Wallace, first of a handful of genre nods in casting). The landlady has a "gut feeling" about Samantha and decides to cut her a deal on the rent and deposit, and Samantha is thoroughly appreciative. As she leaves, preparing to pay the $300 for rent the following Monday, she stops at a public posting board and takes down a slip for a baby sitting job. Calling the number from a payphone in front of her dorm, she leaves a message, only to be called back at the same phone moments later. A polite voice (that of Tom Noonan) answers and agrees to meet her shortly thereafter. She waits and waits, but the man, Mr. Ulman, does not show. She goes to a pizza place to get lunch with her friend Megan (Greta Gerwig), who is protective of Samantha for being mistreated by this callous stranger. When she returns to her dorm room, though, Samantha finds that Mr. Ulman attempted to call her back at the number she left and begs her to come down for the job that very night. Megan takes her out to the isolated house after she agrees, and they agree to split if the family seems too peculiar.

Now, typically, a throwback in the modern age is a modern film that has the sensibilities of an earlier one--avoiding the post-Scream tendency toward self-awareness and "smart" characters (who know not to open "that door" or go down in the basement) and some of the other more cynical elements of modern horror. But they remain very modern films all the same. A huge smile spread across my face as Samantha walked down the street after agreeing to the landlady's terms. Of course, I smiled a little to see Ms. Wallace as well, but it was the opening titles** that really made me grin. They are backed by an 80s synth-beat and matched to grainy stock (I could swear it was 16mm, and a little research confirms this) with periodic freeze frames. I'm not talking "end of a sitcom" freeze frames, so much as the sort of enthusiastic matching of cutting a scene to fit a beat. It's used in a much more hip fashion these days, and often comes to more of a "slow motion" feel than actual freezing, but it's just absolutely perfect. I only smiled more as familiar names bumped in with the clunky yellow credits (the title not being stylized at all, and complete with "MMXVIII" copyright notice at the bottom) that I actually couldn't place at the time but knew I knew. Those names, of course, were Tom Noonan (who has been in a few movies I've seen, but I mostly know as The Monster Squad's Frankenstein) and Mary Woronov (who was a regular cast member for Paul Bartel).

This is a lot of what makes the film. No one is running around listening to 80s hit after 80s hit (only one 80s hit is used, and it isn't one of those intensely iconic ones, though most everyone will know it, and it's used in an appropriate place and way) while they wear Jams, use Valley Girl dialects, feather their hair (okay, hair's feathered, but like it was, not to parody-style excess), play with Rubik's cubes and quote Max Headroom. It looks more like someone found this film in a box somewhere, shelved 30 years ago. It's brilliantly done, with nods and winks, but all of them the kind that you leave you thinking, "Oh, perhaps he was just blinking..." I'd not heard of Ti West prior to this, but I shall have to keep an eye on him. So how does it fit in, really? How is it a throwback? How does it work now? Well, this is a quieter, slower movie (some strange review I read said West seems to want to be "The Terence Malick of horror films," which tickled me endlessly, but seems inaccurate--though I must admit I'd be curious to actually see that, even if I think it wouldn't actually work for horror) and less in the vein of what we often think of as "80s horror movies," and more like the smaller, smarter gems that only horror fans seem to know about. The film that kept popping into my head was the George C. Scott-starring The Changeling, but that was a much bigger film. There are hints of a very competent Last House on the Left, in the sense of not having tons of money behind the film, or perhaps the original The Amityville Horror--as if a director pulled out some competent unknowns and just put together a movie he thought would be scary.

As any review of this film will tell you, the majority of the film is extremely tense buildup. It's "slow" and "boring" if you have that mindset--again, this is why I think of films like the above. This isn't The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, though it eventually builds into that sort of eyeball-clawing tension once the regular suspense finally bursts. It's good to know that going in, I suppose, though I tend to look at any such claims (or the reverse) with a wary eye, as I am reluctant to trust the opinions of others on both what is slow and what is not. But, as the review that mentioned Malick said, faulting the film for being "slow" is silly, as it fully intends to reel itself out slowly. It's not the overly funny (there's not really much humour, unless you just insist on finding the accuracy of it funny for some reason--some think the synth-beat opening is "hilariously hokey" for instance, though I just thought it set the tone perfectly, which does require admitting my ubiquitous soft spot for synth-based scores) sort of horror that we often associate with the 80s, which is why I specifically delineate it as early 1980s, before films like Fright Night took off, and when Friday the 13th was just a single movie. But it's got a little more grindhouse, a little more independence and underdog feel to it to accurately compare to that film (or any other slasher). I also found myself thinking of films like Rosemary's Baby--the more intelligent, less insulting variety of horror that's often occupying unnoticed nooks and crannies of horror shelves in collections public and private. The ones that a big-time horror fan often hands you excitedly and tells you is just fantastic.

It's not amazingly ground-breaking or something fantastically new, but it's something that manages to perfectly achieve the idea of "throwback." The clothing is the way people in smaller 80s films dressed, the camera shots are deliberate and possibly a bit modern, but not distractingly so. The score is good and hits the right notes. The film doesn't wink broadly, nor does it condescend in other ways. Effects, while still physical, are very modern and very well done. It's just right for my tastes, so I'll admit I'm frothing a bit here, in the positive way. I was very excited to see it, and love the fact that a film with such a brilliantly old-school poster (seriously, the poster designs are fantastic, reminiscent, again, of the films it refers itself to) lives up to that feeling of being a lost film from that time. Even Noonan, Woronov and Wallace are just sort of there--as if this was just another of the many genre roles they've taken over the years, and not a clear nod, homage and treat for longtime fans, the way that Tarantino or Rob Zombie might use (and in Zombie's case, has used) them. There's nothing wrong with that approach, but this is something no one else seems to do--truly a "lost" 80s horror movie.

*I know entirely too many people who are now grinning and rubbing their hands together, planning to do just that.
**I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to find out who wrote them, I remember from the credits as I sat in the theatre that it was someone other than the film's primary composer, Jeff Grace, and I found a post by the guy who wrote it on a messageboard, but I can't find his real name. My apologies, sir, I seem to recall you are in fact male (double or triple my apologies if I'm not even remembering that part correctly), but no one seems to list your credit for them!

The Fan (1996)

2009-11-21T00:28:37Z

I felt a colossal idiot one day when watching an interview with Tony Scott and thinking, "Gosh, he has the same sort of dialect as Ridley Sco--oh, crap. Of course." Not my proudest moment, to be sure. Still, it gave my brain purchase to help along my appreciation for Tony Scott as a director. It's no secret that I love Ridley Scott as a director, nor is it actually much of one that I really like his brother Tony. However, Tony is less well-regarded, to put it mildly, with films like Top Gun under his belt. It makes it difficult to bring myself into some circles of film fans when I freely admit to my appreciation of the "lesser Scott" as a director. It's an old appreciation though, as I have seen many of his films over the years, often shortly after they came out, and have always been entertained, if memory serves.

Bobby Rayburn (Wesley Snipes, pre-tax problems and associated outrageous claims, pre-R.C.-has-a-personal-bias-against-him-for-appearing-in-a-series-of-films-that-turn-an-interestingly-psychotic-character-into-a-cool-badass) is a heavy hitter recently traded to the San Francisco Giants for a $40 million contract. This excites lifelong Giants (and baseball in general) fan Gil Renard (Robert De Niro), who is on his last legs as a knife salesman in a company begun by his father but traded into different hands to value value over quality. Gil is also on poor terms with ex-wife Ellen (Patti D'Arbanville-Quinn) over custody of their son Richie (Andrew J. Ferchland), mostly regarding poorly kept appointments, an issue with his job, as well. When Rayburn begins to falter thanks to an injury, the player the team replaced with him begins to rise, Juan Primo (Benicio Del Toro, still riding along in accent-heavy supporting roles). When failed sale after failed sale--partly encouraged by the decision to attend the opening day game and run the risk of missing an appointment--leads to the loss of his job, and the same decisions lead to his neglectful approach to taking care of his son and thus the legal removal of custody, Gil buries himself in support for Rayburn. Overhearing conversations, Gil decides the problem is Primo, and confronts him. Lost in a world that he barely had a grip on in the first place, Gil's obsessions with baseball, the Giants and Rayburn takes him into dangerous and violent territory.

What's magnetic and fascinating about this film is the way that Bobby and Gil are portrayed. There's a greater complexity and reality to them than is usually given in most thriller-styled movies. Rayburn is an arrogant git to be sure, but he's a good player and a reasonable guy. He's a loving father and he does what he can to earn his keep, but is "not nuts," as Gil points out, for taking the salary he does. Gil is especially complex. He's not a simple psycho, nor is he a misunderstood simpleton. Gil is not stupid, but he does not understand or empathize with other people. If I had a psychology degree of any kind, I'm sure I could tell you exactly what sort of disorder he is exhibiting. He values important things, though, at least in principle. His frustration with his father's knife company comes from his expertise in the art of knife-making, but he fails to recognize the world--and thus the company, since it exists in that world--has changed. He values his son, and values imbuing in him the principles that he holds dear. He talks baseball up, and tells lies about knowing Mick Jagger (silly Gil, the version of "Start Me Up" that appeared on Tattoo You was not recorded in 1978, nevermind that you weren't there!) and other similar things. He obfuscates his own past and the importance of the knowledge he has, imparting the wisdom of his former teammate "Coop" as regards baseball.

What's important in making the film work is that Gil's son Richie does not outright fear nor fearlessly love his father. He shows signs that he wants to follow and appreciate him, while maintaining that childlike willingness to occasionally say things that are abrasive and abrupt. He tries to emulate his father even as he shows that he does fear him in places. Gil shows how poor he is at recognizing these things, but Richie continues to want to earn his father's approval anyway, even as Gil's temper easily rears its head. Gil's obsession is realistic and acceptable, so far beyond the pale it's extremely uncomfortable to see, yet perfectly real in this context, and utterly believable. This is the kind of role that De Niro is best suited to: a man with serious anger issues who is not particularly aware of them. The way he loses himself in a role, he does not so much subdue his own character as he manages to make us realize just how much the character onscreen is unaware of his own, well, craziness. Travis Bickle, Rupert Pupkin, Johnny Boy, Noodles--they are all characters who are shocking in their relative depravities, even if they might be placed in a way that we sort of root for them. They are antiheroes, to be sure, and we feel sympathy for them because we know they mean well and are just incapable of recognizing the real world and their position in it.

This, of course, is really the point. Scott's films tend to get middling acceptance--"well-produced but brainless fluff," characterizations of that nature tend to stick to them quite thoroughly. But it's about Gil, and it's about Bobby, about living up to absurd expectations and the different ways that people perceive a collective image or idea like baseball. It's life to some ("better than life," Gil says at one point, "because it's fair.") and it's a game to others, like Bobby. Bobby, despite his distance, despite not being as closely involved with his son, is the better father, not just wanting to care but actually doing so. Of course, it's the isolation--however self-inflicted--that so thoroughly ruins Gil's grasp on reality. Bobby has his agent, Manny (John Leguizamo, who was still working very bland characters in mainstream film, supporting and smaller roles), who supports him even in the downtimes and through personal trauma and professional. While he may be doing it for money, there's clearly at least some regard for Bobby as a human behind it.

This is a very solid examination of obsession, managing the right low-key approach to many of the things Gil does (thanks, in no small part, to De Niro's note-perfect performance), while not at all suggesting the actions involved are minimal in their effects. They are normal to Gil, and the film follows things primarily from his point of view, showing how he thinks that he's doing the right and acceptable things, while everyone else clearly sees the danger--albeit, perhaps, not clearly enough.

Le Grand Bleu [The Big Blue] (1988)

2009-11-20T21:42:46Z

Luc Besson's name is most strongly associated with films he made in the 1990s, specifically Léon (known as The Professional in many non-snob American film circles) and The Fifth Element. To a lesser extent, there's also Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita) which spawned a lesser-known television series. Besson's name is attached to many projects, often as writer or producer, that occasionally make some wary, but a much smaller percentage of projects with his name on them are actually his directorial work. In addition to the films above, which he at least had a hand in writing in all cases, he also wrote and directed Subway, The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc and Angel-A, to name the most prominent adult films. He also wrote this one.

Johana Baker (Rosanna Arquette) is an insurance investigator sent to the frozen nether regions of the world to check on a scientific expedition. Breezing past her is the seemingly inhuman diver Jacques Mayol (Jean-Marc Barr), who is extremely skilled at free-diving. As a child (played by Bruce Guerre-Berthelot), he competed with Enzo Molinari (Gregory Forstner) off the coast of Sicily. Now that they are grown, Enzo (now played by Besson friend and regular Jean Reno) is a competitive diver in contrast to Jacques' pure love for the sea (diving being a simple manifestation of this love, as well as a conduit through which to experience it). He cannot resist his childhood rivalry, though, and coerces Jacques into joining him in the world free-diving championships. When Jacques' natural talent surpasses Enzo's record, both men are driven to go further than ever before, creating increased danger in the sport, as they push themselves to points the human body is not meant to withstand. Jacques is less competitive, but is pulled in by his love of the sea, shown in his companionship with a trio of dolphins, and only briefly interrupted by the interference of Johana's intense love for him.

It would be very easy to simply write off a nearly-three-hour director's cut of a film that's primarily about diving as dull, boring, uneventful and any number of synonyms you wish to throw at it. However, that's faulting an introspective film for not being an action film. It's a forgivable expectation considering the rest of Besson's output, but it's still unfair to the film itself. It's almost always spoken of as "Besson's most personal film," though I'm not entirely sure how anyone arrived at this conclusion--with the possible exception of Besson having openly stated this. Short of digging through ancient interviews to discover this, I see no point in examining this particular detail any further. Still, it is a more introspective film, regardless of who it is examining. Jacques Mayol gave his blessing to being used as the main character when Besson asked, and apparently had an honest love for dolphins (and a respect and admiration for them, exhibited in his book L'Homo Delphinus). Still, I am quite far from an expert on Mayol's life, just as I am no expert on Besson's, and cannot very firmly describe any realistic emotional connections between either man and the film.

What this film is to nearly anyone who watches it is one thing: pretty. Even those who find it dull or intensely boring (I suppose that's almost an oxymoron, isn't it? How IS boredom intense?) will usually agree and admit this part of it. It's (allegedly, for I've not seen it without) best experienced in the "Director's Cut," which appears on the US DVD release and contains Éric Serra's beautiful synthetic score for the film, which is bolstered by a burbling bassline through much of the underwater images. Serra has been a longtime collaborator of Besson's, so it only makes sense that his score would be the best fit for the film. Prettiness aside, this film is an interesting mixture of introspection (I apologize for the repetition, but there is no better word) and romance, leading some silly soul to be quoted in the insert as calling it a "romantic comedy"--not unfair, in that it contains both of these things, but it can't really easily be called that all the same. And of course one has to admit that some of the romance is not between Johana and Jacques, but between Jacques and the sea. There's no question his love for the sea is effectively unbreakable. It calls to him in the middle of the night, haunts him when it takes the lives of those near him, but never loses its calm, alluring mystique.

There's some debate to be had about the end of the film, which is clear enough from the fact that the re-scored, heavily cut American release (which loses about fifty minutes of footage!) contains a different one. It is, however, the right ending, however wrong it may be, however strange or difficult to understand. There's a great degree of ambiguity in it, too, not really endorsing the choices that are made, nor condemning them, nor even really explaining or confirming them. But they are the right actions for the characters involved at that point. It is indeed a beautiful film, but not just for the imagery, also for the ideas that Besson puts into it. It's about finding oneself, about fulfilling life and completing it--not defining how it is best to do so, or saying that this can always even be done, or even that there's a happy ending for every single person around, but about the search for meaning in all of it.

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)

2009-11-12T15:29:14Z

Especially of late--considering he now IS late--much has been said of John Hughes. Or at least, I assume much as been said, as that's usually what follows the death of famous people, especially those with at least relatively cultish audiences. I don't pay a ton of attention so I can't really be sure. Still, I'm aiming neither to fly in the face of those words nor trump them. I'm just here to say my own piece and move along. Hughes' films, though, clicked with my generation and the one preceding me (primarily the one preceding me, but I've always been a bit out of place, temporally speaking). I will say I've always been more of a Ferris Bueller's Day Off sort of John Hughes fan than a Sixteen Candles one. Actually, I still haven't seen Sixteen Candles, and only saw The Breakfast Club a year or two ago. The plots themselves are nothing amazing, especially when we get into the territory of the two teen movies he wrote that Howard Deutch directed--this one and Pretty in Pink--there's even less to speak of. Both films have the same basic plot: high school kid from the wrong side of the tracks falls for other high school kid outside their social class, all the while failing to recognize their quirky best friend is already in love with them.

Keith Nelson (Eric Stoltz, post-Mask and pre-The Fly II*) is a high school student who spends his free time working as a 'grease monkey' in a local auto shop. His best friend is Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson), an outwardly rebellious girl with close-cropped hair and a love of drumming, who harbours her own secret love for her best friend, unbeknownst to him, especially. His father, Cliff (John Ashton), is insistent on Keith taking on the family dream and going to college--whether Keith likes it or not--for something pragmatic. Keith takes notice of the most popular girl in school, Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson), and decides to ask her out. Watts is crushed but relatively supportive though cynical, while everyone else is incredulous. First, though, Amanda must lose her current beau: Hardy Jenns (Craig Sheffer, who I refuse to remember did anything else other than Nightbreed, even after I see other things**).

There's always talk of how Hughes (I can't avoid it completely, can I?) managed to properly assess, analyze and convey the interests and motivations of teenagers to teenagers, and this is, well...true. What is important about his approach is that it is neither ultra-realistic nor ultra-dramatized. I don't mean this to say that it's even remotely realistic--it rarely is--but it's of that tone that is so often called "hyper-realism," where the reality of this world seems perfectly accurate despite its heightened everything. Characters are built from archetypes (and stereotypes) but are used to at least expand, if not break, those ideas. This, at least, is more real than many of the more clumsy teen movies that have been released over the years. Characters like Hardy Jenns perfectly encapsulate the feeling of those who lord their wealth, physicality or other attributes over anyone who is found in a submissive position. Yet Hughes imbues even Jenns with a certain level of motivation and complexity--but not so much that he loses that villainous edge. We can see what drives him and why, even understand it, without empathizing so much we lose sight of the fact that he's quite definitely a villainous antagonist. He's a thorough jerk, and this is often excessive to prove this very point. The goodness of characters like Keith is also pushed in the same way. While he comes into conflict with his father over the subject of college, it's never quite so filled with heated moment mistakes as reality is. The conflict is preserved and kept feeling natural, while the inevitable side effects, consequences and fallout are set to the side. All the angst, none of the scars, if you will.

For all that I do like John Hughes, I am pretty frank about my extreme distaste for that other Deutch-directed effort, Pretty in Pink. I didn't like any of the characters, I didn't like the way the film worked out, and I especially didn't like Andie's sack dress. However, Deutch redeemed himself here. I think the film is taken as a sort of mediocre Hughes effort, not inferior but rather less than the 'classics.' Being as I think Pretty in Pink is a few miles from being a classic, I think that's an unfair--even if unemotional and relaxed--malignment of this film. I think I once read, while I was checking out the film prior to even purchasing it (some length of time ago that I'd prefer not to reveal to myself), that this is sort of considered Hughes' "adult" teen film, the most 'grown up,' or some such nonsense. While I will call it nonsense, it really isn't. It's dealing a lot more with the ideas of leaving high school and growing up and giving up the things that one wants for a "greater good." It's not another classic, mind you, but it's worth seeing as Hughes films are, so long as you like that sort of thing, and is a lot less disappointing than you might be led to believe.

*To use my own calendar of events, which may or may not mean anything to anyone else.
**Again, this is how I think of things.

American Beauty (1999)

2009-10-12T17:12:12Z

I've seen seven Best Picture winners in theatres before they actually won, but this is the one that was at a point where I was starting pay attention to movies yet still didn't care, worry or know enough about the politics of them to wonder or debate whether they might become Best Picture winners. I just thought it was a movie and my family was going to see it, and I knew my artsier friends were enjoying it, but that was about all. My sister was a big fan of Kevin Spacey, for his earlier work. Like many, it sort of curbed her interest a bit by placing him in a starring role. That never particularly bothered me, never felt he was overexposed, but occasionally thought he might be doing a bit like De Niro and taking on some less than necessary (or even uninteresting) films after this. One wonders why actors seem to do this AFTER big works--shouldn't they have just gotten some bills paid? Still, that's a sidenote to the film itself.

The Burnhams are a pretty strictly familiar suburban upper-middle class (maybe upper-upper) family, Lester (Spacey) entering a mid-life crisis, Carolyn (Annette Bening) failing to cope with this or her own crisis, and mildly rebellious daughter Jane (Thora Birch) revelling in the role of 'outsider' in school, while hoping just a bit to find some companionship outside of it, or even within it. Her closest friend is, somewhat mysteriously, the promiscuous fellow cheerleader Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari). Moving in next door are the Fitts, Colonel Frank, USMC (Chris Cooper), Barbara (Allison Janey) and Ricky (Wes Bentley). Jane's first run-in is with Ricky, who she finds videotaping her form his porch, openly, shamelessly, but without any note of threat. Ricky himself is estranged from his family, his mother lost in her own mind and his father fighting to control his son, who has been involved in drugs and, his father suspects anyway, homosexuality. Lester tries to burn through his own life, his worthless job and his failed marriage, while trying to engage in the fantasy of seducing his daughter's friend Angela. Carolyn attempts to escape by bonding with her real estate competitor Buddy Kane (Peter Gallagher). Jane attempts to deal with her collapsing parents while being drawn to the danger and mystery of Ricky.

There's a note, as many films suffer after receiving acclaim, of sour grapes from many people regarding this film--or at least a feeling of contrarian opposition to its acclaim and awards. "Overrated" is thrown at it pretty regularly, with a sneer and typically an accompanying sense of accomplished superiority. Of course, one cannot become superior by anything simply by saying it isn't as good as OTHER people think, or simply that it "sucks." Interestingly the film this reminds me of most (albeit backward considering the timeline along which I saw them) is Ordinary People, which is amusingly appropriate both because it is reviled as winner of the Best Picture Oscar in 1980 (mostly because it beat out Raging Bull) and because apparently American Beauty's first-time director Sam Mendes looked back at that very film for inspiration. Both deal with a level of socioeconomic living that many of us do not experience--somewhat above our own without falling into the absurdly incomprehensible fantasy of the ultra-rich--and the problems that plague the people in it, which differ somewhat little from those the rest of us know.

Once, while watching Donnie Darko, I experienced a rather common reaction to films like this: "But they have money, they can't have problems!" someone exclaimed at that one. I was struck by the absolute absurdity of this idea, but was left pondering the difference. Certainly if we start looking comparatively, any of us (especially anyone who can read a movie review posted only on the internet, or able to read one at all for that matter) can find someone in a worse position than ourselves. Problems are not intrinsically valued or valueless, as dealing with them on a universal scale is inherently absurd. There's no way to suggest that Lester's dissatisfaction with the dishonest approach of everyone in his life is unimportant, because it is important to Lester. Few--if any--can will away problems that are emotionally affecting, and so they become important at least in the context of the person having them and those around him or her. There's a smart approach to this in American Beauty, as there is in the entirety of Alan Ball's approach to the script: characters are all born from existing stereotypes, but all twist and contort them without being flagrant contradictions or sardonic inversions. A dis-satisfied suburban father in a useless job becomes a man seeking youth earnestly and in unusual ways, some expected, some not, and finding it in a place he, himself, would never have suspected. A shrew-like mother who holds her problems over her family but secretly holds this shield of frustration over deep insecurities and depression, who is trying to re-assemble her life and reclaim her role as mother but simply doesn't understand it because she has no concept of herself. An outsider daughter who fits naturally into the role of cheerleader--somehow!--and yet lacks promiscuity, all while secretly planning breast augmentation to attract more male attention, and boost her own self esteem.

The film is not an amazing revelation in thematic terms, though it does have an appropriately post-modern outlook on these same themes and ideas. It has a hint of the dark and a twist of the sarcastic without being overly "hip" or pretentious (though those who are happily embraced it on release). Mendes' direction and the fantasies hiding in the film, specifically Lester's fantasies about Angela, are fascinatingly creative, neither arthouse abstraction nor clumsily obvious symbolism. Thomas Newman's accompanying score for these scenes is fantastically mischievous, recognizing the problematic nature of them, but reminding the audience that this is only fantasy--though not some members, who still oversimplify the film to decry it as being about a "sick, deranged pedophile." His score is hauntingly bittersweet, plucking the right aching heartstrings when witnessing things from the outside, as Ricky often does through the lens of his camera when watching his neighbors interact. The moment where he tapes a silent conversation between Lester and Jane through their kitchen window to only Newman's sweet, sad music captures perfectly the dichotomy between the intense emotional response of the Burnhams themselves and the invisibility of those problems to anyone from the outside who isn't paying attention as most don't.

This is not an overrated film, really. Those who suggest as much either have very specific tastes (which is fine!) or are simply trying to prove their worth by degrading something recognized somewhat widely as being a quality release (which is not so fine). Alan Ball easily proved this was no fluke by going on to make Six Feet Under, while Mendes went on to direct solidly visual and engaging films like Jarhead.

Kumonosu-jō [Throne of Blood] (1957)

2009-10-12T16:21:57Z

As always, the title was changed in translation: "Kumonosu-jō" actually translates to "Spider's Web Castle," the given name of the castle in the film. It's probably criminal to some, but at this point I'm more familiar--in terms of what I have experienced--with the work of Akira Kurosawa than I am with the work of William Shakespeare. In my youth, I picked up a set of his three major tragedies (debateably, of course--but I mean King Lear, Hamlet and Macbeth) but discovered I have no taste for reading plays. I've not seen (nor participated in, with my brief stage "career" in high school) many performances of the Bard, either. As such, there are only the forced readings from school that inhabit my conscious, as well as the film adaptations I've seen (and other alternate-medium adaptations and discussions) that inform my knowledge of Shakespeare. It's limiting to have difficulty reading poetry and plays (yeah, neither!) so I haven't gained much ground on this, either. Still, that list does include Macbeth, actually, which I was fascinated by, and so for once I could watch one of Kurosawa's "adaptations" and think, "Hey! I know this plot!" (which I could not do with Ran and its King Lear-inspired plot, as I've never read, seen, heard or otherwise experienced that play).

Taketoki Washizu (Toshirō Mifune) returns to Lord Kuniharu Tsuzuki (Hiroshi Tachikawa) after defeating the forces of competing Lord Inui, but he and Yoshiaki Miki (Minoru Chiaki), his fellow warrior, are stopped in the forest by the sight of a mysterious and ghostly stranger (Chieko Naniwa). She tells them of their coming glories, that Washizu will become lord of a new territory, and eventually replace lord Tsuzuki, while Miki's son will also eventually take Tsuzuki's place. They are confused and surprised by this, and relatively disbelieving, until their return to Tsuzuki leaves Washizu with the exact titled prophesied. Washizu's wife, Asaji (Isuzu Yamada), begins to play on Washizu's paranoias and ambition, suggesting that he should take an active role in the next part of the prophecy. The visit of Lord Tsuzuki to Washizu's guard brings him into reluctant agreement with Asaji, and so he assassinates the powerful lord and sets into motion a far more obviously unavoidable set of events to fulfill prophecy, as suspicion and conflict return to the kingdom.

Deviations from Shakespeare mostly relate to the setting, in obvious terms at least. However, there is more to it. There's more reluctance on the part of Washizu, there's a different denouement, it's all tweaked and nudged in various directions to suit Kurosawa's own plans. This, of course, is probably its saving grace as a film. Many consider it one of the (if not THE) best Shakespeare film adaptations around. Nothing is sacrificed for 'accuracy,' and nothing is shoved into place despite the film so that it suits the original play. The tone, the meaning, the concept, the idea--this is what is transferred over. A bare skeleton, a basework, from which a new piece of art is created. This is not a surprising approach for Kurosawa, who was notorious for his stubborn vision and tendency toward lack of restraint. What he builds, though, is something that, in losing the language and exact construction of the play, is something that more viscerally pushes the feeling of the play. He imbues it, interestingly, with a native (to him) form of theatre despite the conversion to film, though: Noh. Masaru Sato (who composed for a number of Kurosawa's films) puts forth a Noh-styled minimalist score, very traditional and very sparse. Asakazu Nakai's cinematography is often stark in its contrast, creating deep and clear pools of white for Naniwa's ghostly demon and dark, dense and intricate pools of darkness for the men facing her. Interiors, even more so, bring in this approach. Makeup and lighting gives many of the actors the appearance of Noh masks.

Interestingly, Kurosawa's lack of restraint and sense of majesty and spectacle serves him far better than modern approaches to the same: scenes like the final ones, especially, are impressive even now, as those loyal to Tsuzuki attempt to retake Spider's Web Castle from Washizu and use the very forest to do so, and then as Washizu meets his fate in fearful madness and a slew of arrows. An interest in fog and its usage also serves Kurosawa, when anyone is lost in the protective fog surrounding Spider's Web Castle and finds themselves lost and turned around over and over, galloping in and out of the fog. Any of these things could easily turn out poorly, and the fog scenes certainly walk a tightrope and nearly fall into a place of wondering--wondering, that is, what on earth we're watching them gallop in and out of the fog for. But it never quite falls off into that particular confusion, consistently it's clear that the two men galloping astride horses onscreen are getting lost repeatedly, however theatrically--as if they are trapped in the space of a stage to convey this, despite having an entire real field of fog and the possibility of multiple cameras--and show this perfectly.

This is not my favourite Kurosawa, but that's nearly meaningless. It's still Kurosawa and absolutely brilliant film-making, and certainly an easy place for Westerners to start if they wish for some semblance of familiarity in their first foray into Kurosawa's filmography.

Death Proof (2007)

2009-09-22T05:57:17Z

My strange distaste for Quentin Tarantino is well-documented. It's strange, though, because there are not many of his films I actively dislike, and I tend to like him in interviews (and even in acting roles). Certainly his fans are often a big part of my distaste, many of them thinking entirely too much of the man as a filmmaker. Still, I went to see Grindhouse in theatres for the people in it, and for Robert Rodriguez more than anything else. Death Proof was still interesting because I love Kurt Russell, but I was wary of it all the same. I remember the concept sounded nice, but I remember leaving the theatre with my friends as the only one who hated it and preferred Planet Terror. I picked up both films just for the sake of having them both (since they've continuously failed to release a single cut of the film).

Stuntman Mike (Russell) is an out-of-work stuntman who hangs around in bars* and waits for intriguing victims to appear to sate his bloodlust. The first ones to take his interest are Jungle Julia (Sydney Tamiia Poitier, not to be confused with her father Sidney), a radio disc jockey and her friends Shanna (Jordan Ladd) and Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito). They discuss Jungle Julia's plans for Arlene, who has unknowingly promised a lapdance to the man who gives her the right lines--at least, Julia promised this unknown man said dance for Arlene. Mike asks for the lapdance and Arlene rebelliously accepts his advance. As they plan to leave for a lakehouse, Mike picks up Pam (Rose McGowan), who is in desperate need of a ride and shows her his car--which is death-proofed like actual stunt cars, with a roll cage and everything necessary for Mike to survive about any collision. Pam is dropped into a simple seat in Mike's car, and finds herself rapidly regretting her choice of rides. When Mike chases down Julia and friends, he puts his car's "death-proofing" to the test. Texas Rangers Earl (Michael Parks) and Edgar (James Parks) McGraw know Mike is responsible for the resulting deaths, but lack of evidence (and lack of alcohol in Mike's system) leave them without cause to prosecute him. Mike's next choice of victims is a group composed of Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Abernathy (Rosario Dawson) and Kim (Tracie Thoms). They pick up their friend Zoë Bell (who plays herself, effectively) and discover her desire to drive a white 1970 Dodge Challenger in reference to Vanishing Point. Finding one of them, they play "ship's mast," where Zoë is held onto the car's hood by two belts as Kim drives it down the deserted highways at high speeds. Mike and his car begin to "toy" with the girls until they decide to turn the tables and pursue him.

There's a simple and obvious problem with this film, and one I simply cannot get past: Tarantino and Rodriguez stated that their intention was to make a modern grindhouse experience, but what Tarantino did was make, well, a Quentin Tarantino movie. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but the grindhouse setting fails to set the film apart from any of his others--which are all similarly inspired (not always specifically by grindhouse, but always with his affection for the "genre" somewhere inside them). The two groups of women go on and on and on and on (and on...) about various pop-culture oriented topics, from Julia's snobby comments on Pete Townshend (hopefully deliberately inaccurate to show her snobbery) on to discussions of whatever other banal topic crosses their minds. Zoë's group goes on and on about stunt driving and classic car films. It all feels simultaneously natural and contrived: speaking to the skill of the actors involved and to the monotony of Tarantino's dialogue when unrestrained. It's wearing thin after 15 years to hear the same kind of dialogue, which was once interesting for its unusual and fresh nature, repeated yet again by another set of characters. It's becoming unnatural for so many characters to speak this way, and to watch their endless conversations. This is not a grindhouse movie, not a parody of one, not a modern version of one, it's just yet another Quentin Tarantino movie. I references grindhouse movies, it pays homage to them, it has actors from them, it has stunts and cars from them, but it's another Quentin Tarantino movie--and none of those things is exclusive to this particular one.

There's a moment, after the initial chapter about Jungle Julia, where the film goes black and white for no explicable reason and in the process loses all of the elements of intentional grindhouse damage, the film suddenly stunningly clear and bright and clean, as if it suddenly remembered, "Oh, right, I'm not REALLY a grindhouse movie." It's jarring and unpleasant, and really kind of a let down after a pretty decent opening. Tarantino apparently decided he couldn't make an actual slasher movie, so the description of the plot falls through the cracks--it's not really a slasher about a guy who kills with his car anymore, it is a Quentin Tarantino movie that happens to have a guy who happens to kill people using his car. It's taking the grindhouse motivation--gimmicks!--and forgetting to make the gimmick the central point. Of course, gimmicks were often lost (think of any cult/horror/sf fans you've ever known who talk about fast-forwarding to the "good parts") to banal plotting and dialogue, but they were never treated quite so much as a deliberate, thought out focus.

Of course, the real killer (sorry) for me, is Tracie Thoms is unforgivably obnoxious at the end of the film. When she finds her angry spine, she turns into a caricature of the "Oh no you di-n't!" angry black woman and spouts unnatural, pointlessly profane and sexually suggestive dialogue. Stuntman Mike has turned into a "total bitch," as Tarantino himself puts it, and in the process my own jaw drops as Quentin shows absolute ignorance of all film since the 1970s and a complete lack of understanding of the majority of cult fans. Everyone LIKES the killer, even though they aren't "supposed" to. The "inversion" has been done to death. Nothing new here, yet the film--and some rather worshipful fans--act as if it is some kind of revelation that the tables are turned. When Mike turns into a blubbering coward, I was tempted to turn the movie off (which was very difficult in the theatre...). I just felt, as Tarantino says, like I was watching a totally different movie. Except I didn't like this one at all. I didn't feel sympathy for the girls anymore, as they quickly became intensely annoying as they repeated the same initially stupid dialogue over and over. I wanted Mike back, but he was gone, and I was left with another twenty minutes of film I had no interest in, after the beginning had such a tenuous grip in the first place.

What a waste. It would have been more interesting as a strict slasher. And poor Kurt Russell...I love him still, and even loved him as a silly blubbering coward, and loved how much he threw himself into the crying loser, but the movie didn't support me in this and acted as if I should now suddenly root for his destruction. An epic failure of understanding of the entire convention the film is supposed to reference, pay tribute to and emulate. Bizarre coming from a man who has such an encyclopedic knowledge of these films. And yet another point I can effectively notch against Tarantino in dealing with his more obnoxious fans.

*Please, no Python jokes.

Frankenstein Unbound (1990)

2009-09-22T05:08:20Z

How did this start again? Was it when I read Brian Aldiss' novel? Or did I read that because I read about the movie? To be sure, a strong impetus behind my decision to view it (and debatably behind reading the book it is based on) is the presence of INXS' late vocalist Michael Hutchence. Many people who know me know I love INXS like nobody's business, so this shouldn't come as a big surprise. A starring role for John Hurt and a villainous role for Raul Julia doesn't hurt anything either, naturally, but it was definitely the presence of Hutchence in one of two film roles that drew me to it. And, of course, we can't completely discount the name of Roger Corman.

In the future, Doctor Joe Buchanan (Hurt) is attempting to develop a weapon so powerful that it ends wars by simple threat of its existence. Unfortunately, operation of the weapon leads to erratic weather and "time storms," rifts in the time-space continuum that occasionally displace people and things. Caught in the middle of a severe one, Buchanan is sent back to Switzerland in the early 19th century, where he rapidly discovers not only the real Doctor Victor Frankenstein (Julia), but eventually the author who made him famous--Mary Wollstonecraft (Bridget Fonda). Frankenstein's younger brother was recently killed, and witchcraft is suspected. Horrified, Buchanan attempts to gain the help of Frankenstein in clearing the nanny being held responsible, both of them knowing his creation, The Monster (Nick Brimble) is the true culprit. When Frankenstein refuses, he goes to Wollstonecraft, who has an interest in the proceedings herself. Buchanan finds himself caught in the scientific debate of morality, and of "playing God," as he attempts to convince Frankenstein to come forward, or at least to destroy his creation before it kills more. Unable to do so, he must resort to attempting to use the side effects of his own weapon to stop them.

Roger Corman's films have a reputation as pure schlock, cheaply and quickly produced, generally entertaining but showing their budget like people who are utterly unaware of their body types show skin when they make poor fashion decisions.* It's not a flattering description for anyone's approach to film, but Corman himself has never seemed bothered by it. Still, I have my own approach to film, having no interest in watching a film to laugh at its limitations (the ones where I will not grant the creators grace, ie, there is a budget and appropriate technology at hand for them, I just get annoyed by). Frankenstein Unbound I seem to recall reading reviews of as a book (after I read it myself, I think, or perhaps while I was reading it) and hearing it labelled the author's smutty fantasy of sleeping with Mary Shelley. This isn't an unfair description of that subplot (which seems unnecessary, and is only briefly touched on in the film, anyway), but it's hardly a characterization of the entire story. Corman's film, I think, suffers similarly. There's laughter (amongst the boring, as far as I'm concerned) to be derived from a moment here or there, but it's hardly a knock against the movie as a whole, really.

The film is actually quite well shot, with a very smart eye for cinematography and solidly paced action from Corman himself, in his last time in the director's chair to date. Julia and Hurt are unsurprisingly excellent in their roles, with Brimble giving a nice sort of confused but lethal gravitas to the Monster. Hutchence (who plays Percy Shelley) and similarly-briefly-appearing Jason Patric (who plays Lord Byron) flit in and out of scenes they are in without thoroughly establishing themselves, giving it that moment of "Neat!" without dragging things to a halt by getting hung up on their limitations. Hurt and Julia carry most of the film, not only in terms of skill, but, appropriately in light of that, in terms of screen time. Julia is viperously dangerous and manipulative, with momentary glimpses of sanity or humanity, while Hurt is sufficiently both a scientist and a solid protagonist.

One of the most surprising things about the film is that the settings are quite believable. I'm sure if I knew much about 19th century Switzerland I'd have issues, but to the untrained eye it looks believably 19th century, and the future is not embarrassingly dated. The budget certainly shows in the design of the future objects, but it isn't as cheesily obvious as it often is. There's a stream-lined efficiency to it, a relative disinterest in gimmick-ing up any of the objects from the future that serves the film very well. The most obvious piece of the "future" present is Buchanan's computer-enhanced talking car, which sounds like a dreadful Knight Rider-style horror, but actually works pretty well. It does look rather 1980s, but not familiar, which is really probably the best approach to creating the future: not trying to guess at future approaches to design, but instead building from current ones to arrive at something unusual. The gore, too, is unusually good for what people say about Corman's films, though I should know by now that such mentalities are derivative of a genuine love that has been misappropriated by the cynical and postmodern into an attempt to prove oneself "better" than some films by mocking them (I mean nothing against Mystery Science Theater 3000 if that is crossing any minds--I'm quite a fan).

There's a solid bit of weight behind the film's concept and themes that betrays this whole schlocky mentality that people have about Corman's films, and there's an absolutely fantastic set of title credits to back the whole thing up. What Corman is known for is efficiency and industry in his work, and he makes a miniscule budget work for this film--he can't hide everything (because there's not enough money, of course!) but he makes a fantastic use of what he has, and puts very strong actors in to sell what doesn't work. Really, this film should be given a much better chance--but it's typically, it seems, swallowed up by those of us who are curious about Hutchence as an actor and those who want a "stupid" movie to laugh at. A shame, really, as it does well with its subject matter.

*I'm not sure where this peculiar simile came from, but it makes sense in my head.

Young Guns (1988)

2009-09-22T04:30:18Z

Now, it's easy to get me to watch a number of movies. Name the right actor, and I'll be less than concerned with what exactly the movie contains. Many, many actors fall into this group, but one of the easiest is either of the Sutherlands. I've been a fan of Kiefer for longer than I can remember, long enough I can't really nail down exactly what film made him for me. It's a good bet it was a mix of Flatliners, The Lost Boys and eventually Freeway. But, I'll hesitate just a bit unless you drop in other actors to draw me in. These don't have to be up to the level of one who actually snaps my head around to make me pay attention, but they have to be of some kind of interest to me. The rest of the main cast easily fits the bill here: Emilio Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen, and Lou Diamond Phillips especially. I can't say I dearly love any of these three, but Charlie, for some reason, has always stuck in my head, and sometimes I sort of feel bad for Lou Diamond Phillips, who has that inescapable reputation of "b-movie" (or, worse: "television movie") star. Heck, I watched Route 666--and liked it all right.

On a remote ranch in New Mexico, a rather effete Englishman named John Tunstall (Terence Stamp) takes on the rather wild and often orphaned (or at least away from home) gunslinging boys he finds and works them on his ranch. He attempts to both educate and civilize these boys. Unfortunately, his land is coveted by fellow rancher Murphy (Jack Palance), who is far less scrupulous than Tunstall. They conflict regularly, much to the chagrin of Tunstall's boys, the rather stupid "Dirty Steve" Stephens (Dermot Mulrooney), the boastful Charley Bowdre (Casey Siemaszko), the proud Chavez Y Chavez (Phillips), the literate Doc Scurlock (Sutherland), the leaderly Dick Brewer (Sheen), and the newly recruited William H. "Billy the Kid" Bonney (Estevez). Murphy is happy to end the conflict by killing Tunstall, which sets the boys into a rage that leads them to pursue justice through lawyer Alex McSween (Terry O'Quinn, whose role as Peter Watts in Millennium is unfortunately going to be clearly erased by his time as Lost's Locke). They are eventually deputized, which Dick sees as cause to be "Regulators" of the law, and Billy sees as cause to execute all the men responsible for Tunstall's death.

I was rather expectant of this movie, being as it comes from the late 80s, has quite a "Brat pack"-ish cast (even if it lacks more than one person from the "actual" brat pack), a ridiculous synth-based score and a mentality that suggests a rather rapid-fire approach to a historical story. Perhaps I was spoiled by Walter Hill's star-laden and "gimmicky" (in the sense that it is filled with actual brothers, thus also having pre-viewing interest driven by the cast) The Long Riders, which is absolutely fantastic. Perhaps I was spoiled by the many westerns I knew so well, even classic ones, prior to viewing this. Perhaps I simply don't like mainstream 1980's westerns (I liked Silverado "all right," you might say). Regardless, this was a pretty serious disappointment. Allegedly, it is reasonably true-to-events, but it sure feels like an over-slick pile of nonsense historically. The entire story feels contrived and worked out, even as it winds its way through actual events. John Fusco, who wrote the film, doesn't exactly have an amazing list of credits to his name, as I've heard less-than-pleasant things about the Jet Li/Jackie Chan team-up The Forbidden Kingdom (with many of its failings hanging, I hear, on a poor script). I'm not amused to find him working on a new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, either, but perhaps that will change before said film is produced. Director Christopher Cain isn't exactly swimming in good will from his directorial past, either. I can't claim to have seen his other movies, either, but none of them jump out and scream to be seen, really.

One of the major problems is the way the actors seem to be swimming through the muck of poor writing and direction. There's enough space for them to build characters into vague lines and actions, but not enough that the characters they come up with necessarily work or fit. Sheen does well enough at delivery, but fails to create much of a character in Dick. He's "a decent guy," but that's about it. Mulrooney is comic relief as the idiotic and vulgar Stephens, Siemaszko has a solid footing (leading to the line that was sampled by Warren G for his song "Regulators," no less) but nothing amazing, and Phillips overreaches himself just a bit as always, seeming just a bit too self-serious, yet working charismatically enough despite that. Kiefer is a little confused in the role of the rather poetic Doc, seeming out of place in the role, and a bit like he's trying too hard to erase his nasty, villainous past in many other movies. Even when he's heroic--and he can be--he works best with an edge, some darkness or some conflict. Doc's a little too goody-two shoes, in a sense. The worst offender, though, is definitely Estevez. Suddenly Billy the Kid is completely crackers, rather unsympathetic and just difficult to get a grasp on. I keep getting the feeling we're supposed to like him and root for him, but all I can think is that he's completely insane, stupid, manipulative and leading them all down a very self-destructive past. He gets in that killer last line (which, of course, I won't repeat) before the film ends, but even the punch of that is sucked away by the fact that his character is unsympathetic and rather unlikeable.

It's not a film I'd jump out and say could be improved by this or that, because it fits very well into its time period, and would be a silly waste without the original cast at that age and time. Just a shame the script and direction were in the hands of two people who functioned but just didn't do much more.

Bin-jip [3-Iron] (2004)

2009-06-30T00:31:02Z

The title actually translates to something more like "Empty Houses," by the way, rather than "3-Iron," which seems to reflect differing naming conventions by culture. Or maybe the title was not picked by an American distributor as I cynically think, and is not intended to re-frame the focus from the airy idea of transience to the visceral physicality of an item used repeatedly as an expression of anger in the film. It's anyone's guess until someone comes forward, and I'm unlikely to hear it when they do, so I'm going to grimly stick to my theory there, and suggest that the translated title would, in fact, be more appropriate.

Tae-Suk (Hyun-Kyoon Lee) is tasked with taping restaurant menus to the doors of residences from his motorcycle, but takes this job--if indeed it is an actual paying job--as a method of serving his true way of living. Waiting to see if the menus, all placed over the doors' locks, are removed hours later, he determines which houses are empty. Those which are empty he enters and enjoys, fixing broken mechanics and washing clothes by hand. He makes use of food, toiletries, beds and appliances, then disappears with no clear trace of his presence. At the first house we see him marking, he has a brief exchange of dark looks with the home's owner, Min-Gyu (Hyuk-Ho Kwon), before the two go their separate ways. When he comes back later to find no one has re-entered this house, he goes about his normal activities, not noticing that Min-Gyu's wife Sun-Hwa (Seung-Yeon Lee) is still there and shadowing his movements, smiling when he fixes their scale or peruses their art. Tae-Suk finally recognizes her presence when she finds him in bed, and Tae-Suk quickly leaves. After pondering his decision, Tae-Suk returns and finds Sun-Hwa sobbing in the shower, her eye still bruised from what can only be the less-than-affectionate attentions of Min-Gyu. Creating a more comforting environment, Tae-Suk tentatively shows a more respectful approach to Sun-Hwa, until Min-Gyu returns and finds them both. Tae-Suk disappears before Min-Gyu sees him, but does not leave, instead convincing Sun-Hwa to leave with him and try his own way of living.

I've been reluctant to watch this, knowing what I did about it. First I have to be in the mood to be stationary enough for a subtitled movie (some foods are complex to eat when you need your eyes on the screen consistently), and then I have to be in the mood for something arty, and, as memory told me, nearly silent. If I'd really thought about it, I might've put these two ideas together and realized there weren't going to be many subtitles when the protagonists are indeed silent through the majority of the film (and, in addition to that, often the only presences on-screen). Still, when I thought of watching it today, I thought, "Why not?" and pounced, determined to avoid losing a willingness on my part to see it. I was a little worried that, despite the minimal running time of 84 minutes, it would be slow (as it has been described as such). Apparently, I needn't have worried, because it's far from slow. If you can't tolerate the idea of a film with almost no dialogue, you likely will find it interminably slow and frustratingly incomprehensible. There are ridiculous reviews claiming that there is no characterization and no way to identify with the characters because they don't speak. This is the sign of a pretty limited view of people (and probably not the best sign for reading people around you). It's very clear what kind of characters these two are, insofar as the relevance of this definition to the film. It's not perfect and complete rounding, but that's very difficult to do in the space of a movie anyway--and it isn't always the point.

There's also raging debate as to the reality or believability of the film, which is somewhat frustrating as it's yet another limited way of seeing things. It's not that one can't prefer a naturalistic or realistic approach, nor even that one can demand that of the films they like or watch, but it's not the only approach to be taken, nor the only one that can be successful--just the only one that can be successful for those who demand it. It's not intended to be a perfectly realistic film, asking for a relatively large degree of suspension of disbelief, but not in the sense of suspending what is possible in reality so much as suspending the belief that you are watching reality. This is a dream-like world, but not in the stream-of-consciousness sense so much as a floating, ethereal one. Tae-Suk is unnaturally good at sneaking around people and their homes, but at the same time does do enough that one would think someone might at least notice that he had been there, even if he wasn't found while there. There's a further debate on the subject when the end is reached, and some feel that Tae-Suk has become a literal ghost, where others feel he has become, well, a ninja, if you'll pardon the tongue-in-cheek interpretation of the film. It's got a sense of humour though, so I suspect writer/director Ki-Duk Kim does as well, and thus won't mind. I'm in favour of the second interpretation, though also not opposed to the more open interpretation that these are not distinct or "real" people in the first place, and identifying along such lines is moot.

This is, as you might guess, a pretty visual movie. Many, even those who hated the movie, have noted that Korean film has a distinct tendency to be well-filmed. I'm inclined to agree--all the Korean films I've seen, as well, seem to be pretty beautifully shot. There's a careful attention to reflections and framing, making it always look intentional but never artificial, a difficult but very aesthetically pleasing balance. The pacing around this, as well as the camera movements that support this pacing and aesthetic, is well-balanced and keeps things moving even through relative silence (pierced only by environmental noise and the odd bit of music). It's cut perfectly to never make the protagonists' silence too questionable, and to keep any scenes with such kinds of silence from becoming uncomfortable or unsettling. Even when someone is speaking to them, it comes off as believable, at least in this film's world, that they will not respond, and so it maintains the right sensibility to propel a rather unusual film forward. It's quite pleasing as a film, touching and easily affecting, even with the detached eye of Eastern film that always seems to nudge at me when I watch a film made in eastern Asia. Definitely worth your time if you have any romantic proclivities, and a willingness to experience a movie that does not rely in the slightest on dialogue.

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

2009-06-25T16:48:55Z

The Beatles become a more and more curious subject as time goes on, especially in the circles I run in. I grew up listening to them, and never thought a thing of judging their music. I always liked it, which is no surprise if one knows that the 1968 animated film Yellow Submarine is one of my all-time favourite movies. I've got some of the figures produced from that film hanging about my apartment, as well as a well-worn shirt advertising the film. It was one of my earlier DVD acquisitions, before it went out of print. However, it was not until sometime in college that I began to learn that there were actually people who flat-out disliked or even hated the Beatles. I had no idea, and honestly still don't quite understand the people that do. Generally, it seems that this opinion is more response to response than response to the original stimulus (that is, their music). Obviously there are going to be people who just dislike their music, but mostly I find people who have been annoyed by how much other people like them. It's really a shame, but it is the nature of people to form such opinions (and I'm not immune to them myself, though I tend more to exaggerate dislike when things become more and more popular, but never move from like to dislike over it) so I suppose we're best off accepting it. Obviously if one took the concept of reviewing this movie and the concept of not talking about the Beatles' music and put them in a room, they'd not shake hands or greet, they'd stare in slack-jawed wonder at how you put them in the same room. I'm not planning to review the music or discuss it in detail, but I'm not going to skip around it either.

The Beatles (John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Richard "Ringo Starr" Starkey, if you somehow don't know) are set to perform on television one day in London, away from their home of Liverpool. Coming along with them are their manager Norm (Norman Rossington), road manager Shake (John Junkin), and Paul's grandfather (Wilfrid Brambell). Paul refers to his grandfather as a "mixer" or troublemaker, and suggests that he needs to be watched closely as they go about their busy schedules. Norm and Shake conflict periodically, usually from the subtle incitement of said grandfather. The boys try to escape their responsibilities as stars, skipping out on Norm whenever possible, whether assigned to respond to fan mail or to simply show up for any performance. They wander in and out of situations that they stumble into, while Paul's grandfather attempts to feed his own desires, which are usually a mix of greed and lechery. As a final spiteful act to remove himself from the watchful eye of others, he even tries to incite Ringo to leaving the group because of their relentless mockery of them.

This isn't a plot-heavy film, though it's not quite as plotless as many of the "rock and roll films" that predated (or followed) it. Or, at least, the absence of plot is not so worrisome. The Beatles are all rather charismatic as actors (even if clearly pretty amateurish), and Alun Owen's script serves them well. The words he wrote for them at least some of them agreed were very natural and believable for their real personalities, which was Owen's intention. It makes for a snappy, cracking sort of wit, one-liners, sarcastic retorts and wordplay bandied about without pause for laughter or between funny lines. There's a nice injection of absurdity to it all that gives a lovely hint of a smile with a certain element of snarkiness to all of them, as they find themselves mistaken for people they're not (or occasionally people they are) and they always take advantage of the people making these mistakes. Not cruelly, but often falling into the role they're mistaken for and responding with honest opinion. Nowhere is this more apparent than in George's mistaken appearance in an advertising office. He's taken for a new spokesperson, which he attempts to fight only briefly and eventually neglects to argue with, after which he sparks a bit of fear in the trend-obsessed advertising manager Simon, played by Kenneth Haigh.

Owen's script intentionally and clearly draws a neat little box around each of the boys, with Lennon as the smart-ass, McCartney as the "sensible" one, George as the shy one and Ringo as the good-hearted whipping boy. This is certainly an oversimplification of any human being, but it's appropriate when one is basing a film around a band as a purely business-oriented enterprise. It's not really the place for nuanced characterization and pathos, and it's good not only that Owen made the decision, but professional of the Beatles to accept the roles and run with them. There's no real mean-spiritedness to all of it, with the closest thing to an antagonist being Paul's grandfather, who's made out to be enough of a "rascal" (there's really no better word) that he's still fun, even as we see the havoc he creates. Brambell deserves plenty of credit for this, as his strange character is just a fantastically over-the-top foil for the rather subdued nature of four guys who didn't really do any acting before. Richard Lester directs it pretty brilliantly (nevermind John Jympson's tightly sloppy editing) and keeps everything in control and in place, which makes the whole thing hugely entertaining. While he bemusedly rejects the idea, certainly this film has some part in the origin of the promotional music video, with nicely cut montages and actual scenes behind their songs, from the beginning act of running from screaming fans on to the final television stage performance.

I normally express a general shrugging neutrality about the Beatles' music prior to 1966's Revolver (occasionally scaling it back to Help! or Beatles for Sale, but rarely earlier), often finding it too formulaically poppy and repetitive for my own tastes. I've never quite figured out why, however, but in films a lot of music that I shrug at or like all right seems to strike just the right sound dynamic and image juxtaposition to really make it pop out. I found myself with renewed appreciation for the songs the film contains, and for the greater nuance in the instrumentation than I had previously noticed. Generally one thinks of these songs and their simple and repetitive choruses ("She Loves You," "A Hard Day's Night," "Can't Buy Me Love," etc.) but there's actually a decent amount going on behind them. I'm not saying I suddenly rate it as equally interesting when compared to their later work, but still, it's more impressive than I once realized. It's this that I think is often missed by other people, but plenty of folks simply don't want to see it (or don't care about whether they see it).

What's best about the film, though, is not the music--it's great that a film built to advertise a band was controlled by strong voices like Owen and Lester, who made it an interesting movie in its own right, in some strange paradoxical way making it function almost like the Monkees (whose show was allegedly inspired by the film) in that it could be about a band that doesn't really exist and just happens to hold the Beatles' music as if the actors playing this made-up band were the ones who made it. In essence, the music is good, but separate from the main characters in the film even though it is indeed them who wrote and performed it--and of course that fact adds an exciting note of authenticity and justification to their casting. It's a very tenuous tone and quite a balance to strike, but the film maintains it perfectly, never losing its pace or its sense of humour, never stopping to rely completely on who is in the movie even as it feeds on the energy of that fact.

Gojira, Mosura, Kingu Gidorâ: Daikaijû sôkôgeki [Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah (...)] (2001)

2009-06-12T22:38:35Z

Slowly I'm making my way through the Millennium/X series of Godzilla films, the only series completely available in Region 1 DVD releases. There are notable exceptions from both the Showa and Heisei series over here, unfortunately--well, notably absent, not necessarily notable films--nevermind the releases that fail to have original language tracks or original aspect ratios. Unfortunately even this series suffers from the repellently lazy phenomenon of "dubtitles," subtitles that are merely transcriptions of the dub and thus carry over all its re-written scripting that is designed in a dub to bring mouth movement at least closer to the audio track. Unfortunately it often deviates a fair bit, to the point that at one point I could swear a character cursed and the screen read, "Excellent!"--when cursing would have been more appropriate for the context. I caught on much earlier, though, when I began to hear words I knew--the light curse of knowing a smattering of Japanese and watching poorly translated subtitles--and saw nothing resembling them, even in spirit, in the subtitles. A quick change of audio tracks confirmed my suspicion, but dubtitles are better than the treatment alluded to above for other films, at least.

Fifty years after Godzilla attacked Tokyo in 1954, rumours and hints of more monsters in the vicinity of Japan begin to come in, worrying Japan's defensive forces who repelled Godzilla in that first attack. Low rent sci fi production company BS Digital Q is filming one of their typical productions only to be rocked by an earthquake. Their reporter Yuri Tachibana (Chiharu Nîyama) is present for this, and glances over to see a strange old man (Eisei Amamoto) who disappears when she looks back. She's taken in by him and the earthquake and pursues the idea until she digs up information about the "Guardian Monsters"* Baragon, Ghidorah and Mothra. Brief appearances by all are seen when a motorcycle gang goes joyriding and finds a tunnel collapsing on them, while some thieving youths find themselves unsettled on a lake. Yuri is able to find the old prophet she saw before at a police station, identified as Hirotoshi Isayama. He tells her that she must wake the "thousand year old dragon" to defeat the returning Godzilla, who he tells her was created by nuclear energy but is imbued with the anger of the souls lost in the second World War, angry at Japan itself for forgetting them. When Godzilla resurfaces, he takes to his old stomping grounds, heading immediately for Tokyo, with the curious new monsters attempting to stop him, from the quadrupedal, tunneling Baragon to the floating and graceful Mothra on to Ghidorah himself. Yuri's father is SDF Adm. Taizô Tachibana (Ryudo Uzaki), who is proud of his organization's role in repelling Godzilla originally, critical of Yuri's company and worried about the oncoming attack, while science writer for BS Digital Q Teruaki Terada is clearly very interested in Yuri.

Shusuke Kaneko's only Godzilla film, he is responsible for the admirable revival of Gamera in the 1990s, directing the entire trilogy of films that came out that time period (which I own but have only seen one of) but only taking this one opportunity to direct Gamera's far better known daikaiju "relative" (in the loosest sense, since they aren't even related by rights). It, like most of the Millennium series, is a direct sequel to the original 1954 Gojira and has no interest in any of the films that followed it. Godzilla is returned to his malevolent roots, while King Ghidorah is re-purposed into a mystical protagonist instead of a horrific alien experiment to create the ultimate monster--this is most definitely not the Astro-Monster/Monster Zero. Mothra remains as aloof and benevolent as ever, though Kaneko firmly notes that these monsters are here to protect the land of Japan, not the people or society on top of it. This makes for a pretty tense chunk of destructive action, because not only are the "good" monsters unconcerned about the humans around them, Godzilla is outright evil this time. Normally an unstoppable force of nature driven to destroy, this Godzilla actively pursues the destruction of people in some pretty dark moments, and always acts to retaliate against any one or anything that attacks him or tries to defend itself. As a result, there's a much greater intelligence to all of the kaiju that is usually not seen. Fights are less "choreograph it with the limitations of suitmation in mind" and more "find a way for these beasts to fight each other with the powers and design each of them has." This does mean, of course, that Toho had invested in a bit of CGI by this time (though not for the first time--but it's a pretty CGI-heavy Mothra appearance).

The story is even more closely tied in to the kaiju action than the last film I saw (Godzilla Against Mecha Godzilla, which actually follows this one in terms of release, but bears no relation to it otherwise), this time being more of a window into the human world in a world that is really centered on kaiju. They are mystical as Kaneko made Gamera, elder spirits designed to protect our destroy, infused with the souls of people long dead for either revenge or protective purposes. They are bigger than us in both the literal sense and the sense of "meaning," their conflicts beyond our means and understanding, to an extent. Yuri and her father are the only really big human characters, and they both act primarily by responding and reacting to the conflicts. This is actually sort of interesting when one considers that this is film chooses to show more thoroughly the effects of Godzilla's destructive nature on people. It's clearly stated that numerous people die over the course of the film, rather than seeing a building destroyed without any real explicit declaration of its occupants (or a lack). It does make things a little darker than usual, while paradoxically adding this human element to a world largely unconcerned with humans.

This makes for a pretty darn good Godzilla movie, albeit one that is clearly a deviation from most expectations (to the annoyance or disgust of some). It's interesting to see a Godzilla so clearly and actively motivated, though the design for this Godzilla is a bit off, being extremely dumpy and given creepy solid-white eyes that only enhance the malicious emphasis of the character this time around. Mizuo Yoshida is not to be criticized for his work, though, nor Fuyuki Shinada for his designs, at least not harshly. It's actually very well sculpted, and mostly works for this evil Godzilla, but is just a bit too tubby to be appropriately menacing from some angles Kaneko chooses. Still, it's good that the design differs as it does, because between the character changes, the varied approach and the new designs--all set to an unusually electronic score, albeit an effective one--gives the film the feeling of what Godzilla movies might be in an alternate universe, still entertaining and well-made, but different enough to remain recognizable but also recognizably different.

A very good entry in the series, but a very unusual and somewhat out of character one.

*A lame translation I'm guessing--either overly literal one or someone's idea of something that sounded "better."

Taps (1981)

2009-06-12T16:11:53Z

"Tom Cruise in his second film role!" a sticker proudly proclaims on the 25th anniversary release of this film. It seems to have been added later, possibly to push sales of the film by riding the name of the biggest star of the lot. Sort of a shame, because the film has some better actors in it--Timothy Hutton (fresh off of his Oscar-winning role in Ordinary People), Sean Penn, George C. Scott, Giancarlo Esposito, Ronny Cox. Unfortunately (?) none of them ever wandered into the "movie star" realm (except a brief flirtation in the 1980s for Penn) that means that you just plaster their name all over things and people take interest, whether it's good or not. I'm not saying Cruise is necessarily a bad actor, or even that his role doesn't intrigue me, but simply that this is just a tag that screams of marketing over anything interesting in the movie itself. At least Cruise's role is reasonably large and it isn't jumping on a cameo to sell it.

At Bunker Hill Military Academy, Brian Moreland (Hutton) is part of the rising senior class, attending a brief and intimate dinner with the parting Cadet Major and the commander of the academy, General Harlan Bache (Scott), where he is promoted to Cadet Major, the head of the student body, for the next year. After this honour is bestowed, Moreland returns to his dormitory to see his roommate, Alex Dwyer (Penn) and fellow rising senior David Shawn (Cruise). Shawn has his company of "red berets" perform a drill in the hallway to honour Moreland, while J.C. Pierce (Esposito) congratulates him and offers to gather food for him from the care package fellow student Shovel (Jeff Rochlin). At the parade that celebrates the end of the school year, Bache announces the bad news--the school is to be closed in one year. Distraught but confident after a speech Bache gives Moreland in private, the students finally attend a last dance. Resentful "townies" catcall the dates the cadets are bringing and harass them from just outside the school grounds. A scuffle turns into a brawl, which Bache wades in to try to break up. When one of the locals jumps on Bache's back, he reaches around him and draws Bache's sidearm, the trigger squeezed in a brief moment, killing one of the locals. Bache is shocked that he managed to leave a round in the chamber and is carted away by the police. When a news report announces that now the school is to be closed immediately after this event, Moreland makes a plan to take back the school and hold it until they are given a chance to fight for its continuation. Many of the students who were to stay for the summer session join him in this, including even the youngest of cadets like Charlie Auden (Brendan Ward) and Derek Mellott (John P. Navin, Jr.). They take the arms that were stockpiled and hold the school against the police, accepting attempts by parents--including Moreland's own father, Master Sergeant Kevin Moreland (Wayne Tippet)--and eventually even the National Guard, represented by Colonel Kerby (Cox) as they doggedly fight to keep their school open and alive.

It's interesting enough to hold a position like I do on the military, never really able to discuss it logically with many, and yet another to see a film like this. I am neither the overtly militaristic type nor the anti-military type, and don't get along terribly well with the most fanatical elements of either. I think that the overly emphatic beliefs of those who devote the entirety of their minds to the idea of war are disturbing and out of touch with reality to a dangerous extent. I do not mean those who devote their lives, necessarily, as it is one thing to devote a life, and another to devote one's mind entirely. The opposite side has this silly idea that somehow you can have a country in this world and not maintain a military, or criticizes the military for forcing soldiers to accept killing and death. On the first thought, it's absurd when you live in a world where there are other people who will only respect or give pause for competing power. It can incite and promote conflict, to be sure, but it's highly unlikely that any country would be let alone--especially one that maintains a large role in world affairs--if they did not keep any form of defensive force. It wouldn't necessarily have to be used, of course (such as in aggressive actions of any kind), but the absence seems absurdly naïve to hope for. The second note, of training soldiers to accept death, is only logical: it's the only way to perform that job. This is a very strange position to hold, it seems, neither sneering at soldiers nor feeling the urge to salute their "endless, amazing, perfect duty and sacrifice" or what have you. I am opposed to conflict, but not to the idea of a military.

That's a pretty long discussion of my personal beliefs on the subject, I realize, but there's a reason for that. This film shows an interesting point of view on military training (even if it is technically civilian military training), with General Bache suggesting that Moreland should never be ashamed of humanity, and that it is humanity that keeps any leader from being a tyrant. The students are not all automatons or typically divisive. Shovel--whose name almost definitely comes from the idea of shovelling things into his face--is not constantly abused and taunted for his weight and eating, but neither is it ignored. "Plebs" (the new class of students) are harassed, but the understanding motivation of it, the idea that this is simply ritual, is actually conveyed to these new students instead of just openly abusing them. Few seem to be on power trips, or of that dangerous sort of future soldier that just wants to shoot things--with the notable exception of the overly aggressive Shawn. It's a view that building military leaders is an honourable affair, not something derided by director Harold Becker for its "insane militarism" nor steeled to a sharpened edge of "awesome badassness." Shawn is shown as dangerous--as either side of the issue should think he is--but nearly everyone else is muddled. Dwyer is not quite the sharp student that Moreland is, but Moreland is truly friends with him and respects him. He's also not a slacker in an open caricature sense, having a greater sense of humour and a more open conscience than anyone else, but never derided as a poor cadet for this reason.

It's a fascinating approach that makes the films points a lot easier to understand and digest. This is a stance that is rarely taken, with films usually either promoting the military agenda or slaughtering it wholesale, in either end case only ever preaching to the converted. The military and the building of officers is treated with respect and honour, drills, marching and the skills and leadership the school builds and maintains all being portrayed as affairs of disciplined and honourable intention. The military approaches Moreland begins to use to control the campus are not ruthless or bloodthirsty, and are rooted in this sense of honour he was given by General Bache. His motivation is solid and good, his intentions as well, and his actions, while not terribly smart or good, are generally well-carried out and reasonable, insofar as such actions can be. It's only after they've hold up in the school for multiple days that it begins to come clear what the movie is saying. This isn't a deplorable action by rebellious students as the outside world thinks (the outside world being a little cartoonish, but this is offset when it is contrasted with the cadets), it's a misguided action by cadets who mistake themselves for full soldiers. They have enough training that it ends up a relatively professional affair, but they are still young and not yet ready to take on the responsibility of the entire action for themselves. Most of the adults from the outside world bear nothing of Bache's respect for his students and deride them openly as insane or mere children, with only Kerby attempting in any fashion to actually understand and reach Moreland. He treats him with respect without pretending his actions are acceptable, but that only proves that Moreland is too lost in his nebulous definitions of "honour" and "duty" to really perform any action so grand.

For a cast this young, this is very well carried out. Scott (who, of course, is one of the ones who isn't young) has an unusually pleasant warmth to his role (at least, as compared to what I've seen him in before), being truly fatherly and kind to his students, respecting and honouring them in everything he does without going terribly lax on the discipline they are there to learn and receive. Hutton has wandered into a role that is pretty tough and full right after a similarly difficult one, and he proceeds admirably. A verbal confrontation between Kerby and Moreland through a fence manages to highlight both the skill of Cox and Moreland and of editor Maury Winetrobe, with some nods to Becker and those behind the cameras. There are lingering shots of purely physical emotional reactions on these characters that don't feel forced but contain no words, showing that Moreland is losing his grip on his belief in the righteousness of his cause just as he attempts to deal with the grief of the unfortunate happenings that have led to this conflict in the first place. It's a telling shot for Hutton especially, showing a fight to maintain the emotional neutrality that will allow him to carry this out as his grief and frustration fight to break him down. Penn is caught in that most interesting role, the slacker who is not quite a slacker, who is respected even by the best students, a truly good friend despite whatever flaws he has as a student. Cruise is the most caricatured of the characters, a hothead who wants nothing more than to be a soldier--so he can shoot things. He treats the whole thing like kids playing war, never fully recognizing the reality of actual conflict and death, the thing that Moreland struggles to acknowledge maturely despite never being given the chance to deal with the idea. Cruise is very solid and believably out of control, but isn't doing anything terribly complex at the same time. Evan Handler (who would go on to various sarcastic, vaguely-weaselly roles in the last decade or two) portrays yet another of the commanding officers, Lieutenant West, who is torn by a devotion to Moreland and a recognition that this is all out of their control, possibly the most mature of all the responses any of them has to the events. Esposito is a sort of a sidelong mirror to Penn, playing J.C. not as a polar opposite, but as another cadet who respects, admires and likes Moreland and does his duty, but does it more as a duty born of respect than friendship. He is not dropped completely into the role of regimented soldier, but he's edging more toward a soldier with hints of civilian than Penn's openly civilian attitude.

This isn't a perfect movie, of course, as the entire concept raises some questions as to what on earth would possess anyone to think that taking a school by force was a good way to be heard, but that is sort of the point at the same time. Even the very young Ward and Navin manage to bring a lot of character to their roles as "pleb" freshmen, mixing that growing sense of pride and duty with the fear of very young children. It's disconcerting to say the least, but that's the point as well: these are kids-in-training, not full-fledged soldiers, and they are not really prepared emotionally for this, no matter how well-trained they may be. The film is absolutely successful at this, and clever at choosing a back door into this idea and message, avoiding insult to the cadets it's portraying while criticizing them harshly but reasonably.

The French Connection (1971)

2009-06-12T02:34:26Z

On a message board I used to wander daily, there were a number of action film fans, and the subject of the best car chase ever filmed often came up. Naturally this was often down to some famous contenders, and two titles in particular tended to stick in my mind, being some of the most renowned for their car chases in general: Ronin and The French Connection. I'd never seen either, but when they kept coming up, the titles would get just a little more firmly ingrained in my mind, and I'd at least be overtaken with curiosity by wondering what exactly these movies consisted of, and how one rated these car chases as better than any others. I saw Bullitt a few years back, so I've already seen that chase, as well as Ronin's (which I also saw a few years back). Now I've completed the trio of films most recognized and, more important for me, the pair that I heard about so many times.

Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy "Cloudy" Russo (Roy Scheider) are two cops in Brooklyn who work in narcotics, who are trying to get somewhere nearer to an actual source of heroin. Popeye's pursuit of the job even in the face of time off leads them to a bar where a man flashing money around catches his eyes. The men he's with are familiar faces to Popeye, so they begin to tail the man, Sal Boca (Tony Lo Bianco), until they stumble into Weinstock (Harold Gary), a man who smells dirty to everyone but comes out clean every time. They convince their superior Simonson (Eddie Egan, the actual cop Popeye is based on, his partner Sonny Grosso appearing as Bill Klein) to let them pursue things further, and find that the source is a Frenchman, Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey), who has arrived with actor Henri Devereaux (Frédéric de Pasquale) as a cover and cold-blooded assassin Pierre Nicoli (Marcel Bozzuffi). Two wiretaps are how they luck into this and a meeting time for Boca and this source. Simonson gives them federal agent Mulderig (Bill Hickman, an actual stunt driver), who dislikes Popeye--who has no love for Mulderig either--and reveals Doyle's iffy past with "hunches." Charnier is smarter than the folks that Doyle and Russo are used to and easily makes them, making things difficult for everyone. Now Charnier has to find a way to make his deal with Boca in time for a real estate deal back in Marseilles, France, while Doyle and Russo must catch Charnier, Devereaux and Boca.

The only other factoid I had about this film as I sat down for it was that the chain of Popeye's restaurants actually had nothing to do with E.C. Segar's amusing cartoon strip creation and everything to do with Gene Hackman in The French Connection. This was news to me when I heard it a couple years back, and was almost the most intriguing thing about it. I never really connected the film as a Best Picture winner (or Best Actor, Best Screenplay and Best Director, really), and understood the car chase to be a car chase with two cars. I didn't remember the Academy Awards until I had already finished watching the movie, and had no idea about the chase until I saw it. I knew Hackman and Scheider were in it (which is fine by me, I like both of them a lot) and that Friedkin directed it, but Friedkin I know in a strange way, as I didn't enjoy The Exorcist when I watched it some years ago, and I've only seen Sorceror since then, and To Live and Die in LA, which I was severely disappointed by (though more because of a lead I disliked than anything else). Still, I have an intellectual respect for Friedkin by reputation that comes from respectable sources, so I counted it as a plus anyway.

As soon as it starts, the movie is filled with an immediacy driven by an unusual score from Don Ellis (who composed the soundtrack for the also-Scheider-starring The Seven-Ups, though that score bothered me) that is very light on melody, heavy on rhythm and sound. It's perfectly in keeping with the "induced documentary" feeling that Friedkin says he aimed for in making the film. It's an accent and a supporting prop, loud and brassy without being obnoxious or off-putting. It shows up momentarily and often almost out of the blue, playing underneath scenes that don't immediately show a need for that emotional intensity, thus giving it to them, being uncommon enough to let us know that this is something important without giving the slightest hint of what's about to happen. It's a pretty amazing effect, especially for a film nearly forty years old, because no one seems to have undercut this effect by overusing it--though I do feel like it has been tried. It makes you uneasy and uncomfortable and ramps up the tension even when nothing about the way things are acted or cut changes the feeling of what is being visually portrayed.

From there, it's clear that Friedkin has made a no-nonsense, perfectly economic film. Never is any time wasted, but at the same time it's not rapid cutting and brief, terse moments for cuts or scenes. Each cut and scene lasts just as long as it needs to for events to roll along and put forth all the information necessary to understand them. Similarly, dialogue is not built purely for exposition, but never lingers long enough to fall into any kind of forced, intended characterization. Friedkin does come from documentary work, but I almost disagree with the tone he says he intended. As I watched, I did not get the idea that this was documentarian, but at the same time it had the right tinges of it to build a fictional-story-based-on-fact into something that screamed of reality even as it was clear that it was only something that resembled it. The camera doesn't seem to know where everyone is going to be, or even everything, yet at the same time they're edited in to cut out the chaff of pondering a building while we wait between moments that drive the story. It's a perfect line between pure fiction film and documentary, creating some strange amalgamation of the two that is utterly fascinating for its hook of dramatic tension and the exciting tinge of real events--the reason people see a movie "Based on true events" or studios market them as such. It almost doesn't even matter that it actually is, because Friedkin has perfectly conveyed the idea anyway.

Hackman and Scheider are not used to carry the film because of this, because it would destroy the feeling of reality. Neither one is an actor who tries to steal the screen, though, with Hackman especially more interested and real acting and Scheider always seeming a cool character who just slides into roles and then back out of them and into the next one. It's not quite the same thing as a devoted character actor like Hackman, but it has the same feeling of relaxed reality to it. Their characters are not wonderful people, especially Doyle, and this is something that was once new--not that old at this point, in fact. Doyle is racist and obsessive, uninterested in anything but doing his job. He takes Cloudy along on bar trips to scope out possible targets for surveillance or busts, he criticizes his techniques on the job and spends days and nights on his surveillance without concern for much else. Cloudy is loyal and more passive behind Doyle's crass, smart alec obsessiveness, but strong enough to break up Doyle's conflicts and support his moves. Charnier is a strange counterpoint to this, an ultra-slick, suave and cosmopolitan sort of villain, neither twirling his moustache nor combing it into an ultra-slimy configuration. He knows what he's doing and it's what he does, the only thing he really shares with the two cops pursuing him. Rey is successful despite the mix-up that led to his hiring and his poor--by his admission, at least, prior to the film--French.

So, of course, I started talking about this film by bringing up the car chase. I'd say "you're probably wondering..." but I think things like car chases are silly to talk about, as I know I never got a handle on what was cool about any particular chase that I had never seen, so I don't expect anyone to want to hear what it's like or about. What it IS, though, is absolutely breath-taking. Popeye is not chasing another car but an el train above his car. The filming of this scene is unbelievable, clearly filmed in live traffic and swerving and diving at rapid speed through screeching cars as he lays on the horn. Like many of the truly great chases, there's not much music behind this. It's almost all engine sounds and the constantly blaring horn of Popeye attempting to keep people from driving into his path. Like the rest of the film, there's never a feeling that it's prepared and calculated, even as the camera knows exactly where it needs to be, even if it's just a bit behind or a bit ahead or a bit off. It never looks sloppy, but it always looks like it was dropped into the moment, capturing something already existing, even if it wasn't real.

This film was absolutely amazing, and I don't think I was expecting that. I thought it would be good, I thought it'd be engaging, but it was absolutely thrilling, the way thrillers rarely actually are. Usually they're too slick and calculated and fake to really entangle you, but the effect Friedkin creates is affecting and more than engaging, it's captivating--and I mean that in the sense of holding the viewer prisoner. There's no way out of the scene because it draws you in and locks you down and forces your eyes to watch, not because you necessarily want to know what happens next, though you may very well want to, but because you just absolutely have to know. It's not a possible lack of want that comes from a sick sense of pessimistic unease, but because you really don't know what's going to happen--you can tell it could be just about anything, this is too real to have a calculated ending (even though it does, of course, and a brilliantly enigmatic one--not lacking in closure and yet somehow open and inexplicable) and so maybe they won't catch him, mabye he won't get away, maybe he will--who knows? You have to know, though, because it's so well put together that you can't just turn away and shrug and let it go. Do yourself a favour: let this one drop its hooks into you and watch it straight through. Probably the most frenetic, kinetic film of this laidback kind, that has such energy without forcing it that it's almost unbelievable.

Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

2009-06-09T02:36:25Z

I'm always a sucker for any film at least three decades old that receives some kind of special features-heavy DVD release, if it looks like the studio behind it really put their backs into moving things onto the discs. If I've heard of the film, I'll probably pick it up if the fancy edition drops to a price I consider reasonable. It doesn't guarantee I'll like it, but it generally means it's a film I "should" see. It's worse when it comes to musicals, which depend on someone's interest in the songs to a degree, or can, for some people. That means asking for opinions can be an iffy process, and that it's sort of a crapshoot picking such a thing up. Doesn't generally stop me, of course, as I have to treat musicals as crapshoots most of the time since I've watched so few in the first place, due to an early dislike of them.

Tevye (Chaim Topol, usually credited, like here, as just Topol) is the father of five girls in the village of Anatevka in Tsarist Russia. He introduces us to the village and describes its general nature and overall attitude toward the world, any white lies he tells easily countered by the scenery and characters behind him. Tradition is established as the order of the day with the first song, and then there is a brief interlude for the credits, after which we learn of the village matchmaker Yente (Molly Picon) and her news of a match found for Tevye's oldest, Tzeitel (Rosalind Harris), the rich butcher Lazar Wolf* (Paul Mann). The daughters closest in age to Tzeitel are excited at the idea of news for her because it means they're next, and next eldest Hodel (Michele Marsh) and Chava (Neva Small) sing of their hopes, only to have Tzeitel interrupt with her cynical fears that infect the rest. Tevye's wife Golde (Norma Crane) is the one who speaks to Yente and sends Tevye to meet with Lazar Wolf and attempt to broker an agreement for the arranged marraige. Tzeitel, though, wants to marry the poverty-stricken tailor Motel (Leonard Frey). Tevye is confronted with this affront to tradition that he values so much, and has to decide whether to relent, only to have his other daughters follow in her footsteps. Drifting revolutionary Perchik (Michael Glaser) catches the eye of Hodel, while the gentile Fyedka (Raymond Lovelock) catches Chava's. Interrupting this is also the encroaching policy of pogroms, brought about through the local Constable (Louis Zorich), who attempts to be reasonable within an unreasonable set of orders.

There's certainly more to the plot, and of course songs push the running time until it ends up just a tiny bit over three hours in total. This is no surprise for a musical from a stageplay, really, because many of those run such lengths anyway. It doesn't feel too long, though, and in fact runs about as quickly as three hours can. Not exactly "Really? Three hours?" sort of quick, but not "Ugh, is this over yet?" at all. There was complaint when the film was being made that Zero Mostel was not being cast as Tevye, because he had originated the Broadway role, but Topol did at least originate it in London. It was really Topol who put my foot into the door of watching this; I caught a flash of it once, about six years ago, while at the home of a friend of my then-girlfriend's parents** and was intrigued (but more interested, at the time, in my girlfriend and the--I think it was Christmas, that or Thanksgiving--dinner that was awaiting). I found him intriguing and interesting. He's not a perfectly pretty face, but has a strong voice and character. The dancing used in "If I Were a Rich Man" was what I caught, and I found it terribly interesting. Apologies to Mostel, but I can't separate him from The Producers in my head, and that just seems a bit weird for Tevye in my brain (though it probably wouldn't be if I saw it, really).

Topol is definitely the best part of the movie as a whole. When the story shifted to Perchik and Hodel in particular, I cringed a little. Occasionally Glaser looked a bit too much like he was picked for his looks, as did Marsh. Glaser and Lovelock both had the obnoxious--usually seemingly stage-born--habit of enunciating by edging in a hint of a posh British accent (stretched R's, for instance). It's grating, especially when surrounded by people working with Yiddish accents and mannerisms (Picon probably being the most enthusiastic about taking on such cultural mores). Neither really had the charisma, background or fire to really sell this, either, so it's a little nudge at the suspension of disbelief (or maybe a child jumping up and down on the bridge--suspension and all that). And Marsh's singing voice made me think she was only considering the song and singing, and not the character. This is one of the things I find offputting in musicals when it occurs, so it made the scenes with Marsh and Glaser the most uncomfortable. These are just nudges though, thankfully, especially because they are nowhere near the leading roles. Mann is probably the next most exciting actor, with a nice whiplash-inducing mood change in him.

The approach Norman Jewison took in directing this (after reminding the producers who called him in that, despite the suggestive name, he's not Jewish) is the kind that works best in adapting stage musicals: he envelops the feel of the stage musical in film-dressing, giving it the kind of life that preserves its origins while giving it something that original medium cannot. Dancing is never a focal point in a scene (with the possible exception of Topol's solo dancing), nor is singing. It's never framed to say, "And now they're going to dance!" or "Here's an actor singing!" There's no way to make someone bursting into song feel completely realistic or believable (even if some people might actually burst into song in reality, it's rarely so perfectly relevant), but it is possible to make it seem less jarring. That's what's achieved here, with framing and filming done to treat most of these scenes like dialogue in the way actors play and in the way the camera follows them. There's a different rhythm and movement inherent in this because they are singing and not talking, but it's not the rhythm that really draws one's eye to the fact of the song. The minimal dancing usually takes place only where appropriate: characters dance at a wedding, or in drunken celebration at a bar, or to express joy in a way that is not overly choreographed in feeling. Probably the most constructed of these scenes is the bar, where a group of Russians comes in to congratulate Tevye on the upcoming marriage of his daughter. They reel out dances that are widely recognized as "Russian," and often do so in clear lines or groups, but it all comes off through its cultural association as a way of establishing the Russians and matched to the appropriate nature of dancing in the scene, it doesn't come off strangely. It's also filmed from peculiar angles, and always with stationary crowds around watching (usually the Jews, who are somewhat confused by and wary of this intrusion), many from under a table or chair, resulting in a focus on feet without following them in an unnatural way.

The extra techniques included were most clear whenever Tevye was faced with some kind of decision as to whether to let others encroach on the way his life was currently being lived. First Lazar Wolf is frozen while Tevye ponders "aloud"--though the freezing of course tells us it is not aloud at all--whether to agree to let him marry Tzeitel. It occurs again whenever confronted with his daughters, though now, instead of freezing, they are suddenly many yards away from where they just were, which was right next to him. It's a clever method of continuing Tevye's established habit of asides, first with his narration and later with his discussions with God, which is always filmed with Tevye in the foreground and simply looking out of the scene in some direction that is near the camera (without being the camera). It's very effective and feels right for the character--as does, curiously, his tendency to burst into song, or dance (which he mostly just does with "If I Were a Rich Man"). There's a moment that comes from not from the camera or Jewison though--unless he suggested it--but from Topol that was probably my favourite. It's strange and momentary, but it was a perfect encapsulation of the character of Tevye, or at least what I liked about him. He's about to sing "Do You Love Me" to Golde, and he begins to get into the subject by picking aimlessly at a door frame, almost as if he were a child preparing to tell his childhood crush that he liked her. Tevye is like this; he's stubborn and interested in tradition, but is an honourable and good man and measures things, discussing them with God and trying to get a feel for what the truth is--even if it violates his previously held beliefs.

The songs are not all as catchy as the ones that I think are the most famous ("If I Were a Rich Man" and "Matchmaker"), but that may be due to the fact that I have not heard them near so much. Still, none bear the marks of unpleasant musical convention for me--though they often happily end on the horn blast that marks the moment where the cast would freeze in some productions of any musical--perhaps thanks to John Williams' choices in arranging them, but I imagine more due to the songs themselves. This is perhaps the most important element of the film for some people, but not me. I like to think of musicals as a medium in the genre sense--a way of telling a story and conveying an idea (like the changing of traditions and the established way, in this case) rather than a showcase for the elements of the medium or genre. To draw an absurd comparison (albeit one that shouldn't be surprising from me), it's the difference between horror that uses the fantastic for itself and as part of a story, and horror that throws a story out as a showcase for gory setpiece murders. It's possible to blur the line (in horror AND musicals, I mean), but that's not at issue here. This is definitely more a story being told that happens to have good songs in it, which makes sense since it did come from stories originally. Regardless of the detail, though, this is how I like my musicals.

*I harp on the morons who wouldn't stop laughing at the dog named "Homo" in The Man Who Laughed, but I definitely heard this name and thought, "...I did not just hear that." I continued to think that for the rest of the movie, then read the credits and yes, barring a little spelling, I DID hear that. I did not, however, laugh aloud at it--even though I was by myself. It's weird, but it's a name that happens to sound like Laser Wolf. That doesn't mean it IS Laser Wolf. Even if that's exactly what you hear. Over and over.

**Sorry, unless I just made up the relation, I couldn't make that any simpler.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)

2009-06-08T21:46:32Z

Some have called it one of the worst films ever made, and a Pulitzer Prize winning writer called it a masterpiece. I couldn't remember why I had vague notions of dislike attached to the movie--dislike from others, I mean--until I started wandering around trying to find out why. It wasn't hard; a lot of people seem to think the movie is just irretrievably awful, though it's the only film Sam Peckinpah ever had final cut on, and the one he apparently called his most personal. It's to be expected--just look at the title!--that this is not a film that was going to do anything to shake his nickname of Bloody Sam. I have seen many Peckinpah films, actually, which is unusual when I'm reviewing something by a director whose name is so well known, but this time I can point to reviews of The Ballad of Cable Hogue and Ride the High Country, and say I've also seen The Wild Bunch, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, Straw Dogs and The Getaway.

Theresa (Janine Maldonado) is the young daughter of the clearly powerful El Jefe (Emilio Fernández), who summons her with tough guys who say her father is asking for her. She's pregnant and the way she clutches at her belly makes it clear that this child is relevant to her summons. Taken in hand by the two men, Theresa is held roughly and El Jefe demands to know who the father of her child is. Shrinking in no way from finding this out by any means necessary, he pries the name from his daughter--Alfredo Garcia. He offers a million dollars to whoever brings him the head of Garcia, a veritable caravan of eager, greedy bounty hunters leaving his estate to find the man. Spreading out, Quill (Gig Young) and Sappensly (Robert Webber, more on him later) wander into a bar after trying numerous other leads, and find a man behind a piano (Warren Oates), playing and chatting up the customers of the bar. They latch onto this man, Bennie, when no one else will give them any information. They offer him a miniscule chunk of cash for his services, and he accepts, following his own local contacts. He's told that Elita (Isela Vega) is most likely to know Garcia's whereabouts, which leads him to a swearing bout, because Elita is his girlfriend (albeit a prostitute). Elita tells him that Garcia is already dead because of an accident, and so Bennie decides to gamble for more money from the bounty hunters. He argues them up to ten thousand, and heads off. Unknowingly, he and Elita are followed by two of the other bounty hunters already on Garcia's trail.

It's worth noting that the Pulitzer Prize winning writer is deserving of it for his writing skill, but it's also worth noting that he's a colossal moron. I'm speaking, of course, of Roger Ebert. The unfortunate fact of this is that he's not consistently wrong OR right. He hates movies for stupid reasons, or praises them for worse ones. So, that does not mean that I should have felt dread if I'd known he said this was a masterpiece, nor excitement. I don't know Michael Medved's opinions or qualities very well, so I have little to say about his claim that this is one of the worst movies ever made, except that I was pretty sure he'd seen enough movies to have actual bad ones on such a list. Shows what I know about him, I guess.

This (as the "Peckinpah Scholars" commentary suggest repeatedly) is not an easy film. It's not a fun film--though it can be funny--and it's not a pleasant one. It's dark and it's violent (most people expect these things if they know Sam, though, at least) and it's thoroughly unrelenting in its cynical feeling about humanity and the world. Many people die (the trailer claims 25, I feel that's probably rounded, even if it's rounded up, but am not the type to go back and count), there are some unpleasant scenes of brief torture and assault and the like, and a pair of bikers (Kris Kristofferson and Donny Fritts) come upon Bennie and Elita in the wilderness only to take a liking to her--with an obvious end intention. Bennie and Elita are sympathetic characters, even if likable may or may not be the right word, to it's not a hollow or detached set of unpleasant events either. That isn't to say that the film is just crushingly depressing or hopeless in tone, but rather in its "message" about the world. It moves along and doesn't leave you with that feeling that you just want it to end because it's so horrifically awful, but you are still shaking your head and hoping something goes just a little better. There's a secret satisfaction that this hinges on, as we do have a protagonist to get through the whole movie with, after all. We know we've got Bennie to the end for sure, because this story can't continue without him.

Oates is not an actor whose work I know very well. I've seen small roles from him in 1941 (and considering I've forgotten most of that movie, it's no surprise, I think, that I don't remember him in it), Badlands, Shenandoah, Ride the High Country, Stripes and In the Heat of the Night. I honestly couldn't tell you where in any of those, so I'm left primarily with The Wild Bunch, where I still don't have a role held down in my head. He's fantastic here, allegedly playing a version of Sam himself, an ex-pat in Mexico who thinks of himself as a tough guy but who stumbles when faced with actual tough men. He doesn't lack the actual skill (he's pretty good with a gun), but he is miserable at the attitude and the mannerism. Gig Young and Robert Webber show the opposite, both cold and calculating in their approach to the whole business, disinterested in anything else and willing to do anything to get what they want. This was a bit disorienting when Webber's face kept floating through my head as someone with glasses and an easy, friendly manner of speech. I couldn't identify the role until I looked back through his work and there it was: 12 Angry Men. He was the ad-exec with funny anecdotes who didn't pay attention at first. This is essentially a complete opposite role, as he is absolutely creepy and terrifying as a clearly psychopathic sadist. Vega has the right balance to match Oates, an outward vulnerability of sorts--playing on accepted social conditions for women--that hides a superior strength, unlike Oates' attempts to be a tough guy that make him look ridiculous.

There's a lot to be said about the film in terms of its expressions of love lost or unrecognized, the possible costs of greed, the nature of revenge and trying to achieve it (and I mean this in the Chan-Wook Park sense, incidentally). This is most of what makes it unhappy as a film, because we see a certain madness encroach on Bennie, as well as the circling whirlwind of violence that surrounds the search for Alfredo Garcia's head. Not everyone harmed is even involved, some are completely innocent, but the greed and vengeance drive violence into their vicinity and bring violence into their lives anyway. Bennie manages to maintain his "innocence" in the audience's eyes not by avoiding moral transgressions, but by justifying them. Not justifying in a way that makes them acceptable, but in a way that tells us both that he is trying to convince himself and believes what he says after a fashion, and that he is really not completely sure, but has devoted himself to this and to trying to get this, this last chance to escape his dead-end job.

So, was Ebert wrong? Not this time, not at all. The film is clearly doing exactly what it intends to, with all of its violence and darkness, and it does it very, very well.

Gojira X Mekagojira [Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla] (2002)

2009-06-05T19:49:31Z

I've been a fan of Godzilla for as long as I can remember, as I've noted in other daikaiju movie reviews. It was only the beginning of this year that I had to resist the urge to snag some vinyl figures from a closing store, and I still half-wish for console systems just to play the Godzilla games for the last couple of systems. Not enough to actually get any or ever try any of these games (I have no friends who like them as much as I do, so I couldn't possibly nudge in the suggestion of those who have consoles getting one or two of them, because I'd be the only one interested in them), but still, I love daikaiju like crazy, and always have, and probably always will. I've still seen only a handful of the "X/Millennium" series, though, and this is only the second I've watched. I thought I was watching them in order, but screwed up a bit and instead created a pattern of watching two of director Masaaki Tezuka's efforts in a row (skipping Shusuke Kaneko's Godzilla, Mother, and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack), but it doesn't matter too much, as the Millennium series was the set of films least interested in continuing stories, rebooting every movie or so as a direct sequel to Honda's 1954 original.

Akane Yashiro (Yumiko Shaku) is a hotshot pilot for the AMF (Anti-Megalosaurus Force) in Japan, driving a Maser unit (those giant flashlight tanks that have been in Godzilla movies since the 60s, if not the 50s...) into battle against the sudden re-appearance of a second Godzilla in 1999, 45 years after the first one appeared. When Godzilla causes an avalanche, she clips another retreating unit--a much smaller one--and sends them careening into the path of Godzilla's monstrous feet. Feeling guilty for her actions, Akane takes a demotion to a data unit as the government attempts to devise a weapon capable of taking down Godzilla. Eccentric scientist Tokumitsu Yuhara (Shin Takuma), who works on "bio-robots" is called in to the AMF to begin work on this project. The reclamation of the original Godzilla's skeleton from the oxygen destroyer has led to plans to create a bio-robotic Godzilla. Yuhara initially declines, telling his young daughter Sara (Kana Onodera) that he must take care of her. When offered the chance to let her in to the compound, Yuhara finally agrees and joins the project, finalizing the creation of the mechanical Godzilla--dubbed Kiryu.* Akane is called in to pilot Kiryu because of her skill, only to find that one of the other pilots is Hayama (Yûsuke Tomoi), brother of one of the men who died in the accident that took Akane away from piloting.

I was extremely happy with this movie. Apparently most kaiju fans were sort of "pleased," not terribly excited or disappointed or even just "satisfied," but something just above that. Some people don't like the prominence of the dramatic plot for the human characters, others just seem to think it doesn't do anything especially good. Occasionally reading reviews from others after seeing a film refines or nudges my feelings in a particular direction as I see whether others got out of it what I did, or whether anyone has legitimate gripes or alternate interpretations. In this case, I feel exactly the same. This was probably one of my favourite Godzilla movies I've seen. I've not seen some of the heisei series, mind you (including, shamefully, though understandably if one knows about its availability, Godzilla vs. Biollante), but still. This is, I feel, the best design yet for any Mechagodzilla, with a look that ignores the angular 1970s original, as well as the stubby and rounded (albeit better) 1990s version. There's a nice long tail and the feel of wirey mobility under the steel plating (okay, probably not steel, but this time the metal isn't named), all giving it, in line with their reasoning of using organic materials as a base, a greater liveliness to it. The head is less like a makeshift skull or metallic version of Godzilla himself and more like its own character, which is good design for a being that is intended to be an opponent of Godzilla rather than a clone.

The idea of the organic components leads to a subplot that isn't much of a surprise, but is still a little more subversive than is usually seen in Godzilla films. Some wonder why it was done, when it's clearly stated that the organic components are to give it a closer approximation of life. I've avoided the term "cyborg" because, while it is a combination of organic and robotic components, it is essentially a robot that happens to use some organic components for locomotion and calculation. The organics are added afterward, rather than being an organic being turned cybernetic. It's a fine line (probably a non-existent one, if I really think about it), but it's an important one because it helps to differentiate Kiryu as its own character, which is a nice, fresh approach to Mechagodzilla--formerly an alien clone and then later a simplistic, purely mechanical replica. It's also a nice tie-in for the human plot, which is one of the better ones I've seen: it actually relates to the Godzilla portion of the film and they work in unison. Of course, Godzilla is simply a force of nature as always (at least, outside most of the Showa films), so there's not much motivation or clever plotting there (and shouldn't really be, as he IS a force of nature, almost by definition), but that lets Godzilla be the framework for this human story, a necessary framework to give the events their possibility and to tie in the idea of Sara's youthful concerns about death, that relate to her absent mother. On the same note as the changes in Mechagodzilla, this is another good choice. Usually children are mis-used or overused in movies of a fantastical nature, either as strangely inserted and irritating plot devices (I'm sorry, Mothra movies!) or as unnaturally precocious miniature adults who have less-than-adult thoughts forced through mouths that are otherwise all-too-adult in nature. Here, Sara is a smart girl, but not unnervingly so for her age, able to bring the eyes of a child to things without interfering or controlling things, but still having an effect on the adults around her. This is the effect that's usually reached for, but Wataru Mimura's script is one of the more successful examples of it.

The fight scenes, which I realize are what most people are interested in, are actually very successful. Of course Japanese films have never had the budgets of big Western movies, and that's still apparent, but pretty well hidden this time. Kiryu is pretty breath-takingly badass, managing both the inevitable multiple-rocket launching attacks and more direct and close-quarters ones. The vernier thrusters are used to give Kiryu a more lively method of flight, enhanced a touch by CGI and some better suit work than is usually employed, with a whipping tail behind a dive and more rapid movements than usual. The close-up battles between Godzilla and his opponent are also a lot more satisfying than usual, mixing a bit of wrestling (usually all that's employed) and even a bit of boxing, which feels a bit more natural than the usually restrained motion. Effects all around are solid, and between the excellent Kiryu design and the usage of what may or may not be my favourite Godzilla design, I was pleased with both the kaiju and the human elements. Oh, and that Godzilla design is the one that seems to have a softened throat or belly, a sort of "collar" to his neck, and a face that is a throwback to the heisei (instead of the flattened, snake or cat-like head of Godzilla X Megaguirus and Millennium) and its rather menacing reptilian look, albeit with a more narrow snout.

*As in named, not dubbed over. I watch these things subtitled.

The Long Goodbye (1973)

2009-06-05T05:21:46Z

Robert Altman usually inspires a lot of confidence in more "independent" movie-watchers, and is often a bit off-putting for many "regular" movie-watchers. I know my father was in the group of people who cannot stand Altman's habit of over-lapping dialogue. As someone who is often filtering conversations in and out (one might call it eavesdropping in some circumstances, but never anywhere but in public places), this is very natural and lacks distraction for me most of the time. I'd also heard many times that this film was, yes, a Raymond Chandler adaptation, but not in the spirit of any of the other adaptations around, and a more unusual interpretation of them, modern and unusual. So, I did know this going in (thankfully, it seems).

Philip Marlowe (Elliott Gould) is a private eye in Hollywood, living alone with a cat that refuses to touch any food that is not a specific brand. When a substitute fails, Marlowe goes out to buy more cat food (and brownie mix for his often half-nude neighbors) and returns to find his friend Terry Lennox (Jim Bouton) coming to ask him for a favour--a quick trip to Tijuana. Lennox is scratched up, but Marlowe notes that this is just a result of Lennox getting in a fight with his wife Sylvia again. Two cops wake Marlowe up the next day, though, and arrest him, asking him where he took Lennox. When he refuses, he finds out Sylvia is dead, but knowing his friend could not have done this, refuses to speak against him or otherwise cooperate. Let free after three days, he finds out Lennox apparently committed suicide in Mexico and so the cops are disinterested in continuing any investigation. Marlowe takes on a case listlessly anyway, because of course there's no funding to pursue the investigation on his own. The case, however, is that of Eileen Wade (Nina van Pallandt), who wants him to find her husband, famous writer Robert Wade (Sterling Hayden)--a couple who happens to live in "The Malibu Colony"--the same complex that the Lennoxes lived in. Marlowe takes on the job for itself, but doesn't resist the urge to poke around and see if these two know anything of Terry and Sylvia. Wade is discovered under the care of Doctor Verringer (Henry Gibson), but entwined in all of this is Marty Augustine (Mark Rydell), a gangster who has unresolved money issues with Wade and lost $350k in Terry's disappearance, leading him to threaten Marlowe's well-being.

Much has been made of the changes and liberties Leigh Brackett (who of course scripted Bogie/Hawks' The Big Sleep, which is also a Chandler adaptation) and Robert Altman took when making this adaptation, some of it appreciative, much of it damning. Many are most displeased with Gould's performance as Marlowe. This Marlowe is not a snappy wit, a sharp dresser or particularly suave. He mumbles and makes smart-ass remarks without regard for who hears them, shambles and stumbles from place to place, though he still seems to know his business well enough to work most people and situations to his advantage--within reason. It's not the Marlowe we know, and that's a given, really. It's not a bad one though; he's an anachronism in one sense, always wearing a two piece suit, smoking constantly and driving a car straight out of the fifties, but modern in his manner and sense of humour. As long as you can deal with these changes, the film ought to do well for you. Why should it do well? A good question, of course, and one I intend to answer as best I can.

Marlowe is, in this transition that traps him firmly in the modern age but leaves his morals, principles and approach to life mired in decades lost, an every day guy. He's not smoother, quicker or better than everyone else, but he's not a total chump, either. He is still the everyman of noir, but without the hard-boiled edge that most of those protagonists had in a decent scrape, even if the best could be gotten of them on occasion. This edge of believability is necessary for the world Altman is putting together (helped by the always able-bodied DP Vilmos Zsigmond and his constantly-in-motion camera chosen for the film by Altman), because it's a world more readily identifiable as "real" for its modernity.We can accept Gould's Marlowe in the real world, whereas we could not accept the Bogart one because it is too pat--it's fun pat, mind you, and not a kind I'm at all opposed to, but one that simply wouldn't fit in a world portrayed as "real." He does have a quickness to his sense of humour that strengthens him into a slightly elevated place where we accept him simultaneously as "a protagonist," though, but in a way that only makes him seem like one of those funny people you might know--or at least one of those people you might know who sure thinks they're funny. It's a strong character and a fun one--as long as you aren't constantly thinking of it as "not the Marlowe I know!" (which is the same approach I take to the upcoming Robert Downey Jr./Guy Ritchie version of Sherlock Holmes--though that doesn't guarantee it will turn out well, it at least gives it the opportunity to).

Surrounding Gould we have a strong cast, from Nina van Pallandt's first English-language role to Sterling Hayden's brilliantly outrageous but tender frustrated writer, storming and ranting with the best of them, but easily showing it's all to make up for an easily wounded sense of pride and easily tarnished sense of self-worth. Mark Rydell, first off, shocked me in his performance. I saw his name in the credits and thought, "Really?! The director of The Cowboys and On Golden Pond?!" and then forgot about it, only to discover he had the role of the psychotic Marty Augustine. The role is commanding and scene-stealing, vicious and cold, but with that demented sense of egocentric humour that makes him all the more scary, and all in a role that sort of made me think of Harlan Ellison (which I mean in a good way to both of them). Henry Gibson starts out the film with the kind of quiet mouseyness that seems to define most of his work, but that turns into a sort of Napoleonic manipulation of power later. And let's not forget a fun little cameo from an anti-establishment cellmate--David Carradine. Only appropriate for me to have stumbled across him today, the day of his death.

The tone of the film is what's most fascinating though. John Williams and Johnny Mercer co-wrote the title theme, and simply re-organized and re-recorded it for all appropriate scenes to form almost the entirety of the film's music. Many scenes are not ended by sharp cuts, dissolves or crossfades, but by zooming in on background details--be they waves rolling in, half-naked neighbors, reflections in foreground windows or anything else--and then choosing one of those types of transitions. The effect is that the zoom is the real end of the scene, done in a way that seems to clarify that there is a world beyond the events we are being told about, much like Altman's over-lapping dialogue approach. Things are going on behind and around our characters that have no effect on them, no relation to them and no real importance to the story, but they're still there. It instills a greater sense of reality, as Altman also records sound at equal volume no matter what the circumstances. When filming Marlowe's interrogation through an observation window, the sound is muffled as it would be from behind that window. Sometimes dialogue is completely inaudible, characters seen speaking through a window at a distance, to reflect the fact that the words themselves are not important in this context, so much as their isolation from the spot at which we're seeing them being spoken--at one point to show Marlowe's hidden position and at another to show what the characters speaking are unaware of. This kind of reality is rarely dealt in, because it's difficult to maintain, off-putting to many and somewhat disorienting for its contradiction of expectation. It works very effectively here, though, highlighting the few instances of out and out violence by making them a good bit more disturbing and shocking for their relatively realistic surroundings.

So, no, this isn't a great "Philip Marlowe" movie, but it IS a great Philip Marlowe movie--it's an updating of the character that acknowledges complete cultural changes, in part by mocking and satirizing them, with knocks at clichés and ideas that were once omnipresent, and in other parts by ignoring them completely in favour of this more modern approach. This may now be my favourite Altman.

Point Break (1991)

2009-06-04T16:28:23Z

Other than the fact that it has remained a sort of cult favourite of its own accord, I think Hot Fuzz is easily responsible for much (if any?) resurgence this film has seen in the last few years. I know my interest was re-ignited some time ago when I discovered Kathryn Bigelow had directed it, which is a very good thing to me--since she was responsible for Near Dark, in all honesty probably my favourite vampire film of all time. I also saw this movie on TV, sometime shortly after its release, because one of my parents was watching it (I can't recall which, though by the nature of the film I'm more inclined toward my mother, but it's so far back I could only make wild guesses, really). It has its reputation more from its stars than anything else--people think of Patrick Swayze and they think of Dirty Dancing or Roadhouse (though now they may think "pedophile"*), then they think of Keanu Reeves and his horrific accent in Bram Stoker's Dracula, or
Ted Logan--or any of a number of other very wooden roles he's played. Sticking Keanu--with his Ted reputation--into surfing, well, now...it's the perfect mash-up of surfer stereotypes in a character and a film. It's not too hard to understand why the film is, then, snickered at.

Johnny Utah (Reeves) is a newly Quantico-graduated FBI Agent, assigned to Los Angeles and the bank robbery division. His partner is 22-year veteran Pappas (Gary Busey), who is not the favourite agent of their superior Harp (John C. McGinley) or their fellow agents. Pappas has a theory about the incredibly effective team of bank robbers known as the Ex-Presidents because of their rubber ex-President masks (Nixon, LBJ, Carter and Reagan) who have never been caught, despite 27 robberies over three years. Pappas' theory is especially unpopular, because it seems ludicrous and random--he believes the Ex-Presidents are surfers. His plan to prove this involves Utah going undercover as a surfer to attempt to find these guys. The contact he chooses is the person who saves him on his first (untrained) attempt at surfing: Tyler (Lori Petty). Pappas is incredulous at this contact, but she teaches Johnny to surf and introduces him to local surf guru known as Bodhisvatta, or "Bodhi" for short (Swayze). It's with his help that Utah escapes the wild aggression of an extremely suspicious group of surfers--Warchild (Vincent Klyn),** Bunker (Chris Pedersen), Tone (Anthony Kiedis), and Archbold (Dave Olson). Pappas and Utah are given their suspects, and now only need to take them down.

In starting to watch this movie, I knew basically instantly that in fact I was not being set-up for a movie that was just a good action movie, fun, exciting and adrenaline-pumping. A score by Mark Isham opens the movie with beautiful, silhouetted images of surfing set to a dully throbbing, low-pitched synthetic score. Intercut with this are the rain-soaked images of Johnny Utah's test at target shooting. I knew immediately that I was right to have faith in Kathryn Bigelow being behind this, though I also watched as more and more familiar and pleasing names crossed the screen that were previously (and probably still, for most) dwarfed by the two stars. John C. McGinley, who I think is going to be sadly always referred to as "Oh yeah, Perry Cox!" to most people of my generation as if he hasn't done much better work? Gary Busey, known to be utterly out of his mind, but always incredibly engaging as an actor? Lori Petty, who is an atypical choice for leading lady but who has a lot more spirit than many of those simplistic pretty faces? Hell, this doesn't even cover the names I didn't recognize. We have poor baby-faced James LeGros as Bodhi's pal Roach (who is too strange looking to ever have a leading role--I think, but who is continuing on with Bigelow after a brief appearance in Near Dark). We have Lee Tergesen as the psychotic Rosie, who I couldn't place to a specific role no matter how I tried until I realize that, yes, he was the replacement for Bill Paxton in the television version of Weird Science. We have John Philbin, who played the rather geeky Chuck in Return of the Living Dead (but reveals in the special features for this film that he was an actual surfer). Anthony Kiedis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, for crying out loud. And, of course, a brief (and uncredited) appearance by Tom Sizemore!

Still, the cast aside, what's most impressive about this film is how it does not resemble other action films. Apparently some have said Bigelow gave it a "softer touch" via her femininity, but this is pretty absurd. There's a little more truth to the love scenes, but it's actually a little colder and harder truth rather than a schmaltzy truth. Beyond that, a scene that involves a lawnmower actually made me think, for about two seconds, "Gosh, I wish Bigelow would do a horro--oh, right." "She'd be good at it," I thought in that brief moment. Of course, I was right, but not making the right synapses fire at the right time I didn't realize that I already knew she was good at it because she HAS done it. So it isn't softer, not in the least. There is a shoot-out leading immediately into a car chase leading immediately into a foot chase leading immediately into gunfire. There's even a makeshift flamethrower in the middle of all of this, and it's all incredibly intense. It's filmed in tight shots, especially the footchase, and avoids the usual gag of the innocent bystander sneaking a note of buffoonery into the scene. There is, of course, one bystander who beats at Johnny Utah, but it's not exactly unbelievable since he just destroyed her glass door and a number of items right behind it in his chase. Otherwise, though, faces of the bystanders knocked down and pushed aside are barely glanced at, keeping the focus of the scene on the actual pursuit. It's always right behind the actors (or stuntmen, I think stuntmen did these scenes, but the point remains) and never leaves away from them for a cheap sight gag that interrupts the tension.

The adrenaline junkie activities, too, are well-filmed and avoid any real element of unintentional cheese. Skydiving is often filmed with plenty of room to keep stuntmen looking enough like actors while still showing off the actual skydiving, with close-up shots constructed in a way that is very helpful in tying together the close-ups to the wide shots. The surfing does the same, with everyone filmed in silhouette when their entire body is visible, making it a part of the "language" of the picture that surfers are shown in silhouette and thus maintaining the illusion that it is the same person in the actual waves as the actor we know to be playing the character. The bank robberies are not overly theatrical, but rapidly cut to emphasize their rapidity, and sleek and mechanical without feeling staged to give us the sense that these are professionals. When we learn later that it is a concerted effort to achieve the end goals via pure intimidation and instillation of fear, the scenes fit even better.

It's actually worth noting that the actors in this film, even beyond those you expect (or should expect) to be good, are uniformly pretty excellent, or near enough to it. Considering the wild variance in performances from some over their careers, one is inclined to believe that the cast and crew are very correct in suggesting Bigelow deserves far and away the most credit for this film. Keanu has intensity where necessary, though he does maintain that stoic distance throughout, but a scene where Lori Petty as Tyler calls attention to his distant scowl sort of seals the performance as utterly appropriate for the character, sealing Keanu into that sheath of "Johnny Utah." Swayze is absolutely magnetic as the intensely charismatic and philosophical Bodhi, with an appropriate wildness to him behind the calm Bodhi is known for. Busey is as over-the-top and out there as always, but it's right for the character. His interactions with Reeves and everyone else are so unbelievably organic and natural that it's easy to lose him in the role. He smacks of a guarded man with amusingly open idiosyncrasies who will be prickly until he trusts someone, but who is more than happy to do so. Petty has the kind of defensive-but-vulnerable feeling one feels ought to come from someone who has suffered a loss like Tyler has (one that Utah exploits, no less, thus bringing in the vulnerability), especially when she chooses to run with a group as known for insular behaviour and territoriality as surfers.

I was expecting the film to be better than its reputation with snobs, but I didn't quite expect it to be this good. I'm not surprised when there's someone like Bigelow at the helm--now I really DO need to see Strange Days--but it's still good to see something this stylistic and pretty without it resorting to degradation of its status as action movie. It's not Terrence Malick kind of pretty, it's Bigelow kind--very, very well shot and rich with feeling and suspense in the very colours and images of each frame. It's a subtle art but a very effective one that she uses.

*If you don't know what I'm talking about and your heart skipped a beat, fear not, Swayze is not (to the best of my knowledge) any kind of pedophile, he just played one on TV.
Okay, film, but come on. That just wouldn't replicate the old phrase right.
If you're still lost, Donnie Darko.

**Weird trivia: Klyn played "Utah Johnny Montana" in The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.. Johnny Utah was named a la Joe Montana. Coincidence? You decide.

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

2009-06-02T00:34:30Z

In essence, the presence of Henry Fonda was enough for me to decide to watch this film. Fonda's the kind of actor who is just always worth watching (at least, in all my experience), and a film like this has a strong enough reputation in and of itself that it made it a no-brainer. Of course, as always, I waited for it to be a reasonable enough price that fell into my hands (which adds that thread of excitement to the acquisition itself) before I picked it up. I was out of the mood for westerns, or perhaps even an impression of the film that didn't match its actual nature, for some time now and so put it off, but (as one might guess from the fact that I'm reviewing it) decided to watch it today.

Gil Carter (Fonda) and Art Croft (Harry Morgan) are two drifters who wander into the town of Bridger's Wells, Nevada to find something to do. They happen upon the local bar and ask what there is to do, the local drunk Smith (Paul Hurst) wandering about behind them, and surly rancher Farnley (Marc Lawrence) starting a fight with Gil over the idea that he might be a rustler because he's new in town. When Art takes Gil out to clear his head (and his stomach) after his many drinks and short fight, a rider comes careening into town on horseback only to run full tilt into the bar and announce the death of Farnley's friend and partner Larry Kinkaid. Smith continues his bemused and drunken tirades at this, encouraging the idea of forming a lynching posse to find the men responsible. Others chip in with their own belief that hanging is the best approach, with local shop proprietor Arthur Davies (Harry Davenport) acting as the only voice of the law and reason, suggesting the men should be given trial before a hanging, but finding his voice lost to Farnley's anger, Smith's cold sense of humour, and the voices of many other men who are so fully in favour of it. Davies sends Croft and Carter to bring Judge Tyler (Matt Briggs) and the Sheriff back to talk sense and law into the men. Unfortunately, only the Sheriff's deputy is present, Deputy Mapes (Dick Rich), who Croft and Carter were already warned would be no help. Tyler and Davies are no help in stopping the mob, who manage to ensnare the religious Sparks (Leigh Whipper) as they go to find the three men accused of being responsible in the middle of the night. The lead they gain comes from Major Tetley (Frank Conroy), who brings his son Gerald (William Eythe) and assisstant Poncho (Chris-Pin Martin), who identify three men leading some of Kinkaid's cattle. They find them in the middle of the night, being Juan Martinez (Anthony Quinn), Donald Martin (Dana Andrews) and Alva Hardwick (Francis Ford). A makeshift trial and what can only be described as a kangaroo court proceeds to try the men, to the frustration of the handful of souls interested in real justice.

I shrugged at dropping this disc in today because the running time is only 75 minutes, and that's usually a mark of fast enough pacing that I ought to be drawn in quickly even if my instinct is not to go for a film of such an age, with the expectations that follow it (an extra-staginess being at the forefront, as well as a similar feeling of melodrama). Imagine my surprise to find the film was almost devoid of music, very subdued and terse in dialogue. It's not like other westerns of the time, and it's not really specifically a western at all, though of course it has the setting and the mentality of a world that is still being formed, with civilization meeting the wilderness that lacks a specifically drawn system and clashing over this. There isn't really a starring role, either, for all that it's called a Fonda picture. It drifts in and out of focus on characters, with the interesting feeling that Croft and Carter are our windows into this town and its people, and the events taking place, without having voice-over or other narration to tell us this directly, which allows the film to move completely over and follow another group or pair of characters at any given time. We have our own view of things, but we have the connection of, okay, it is primarily Croft, but still not exclusively.

The film is actually pretty dark, with Smith's sense of humour about hanging being slightly amusing but mostly disturbing (I'll resist the similar sense of humour that wants to call his actions "gallows humour"), and the coldness of Farnley that is borne not of emotionless evil or clichéd "bad guy-ness," but of loyalty to a friend of many years. We're not opposed to Farnley getting justice, certainly, we're just wary of whether this will give it to him, and the manner in which he's carrying it out. Tetley is probably the most vile, using the events as an excuse to try to "man up" Gerald, dressed constantly in a Confederate uniform (that is alluded to be nothing more than gesture, and not the actual relic of his own past battles) to feed his sense of pride, honour and authority, which are all trapped in his clear lust for control and power, to be perceived as something he clearly isn't but desperately wants to be. The sick joke of this is that no one really respects him, despite his belief that his actions will encourage it. Mapes is not much better, also interested in power, but more open and clumsy about it, bear-like in manner and appearance as he attempts to prove that he has authority as a Deputy, even when he doesn't, feeling that somehow being made a legal source of power gives him power beyond the law that bestowed it on him.

Carter and Croft are not saints, either, both being reluctant to get too terribly involved for fear that the mob could turn on them as drifters, while Gerald's growing sense of disgust and discomfort at the events is not enough to give him power over his cowardice. Even Davies oversteps his bounds of goodness as he tries to use a letter Martin writes to his wife to prove to Tetley that the group is innocent, enraging Martin, who feels that the letter is no one else's business. Sparks is the most consistently good, but still does little to actually interfere with the actions that he claims are budging too far into the territory of God. Smith and Jenny Grier (who is played by Jane Darwell) are the most despicable in character, though this relegates them to the role of assistantship to the ones who actually attempt to have control over the mob. Neither seems to feel any concern over guilt, being more interested in actually hanging people than worrying about who to hang or whether they should be hanged.

Performances all around are actually somewhat more in the style that Fonda himself was known for, all very quiet but pointed, with economic dialogue and action. Anthony Quinn manages one of the less embarrassing European-as-Mexican performances of the western era, looking less unrealistically and falsely swarthy, and speaking Spanish well enough to be at least taken as a fluent learner, even if not a native speaker. His character is also interestingly distant, disinterested in defending himself in the face of a group of people who clearly have no interest in doing anything but what they already plan to do, even as the seemingly honest Martin tries his best to answer truthfully and defend the three men, including the extremely confused Hardwick, who makes vague attempts at defense that even he can't keep track of, only to be reduced to begging when convinced they might actually go through with their hanging plans. It's amazing how well-developed and rounded all these characters feel despite the low level of open characterization the film has, which is a credit to the performers and to director William A. Wellman.

Much of the film--forced by wary 20th Century Fox head Darryl F. Zanuck to film on sets despite being set outdoors--is shot with sharp editing (there are not many cross-fades and fades, despite the relative popularity of that approach around that time) and an interesting focus on closeups. There are some especially interesting movements chosen, occasionally focusing on a character as they rant about the justice of hangings as the camera slowly zooms in on them, or occasionally the opposite in other scenes, all serving to push the character into a sort of emotional focus as well, in a way that I don't know if I can fully describe. It just seems to strangely magnify the character rather than the image or the actor, allowing us to see the flaws and imperfections of what they say more clearly, despite the fact that nothing about what they say is being audibly enhanced.

A damn fine movie.

The Illusionist (2006)

2009-06-01T06:23:50Z

After a long hiatus from film-watching, I came back and finished watching this. Of course, it came out at the same time as The Prestige and will likely be forever entwined in the public conscious with that other film. Maybe not "forever," I guess, but certainly for a long time. I've seen The Prestige, saw it in theatres, in fact, and heard long ago that the films really oughtn't be compared. That's not going to stop me, of course, but I am going to note the reasons I don't disagree with the idea that they aren't to be compared, per se (even as I'm doing it). I took interest in the film mostly for Edward Norton, Rufus Sewell and Paul Giamatti, though I'd heard mostly disappointing or middling reviews of the film.

A young Edward, also known as Eisenheim (Aaron Johnson) finds himself friendly with young Sophie, also known as Duchess von Teschen (Eleanor Tomlinson) despite their class differences, and even find themselves drawn instinctively to love with one another. It's not to be, though, and the Duchess is taken away from him before they can escape together. Eisenheim disappears, too, and learns more fully the arts of illusion, returning to Vienna later to practice this art on stage (and now played by Norton). At a show, his volunteer is none other than Duchess von Teschen (now played by Jessica Biel), though she is volunteered rather than choosing the role herself, by her future husband, the Crown Prince Leopold (Sewell). The two recognize each other, and Eisenheim begins to trade wits, pride and shame with Leopold, who is arrogant and cold in his actions, holding pride over all else. Police Chief Inspector Walter Uhl (Giamatti) is set on Eisenheim's trail to disgrace him as fraud, only for everyone's plans to be tripped up by an unexpected accident, leading Eisenheim to act even more outwardly aggressive toward Leopold, who attempts to hold his grown out of his stubborn belief in his own worth.

The similarities between this film and The Prestige are passing and simplistic: both deal in magic and illusion, are period films and work on competition between two male leads. There are other connections to be drawn, certainly, but in general they are entirely dissimilar films. The Prestige--an irony considering its title--is less interested in spectacle and more interested in morality and philosophy, character motivation and depth, setting aside story as the vehicle to examine these things. The Illusionist is all about spectacle; it is entertainment in its entirety, a story told to tell a story, with devices and bells and whistles to give it character and identity. This isn't to say it's utterly shallow or without any thought behind it, but rather that it is not interested in wrapping itself too tightly in such ideas. There is flirtation with the idea of enlightenment and retaliation against this rather pragmatic approach to life and reality, and on the absurdity of class division, but it primarily centers on the idea of illusion or magic (and which Eisenheim practices), and on the story of the love he and Sophie share. It's almost a fairy tale in this respect, a simple love story wrapped behind a simple story spiced with the fantastic.

There's a strangeness to the entire film, being as the real stumbling block of the film is the script. It's not a bad story, nor is the dialogue stilted in terms of word choices, but it is rather bare. Norton and Giamatti actually come off a bit lost with this, trying to bring character to roles that are not written up enough to contain much. Both have strong and clear presence physically, but suffer the De Niro-Period-Effect (which I first discovered watching The Mission, and consists of a feeling of inherent anachronism when some actors perform in period pieces) to a degree whenever they open their mouths. Both maintain their (admittedly light) accents rather solidly, but seem to be a bit too focused on keeping their words short and clipped to match the feeling of the language they are mimicking by accent. Sewell and Biel actually do best in their roles, Sewell simmering and feeling just shy of explosion as the conceited and proud Prince, sure of his own worth and the lack of worth of others. Biel shows a defiance and independence that is matched by her devotion and love for Eisenheim--nothing terribly fancy or complex, but well performed (in spite of my previous impression of Biel, which was probably most coloured by Marcus Nispel's terrible remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre--leading me to write her off as a hollow pretty face).

What makes the film, though, is the experience of it. DP Dick Pope was Oscar-nominated and deserved it, with a very rich, thick feeling of colour throughout the film, often very dark but lit well enough to hold the lines of all the important details, and with little nudges toward elder silent film via iris lens transitions and the occasional circular frame that mimics the darkened corners of the inferior exposure process used in early film, as well as even flickering for the scenes of the young lovers. There's a fantastic mix of stage, screen and painting in many scenes, in the sense that the world feels constructed and planned like a stage show, artfully balanced like a painting and near-real like film. It's quite beautiful, and often just shy of distractingly so. Behind this we of course have the sound of a Philip Glass score, which caught my ear before I even saw his name, and began waiting to see who it was--and was reminded that I, in fact, did actually know this but had forgotten. It matters not, though, because Glass' music is fantastic as usual, and that's more relevant than the fact that it was him who wrote it. It bears that signature repetition of Glass' work, but with that lovely building of permutation that seems almost mathematical and yet perfectly organic--perhaps like the rigid but natural formation of crystal (or maybe the prisms on the cover of his Glassworks are just stuck in my head).

Director Neil Burger has very astutely assembled the parts to make a beautiful film, and one that I didn't see as focusing on plot--though this is harped on most by critics--because it seems consciously hollow of this based on its focus on the visual and auditory experience, which is only enhanced by the feeling that Norton and Giamatti's best work in the film is all visual. Don't watch hoping for or expecting a transcendently original plot, because it isn't about that. Keep that in mind and you ought to enjoy yourself thoroughly.

Total Recall (1990)

2009-04-22T01:18:50Z

When I was younger and this had come out, it was forever "the movie with the woman with three breasts." Most jokes made about it these days seem to reference this, too (or maybe they were just the only ones I got prior to seeing it...), though there was also the Fangoria cover that showed up while it was in production, related to the effects Rob Bottin did. Of course it's another example of the failure to adapt Philip K. Dick to the screen for many people, too, but I've still read the most bizarre cross-section of PKD, one that fails to include the most popular of his works.

Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a construction worker in the future, married to a beautiful wife, Lori (Sharon Stone), and working a simple job. He keeps dreaming of being on Mars with a woman (Rachel Ticotin), but doesn't know why. An ad for memory-based vacations that can be inserted into the minds of clients via the company Rekall inspires Quaid to try and go to Mars in this fashion when his wife refuses to actually go there. His coworker Harry (Bobby Costanzo) warns him that he's in danger of being lobotomized by the procedure, but Quaid finds the prospect irresistible. He picks a vacation that lets him be a "secret agent," and takes on the trip. A strange reaction to the procedure leads Rekall to attempt to bury Quaid's presence and release him with a wiped memory. When he wanders out and Harry asks him how he was, Quaid suddenly finds that everyone thinks he is a secret agent--despite the fact that Rekall has said the implant was never made, in a conversation Quaid was not party to. Now on the run from the people who believe this, he makes his way to Mars to solve the strange dreams, the bizarre reaction and why people are after him.

I don't know what I expected from this movie. I knew going in that Schwarzenegger's lead, Shusett's approach to scripting and Verhoeven's approach to directing would make for a movie that was pure action entertainment, and had little concern for much beyond this. Still, it was disappointing. I know Verhoeven can make a good film, and Shusett has good ideas, and Schwarzenegger rarely lets me down as a cartoonish lead. I dearly love Predator, as well as The Terminator, and like Terminator 2 as well. Something just seemed wrong here though. The dialogue seemed somewhat imbecilic, the plotting was a bit naff and the acting left a lot to be desired. Sure, we're talking about a cartoon, a ham (Michael Ironside, who plays the villainous Richter)--even if it's a ham I like a lot, an actor who mostly worked in television (Ticotin) and a well-known pile of wood (Stone), but still, something was just...bad. Maybe it's that I'm first seeing this now, when I am not as easily amused, maybe I was looking for the wrong thing, I don't know. I started to enjoy it a lot more toward the end, but the Republic serial approach to things was a little tired and uncomfortable, with blaringly obvious villains and ridiculous heroes (I mean...come on, it's Arnold!) mixed into complex and PKD-style twists.

I don't have any hatred for Verhoeven. I've never seen Basic Instinct (barring the infamous interrogation), but Starship Troopers was--I'm not kidding--the first DVD I ever got. I love Robocop dearly. I, um, didn't hate Hollow Man. I know how Paul does things--generally I can hear him saying, "Taste? Restraint? Vut are zeez vurts you speak ov?" (no, his Dutch accent has not lessened over the years it seems). I don't mind that. I'm not Janet Maslin calling the film out on being ultraviolent. I could not care less about that--or maybe I could, because I sure liked Rob Bottin's work (as usual, he's never a letdown). It was made on the cusp of digital, but primarily physical and optical effects were used here, and they're fantastic. They're ridiculous and over the top (in true Verohoeven style), but they work and they fit. I know that's what interests Verhoeven--based on his released work I've seen at least--effects and moving the story. He's not an idiot, he's not bloodthirsty, he's not incompetent, but characterization and subtlety seem to be things he just feels no real need to employ. I don't begrudge him that, but perhaps it's having the ludicrously inhuman Schwarzenegger as "a guy" (basically, anyway) and the unnatural Stone (her mannerisms and voice have no elements of emotional truth to my eyes and ears) open the film, or the clumsy glove-to-helmet caress of Quaid's dream. Maybe it's just that Schwarzenegger is no Peter Weller, or something else entirely. I really have no idea what isn't working here, but it comes off as oozing with cheese, but without knowing it. Despite what some people might guess from my taste, I'm not a big fan of cheese in movies, except the really earnest kind. Verhoeven's work usually just kind of has it dropped along the top and melting down around the sides. In moderation that's no problem...but here? It's just a bit too much. The ultra-evil corporation, the average guy who isn't average at all (despite what Schwarzenegger says, this was not an improvement--I was often left wondering how much better it might've been with someone who at least LOOKED relatively normal)...it's just too much, and something about the way all of these sloppy elements run into each other just glops up the gears of the movie.

I was basically left with an answer to that immortal PKD question of "What is reality?": I dunno, but it sure spurts a lotta blood when it explodes--and man does it look cool.

Good Morning, Vietnam (1988)

2009-04-20T18:26:12Z

When I was younger, I'd rapidly develop ideas of which actors were funny. Unlike my modern approach to humour, I tended toward the familiar, and toward the bigger, easily recognized and omnipresent sorts of personalities I would inherit from my parents' viewing. Of course, there was the filter of what I would watch at the time (it would have to be consistent humour, broad humour and in colour), so there were limits, and little was surprising. Sitcoms were funny to me then (which may or may not shock the people who know me now), and I enjoyed them thoroughly. I didn't really get George Carlin (RIP, George, even if I still don't think you're really all that funny) or many of the more atypical comics, but the energetic comedians who were starting to carry movies in the late 80s and early 90s were both familiar and automatically funny to me. It was strange, sort of an understanding of their funniness rather than an actual personal recognition for me. I remember this distinctly because when my parents settled in to watch this and I was about 8 or 10 years old, I didn't get it, even though I "knew" Robin Williams was hilarious. I remember feeling really disappointed that this comedy seemed to be unfunny and wandered away (or at least mentally wandered back into the world of my toys, I don't remember that for sure). It was knowing how much I've changed that I decided to revisit this film.

Adrian Cronauer (Williams) has been shipped to Saigon from Crete to act as disc jockey for the Army's troop radio station, his reputation as a funny man preceding him. Arriving there, he's greeted by Garlick (Forest Whitaker), the rather submissive PFC who is charged with Cronauer's treatment and position. He's introduced to his two superiors going forward, primarily Lt. Steven Hauk (Bruno Kirby), but also Sgt. Major Dickerson (J.T. Walsh). Hauk feels he shares a camaraderie with Cronauer because he has an interest in comedy as a hobby, while Dickerson is very straight-edged and disinterested. Disinterested, that is, until Cronauer's first broadcast. Cronauer begins to play modern music in violation of the standards of prior broadcasts, and use humour that leaves Garlick and fellow troops Pvt. Abersold (Richard Edson) and Cronauer's broadcasting colleague Marty Lee Dreiwitz (Robert Wuhl) in stitches. Hauk is disappointed in the humour and Dickerson is incensed by the subject matter. They bring the matter to the attention of General Taylor (Noble Willingham), who dumps the problem back in their laps because he actually likes Cronauer's approach. Cronauer spends his time away from the mic chasing down Trinh (Chintara Sukhapatana), a pretty Vietnamese girl who catches his eye. He ends up teaching her English class, but runs into the brick wall of her brother Tuan (Tung Thanh Tran), who is protective of his sister and the differing customs. Adrian decides to use Tuan as a way in to Trinh but ends up legitimately befriending him despite this, to the chagrin of his superiors.

The selling point of this film for essentially anyone seems to be the comedy of Robin Williams, especially his "on-air" monologues, which are rapid-fire with their sudden changes in direction and approach. As I say, I was first totally unimpressed, with a slew of jokes that were too referential (and often political) for my young mind to really get. My sense of humour has changed in the interceding years, but I've also become a lot more stone-faced when it comes to humour. It's not easy to get me really laughing, simply because it's difficult for humour to really get in enough of a surprise on me that I can have that instinctual kind of laughter. All the same, I can see a more natural flow and a good delivery and respect it for what it is. A good delivery is still very engaging for me, even when the humour doesn't do much for me, where a bad delivery is repulsive and obnoxious to me (hence my distaste for Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller and a handful of others). Williams, when he was doing so much comedy, was always enthusiastic, warm and natural, and never felt false. This was no exception--even when I wasn't doing much more than smiling at his rapid banter, I was interested in what he was saying.

This comes to the other aspect of Robin Williams that is more fascinating. There's this perception--which I fully admit I might have been alone in--that he was no dramatic actor, or rather, that Good Will Hunting and the like gave him a chance to shine as one. I've since seen a chunk of his work prior to that, some after this and before that, some contemporary to this. There's also this itself. The movie gets a bit darker and more serious toward the end, though Williams' Cronauer remains devoted to humour. He really is a very good lead in all capacities, often doing well enough at it that it's lost behind the bombast of his loud and emphatic comedic senses. It's natural for this character (and I say character because the real Cronauer is very different and has a different sense of humour) to make tension-relieving quips, so that only enhances the moments where he is within the character and responding in less humourous ways to less humourous situations. It makes me regret pigeon-holing him in my youth, unfair though that may be to criticize a no longer existent ten-year-old. It's a very good performance from Williams, not necessarily one I would call his best, as it does still hinge on his comedy more than anything else, but it is one that is never let down.

I do recognize the concerns the studio had at the time, too--a comedy about Vietnam? That doesn't seem like the best idea in the world, not like something that would go over well, but it works, and it works in part because Barry Levinson's direction (including an ironic montage to Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World") and in the other part because of Mitch Markowitz' script. The film itself finally turns and not only becomes darker but becomes a sort of microcosmic examination of the conflict in Vietnam. We see the macrocosmic issue of troop morale, of soldiers dropped in by draft from a life that had none of the hardship of soldiering and how a little familiarity can help with that, but we also see the issues of infighting and generational conflict, as well as the confusion about who has what role in a foreign country, and in what part of the country was on the US' side, and what part wasn't, and what side the US itself was on (if any, sometimes), and just how confusing it was in general. I'm not going to say it was a perfectly accurate discussion of this, nor that it's the best example of it, but it is a nice surprise to see the film manage to work this in organically and address the issue of Vietnam without getting openly preachy or discussing the actual issues. It deals only in interpersonal relationships within the structure of the story, and it manages to use these perfectly to illustrate its points.

This was a lot better a movie than I knew once, and further strengthens my appreciation of Levinson's work as a director.