Reviews
The Spirit (2008)
A flawed but fun-filled romp.
I love the interview with Lorenzo Semple Jnr, screenwriter for 'Flash Gordon,' when he suggests that the film would have been a big hit if only they'd been able to market it as a movie that would be a cult classic in thirty years. He goes on to explain what the core problem is: A cult film, by definition has fanatical supporters ... just not a lot of them. Those who 'get' the film will keep it alive forever, but Joe Moviegoer won't care if he ever sees it again. And so I turn to 'The Spirit,' a film which has similar qualities to 'Flash Gordon': bad enough to be awesome, tongue firmly in it's cheek and gentle satire in it's hand.
'The Spirit' manages to be wondrous and infuriating. A visual feast, Frank Miller was the perfect choice to bring the film to life. On the other hand, the dialogue is often so cheesy and the characters so over the top that the movie never allows you to be lulled into that wonderful moment of forgetting that you're watching a movie. There isn't a single character in the movie who talks like a real person. They all talk like, well, comic book archetypes: gruff commissioner, megalomaniacal super villain, brilliant evil assistant, sultry femme fatales, loyal and uninteresting love interest, and on and on. Take Samuel L Jackson's character, 'The Octopus' for example. It is a character that Jackson was born to play and Sam throws every ounce of his endlessly entertaining and over the top style into the character. It works and he plays the part brilliantly because he takes ridiculous dialogue and ridiculous material and has wild amounts of fun with it. The cast, by and large, follow his lead. Scarlett Johansson is hilariously withering with her acerbic barbs to The Octopus' clone lackeys, all of whom are played with deadpan wit and verve by Louis Lombardi. It is hard, in fact, not to feel some pity for Gabriel Macht who has to play Bud Abbott to a cast of rollicking, scene-chewing Lou Costellos in an over-acting competition. It all works wonderfully if you're willing to view the film as, uncharitably, being unintentionally funny or more genuinely as a gentle lampoon of comic book films by one of the great figures of the graphic novel genre.
Frank Miller takes 'The Spirit' and has great fun with it. It is quirky at times, ham-handed at times, but lovingly made. A brilliant Noirist, Miller actually has much better luck in 'The Spirit' in moments of levity. The noir angles of this film don't work unless designed as a kind of self-righteous satire. The noir feels forced and dramatic moments are mercilessly skewered by the corny dialogue that a helpless Gabriel Macht delivers with straight-laced determination. 'The Spirit' has the look of 'Sin City' and the heart of 'Flash Gordon.' When it works, it works well, but the film is a terrible mess whenever it is trying to be serious.
So is it worth the ride? I think so if you go in with the proper expectations. There's not really anything new visually if you've seen 'Sin City' or '300' -- both Miller works of course -- but that didn't make them any less interesting to me. Plenty of humour where it may or may not have been planned and the potential to be a cult classic. This is the kind of movie you can best enjoy in the company of friends and a cold six pack. Look for diamonds and you're looking for too much. And if nothing else, Eva Mendes has never looked better on film than she does here. That's got to stand for something, right?
Max Payne (2008)
Max Pain...
I'm trying to remember the last time I've been so disappointed leaving the movie theatre. 'Max Payne' is a film with two faces. On the one hand it is visually stunning, conceptually great and a feast for the eyes. The art direction, atmosphere and style have so much flair. John Moore conceptual and visual styling is a feast for the eyes. My problem is with the other hand: I need more than just style to look at if I'm going to enjoy a film. I need substance.
All of the excellent visuals and atmosphere in the world can't over-ride one severe problem: 'Max Payne' has a script devoid of the dramatic glue that transforms it from a pastiche of episodes to a flowing story. The movie is so busy being gritty and dark that it forgets to give you characters who you care about. So much time is spent trying to build up the mystery that nothing is spent on character development. The irony is that the film needed to be twenty minutes longer to help fill in some of these connections, but already feels like it runs too long. This is Beau Thorne's first script and I won't pretend to think that it is easy to do an adaptation of anything -- let alone condense hours of a video game into an hour and a half of film. Some of the problems might have been easily solved. As just an example, Max Payne is driven, bitter and solitary. Why not open the film by showing the reason he is this way instead of leaving it until the movie is half done? Brutally edited and paced, 'Max Payne' is a story headed no where and taking forever to get there. The acting isn't bad -- given the material they have to work with -- and there was some relief in watching Beau Bridges chew scenery mercilessly as the movie grinds to it's conclusion. Mark Wahlberg turns in a typical performance and manages to look disappointed that he doesn't get to swear. Chris O'Donnell and Donal Logue are under-used and both Amaury Nolasco and Mila Kunis would have benefited from more screen time and character development. I wish that 'Max Payne' had kept it's Restricted rating. Because I wanted it to be harder edged? Oh no -- an 'R' rating would have kept more people from watching it.
I will say that there were two decent action sequences and I thought they were both pretty decent. There is a good showdown in the office building ... twice. It might even be worth renting the DVD and fast-forwarding your way through a turgid boggy mess in order to see them. Unless you value style over substance though, give 'Max Payne' a pass.
Quarantine (2008)
Not quite as strong as the original, but still very good.
There must have been comedians in the projection booth the night that some friends and I went to see a family friendly film. These particular friends tend to watch only light-hearted material and get upset for weeks whenever they see horror films or intense thrillers. They were totally unprepared for a 'Quarantine' trailer and it shocked them all so badly that we nearly had to leave and get our money back. Maybe it was because of their strong reaction that my interest in the film has stayed so high for the past several months.
This week I have seen both 'Quarantine' and 'Rec' the film that 'Quarantine' is a remake of. 'Rec' is not without flaws but it is a very solid and chilling horror film. 'Quarantine' is able to expand on several of the strengths in 'Rec' while falling into a few pitfalls of it's own. Both films are about a TV news crew taping a show about what a night in the life of a fireman is like. A seemingly routine call turns out to be something much more and the news crew is trapped in a quickly quarantined building.
Giving credit where it is due, 'Quarantine' kept me on the edge of my seat for most of the movie. It lures you in with a very relaxed opening ten minutes but once you reach the building and the cop in charge asks why the camera crew is there, the whole tone of the movie changes. The fun and games, the light-hearted banter is gone. We only realize how serious it is though when they enter the apartment of an injured old woman. For me the tension starts with the entrance to the apartment and never lets up. Each new segment that the TV crew starts filming holds potential terror. The set design and the lighting are terrific and 'Quarantine' walks a careful tightrope of character action. So often in horror films the audience is yelling with frustration at what characters on the screen are doing because it all goes against common sense. There is a little bit of that early on but 'Quarantine' does a better job of playing to the characters and their panic. Characters die not through naivety or stupidity as much as they do from inevitability and inescapability. The key performance comes from Jennifer Carpenter.
The film's greatest strength and weakness at the same time, Carpenter is the focus of the camera because of her role as the reporter and it isn't an easy part to play. She is solid for the majority of the film but terror essentially overwhelms her with ten minutes to go and she is reduced to a sobbing, shrieking, shivering bowl of jello. Would I or anyone else be any better in the situation that 'Quarantine' creates? Hard for me to say but probably not. The problem is that there were three primary acting choices for her to make in the final ten minutes: she could play it as a hysteric (which she does), she could play it as numbing down her fear like the cameraman does in order to try and escape, or she could have been so overwhelmed by her fear that she becomes a functional catatonic working on autopilot. Carpenter's choice is probably the 'truest' choice for how people would react. That doesn't mean that it is going to make for good drama. Her transformation from confident and outgoing to hysterical jabbering is so jarring that it feels forced instead of real. The camera man keeps telling her to calm down when they've reached a potentially safe room but she is far beyond the calming down stage and well into the years of therapy one instead. I found it to be just too much and actually pulled me out of the horror and towards comedy instead.
'Rec' felt a bit more organic and gritty than 'Quarantine.' The performances are decent in both but you feel less of a connection to the characters in 'Quarantine.' Many are clearly there to serve as fodder with no attempt to seriously develop them. 'Rec' does a much better job, particularly when the reporter interviews each of the buildings residents. The five minutes spent in filming those sequences gave more of a stake to the audience into the well-being of those characters. That never really takes off in 'Quarantine' and I regret that they didn't follow the lead of 'Rec'. One thing that I thought 'Quarantine' did a much better job of was in plot clarity and how they provided information. The clues to the source of what is going on are much more explicit and come very early in the movie. 'Rec' dropped a few hints for the viewer to put together but relies on the final five minutes to give the major clues about patient zero. What patient zero is spreading is clearer in the remake and I thought the clarity benefited the plot. Of course by the time you find out about patient zero, Carpenter's character is beyond being able to help provide the audience with anymore real analytical power. Don't blink or you'll miss everything you need to know.
I give the slight edge to 'Rec', but certainly recommend 'Quarantine' to horror fans. It's problems aren't severe enough to detract from a very decent effort.
Bangkok Dangerous (2008)
A surprisingly rich meditation on rediscovering who you are.
This review may have mild spoilers but they come through implication and aren't explicit, in short, your viewing of the film shouldn't be ruined by anything written here. This was, surprisingly, a very interesting action and character piece from Nicholas Cage. I generally find his work either very good or cheesily over the top. In 'Bangkok Dangerous' he delivers an under-stated and nuanced performance as a hit-man who has withdrawn from humanity for so long that when he steps back in, the personal and professional consequences are tremendous. To survive as a hit-man he's lived by a set of rules. Finding a major contract for four jobs in Bangkok leads to deep, personal revelations when his strict adherence to those rules starts to peel away. Cage's character Joe says at one point that the only way for him to do the job is to withdraw from humanity. He leaves no trace that he's ever existed, finds no acknowledgment from other human beings and exists only as the wind. Humanity "... starts to look like a different species" and he only comes out to study people for brief moments before withdrawing again to remind himself that they aren't. So what happens when he goes to Bangkok and the culture is so alien to him that he can't help be drawn into it?
There were a number of things I really liked about the movie. The exotic location is matched with beautiful cinematography and luxuriant sets. The colours, the atmosphere and dark vibrance of the city at night is in stunning contrast to Joe's spartan and non-descript apartment: white walls and brown tables. The Pangs did an excellent job of drawing the audience into the same intoxicating world that Joe is drawn into. The sights in the markets, the sounds in the clubs and in the streets (and the wonderfully engaging score), the taste of the food and the smell of the city -- these all leapt out. The Pangs direction here is, in my opinion, some of their best work. Joe's hits are tense and well set up. In one particularly horrific action scene, the camera looks up at Joe who has just dispatched his target, Joe who stands even in shock at himself for the brutal killing, Joe who realizes that killing has moral complexity since his humanity has reawakened. The camera lingers on Joe for an eternity, shock and awe in the audience; shock and awe as he realizes what he is.
So how does it happen? Is it the city that draws in him? Partially, but he's been in other exotic cities. Is it the sidekick and messenger he's hired on to be an errand boy? Partially. Joe reveals a soft spot when he sees that the sidekick goes above and beyond what he has been asked to do in order to protect Joe during an attempted robbery. Is it when he is first troubled in the film by his rule to leave no traces of himself? Is it when he makes a connection with a beautiful deaf pharmacist? Joe's survival in his career has been from dehumanizing himself from the rest of the species. Bangkok is dangerous to him because of the jobs he has taken and the people who have contracted him but Bangkok is also dangerous because he recovers part of himself. People who genuinely care about Joe crack the armour, at once strengthening and destroying.
Is it a nihilistic film? On a superficial and literal level, yes, 'Bangkok Dangerous' is a nihilistic film about a guy who kills for a living. Much deeper is the understanding of how we are all shaped by our choices but how redemption and rebirth are possible -- even in the most unlikely of anti-heroes.
Tropic Thunder (2008)
Fun in the Sun
To give due credit, Tropic Thunder is reaching for the stars. It tries to satirize as much of the movie business and the Vietnam-War-film genre as it can. There are high points, such as Robert Downey Jr.'s method actor Kirk Lazarus being so wedded to the character that he can't break free -- even when it has become clearly obvious that they are no longer filming a movie -- or Matthew McConaughey's super agent Rick Peck and his obsession with TiVo. I won't mention Tom Cruise's guest role as a foul-mouthed, iron-fisted dictatorial studio head other than to wonder loudly how things are going over at United Artists.
Why then did I feel so unsatisfied with the movie? I liked it. I enjoyed and laughed heartily through most of the jokes. It was as if the individual jokes were all greater than the sum -- a collection of funny punch lines that are a pastiche of laughs but not a satisfyingly funny routine. Part of it is the unwieldy blending of high-concept satire and lowbrow profanity-laced rants. Swearing can be used to high effect and it plays to perfection at times in Tropic Thunder. The best example (and my favorite line from the film) is from Robert Downey Jr. who, after being asked what kind of farm he works on, mows down the bad guys with his gun and declares that "I'm a lead farmer, mother--" well, you see where I'm going. Initially, Tom Cruise's profanity-ridden rants are funny too. But then you realize that there isn't anything else to the character. His character, Les Grossman, just throws tantrums and screams profanities, a paper-thin joke that works through audacity but wears out after the first rant. After a while the swearing starts to sound like a group of little kids who've just heard their first bad words and think it is funny to yell them over and over again.
On the other hand, I loved the performances. Jack Black's focused insanity was pointed in the right direction and he got a great part that he's well-suited to. Stiller manages to play Tugg Speedman with enough vulnerability that you can buy his need for the fictional movie to be a big hit. The scenes from his critical bomb Simple Jack are priceless, as are Downey's explanation of why Speedman would never have won an Oscar for it. Nick Nolte (good to see him again) has a strong supporting part, as does Steve Coogan as the overwhelmed first-time director. The picture is Downey's, though, and wherever Redd Foxx is, I think he would be proud. Scene-stealing, scenery-chewing and utterly priceless, Downey looks like he's enjoying every minute on screen. If you see Tropic Thunder for any reason, watching Robert Downey Jr. should be it.
Death Race (2008)
Fun, very loud and unabashedly dumb.
I shouldn't write reviews for movies like this because it feels like I'm lining up to kick a puppy. A movie like 'Death Race' can only be judged fairly through a set of lowered genre expectations. I'll try but I'm not making any promises. It is fun, very loud and unabashedly dumb. It was never envisioned to be anything other than an attempt at 'cool.' The average viewer will - without fail - be able to pick out every moment where Paul W.S. Anderson had an idea during the script writing and thought to himself "That'd be awesome!" before looking around the room for someone to high five. I shouldn't pick on him because I actually do enjoy his movies. He isn't trying to make 'Casablanca'; 'Robocop' is more his style. Just without the boring stuff like characterization and development. And as little subtlety, satire or nuance as needed. Unless unintentional or totally by mistake and ironic -- That'd be alright.
This movie's lone strength is the special effects and it lives and dies by the car chase, the machine gun firing and the gory death(s). Michael Bay, eat you heart out. Anderson knows the art of kaboom and action junkees should be satisfied with his efforts here -- especially during the second race when the 'Dreadnought' enters the race. As long as you numb your brain into not asking serious questions about things like physics. Or how massive amounts of armour on a car wouldn't make flesh and soft tissue any safer in horrifying car crashes. Or how the American economy of the Dystopian future has crumbled, but 70 million can still afford the pay-per-view price to watch. Maybe some of the viewers are from Canada.
If you were to put any consideration into serious film criticism where 'Death Race' is concerned, then you'd be the first one. The movie is so predictable, lazy and unambitious that it asks you to hand it the popcorn. In fact, have you seen the trailer? You've seen the film. Tyrese's character is homosexual, which I thought was stunningly inventive given the scriptwriter. Sliding back into predictability, it is used solely to make a few tasteless jokes before being forgotten about. Pretty standard fare for Anderson. If you've watched his other films, you know exactly what to expect. Except less. Brain still hurts too much to think about it. I think the annoying thing is that Anderson has potential. I wouldn't keep going to his movies if I didn't enjoy them. It annoys me when the problems at script level are so apparent. He has a tendency to go to predictable places: Requisite gay jokes for the prison? Check. Incredibly hot women on screen? Cue horny Rap music since I need a musical cue to point out the obvious. I'm annoyed when one character asks another if they think that they're really the best choice of parent for their offspring and the second character says later "Someone once asked me if ..." like they and the audience have forgotten the specifics of the first conversation. The audience doesn't need to be spoon-fed the obvious. It's a weakness that I hope Anderson can shed. He clearly loves making movies. Trusting the audience a little more and giving us some credit might let him make better ones.
The crazy thing is that despite it all, I enjoyed 'Death Race.' It is flawed from top to bottom but wears the flaws so honestly and endearingly that you really shouldn't hold it against the movie. Need to go see a mindless distraction for an hour and a half? 'Death Race' isn't a bad choice. With 'Death Race' you get exactly what you expect and exactly what you deserve.
The Condemned (2007)
A pig tries to understand why it rolls in garbage.
Conceptually, 'The Condemned' isn't a bad idea: 10 death row prisoners are rounded up and placed on an island. They've got 30 hours to kill each other off or a bomb on their ankles will kill everyone if more than one is left. 'The Condemned' is 'Battle Royale' and 'The Most Dangerous Game' filtered through 'Rollerball.' Unfortunately the filter is the 'Rollerball' remake and not the James Caan original.
What 'The Condemned' wants to present and what it actually achieves are two different things. Although a modestly enjoyable actioner the film's interesting premise is sabotaged by a lack of courage. The film hides behind cardboard indignation and tries to satirize reality TV. 'The Condemned' asks of the violence that it shows, "Isn't this disgusting? Isn't this just wrong?" It revels like a pig in filth though, holding it's nose to ignore the smell as it rolls in the mud shamelessly enjoying the thing it wants to 'condemn.' I wouldn't mind so much if the film had been just been better executed. This is a movie that doesn't know if it wants to be satirical or exploitative. It fails as such then because it waffles helplessly lost between the two. If satire was the goal, then the film-makers should have more fearlessly embraced the violence. Show the violence and repel the 'actual' audience while having the crew unwaveringly celebrate it. Here they set up scenes and then cut back to the truck where the crew complains that maybe 'doing this is wrong,' or that 'maybe we shouldn't be doing this.' I can live with that. When they go on in the next breath to say that there is a better angle shot from a different camera, the film undermines itself. I suppose the gimmick is that reality TV (or live-stream reality internet in this case) will do whatever it takes. It strikes as very amateur.
What acting there is isn't bad. Steve Austin doesn't have a lot to work with but he's good with the one-liners. His character is hard to connect to because of the wishy-washy script. Austen's character is mostly interested in not playing the game, tries to tell other competitors this but offers no apparent plan on how he intends to get away -- or maybe he doesn't intend to get away since he also gets caught up in a needless sub-plot about getting in touch with his girlfriend to let her no that he's stashed some money aside for her. Vinnie Jones chews scenery and is great as the main villain in a cast of heavies.
Too bad about 'The Condemned.' The film-makers should have just gone with the core idea -- ten people on an island trying to kill each other in front of an internet audience -- and been less ambitious. This is a case where a popcorn movie shouldn't have tried to have a brain or respectability and is weakened by being a pig that tries to understand why it rolls in the mud instead of just doing it. I like smart movies and I like dumb movies. This one would have been a lot better if it had just embraced being mindless.
Hairspray (2007)
Viciously satirical, deeply irreverent and wonderfully fun!
Had it not been for a free pass to an advance screening, I must admit that my friends would have had trouble getting me to see 'Hairspray.' I don't mind musicals but 'Hairspray' didn't seem like something I'd enjoy. Not for the first time in my life was I wrong.
'Hairpsray' is about tolerance, integration and acceptance of others. The film uses the racial divide between blacks and whites but the subtext of the film is Heterosexuals and Homosexuals. 'Hairspray' viciously lampoons bigots and reserves specific devastation for Ultra-conservative religious zealots, figures of authority and WASPs. The satire is white hot (Alison Janney steals every scene she is in), the music catchy, the movie's spirit is irreverent.
I had no problems with the cast and their performances. John Travolta isn't bad and when he gets his chances to dance he's great fun. Christopher Walken and Travolta have a song and dance number duet that rates among the best moments of the film and isn't to be missed. Queen Latifah adds some dignity and balance while Michelle Pfeiffer plays a terrific screen villainess. Amanda Bynes has few lines to deliver but gives perfect comic deadpan when she does for excellent comic effect. Keep a sharp eye out for the hilarious John Waters cameo during the opening number.
Of recent major movie musicals, this is easily better than 'The Producers,' (better comedy and music) and last year's 'Dreamgirls' (weaker songs but better pacing and strong beyond the first half). Although it doesn't have the star power or scale, I also prefer it to 'Chicago' -- 'Hairspray' takes itself less seriously and not many movies have me laughing and smiling from start to finish. If you're looking for a little pure counter-culture escapist fun, 'Hairpsray' is your movie.
Fracture (2007)
The Old Master and the Rising Star play chess
The character played by Anthony Hopkins tells a story in the film to Ryan Gosling. The story is about sorting eggs on a farm when he was a boy and about putting aside 300 eggs that all had minute cracks or imperfections. The moral is that everything has a weakness if you look closely enough. Hopkins is using the story to warn Gosling that his near perfect conviction record is about to be tested like never before.
I caught an advance screening of 'Fracture' and am counting myself among the lucky. 'Fracture' showcases two terrific performances. The first is Ryan Gosling who plays a hot shot Assistant District Attorney on the verge of joining a very lucrative private law firm. He's only got one case left to handle and, although it looks like a slam dunk on paper, he'll soon find it to be a bit more formidable than he first thought.
The second great performance is Sir Anthony Hopkins. Stealing every scene he's in with charm, humour and menace, Hopkins turns in one of his most enjoyable performances of recent years. Hopkins plays the accused in Gosling's last case and goes out of his way to give Gosling a very bad day. The battle of wills between the two leads is central to the movie and their combat is electrifying.
One of the main questions in the movie is the location of the murder weapon. The film quite explicitly shows the crime of the film and how it is carried out in the first ten minutes of the movie. It seemed obvious to me where the gun was (although my friends told me after the film they had no idea). For my part, knowing where the gun was didn't hurt the film at all because although Gosling's battle to solve the case and get a conviction are certainly a core part of the film, 'Fracture' works better as a character study. Both leads are over-flowing with pride. Both believe themselves to be as flawless as the eggs from the story are supposed to be, but both will come to realize that they have micro-fractures too. This movie is about their arrogance and ultimately about how they deal with the discovery that perfection is a little more elusive than they thought. 'Fracture' shows all seven deadly sins at work and places Pride as the deadliest -- all else springs from it.
'Fracture' has a great score, a terrific script and dynamic characters who are believable in everything they do. This is a rich and highly enjoyable film. I fear it might get lost in the shadow of huge summer blockbusters like Spiderman 3 which is really a shame -- totally engaging little gems like this are why I love movies. 'Fracture' is well worth your time and the price of admission.
The Return (2005)
No return to horror greatness for Gellar
Technically there are elements of 'The Return' that are well done, nice little touches that add great atmosphere. The score is subtle and effective. Everything is grey or shot in muted tones and this really works well for the film. Sarah Michelle Gellar makes a great choice and goes with brown rather than blonde hair. Brown works better for this film because it is a less vivacious colour. Her blonde look tends to be used in movies where she plays much stronger characters and not victims like she does in 'The Return.' This added vulnerability helps to make her a bit more believable. Sadly, 'The Return' needed every trick it could find and ultimately still falls short.
The acting isn't to blame here because all of the principles are game. Nobody turns in a bad performance but are all desperately trying to save a mediocre script. Gellar does well with a more challenging role than she's had recently but the script doesn't give her enough to work with. One of the key components for a successful film is being able to find some sympathy for the characters -- especially in a horror film! Here it just never takes hold. You don't wish ill on any of the characters (Gellar's creepy co-worker a possible exception) but nothing really gets you behind them either. The script believes it is far more clever than it actually is and when all is finally revealed in the final two minutes, you may, like me, find yourself wondering if the first 83 minutes was actually worth it.
Tension doesn't really exist in the film until nearly the end and most of the "scares" in 'The Return' rely on sudden shocks. Basically if you see the movie once, you'll be able to sit through it like a statue if you ever watched it again (don't, by the way). This is such a cheap gimmick and it isn't really done all that well here. Oh, there are creepy moments -- the music in the car when she's driving to Texas for example, and the climactic action sequence at the end -- but overall not very well done.
A botched horror film with no horror, a thriller with no thrills, and a drama that isn't dramatic, 'The Return' just ... is ... and that isn't enough of a magnet to bring in quality or an audience for it. Largely disappointing, here's hoping for better things for all involved.
Hannibal Rising (2007)
Satisfying.
'Hannibal Rising' faces many of the problems that will beset any prequel. When the audience already knows how the larger story arc is going to resolve itself, how do you make the new prequel engaging? With a charismatic enigma like Hannibal, there is also great risk of the new young version seeming like a hollow parody of the older more familiar version played by Anthony Hopkins. I believe that 'Hannibal Rising' is largely successful. It didn't strike me as a stand out film but I was satisfied with it overall and do think that it has more value than just to enthusiasts of the Thomas Harris books. I'd rate it a comfortable second place out of the five films with Hannibal as a character (I count 'Manhunter').
'Hannibal Rising' does seem a bit choppy and for a plot that explores what drives a character into psychosis and lust for revenge, it didn't really spend much time trying to flesh out the Hannibal character. You get the brush strokes and the gist of things but a lot of the minutiae seems glossed over. I guess my point is that the audience curiosity for this film would be, I suspect, about what things turn Hannibal INTO Hannibal -- the internal process-- and not just solely about watching him hunt down and destroy those who have crossed him. A minor point perhaps but it struck me as odd in watching this that a series of films devoted to one of cinema's richest characters wouldn't really get in depth character exploration in the prequel for the series.
This is not intended to criticize what I thought was a well directed and tensely executed film. It is a violent film -- no kidding, right? -- but a lot of the violence is implied, in the background or off-camera. I really commend this decision as my imagination is much more vivid when things are suggested and not shown. 'Hannibal' worked not through terrorizing the audience but more through horrifying. I was balanced on the edge of trepidation and distaste as Hannibal entered each show down with characters he wanted to extract vengeance from. I love sitting through a tense thriller that offers no relief and this was almost the case here. My fellow Canadians and I were in tears of laughter when it was announced that a character had fled 'to a village outside of Saskatoon.' Surely unintended humour, and almost certainly audience specific.
What interested me most was the discussion I had with friends after we finished watching the film. I asked them when they felt sympathy for Hannibal was lost in the film -- and make no mistake, the events in the opening act are very much designed to put you behind Hannibal. Some said after the first killing. Some said the moment he transforms from child to youth. I think it comes later. Hannibal is rooted for almost out of default initially. His antagonists are just that much more evil and repellent that you throw your sympathy to him. This changes when a policeman asks Hannibal to help him track down these same antagonists. Hannibal has the choice of doing or not doing this. His response and subsequent actions for the remainder of the film decided my sympathies for me. Lesser acts of evil, might be used to purify and cleanse greater acts of evil, but are still evil in themselves when the motivation and the cost are the substitution of salvation and justice for corruption and revenge.
Blood Diamond (2006)
A great character film with two excellent performances.
Since there is very little in the negative column, let me disperse with it first: 'Blood Diamond' might fairly be accused of 'bleeding heart syndrome' (more on that in a bit), has a few minor pacing issues and seems unsure with how to end. The ending that they chose extends the film too far, seems forced and is tacked on. The more natural ending is on the mountainside -- you'll know what I mean when you see it. Those things said, the positives are much greater and this film showcased two towering performances. Djimon Hounsou is nothing short of incredible and I'd be astonished if he isn't considered at Oscar time. Secondly, although I've had little patience for him before, Leonardo DiCaprio has really impressed me this year. With his performances in 'The Departed' and now 'Blood Diamond,' I think I need to reappraise my own biases against him. I'm becoming a fan.
Some of the early reviews that I read painted 'Blood Diamond' as hysterical left-winger cause-head paradise. They suggest that the conflict diamond situation has been exaggerated and completely distorted. I don't know if that is the case. The film makes a compelling case but I don't base my political and economic decisions on films that I watch. My interest here was to see how characters would respond to adversity and a terrible, horrifyingly dark situation. The political agenda of the film isn't as cloyingly bombastic as I was afraid it might be. This is a film that, while concerned with the political situation in Africa, focuses more on how the obsessive search for a large, rare pink diamond consumes those who get too close to it.
DiCaprio is excellent as a Rhodesian (HIS description) mercenary and arms dealer working in Sierra Leone. Hounsou is a fisherman who gets drawn into the civil war raging around him and discovers a pink diamond that could save -- or destroy -- both he and his family. Jennifer Connelly plays a journalist trying to discover if a huge multi-national diamond company is knowingly in the market for conflict diamonds. Jennifer Connelly seems to get the worst of the dialogue. When told that Americans are in part to blame for conflict diamonds she responds with a line about 'not all girls want a fantasy wedding.' It makes her look naive at best and silly at worst. She generally manages to save the character from either of those fates though and also manages to avoid self-righteousness when dealing with some of the films more morally flexible characters. Hounsou is great and the desperation in his character as he tries to find his family crackles on the screen. He is cagey and understands what he needs to do to survive. His character is not above playing servile if that will keep him alive. And when provoked to violence, the result was absolutely chilling. In much smaller roles are Arnold Vosloo as a mercenary Colonel, Stephen Collins as a diplomat and Michael Sheen as an executive at a diamond company. Excellent performances all around.
Is 'Blood Diamond' judgemental? I think that is the wrong question. The film is a character study both of all the men pursuing the pink diamond and what effect it has on them, but it is also a character study of Africa. Tragic and heartsick, 'Blood Diamond' is drenched with cynicism and defeatism. Why is there misery and exploitation? "TIA," explains DiCaprio to Connelly, "This Is Africa." In contrast to a film like 'Traffic,' 'Blood Diamond' doesn't wallow in hopelessness. Some of the characters might be cynical but the film itself does search for hope. The heart of the picture is the human cost. Characters see the wealth of the diamond and are destroyed by it. The film shares a great deal thematically with a film like 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre.' High praise for a high quality film.
Lawman (1971)
Tragic and neglected little gem.
It is perhaps to the unfortunate detriment of this film that it was directed by Michael Winner. I say this not as a criticism of Michael Winner but to raise a point about legacy and bias: forever associated with the 'Death Wish' films, much of his work, even that which pre-dates 'Death Wish' is viewed through 'Death Wish' bias. 'Lawman' can unfairly be generalized as exploitative and for reveling in violence. I hope that for a minute we might view 'Lawman' without the effect of 'Death Wish' on its legacy and I intend to argue that rather than being a poorly directed film with 1970's ethos and cynicism, it is rather a very compelling tragedy and a neglected little gem. To do this, we must look at the conclusion of the film which has been responsible for a lot of the film's cheap reputation.
Burt Lancaster's lawman is devoted to a very strict code of behavior. The code gives him rules to live by and behave by. Involved in a shootout at the end of the film, he murders an unarmed and fleeing J.D. Cannon. This scene, I believe, is misunderstood and that misunderstanding eliminates sympathy for the Lancaster character. I believe that shooting was not something imposed and tacked on to make a grim modern point about the value of life, Vietnam War, etc. The shooting occurs because he TRIED to break his own rules. I believe the film took those beliefs to their logical, cold and merciless conclusion. Think of the scene in the homestead where Sheree North starts asking him about old mutual friends. The implication is that these men were all lawmen and Lancaster's news about them is that those former lawmen are "dead, dead, dead, will never walk again, dead" etc. These are men who showed 'weakness' and walked away from a code which allowed them to survive. This scene is of crucial importance for what will happen at the end of the film. Stray from the code and die. Live by the code and be alone.
In the final shootout, Lancaster sincerely wants to abandon what he has belatedly realized to be an ultimately lonely and empty life. Events during the film have convinced him that, yes, his code will allow him to live forever, but he looks at the way he is reviled by the townspeople, the widows of men he has killed, and by a woman who might have loved him in a different life. Lee J Cobb and Robert Ryan play characters who understand that the old way of doing things have passed by. The tragedy of the Lancaster character is that he doesn't realize he's a relic of a time gone by until it is too late. I found 'Lawman' terrifically tragic and poignant for this reason.
Back to the shootout, he tries to walk away but as soon as the gun play begins (he doesn't initiate) Lancaster understands the error he has made; compassion for a lawman is weakness. Weakness is hesitation and uncertainty. Uncertainty and hesitation are death. The law, according to his code, is black and white with no room for flexibility. It is not his job to decide if the men are innocent or guilty of the old man's murder. It IS his job to bring them in for trial. He doesn't even care if they did it or not and even cynically alludes to this when he says that the circuit judge is easily bought -- especially with the money that a man like Cobb would have. By hesitating and trying to walk away from his code and into a new life with Sheree North, he strays from what has kept him alive.
Why does he kill J.D.Cannon? The code demands strict adherence to duty with no grey areas -- black and white only. The men on the street are loose ends. Cannon is used dramatically to show the tragedy of the Lancaster character. Lancaster was willing to allow loose ends when he tries to leave town and is nearly killed for it. He won't make that mistake again because empty as life by the code may be, it is still life and Lancaster remarks several times during the film that there are very few things worth dying for. Perhaps being a man with experience in taking so much life has given him a certain insight into placing greater value on his own. Killing Cannon kills what life there could have been for himself. It is an act that eliminates what sympathy the film's audience would have had for him but it is an act which is completely true to the character. I should add that while one tenet of his code was never to shoot before the other man makes a move, it is this tragic failure to follow his code for a second time which destroys all hope of a life outside of the one he has designed for himself. Leaving no loose ends ties up everything including any possibility he had for escaping into something new.
Little Children (2006)
Thoreau had it right.
I was walking home the other evening having just watched this at the theatre. Two guys were ahead of me on the street and had just seen it as well. Not intending to listen in on their conversation ... I did anyway, *LOL*. One asked his friend what he thought about the movie and the second took a moment to think about it. His answer? "Twisted man, too twisted!" Thoreau wrote in Walden that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." In 'Little Children,' we see that quiet desperation played out to full effect by desperate housewives, ex-cons and damaged loners. A deep study of loneliness, 'Little Children' is morally ambiguous and doesn't judge. It uses humour, it uses dread, and it is a film that is at times quirky, intelligent and ultimately fascinating.
I liked a lot of things about this movie and in the week since I saw it, I've grown to like it more. Thematically it should have been a terrible downer: a collection of people who've all settled into what seems like the beginning of the end. They've married, started having kids and every single one of them wakes up in the morning with dread. "Is this all that is left?" They have become, or more importantly, believe that they have become completely purposeless in the next of a continuing doldrum of empty days. Eternity awaits and eternity is purposeless existential hell.
What is remarkable about a film whose subject should be so bleak, is the warmth and humour within it. Characters in 'Little Children' reject the lack of purpose, the unhappiness and try to re-inject a passion for life that they once had. At its most extreme, the quest for passion and purpose is lead by Noah Emmerich -- certainly most of the humour comes from his character. Winslet, Wilson and Emmerich are all flawed (who isn't?) but sympathetic. And then there is Jackie Earle Haley.
How difficult must it have been to play a convicted sex offender who is both repellent and *gasp* sympathetic? If you're Jackie Earle Haley and you are stealing a film away from bigger stars and you've got a great part, then apparently it isn't very hard at all. Creepy, potentially dangerous but also fairly benign and pitiable, Haley gives a much over-looked performance in what is quickly becoming a much over-looked film. He has given what I think is one of the best performances this year, and what is certainly the best performance of his entire career.
'Little Children' is "twisted man, too twisted" but it is also very good and very compelling. Well worth the risk and extremely well paced. It was only after the film had ended that I noticed how long the film was. Completely engrossing, I recommend it highly.
The Exorcist III (1990)
A crazy thought: Is this the best of the entire series?
'Exorcist 3' is one of my favourite horror films. I prefer it to the other four films in the 'Exorcist' series (I include 'Dominion') and, shock of shocks, I think it is the scariest. Superior in every possible way to 'Exorcist 2,' it is William Peter Blatty's TRUE sequel to 'The Exorcist.' Watching one right after the other is optimal since 'Exorcist 3' does assume that you have seen and understood the first film.That George C Scott was nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award is completely laughable and a sure sign that the Raspberry committee is far less clever than they think they are. Keep in mind that 'Exorcist 3' had three major things working against it when it was released:
1. The legacy of 'The Exorcist' which is still rightly viewed as a landmark of the horror genre (whether or not it is still scary for a more contemporary audience is another matter) 2. The legacy of 'The Exorcist 2.' The sequel was such an hilarious disappointment that it inflicted terrible damage to the credibility of the entire series. Fans who might have given part three a chance had already walked away from the series. 3. 'Reposessed' the Linda Blair 'Exorcist' spoof had been released just prior to 'Exorcist 3.' It sent up the entire series and harmed the chances of a genuinely intense and rewarding horror film.
There are scenes in 'Exorcist 3' which have haunted me for years. Very few horror films do that. The scene with the night nurse checking rooms is one of the scariest things I've ever seen on film. Or how about the ceiling walker? Or how about the nurse at George C Scott's home?
Brad Dourif very nearly steals this movie and I wonder how the role and his performance would have been looked at if there had been no 'Exorcist 2' and if 'Exorcist 3' had come out a year earlier than 'Reposessed'? I was mesmerized by him every time he was on the screen and he has a very long and difficult speech in the middle of the film. It is a masterful piece of acting and the intensity is incredible. The anger and the power within him slowly crescendos and just as it pushes George C Scott's back to the wall in the cell, I defy an honest viewer not to be pushed away from the screen as Dourif looms into it, closer and closer, slashing a simulated knife back and forth and raging out his dialogue with lines that tremble just short of yelling. Dourif has been largely under-rated after early success in movies like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,' and 'Ragtime.' His work here is among the best he's ever put in and nobody has watched the film or taken it seriously. Dourif suffered a terrible injustice by not being more widely recognized for his performance here. I can not praise him highly enough and I hope that some of his more recent success with projects like 'Deadwood' will send fans back to earlier examples of his work.
George C Scott is another favourite of mine and I really love what he does in this film. Scott can fairly be accused of often looking like he was impatient on screen and tolerating another actor's lines only so that he could deliver his next brilliant speech. I loved him for it though and have enjoyed every performance of his that I've seen. That he is accused of poor acting here is truly mind boggling. Consider the scene where he comes to the hospital to visit the sickly Father Dyer. He begins with a calm tone that slowly becomes more agitated with each line. He is believable and true. He is concerned and worried about his friend. When he yells "WE'RE FINE!" at the nurse, it isn't because George C Scott the actor is blowing the scene. It is because Kinderman the character can't hide his stress and concern any longer. The same goes for later on when he realizes, in a panic, that he needs to get home FAST. I love the way he behaves as the passenger in the squad car. This is the face of desperation and Scott was absolutely correct in how he played it.
Studio interference with the Nicol Williamson infused exorcism are the only flaws in what is otherwise a very good horror/supernatural thriller. Scott and Dourif are both excellent and in a very limited role, so is Jason Miller. It has two scary moments that I will remember forever and it is a much better film than people give it credit for being. This film deserves much better than it has gotten and I've rarely shown it to anyone who hasn't liked it. Much under-rated and highly deserving of a second chance.
Raising Cain (1992)
Great final act comes too late to save the film
I've been given it some thought about why watching 'Raising Cain' left me feeling so disappointed and unsatisfied. This should have been a very good film. De Palma is generally very good with thrillers, John Lithgow is a wonderful talent and this is the kind of part that he was A-list material for at that point in his career. Where did it all go wrong? There are at least two very well staged scary scenes:
1. The back seat of the car when it is pushed into the water 2. When Jenny bends down to pick up her daughter in the final scene of the movie
And there are several tremendously tense scenes in the final 30 minutes as all of the pieces are put together by the characters.
I think that might be the problem for the film. There should be very few plot elements that the viewer can't figure out or learn quickly within the opening hour. The frustration comes from then watching uncompelling and unsympathetic 'good guys' slowly put the pieces together. Lithgow is at least entertaining as he tries to figure his way out of a situation that is rapidly spiralling out of his hands. The first hour is terribly paced, vacuous and full of characters who are presented in mostly unlikeable ways. I wanted to but I just couldn't like anyone in the film. Take the scene when Carter Nix is reporting the disappearance of his wife to Lt. Terri and Sgt. Cully. The police are presented as dimwitted unlikeable oafs.
What most aggravated then was the potential displayed in the final 30 minutes of the film. The viewer knows the truth about Margot and tension is almost Hitchcock-like when Jenny starts to follow Dr. Waldheim. From that point to the excellent ending, 'Raising Cain' is worth watching. I just think it's a pity that the 'tears-of-boredom' inducing initial hour ruin what might have been a good thriller. Saved by the end but at too much of a cost, a film that should probably be given a miss for anyone other than Lithgow or De Palma enthusiasts.
Bon Voyage (1944)
Delightful little propaganda film.
A delightful little propaganda film and more than just a curiosity for Hitchcock fans. The plot is about an RAF pilot who was shot down, escapes through France and is debriefed by French officials. He is helped along in his escape by courageous members of the French Underground and a co-escapist. His recounting of the events which allowed his return to England are given a very interesting spin by the French officials.
A companion with Hitchcock's other WWII French film 'Aventure Malagache,' 'Bon Voyage' was an attempt to buoy French spirits. I love the fact that the film is SUPPOSED to be a celebration of the daring and heroism of ordinary French civilians who've joined the Underground to fight the Nazis. Buried under the surface there are strong suggestions that being part of the underground will probably get you killed and that you should keep your mouth shut because German agents are everywhere. Heroism and sacrifice rule the day though and it is these two things which Hitchcock was attempting to realistically celebrate.
Given a limited showing throughout the Free French regions, 'Bon Voyage' remained a film that Hitchcock was fond of and was a film that Hitchcock considered expanding into a full feature after the war. Although lost in the shuffle and neglected by time, this isn't a bad film. It just remains under-exposed and under-appreciated.
Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)
Meet you in St. Louis? No problem.
This Judy Garland musical might be most famous for either 'The Trolley Song' (to this day I see comedians reference it. Spouse saying something that the comedian doesn't want to hear? Hands over the ears and they start yelling 'CLANG CLANG CLANG WENT THE TROLLEY!'), or perhaps for 'Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas,' perhaps for the very beautiful title song, or perhaps as the musical where Judy Garland and Vincente Minnelli fell in love. Whatever reason for its fame, 'Meet Me In St.Louis' is a wonderful musical that sits in the upper ranks of the genre.
The story is about a St.Louis family and one year in their lives. Their dramas range from the daughters trying to meet boys, to pranking the 'meanest' neighbor on Halloween, to the more serious drama of whether the family should move to New York in order to pursue a much higher profile and higher paying job for the father. The story moves at a leisurely but not unenjoyable pace through each of the four seasons and ends with winter and the convenient resolution of all these dramas.
I have a hard time not loving Judy Garland on screen and she's very good here. She headlined the film, although she did receive reliable and strong support from Leon Ames, Mary Astor, Lucille Bremer, Chill Wills and Harry Davenport. Judy Garland had some misgivings about being in this film. She was 21 and didn't want to play teenagers anymore but had also been advised by Joesph Mankiewicz that the best part in the film would belong to youngest sister 'Tootie.' Although MGM did ultimately convince Garland to be part of the film, Mankiewicz's prediction came true -- 'Meet Me in St. Louis' gave 7 year old Margaret O'Brien an honourary Academy Award in the Juvenille category and solidified her position as a major child star for the 1940's.
Great songs, Judy Garland, strong performances, a sweet and charming story line; these things make 'Meet Me In St. Louis' well worth your time.
The Innocents (1961)
Chilling, Excellent and Intelligent
Those with low attention spans, patience and no sympathy for the 'suggest but don't show' school of ghost stories and horror films would be well advised to wander away. 'The Innocents' is a highly intelligent ghost story and adaptation of the Henry James novella 'The Turn of the Screw.'I'll not spoil anything but, to set up the plot, a young governess is hired on and given total independence and authority to care for two young children in an isolated estate. As she arrives and begins her duties she becomes convinced that ghostly presences are on the estate and hungering for the souls of the children. 'The Innocents' succeeds by being subtle. Filmed in Black and White and being minimal in special effects, 'The Innocents' relies on chilling atmosphere heightened by the Governess' morality and sense of isolation. Throw in an excellent musical score that wants only to supplement the movie and not overshadow the film and you have a first rate picture.
The film works brilliantly on two levels. As a ghost story it is superlative and very well done. Chilling special effects with great usage of reflections and windows. Deborah Kerr turns in what must rank as an astonishing performance. The complexity of her role and the skillfully nuanced performance that she delivers rank her, in my mind, as one of the top-tiered actresses. The supporting cast is excellent. I'm often a bit suspicious about whether little children will be watchable or not. They are here, and they show wonderful depth and range of emotion -- especially in the final ten minutes. That said, you may find yourself wanting to bash your head repeatedly in the final scenes of the little girl; she's a bit much. Over all though, no problems and mostly plaudits for all of the actors and actresses. Michael Redgrave, incidentally, has a wonderful bit part as the children's legal guardian.
The second level where the film works brilliantly is of a psychological study. There is the very real possibility that the governess is mentally ill. She doesn't understand why she can't convince any of the other characters about the ghosts that she is seeing and as her anxiety begins to increase, so does the tension and over all effect of the film. As to which theory is the truth? It is left less ambiguous than it is in the source material but as for the answer of the film-makers, I'll never tell! Are the ghosts real or is she mad? Yes. You'll have to watch the film to see which question I answered.
Maximum Overdrive (1986)
Minimum Enjoyment
This is one of those films I loved when I was a kid. It had two really great things going for it: an extremely cool hard rock AC/DC soundtrack and a great idea for a story. I was then, and am still to some extent, thrilled with the idea and possibilities of machines coming to life. I watched this movie more times than I care to remember in my youth and always had great memories of it. In hindsight I believe there were two principle reasons: 1. I was listening to the soundtrack and ignoring the movie, 2. I was a kid and I knew cr@p about good movies! *LOL* Looking back on 'Maximum Overdrive' today, it doesn't hold up very well at all. Among Stephen King films that have been adapted to the silver screen, this one is in the bottom third -- although it is vastly superior to garbage like 'Dreamcatcher.' It seems very heavily influenced by Richard Matheson's 'Duel' -- not necessarily a bad thing but also not offering much new to the 'man versus machine' theme. It's strength for me is nostalgia but there are plenty of reasons not to like this movie. Here are a few: 1. Yeardley Smith. She's dreadful here in what is easily the worst performance of her entire career. Picture an extremely aggravating Lisa Simpson screaming non-stop for 45 minutes. If you haven't plucked out your eyes and run screaming to drown yourself in the nearest lake, congratulations. And my condolences. She manages to be so aggravating that every scene she appears in severely damages the film. If you haven't watched 'Maximum Overdrive' yet then proceed by all means. Do yourself a serious favour though and put the TV on mute every time you see her on screen.
2. The "scares." In this film, King is generally successful when characters are trying to move from Point A to Point B without being wiped out by big trucks. The way he develops tension there is actually fairly competent. Why then he badly cuts his own tension to shreds by 'augmenting' any potential 'scary' scene with an electronica Bernard Herrmann 'Psycho shower scene' score is beyond me. It makes scenes absolutely comical. They were cool when I was a child. Now they're laughable, cheap and derivative.
3. The Direction and Writing. I'm a big fan of Stephen King's early work but this just doesn't seem to work. The characters seem like caricatures: hypocritical bible salesman, grill cook who's a repentant ex-con, Snidely Whiplash styled restaurant owner, tough chick who hitchhikes but can take care of herself, aggravatingly saccharine newly-wed couple, kid who is smarter than all of the adults, and on and on and on. If given the choice between being punched repeatedly in the groin or meeting several of the characters from 'Maximum Overdrive,' I can quite cheerfully choose the groin punches. Please and thank you. That so many of the performances seem adrift makes me wonder how much guidance King was able to give them. A failure to reign in Yeardley Smith et al and to help some of the other characters and performances develop makes it feel like nobody was in charge. In fairness to Stephen King this WAS his first film. That doesn't mean it was good. Or likable. Or enjoyable.
Even with my criticisms and misgivings though, 'Maximum Overdrive' is a film that I'll find myself returning to from time to time. The soundtrack is perfect for the movie and is one of my favorite's. AC/DC do a great job. King has left the directing of his movie adaptations to others and that was probably a wise decision to make. Bad though this is, I stand by my original point that the ideas are really good. I wonder how it would do with remake treatment?
The Black Pirate (1926)
A wonderfully acrobatic Douglas Fairbanks Snr., entertains!
Douglas Fairbanks Snr., can quite fairly be given credit for the first movie action star. 'The Black Pirate' has a number of sequences which highlight his magnificent athletic ability. I found myself marveling at the extended sequence where he seizes a merchant ship singlehandedly. What strength and skill, what agility and courage! I loved watching him scale the stern of the ship and was extremely impressed by his cutting open of the sails from top to bottom with a knife. Some of the work was quite funny and you could tell that the filmed footage was being shown in reverse but that doesn't stop the stunts themselves from being extremely entertaining. He's got more guts than me, I'll say that much!
'The Black Pirate' is difficult to evaluate. Do we grade a film based upon:
a) other pirate films b) silent films c) on a general level of enjoyment against all films
As a silent film, and for that matter a two strip Technicolor silent film, 'The Black Pirate' is a landmark for innovation. Fairbanks had misgivings about the use of colour but felt a pirate film MUST be shown in colour. He gets great benefit. There is a great deal of implied violence (duh, a pirate film!) and the bright red colour of blood is almost shocking to see. There's a scene where a captive tries to hide a ring he's wearing by swallowing it. Unfortunately for him he's seen. After a little off camera ... searching... for the ring, a pirate presents a bloodied ring in bloodied hands as he wipes a bloodied dagger on his tunic to the captain. Pretty thrilling stuff for the 1920's. This was also a film where very serious philosophy and training were put to great effect with the fencing. You can see how it out-steps a lot of earlier swordplay films and influenced the style in films that would follow. According to film historian Rudy Behlmer on an excellent commentary track with the Kino DVD, the fencing master hired by Fairbanks became a staple of the industry. Many of the great sword fight movies from the next 25 years were his handiwork -- including 'The Adventures of Robin Hood,' and 'Captain Blood.'
Against other pirate films, 'The Black Pirate' has perhaps more value as a curiosity. Even by the late 1930's and 40's it was being outdistanced by Errol Flynn films like 'Captain Blood' and 'The Seahawk,' Tyrone Power in 'The Black Swan,' or Burt Lancaster in 'The Crimson Pirate.' Today it gets totally wiped off the board by the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' series. Though still fun to watch, these later films are better and more enjoyable.
This is definitely worth tracking down on the Kino DVD if you can find it. Rudy Behlmer has an excellent commentary track that is of great value to people who are interested in early Hollywood and Douglas Fairbanks. I recommend it highly for the student or the general enthusiast based upon that reason. And it is a good movie to! 'The Black Pirate' has a great sense of adventure to it with thrilling stunt work. Silent movie fans shouldn't be disappointed. Fans of pirate movies should give it a try to see what helped popularize the genre.
The Professionals (1966)
One of the most beautifully shot and under-watched Western classics.
There are so many remarkable things about 'The Professionals.' Conrad Hall was the Director of Photography and was nominated for an Oscar -- he didn't win but he should have. The 1967 Oscar ceremony threw as many awards as it could to 'A Man For All Seasons.' I love watching big, beautiful, widescreen westerns and this is one of the best shot. Hall's use of camera filters, his incredible dust storm and his location scouting were all impeccable. I don't pretend to understand the mechanics of camera photography. I do know, however, when something looks gorgeous. 'The Professionals' is a stunningly beautiful film and it is a shame that it doesn't get a greater audience today.
The second remarkable thing is the quality of the cast. The top seven actors and actresses billed were top grade lead or supporting actors at one point in their careers: Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin, Robert Ryan, Woody Strode, Jack Palance, Claudia Cardinale and Ralph Bellamy. It would be interesting to try and add up the number of Oscar nominated pictures and performances that the above group compiled throughout their careers. Even if these seven weren't enough, they get wonderful support from the gorgeous Maria Gomez and reliably ubiquitous Jorge Martinez De Hoyos. Jorge Martinez De Hoyos is a classic Mexican "Hey! It's That Guy!" supporting actor and I always welcome seeing him in a picture. He makes much out of a minor part as the goat keeper who wants to 'help.' The lead performances are terrific and well written. This may well be my favorite Woody Strode performance. He (as seemed to happen for him) doesn't get a lot to say, but the value of his character to the group of four professionals is unquestioned and undeniable. When Marvin wants an assault to look like an attack by the Federales, Lancaster may be the guy with the dynamite, but it is Strode firing explosive arrows that makes it happen. Some of his best work where he is a featured player. And I love that when the question of race is brought up by Bellamy, Marvin snorts with contempt that he would have trouble working with a consummate professional of any colour. Strode doesn't lead, but this was a very positive part and showed white and black relying on each other to get a mutual job done. Of the other leads I would add that Lancaster has the best part (much of the humour, action and girls), Marvin is amazing, and Claudia Cardinale is so stunning a beauty it hurts to look at her.
A tougher part was for Robert Ryan. He was maybe too good of an actor for a part that wasn't well written. Ryan is game but I thought his part as the horse handler wasted him. In his later years Robert Ryan was quite sick and he was sick during this production. I don't think he was the problem though. His character is sick for much of the film but as a person, one gets the impression that Ryan was still quite robust. His character doesn't seem to fit in as well or have anything to do. He is adrift. Maybe part of it comes from playing a character who values animal life over human. I say again though that in this movie he is good, but not right for the part.
'The Professionals' is an adventure film and Western filmed in the style of 'The Magnificent Seven' and a model itself for 'The Wild Bunch' which followed. It straddles the worlds of old Western and new Western. It has a moral ambiguity and over-arching plot which makes me think of the film as a kind of Western/Film-noir. When you look at the cast though, Lancaster, Marvin, Bellamy, Palance and of course Ryan were all noir stalwarts of varying degree. Maybe some of that quality is what attracted them to the script.
This is a great Western that doesn't quite reach the top tier where films like 'The Wild Bunch' sit, but it is high on the second level for me. The ending may not strike some as satisfying and I've seen it argued that this was an attempt with other Westerns to illustrate American interventionist foreign policy of the time. Those conclusions can be discussed by others because I think of the assault on the Hacienda, the time-buying duel in the canyon, Burt's use of explosives in the pass and a terrific opening credits instead. This is a great Western that has been unduly forgotten. I really wish it has won the Oscar for cinematography -- Oscars can make films more marketable and enduring. If you're a fan of Westerns, you're no fan until you've watched 'The Professionals.'
Ultraviolet (2006)
And it wasn't the worst female driven action film this year...
... that dishonour firmly stains 'Aeon Flux.' That said, 'Ultraviolet' is bad, bad, bad. The foundation seems promising: a high tech and conceptually cool Kurt Wimmer project with Milla Jovovich starring (she's very arguably the biggest female action star around right now). Where does it all go so terribly and horribly wrong? I shudder at unraveling barely repressed memories, but the healing must begin somehow.
Milla Jovovich doesn't have the acting chops of Meryl Streep, but then again she's never pretended to either. Her main difficulty here is that what little dialogue she is given hangs her out to dry. Her delivery of terrible dialogue has predictable results on screen. Could a Kate Beckinsale, Natalie Portman or Charlize Theron have done any better? In a way they did by not appearing in the first place. Jovovich is hilarious every time she opens her mouth. This isn't very often because generally she's involved in high octane special effect sequences that 'jump the shark' each time in rapid succession. It is all very cool and she is a stunning beauty who has never looked better. The problem is that we as an audience are trapped in what feels like a ninety-four minute long KMFDM video.
If the soundtrack blares along for too long and the infrequent dialogue weakens the performance of a desperately exposed lead actress, maybe we should cover it up by cgi everything, right? Wrong. There is so much work done here on the green screen that it actually works to great ironic effect. When so much of the movie is fake and unreal, I find myself wondering what else is fake and unreal. It turns out to be the characters and their believability. The computer work isn't bad but manages to be so blatant at the same time that I've sprained my eyes from rolling them so much. That makes typing this quite painful, by the way. All of the character relationships seemed really forced. I would say that the one exception is the William Fichtner and Milla Jovovich interplay. Fichtner and Jovovich are really quite good together and Fichtner shows great tenderness and hurt. He is deeply affected and affectionate of the Jovovich character. I really admired his work here and it gave me the strength to continue watching. Actually ... maybe now that I think about it I should resent his strong work. It kept me watching to the end. Nick Chinlund plays the main bad guy and gleefully chews up every line and scene that he can. It's worth taking the volume off 'mute' to listen to him before putting it back on.
'Ultraviolet' has a lot of cool if unexplained ideas and some great (though obvious and heavy-handed) technical work. The gun-kata system that Wimmer has devised is cool to watch. The problem is that the film lacks any heart or reason to care about any of the characters. I didn't find anyone but Fichtner's character even remotely interesting. Why would I care about any of them? There really was a lot of potential here and there is a lot of potential for future Kurt Wimmer films. Maybe the next film will have some character to it because even in action film extravaganzas, you will ultimately be hooked by caring about what the characters do or don't do. we never really have that reason to care in 'Ultraviolet.' Better luck next time I hope. The value and attraction of this film will likely rest in the hands of hardcore Milla Jovovich fans and Kurt Wimmer gun-kata enthusiasts. If that's all you're looking for than you've hit the jackpot.
Gangster No. 1 (2000)
Though a character study of inadequacy, 'Gangster no. 1' is anything but.
I'm told, although I haven't had the chance to see it yet, that the performance of Paul Bettany in 'Gangster no. 1' owes a debt to the performance of Brit flick gangster icon James Fox in 'Performance.' Whether that is true or not I don't know -- I'll have to find out. What I do know is that Paul Bettany delivered a dynamic performance in 'Gangster no. 1.' With his work here as 'Young Gangster,' Bettany announced that he is a high level talent of great depth. If for no other reason, watch this movie to see an actor who plays a flamboyant Chaucer in 'A Knight's Tale,' a likable and taciturn doctor in 'Master and Commander,' and now a violent, seething and inadequate gangster in this film.
There are, however, more reasons to watch than just great acting. 'Gangster no. 1' is about the rise and fall of an extremely violent and unbalanced gangster. Malcolm McDowell plays the present day gangster who has risen to the top of London's criminal world. Has has spent 30 years ruthlessly and bloodily building a criminal empire on a foundation of his enemies bodies. Life is euphoric and gravy. Then he learns that the man he once worked for is getting out of prison. Life isn't so euphoric anymore. The film is largely a flashback as McDowell remembers his one-time friend and tries to decide how best to deal with his imminent return.
Paul Bettany plays McDowell's character in the flashbacks and it was a great bit of casting in both roles. I couldn't help but think of a young Alex turning into Bettany and then turning into McDowell. 'Young Gangster' is terribly complex. He can barely suppress his own psychosis and the sadistic rage that inevitably erupts because of it. He likes nice things and is envious of his boss (David Thewlis). Bettany and McDowell are haunted by the legacy of Thewlis for the entire film. Thewlis is liked, feared and respected by everyone. Bettany and McDowell are mostly just feared. Even that seems to be slipping away. At the beginning of the film McDowell gets up to go to the bathroom. The gangsters sharing the table at the restaurant with him make jokes at his expense almost as soon as he's out of earshot.
Is 'Young Gangster' homosexual? Based upon the almost level of jealousy and hatred he seems to have for the Saffron Burrows character whom Thewlis loves, I had to wonder. We see him alone the entire film however so another way to look at the jealousy is to regarding Burrows as an obstacle. She represents a sense of completion and fulfillment for Thewlis. In contrast, 'Young Gangster' is filled with inadequacy. He desperately covets the wealth, the position and -- most importantly -- the respect of Freddy Mays. Freddy Mays is anti-thetical to 'Young Gangster.' Freddy Mays is more than just his style and his money. He's been able to put his life into an enriching and rewarding order that 'Young Gangster' covets and resents -- his own is so deeply inadequate that he desperately mimics but can not replicate. Consider the final confrontation. McDowell is seeking both penance and approval from his former boss. Thewlis will only look on him with a mixture of pity and contempt. McDowell has the money, the clothing, the fancy apartment; his life is material but empty. Yes, he's "Gangster Number One," but as the title of the film cleverly puts it, he's also "Gangster: No One." I think the tie pin is a great example. Bettany covets the tie pin and what it represents: all of the things about Thewlis that he wants for himself. Thewlis gives it to him as a gesture. Bettany wears it proudly but it turns into a symbolic gesture of his own pathetic inadequacies. Thewlis later twists the knife when he tells McDowell that he doesn't need 'your money, your flat or your f**king tie pin.' Ouch.
This is a wonderful character study of inadequacy, almost a spiritual film of sorts. Bettany is awe-inspiring, McDowell reminds you of the greatness he's capable of and David Thewlis, who is always so good, gives a very restrained and counter-balancing performance. Tremendous work from the three main leads and all of the supporting characters as well. Having just watched the film last night, I'm still too close to it. I get the feeling though that my rating and my regard for it will grow in time. Better, in my opinion, than 'Sexy Beast' and a more serious companion to the Guy Ritchie contributions. Shudder with recollections of 'Hostel' when Bettany introduces Foreman to a grisly end. And if he tells you to look into his eyes? Keep an eye out for hatchets.
City by the Sea (2002)
Gritty performances are the highlight.
2002's 'City By the Sea' was a film that slipped by me when it first came out. I was living overseas and missed it completely. Having finally had a chance to watch it, I think it is the best film that Robert DeNiro has been in since 'Ronin' and up to 2006, his last great dramatic performance. He stars in 'City By the Sea' as the absentee father of James Franco. DeNiro is a decorated homicide cop who, while investigating a murder, finds uncomfortable evidence that concretely links his son to the murder. The film becomes a redemptive tale as DeNiro's character tries to make up for the damage of the lost years and save his son from a series of rapidly expanding catastrophes.
'City By the Sea' borrows from the noir tradition with a gritty locale, seedy characters and two male leads who have unlocked a series of events that are bigger than they are. DeNiro and Franco are both excellent here. Franco is tremendous for the entire film as a junkie who is trying (perhaps not very hard) to escape from his current life for one mixed of fantasy and memory. His final scenes with De Niro are powerful.
The DeNiro performance? I think that he played it perfectly. His character in the film tends to be very restrained and controlled. He analyzes and then makes his move. Part of this has to do with the background of the character. He hides his past because he's trying to protect his own vulnerabilities. By the time we reach the climactic scene towards the end of the film with his son, the restraint and control are gone. He is trying to save his son and the impassioned speech he gives is some of the best work I've seen him do. 'City By the Sea' is more of a redemptive drama than a crime drama and I think that the way the film was packaged and marketed may have confused that. In the climactic scene with Franco, you see the culmination of a great performance by a great actor. I was more impressed by the emotion and power of that scene than I was by anything else I've watched in quite a while.
'City By the Sea' is slow, but worth the journey. Very good acting all around and you might very well be a James Franco fan after seeing this if you weren't before.