Hi, all! I've been involved in a HCC Radio / Podcast series this semester called Armchair Directors. Film professors from HCC talk about directors and spotlight various films from those directors. You may want to check them out, especially if there's a film you really like. Here's the link:
Armchair Directors
Take care!
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Academy Awards Thingy 2015ish
Yessss! It’s
that time of the year again, ladies and gentlemen! Time to see how just right or wrong Hollywood
is at assessing itself over the last year.
It’s the Oscars!!!
I’ll get the lesser categories out of the way before
debating the big kahuna. I haven’t seen
everything, but I’ll bold the films I discuss that I have seen, which may or
may not affect my credibility when discussing different categories. And keep in mind that these are not the films
which I think are going to win. It’s the films that I think should win. If I ran Hollywood, here’s how things would
go.
Best Sound Mixing – The
most technical of these would have to be American Sniper because of the
battle scenes. I saw this film in IMAX,
and the sound was jacked way up, so my ability to catch subtleties was quite
low, but the sound was well done. The
runner-up would go to Birdman because of the mix on the
rooms they were in, trying to synch with what the camera position was, to not
have voices and noise appear out of place or disorienting. What should
have been up for at least a
nomination was Selma. How this got
overlooked may be because it isn’t a film that necessitates outstanding sound
mixing, but the scene of the night march where the police attack the protestors
was so well-mixed that I was actually looking behind and around me in the
theater because I thought there was something going on between patrons. Interstellar
was probably good, too, but I didn’t see it.
Documentary Feature –
Don’t count on me for this one, because I only saw Virunga, and while the
film was well-done, the likelihood of it beating a film about Edward Snowden or
Vietnam is low. It’s odd that two of
these movies are about photographers.
Makeup – Only three
films up in this category, but the clear winner has to be Guardians of the Galaxy. Foxcatcher’s makeup contribution is
really just to one character, and the makeup on Tilda Swinton in Grand
Budapest, while good, isn’t as much of an impact as what is going on in Guardians.
Costume Design – I’m a
bit perplexed with what Vice is doing in this category
(didn’t seem special to me). Budapest
has such a strong visual style that the costumes link straight into the
seamless flow. Mr. Turner, a period piece,
is done very well. The other two are
based on fairy tales, so by rule, they have to be crazy with the costumes. Edge towards Maleficent, based on what I’ve seen.
Cinematography – Even
though I didn’t really like Birdman, I was set to give this to
the film because the camera work in it was extremely athletic. Then, I saw Ida, and all that went
out of the window. Ida is stunningly
gorgeous and rightly deserves this award.
In some instances, this is a study in the rule of thirds. Characters’ heads are often down at the
bottom of the screen, and perspective lines draw the eye exactly where the
director wants us to look (even if that isn’t the action of the scene). Intentionally shot in 4:3 aspect ratio. So impressive. Third would be Budapest, for some of the
delightfully playful camera work. Turner is beautiful but seemed a bit muddied (Kim
maintains that this was on purpose, given Turner’s work, but I disagree). Unbroken should not win, nor be nominated, for any award. Ever.
Production Design –
This is a hard one. Imitation Game and Turner
are both period pieces, very well done. Budapest
is an alternate universe period piece, elegantly crafted. Interstellar
is this year’s Gravity. Into the Woods is a fairy tale. All have a distinct style. However, two can depart from reality (Budapest and Woods),
since there is fantasy at work, while two have to try to be as close to reality
as possible, and one is trying to be technically realistic. My heart goes with Budapest, as the created
world is so engaging, with second place going to Turner (which to me did a
slightly better job at maintaining period than Imitation).
Original Song – I
couldn’t care less about this category.
The song up for Selma has absolutely nothing to do
with the film’s actual soundtrack (which is 1960s) and was jarring when played
over the ending credit sequence. “Everything
Is Awesome” does make me smile, however.
Can I vote for that because it was fun?
Yeah, I can (my list, right?).
But best song tends to suck the air out of the room when the Academy
feels the need to showcase each song throughout the broadcast. Great moments for a bathroom break.
Original Score – Again,
the movie that should at least be nominated (if not win) this category isn’t
even up – Birdman. Jazz drumming
to a persistently moving, uncut shot?
That one moment where Keaton and Norton walk by the drummer, and diegetic
sound becomes non-diegetic but doesn’t miss a beat? Masterful.
Is it not up because it was a single instrument score instead of
orchestra? Maybe. I don’t recall anything of greatness out of
the music in Imitation or The
Theory of Everything when it came to sound. I’d go with Budapest for what it
contributed to the film, with Turner second (much less obtrusive
yet more appropriate than Imitation).
Documentary Short
Subject – Saw none of these. Current
betting odds have Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
as the favorite.
Short Film, Live Action
– Same for this. Odds are on The
Phone Call. What’s up with suicide
hotline movies?
Short Film, Animated –
Only saw one of these, Feast, but it’s Pixar, so you
couldn’t place a safer bet if you tried.
Film Editing – Things
have become so spastic with editing in the digital age that when someone stops editing, it’s a big deal. If you approach film editing as how best to
tell a story from various shot perspectives, the LOSER in this category is Boyhood
(actually, that would go for writing, directing and acting as well, since this
has no story). Sniper only gets this right during the away
scenes, because the home front scenes are so poor on many levels (directing,
acting, editing, writing), so you can’t give credit for getting things half right. That leaves Budapest, Imitation,
and Whiplash
– all great movies. However, Whiplash is more character study, and while
parts of the movie get more intense because
of the precision of the editing, other parts are more straightforward, and
the acting does the heavy lifting. Imitation’s
editing is a little more paint-by-numbers.
Winner: Budapest.
Visual Effects – Not
going to waste your time – it’s Guardians.
Sound Editing –
Read: Sound Capturing / Manufacturing. This I give to Birdman because of how
hard this must have been working with a constantly moving camera (and therefore
constantly moving sound capture which needed to stay the hell out of the
cameraman’s way). Interstellar and Hobbitzez
gets honorable mentions for created sound to mix in with capture, as I’m sure
there had to be a ton. Again, fuck Unbroken.
Animated Feature – One
of the greatest animators of all time, Hayao Miyazaki, retired last year, and
his The
Wind Rises, while nominated, didn’t win. This isn’t surprising, given the film’s
subject matter. Now, this year, another director
from Studio Ghibli, the person who started the studio and discovered and hired
Miyazaki, Isao Takahata, who, in my estimation, is superior to Miyazaki, is up
for his last film, The Tale of Princess Kaguya. I won’t be able to see it until after the
Oscars, and I’m already biased towards it anyway, so I’d love to see him
win. He won’t though. How to Train Your Dragon 2 should
win. It’s a good movie (better than Big
Hero 6), but I’d so love it if Takahata won. My guess is that he won’t even be in the
audience. But, to whomever wins:
Best Foreign Language
Film – I heard Leviathan was
good. Didn’t get a chance to see it
(where’s Force Majeure?). I’m not saying Ida was an outstanding film, but it’s so flipping gorgeous, I don’t
really care.
Adapted Screenplay – My
category!!! Yay! Sadly, I’ve read none of the literature these
films are based on. However, I’ve heard
so much about how Imitation, Sniper, and Theory got things “wrong”
(which is normal) that I’m dissuaded to choose them. And since Whiplash doesn’t have a
shot at much, and I liked it so much, I’ll vote for it.
Original Screenplay – Grand
Budapest Hotel!!! I can’t choose
anything else. That film was so much
fun. Honorable Mention goes to Foxcatcher
(which, from what I read, should really have been up in the Adapted Screenplay
category).
Best Supporting Actress
– The thing I liked most about Birdman was Emma Stone. And yeah, Patricia Arquette was good in Boyhood,
but that’s largely because she was acting with an emo golem, so of course she
looked better. Knightly was good, but
she was so minor. And someone needs to
stop nominating Streep every time she’s in something. Some may cry “blasphemer!,” but I don’t
really care. Did you see Mamma
Mia? Let it go … let it goo-ooo …
I won’t be upset if Laura Dern wins.
She’s good in anything she’s in.
I’m just not ever going to see Wild.
Best Actress – Since I
only saw two of these films, I don’t think it’s fair for me to comment. But Pike was scary as hell in Gone
Girl. I’d never be upset to see
Cotillard win anything, because she’s brilliant. So is Julianne Moore. I didn’t really see Jones’s character as a
lead role, so I’m not sure why she’s up for this category.
Best Actor – It’s
pretty obvious that Redmayne is going to win, and he should, because the job he
had to do was very difficult, and he did it well. However, it’s sort of like whenever we have a
movie about someone who’s handicapped, if they get it, then the race is over
before it starts. I always think of
Daniel Day Lewis and My Left Foot for things like
this. Carrell was creepy-eerie,
Cumberbatch was outstanding, Cooper played a character rather than a hyper mess
(see his last two David O. Russell turns).
And Keaton was, well, Keaton.
They all did well, but what Redmayne had to do to be that character was
harder work than all four other actors combined.
Best Director – The sad
thing is that Linklater is going to get this award for essentially the same
reason why I give the award to Redmayne.
It’s not a good film, but it
took so much to do that people will recognize the effort. Anderson and Miller told much better stories
through the works they made, without doubt, and Tyldum told the “important”
story. If technical prowess was the
order of the day (which it was last year with Cuaron), then Inarritu would get
it this year.
Best Picture – I saw
all of them, so I’m going to rank them, worst to best (some of this may sound
familiar from my Christmas watch post, since I saw about half these films
during that time):
8. The Theory of Everything – So
boring. So didn’t care. And actually, if you live through a similar
situation (which I emphatically hope you do not), and your wife takes that good
care of you, and you leave her for your physical therapist, what hope does any
other marriage have? I realize she
wasn’t an angel with her encounter with the young Colin Firthy guy (and the
dramaticness of Hawking getting violently ill when the infidelity occurred
because no bad deed goes underscored), but she stuck by him through a lot of
stuff and gave up so much. And he left
her! Yet the marriage in Sniper stuck together. Work the math on that one.
7. Boyhood – Again, this is not a good
movie. There is no protagonist. There is no plot. If you want to look at it pragmatically, it
says that people make bad choices and tend to either repeat them (the mother)
or choose to not remedy them (the father), even if there are others who rely on
them (the children). So, everyone’s
fucked. At least in the interim, we can
play a little Wii Sports or take up
photography. The best part about the
film, for me, was what I considered the punch line. It is towards the end of the film, and Mason
is packing up to head off to college. He
returns to the kitchen to find his mother crying. She says, taking off her glasses, “This is
the worst day of my life” and explains that what she’s been doing for the last
20 years was trying to raise the children and do what she thought was
right. Now, both of her children are
leaving, off to have their own lives, leaving her alone to meander into old
age. At that point, I looked over at Kim
and said, as I often do, “I’m so glad we don’t have kids.” This is by no means meant to offend those of you
who do have kids. But I think those that
do have kids measure out their lifespans in radically different ways from those
of us who don’t (especially women). That
my life hasn’t been tied or relegated to caring for another individual has
allowed me to do pretty much what I want.
I’m very happy about that. So,
this movie reinforced my happiness in my life choices, which I don’t think was what
Linklater was going for.
If this video is a broken link, it's because of copyright trolls (which is why I could only get the Spanish subtitled version).
6. Birdman – Previously, I compared the
no-cut camerawork in this film to the far superior Russian Ark. But the pretentious,
“hey-whiz-bang-look-at-me” approach the film takes is so irritating that it is
off-putting. Aside from Emma Stone and
the soundtrack and the technical aptitude of how this was shot, it came up
lacking. And it could have been more
interesting. The whole point of the play
that Riggan was adapting, Carver’s “What We Talk about When We Talk about
Love,” given the people flitting around in this movie, there could have been an
exploration on a meta level of the meaning of love. But the characters are so shallow or not
fully thought through (which is ironic given that Mike is all about working on
character initially) that what could have been an insightful investigation is
hijacked by headlong changes of camera direction. So, I like Birdman like I admire beautiful dancing.
5. American Sniper – I’ve seen way too
much on how Cooper’s Kyle is not like the actual Kyle, but that’s not Cooper’s
fault. That’s Eastwood’s fault. And the whole fake baby is just noise. I did care about this character, and I do think
this would be a great double feature with The Hurt Locker of two men in
specialized, dangerous positions who can save lives and have immense guilt
about leaving their brothers to fight without them when they return home. That no one else he fights with is fleshed
out and the home front scenes are tired clichĆ©s is Eastwood’s fault. And Eastwoood knows how to direct, so I’m not
sure how this got off track. But the
combat scenes are jarring and well done, and I admire seeing Cooper really act
rather than channel a crazy person, and that might also be Eastwood’s doing (in
fact, given what I know about how Eastwood directs actors, I’m sure of it). So, the good things were good, and the bad
things were bad. But not everything was
bad, so that’s good.
4. The Imitation Game – This is a group
of people who really believed in the project they were working on and wanted to
tell this story. Whenever you see
Benedict Cumberbatch talk about this movie, he’s not talking about this movie. He’s talking about how important Alan Turing
was. It is a well-done movie, but there
isn’t anything earthshattering about it – it’s competently done. Cumberbatch acts very well. It’s not mind-blowing, but it tells a good
story.
3. Selma – I didn’t want to see this
movie. It’s one of those “I heard this
one already.” But, I couldn’t go see the
other seven and not go see it. So, I
went, and I’m so glad I did. This is
very similar to The Imitation Game in its execution – famous person working
against evil with lives on the line.
Lasting legacies. And both films
dealt with a situation that had a sense of urgency. But oddly enough, I felt that urgency more in
this film than I did in Imitation. Imitation was so localized to the lab where they were building Christopher
that we rarely saw the devastation going on in the outside world. But we were constantly confronted with the
direness of actions in this film.
Juxtapose the scene where King goes to see Cager Lee in the morgue after
his grandson has been killed with the scene in the warehouse where Peter is
told by everyone that they cannot stop the attack on his brother’s convoy
because then the Germans will know something is up with the code. One person dead. One person going to die. Cager and Peter deeply affected. Which scene seemed more real? Which did you invest in emotionally the
most? That’s why Selma’s better. Moments like that.
2. Whiplash – The problem with this
world is mediocrity and just skating by on doing ok. Every human being has the potential of being
something truly amazing. So few actually
reach that potential. But in order to
achieve that potential, it must be relentlessly pursued. And sometimes, it is necessary for someone
outside of oneself to push one on. It’s
a rather age-old quandary – is it necessary to suffer for art? Can one be great without having to overcome
obstacles in order to reach higher levels?
That question is posed in this film.
Someone asked me if I thought the film was like Black Swan, where a
person goes crazy in her pursuit to be the best. I’d say no – Andrew stays defiantly sane in
the face of Fletcher’s onslaught.
Sacrifice does not mean madness (although realistically, there is some
teetering here). I really appreciated
the ideas this film dove deep into, and the performances were riveting. This is not an incredibly technical film
(really, the opposite of Birdman), but very well done.
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel – I know
this isn’t going to win. I don’t
care. This is the most fun I’ve had
watching a movie in a long time. And,
I’m not a Wes Anderson fan. I usually
find him too pretentious, too Birdman-y. And I’ve read other reviews where people say
the same thing: “Gee, normally don’t
like his stuff, but loved this film.”
Not sure what he finally had click in this one that he didn’t have going
in, say, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but whatever it was (maybe
the limited use of Jason Schwartzman? Zing!), I hope it stays clicked
over. I think it’s criminal that Ralph
Fiennes was not nominated for best actor.
The job he does in this is delicious.
And there you have
it. Most of my picks won’t win, but I
don’t really care. Take that, Academy.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Winter Break 2014
Time
off of work usually means I watch movies and play video games, and that is just
what went on, though that is not to say that’s exclusively what I did. Kim and I went down to the Phillips to see the Neo-Impressionism Exhibit (very nice), and one night, we had the boys
over. Ping, Jarrette, Kim and I
attempted to teach Dom and Dee how to play poker. Dom seemed to take it pretty seriously, while
Dee was more interested in the girls on his phone.
There
was also the obligatory bacchanalia of gifts, which caused much excitement.
Mom
and Michael stopped by for an evening on their way down to Fla, which was
nice. But mostly, movies and video
games. Actually, video game
(singular). I played the hell out of one
game called This War of Mine.
I
remembered seeing something about it during E3 coverage and being highly
intrigued. The game is amazing but is
also probably the most depressing thing I’ve ever played. The premise is that you try to keep several
people alive in the middle of an armed conflict. You have limited resources and characters who
have consciences, so if they steal from someone or kill someone, they get sad
or depressed. They often get wounded or
sick. The object is to keep them alive
for 45 days, when the insurrection ends.
As much as I’ve played the game, the best I’ve managed is 34 days. What is so brutal is that once everyone’s
health starts to go downhill, or you lose a member to being murdered during scavenging,
you watch your people slowly die before you, and you can’t do anything about
it. It’s heartbreaking. I believe that everyone who enjoys playing
games like Call of Duty or Battlefield or any game where you are a
super-weaponized soldier running around, blowing everything in sight away
should play this game at least once to see how civilians try to cope with being
in a war zone. It’s a brilliant game, but
after playing it for a few days straight, Kim told me to stop playing, because
it was really messing with my mood.
I’m
going to run down what I’ve watched since Thanksgiving, with the stars I gave them on Netflix. Actually, I’m going to start before that,
because I want to start with a movie that I truly loved (so, I’m starting on
November 18th):
Russian Ark
(2002) ***** - This movie is astounding.
Ever since film standardized and the norm was a 10-minute, finite film
cartridge to load in and out of cameras, the unbroken shot has been the
plaything of directors such as Altman, Tarantino, Hitchcock, Welles, and
Scorsese. It was a way to show prowess,
to flex filmmaking muscles. It
definitely was something to catch attention, so it was artificial yet exciting. I remember seeing The Protector (2005) with a friend in the theater, with the
restaurant fight scene that Tony Jaa got right on the third take, and whispering to Eric about half-way through “they
haven’t cut yet.” I was almost holding
my breath. Now, with digital cameras
which can shoot an entire film on a single memory card, the magic of the
prolonged 10-minute shot has been replaced.
But where films like Birdman
(2014, see below) use it toward pretentious, “hey, look at me” ends, Russian Ark is simply dumbfounding. This movie is sooo beautiful. The Russian government closed down the
Hermitage for a day to let Alexander Sokurov film, and like Jaa, they got it
right on the third try. If you are the
sort of person who needs to have a plot or characters to enjoy a film, you
won’t be able to tolerate this, but I still recommend it.
Altman
(2014) ** - This was supposed to be a documentary of the life and work of
Robert Altman, but it was incredibly uninformative.
How to Marry a Millionaire
(1953) *** - Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable and Lauren Bacall attempt to find men
with money, because who needs love to be happy, right? But the dumb women just end up falling for
men they love anyway. The way this movie
paints women is pretty sickening. That
Lauren Bacall gets both love and money in the end is an odd concession for the
film to make.
Saints and Soldiers
(2003) *** - This one surprised me and almost got 4 stars. It’s a well-told, well-shot WWII movie with a
good story and engaging characters. From
what I’ve read, it was shot on a shoestring budget, but it certainly doesn’t
look like it. Impressive work by Ryan
Little, as this was his first full length film (according to IMDb).
La Bare
(2014) *** - I haven’t seen Magic Mike yet,
but this is a documentary about the male strip club the movie was based on,
shot by one of the actors from the movie, Joe Manganiello. It was actually kind of interesting learning
a little about why men get into stripping as a profession.
Saints and Soldiers: Airborne Creed
(2012) *** - Based on how much I liked the first one (there are actually 3 S&S films, the last of which came
out last year), I had high hopes for the second. Unfortunately, it wasn’t as good as the
first. A curious move was made to bring
back Corbin Allred. He played the
protagonist in the first film, and his character (almost everyone) is killed (sorry,
spoilers), and in the second film, he plays a different character. I guess they thought that giving him a mohawk
in the second film would mentally distance us from the character in the first
film? And, it was almost a decade
between the two films. He is not in the
third S&S film.
Mel Brooks: Make a Noise
(2013) *** - This, like the Altman doc, is meant to give us insight into the
creative genius of a filmmaker. This doc
was much more successful in doing so, and that may be helped by the fact that
Brooks is still alive and is extensively interviewed for this documentary. However, while I find Blazing Saddles and Young
Frankenstein two of the funniest movies of all time, I realized that
outside of those two films, none of his other works are all that good (in my
opinion).
In a World
… (2013) * - Um, I didn’t make it through this film. It’s all about this girl who wants to do
voice overs work, but the industry (still) is too male-dominated, so it’s all
“no one wants to hear women do voice overs when they hear trailers.” And she’s all “boo-hoo.” She mooches off her sister and father until
she gets a “break,” and at that point
I’m watching Rob Corddry about to commit infidelity with the next door
neighbor (for no real reason) and I thought “I care about no one in this film
or how it turns out,” so I shut it off.
Killing Them Softly
(2012) **** - This would actually be more like 3 ½ stars, but the mood created
in this film was excellent. And Brad
Pitt rarely makes a misstep in the films he picks. He’s got the right amount of menace for this.
High Anxiety
(1977)** - Because of watching the Brooks doc, Kim said she wanted to watch
this, and it had been years since I’d seen it.
I didn’t remember much about it, other than I didn’t remember enjoying
it. We didn’t get through the whole
thing, even though Madeline Kahn is in it.
It is my opinion that people like Brooks and Woody Allen shouldn’t
appear in their own films, because they are not as funny as they think they
are. Stay behind the camera.
Bones Brigade: An Autobiography
(2012) *** - There are two weird stories behind me watching this, and I’ll
start with the most recent. I had a
student in my Film and Literature class write her final paper on this
movie. Now, for the last paper, the
students had two choices: either write
about a film that the author is involved in the adaptation of their own work in
some capacity or write about the life of an author depicted in a film and do
biographical research to see how accurate the portrayal of that life is. This film documents a group of skateboarders
called the Bones Brigade. There is no
author associated with this film, nor is there literature involved. The student got an F, but at least I found
out this film existed because (weird story #2) back when I was young in
Florida, I was interested in skateboarding culture. I wasn’t a skateboarder (that required grace
and strength, and there weren’t many girls who skateboarded), but I did like to
watch skateboarding. I even had a pair
of Airwalks. I was what you called a
“poser.” But, I saw The Search for Animal Chin (1987), which introduced me to the Bones
Brigade. This documentary goes over the
history of the formation of the Bones Brigade (actually, even earlier to Stacy
Peralta’s participation in professional skating in the late 1970s) all the way
through to where the guys are today. And
it was really well-done and informative.
I’m fairly sure no one who reads this blog will give a care about the
subject matter of this film, but I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Children of Heaven
(1997) ** - I didn’t make it all the way through this film, because it is
poverty porn, and I hate that. Yes, the children actors do a great job here,
but … oh my god. So, ok, the story is
that on the way home from getting his sister’s shoes repaired, the little boy
accidentally loses them. Instead of
telling their father, who will beat the shit out of them, they decide to share
a pair of shoes. This is difficult, as
the boy and girl go to different schools at different times of the day. Once they do find who has the shoes, they find
that the little girl wearing the shoes is in a worse situation than them, as her father is blind and collects
trash. Then, the father takes the boy to
the city to do gardening, and just when they make a nice bit of money, the
breaks go out on their bike, which has them crash into a tree, injuring the boy
so that he has to be taken to the hospital, so all the money they earned has to
go to the boy’s treatment. That’s where
I threw in the towel. I’ll be the first
to say that not everything I watch is entertaining, and some of it can be
pretty wrenching, but forget this.
Los Angeles Plays Itself
(2003) **** - If you really like movies, this documentary should interest you,
because not only does it go into the history of Los Angeles in the movie
industry, it goes into a lot of American film history. It is highly informative, well-shot, with
insightful commentary, written by the film’s director, Thom Anderson, and
narrated by Encke King. It is almost 3
hours long, but it is worth the time investment.
The Hunt
(2012) **** - While I gave this 4 stars on Netflix, I got so enraged watching
it that I had to turn it off. Mads
Mikkelsen is an excellent actor. This
lost to The Great Beauty for Best
Foreign Language film last year, and it is haunting. It gets into a lot of the things that I
fundamentally can’t handle about human beings.
Outrage
(2010) *** - Needing to clear my palate after The Hunt, I switched gears for a yakuza film starring and directed
by Beat Takeshi. It’s pretty standard
fare as far as yakuza films – mostly about various factions vying for more
power and control, lots of backstabbing (which is weird given the code of honor
they pretend to adhere to).
Beyond Outrage
(2014) *** - The sequel to Outrage,
we find that Takeshi’s character was not dead at the end of the last film, so
the corrupt police official tries to get him, along with a character that Otomo
fought with and scarred for life, to take on the big boss who wiped almost
everyone out at the end of the first film.
White Christmas
(1954) *** - I gave this three stars because of its iconography, but really,
this is such a weird movie, from a plot perspective. It seems so utterly contrived and designed
only to get to set musical pieces. But
Bing’s voice is velvet, and Danny Kaye is a bundle of charisma. I didn’t know much about Rosemary Clooney,
but I guess she had a pretty sad life.
It’s weird to think that less than a decade earlier, Michael Curtiz made
Casablanca.
Five Steps to Danger (1957)
*** - Two words: Sterling Hayden. On the
DVD extras to The Killing is a set of
interviews done with Hayden, and that guy is hilarious. So, I’m totally a Sterling Hayden fan
now. He’s not a great actor or anything
(he’s pretty much just Sterling Hayden in whatever he does, but since that is
awesome in and of itself, who cares?), but I did want to find out what would
happen to him. Curiously enough, this is
a film noir that is not centered on a man, which is a rarity. The main character is Ann Nicholson (Ruth
Roman).
Wolf of Wall Street
(2013) **** - Rewatched this with Kim, as she hadn’t seen it (she’s not a fan
of Scorsese or DiCaprio). The Quaalude
sequence is still priceless.
Let ‘Em Have It
(1935) *** - In a time where all the glory was being given to the mobsters,
this is a film that celebrates special agents.
A gang of bad guys is out robbing people, and the special agents are out
there trying to keep us all safe. It is
an interesting film to see how forensic science was treated back in the 1930s.
Firestorm
(2013) *** - So, Andy Lau is a cop trying to nab a gang of violent
criminals. Typical Hong Kong crime film,
but you can always count on that “never seen that before” moment in these
movies. The gang robs an armored
vehicle. As it is driving by a
construction site, one of the gang is operating a crane. They swing the head of the crane into the
front windshield of the armored car, hoist it up and repeatedly drop it until
the back end caves in and all the guards fall out, like a piƱata. Then, they drop the vehicle, go in, and pull
the money out. One thing that bothered
me though about this film was how very pathos pandering it was. The film starts with two guys getting out of
prison. One is one of our main bad guys,
and the other is a mole for Lau’s character.
The mole has a daughter with autism that Lau’s character often takes
care of. The mole is desperate for money
and volunteers to infiltrate the group Lau is after, but it is highly dangerous
(can you see where this is going?). Once
the mole is discovered, Lau races to try to save him. However, not only does the mole get killed,
but before he is strangled to death, they dangle his autistic daughter out of
the window and drop her several stories.
Severely injured, Lau attempts to get the girl to the hospital, but she
dies en route. Lau and the other cop
with him then drive to where the evil boss is and show him the girl’s lifeless
body, yelling and crying “why?” Um, is
this necessary? Did you not think the
audience was already with the cops on crime being bad or that even killing the
mole was terrible? Did you have to kill
a handicapped child too?
Kundo: Age of the Rampant
(2014) *** - So, needing to switch gears again, I watched a Korean period piece
that was kinda like Robin Hood, but not quite.
The main character, Dolmuchi, is a butcher. Apparently, because the film told me this,
butchers were the lowest of the low castes in society at the time. Snidely Whiplash (I mean Jo Yoon), who is a
bastard son of a warlord and who is looking to snap up the realm for his own,
hires Dolmuchi to kill his sister-in-law, pregnant with a child from the
recently deceased heir to the realm.
With her and the kid out of the way, everything goes to Snidely. But, Dolmuchi can’t bring himself to do it,
so Snidely sends his underlings to kill Dolmuchi and his family. Dolmuchi survives and joins up with a bunch
of thieves that constantly rob Snidely’s dad’s people and all government
officials and give all the rice to the people.
The rest of the film is Snidely trying to kill Dolmuchi and the thieves
and the thieves trying to kill all the corrupt officials and feed the
poor. Dolmuchi is portrayed as intensely
stupid and a killing machine who uses (what else?) meat cleavers.
We Were Soldiers
(2002) *** - I’ve had several students write about this movie in my American
Film class, so I wanted to check it out.
It tells of the Battle of Ia Drang in 1965. It stars a beefed-up Mel Gibson and Sam
Elliot (sans mustache). It seems like
they were more interested in giving a historical account than anything, but you
get the occasional home front scenes, and it gets a little didactic at the
end. Yet interestingly enough, they
actually show the Vietcong side a few times, which I haven’t really seen before
in Vietnam movies.
In the Bedroom
(2001) *** - While I gave it three stars, I didn’t make it far into this one,
though I was impressed with the cast:
Tom Wilkinson, Sissy Spacek, and Marisa Tomei. It is an adaptation of a short story of the
same title by Andre Dubus, which I used to have my students read. Nick Stahl irritated me too much, and I
didn’t really want to see Wilkinson and Spacek lament when their son gets
killed. The film fleshed characters out
more, but that mostly went towards showing how dumb the son character is.
The Wind Rises
(2013) **** - I have mixed feelings about this film. There’s so much here that would appeal to
me. This is Hayao Miyazaki’s last film,
in a career of films that I’ve loved.
Instead of being based on fantasy, it is the story of Jiro Horikoshi,
the man who designed the Mitsubishi Zero fighter plane used in WWII by the
Imperial Japanese. The character is
voiced by none other than Hideaki Anno.
And the film itself is absolutely beautiful. Given how Studio Ghibli is contracted to
Disney for North American distribution, it must have been difficult for John
Lasseter, who I’m sure loves this movie, to figure out how to market this film. For Miyazaki to go out on a film that focuses
on flight is totally fitting, but I had a hard time connecting with the
characters. The fourth star is really
for the film’s significance.
The Grand Budapest Hotel
(2014) **** - Outside of Russian Ark,
the best thing I saw all break. I’m not
a Wes Anderson fan, because his films always seem to be too quirky and trying
to show you how quirky they are all the time.
While this film had plenty of quirks, it was so delightful and
entertaining, with a killer cast (Fiennes deserves a nomination for his work
here, but he won’t get one). If you are,
like me, not an Anderson fan, don’t let that keep you from this film. It’s a lot of fun to watch.
Birdman
(2014) ** - Sorry, folks, but I did NOT like this. It was pretentious, playing at being one shot
when it wasn’t. Drawing attention to
itself deliberately. And didn’t Norton
play the same character in Rounders and
a few other films where he’s just an asshole?
I get that this is supposed to be a big comeback movie for Michael
Keaton (like The Wrestler was for
Mickey Rourke, I guess), but the only person I gave a care about was the
daughter (played very well by Emma Stone – easily the best performance in this
film). Plot and character-wise, I found
this to be another version of Tree of
Life, which was also pretentious and “look at me” with its beating you over
the head, just in a different way. Both
films boil down to the same thing:
older, white male at a loss of where he is in life yet still trying to
assure himself that he is important.
Whether it takes a recap of the formation of the universe or actually
having superpowers, these films failed to connect with me. The best thing about Birdman was its music.
That’s about it. And the whole Raymond Carver thing can be its own post,
so maybe I’ll save it for my Oscar post, because this film will inevitably be
up for something.
The Theory of Everything
(2014) ** - Yes, Eddie Redmayne did an exceptional acting job portraying Steven
Hawking. However, this film is boring.
It is two hours and three minutes long, and when I was watching it in
the theater, I checked my watch (not a good sign) only to find that I’d only
been watching for an hour. I audibly
groaned. I realize most of what Hawkings
does is way above my head, but some attempt at telling me what he does would
have helped. All I really know is that
no matter what he had, he still got plenty of sex.
The Imitation Game
(2014) *** - Where Theory was wrong
and I learned little about Hawking, I learned a lot about Alan Turing and a
little about what they did with codebreaking and the Enigma machine (which I
was personally interested in, given what I know about how U-boats used
them). And Benedict Cumberbatch acts his
ass off. Redmayne will probably win best
actor (if they don’t give it to Keaton for like a lifetime acknowledgement),
but Cumberbatch is significantly tortured, which comes across well.
Foxcatcher
(2014) *** - This is more like 3 ½ stars.
The acting in this is very solid.
Steve Carell is completely creepy.
I didn’t know much about the story, even though I had seen the interview
with the cast and director on Charlie Rose, so when the murder did occur, it scared the shit out of
me. This Oscar season is going to be
interesting.
Port of Flowers (1943)
*** - This was the directorial debut of Keisuke Kinoshita, a great Japanese
director. This film was about two con
men who go to an island, pretending to be sons of a man who wanted to build
ships there before the Great Depression hit.
The town, looking to improve its collective fortune, pledges monetary
support to build ships, but the con men want to take the money and run. Eventually, they have a change of heart and
turn themselves in after a boat is built.
It was interesting to watch what must have been a common Japanese
reaction to the announcement of Pearl Harbor.
The Living Magoroku (1943)
*** - This was another film from Kinoshita.
While it maintained traditional Japanese values, I couldn’t help but
think it was very Shakespearean in its plot and character construction. 300 years ago, a great battle was fought on
Onagi fields. Fast forward to today, the
Onagi family still seem to be trying to run the area as in days past. This is to the detriment to the war effort,
as superstitions of the family will not allow their acreage to be farmed when
farmland and crops are desperately needed for the war effort. The son is a nervous wreck and can’t make any
decisions, while the rest of the town wants to get married, go to war, and
contribute to the nation, all seemingly waiting for the Onagi family to do
something. In the end, everything is wrapped
up neatly, the son emerges from his funk, those who wish to be married are, and
the brave lieutenant goes off to fight in the war with a sharp sword.
I’ve
also taken to randomly watching movies that come on a variety of channels that
my rabbit ears pick up (I don’t have cable).
I have these three channels that constantly show old movies and TV shows
(GetTV, GRIT and MeTV, and there’s another one further down the spectrum just
called Movies, but I never seem to make it there). So I drop in to random movies like To Hell and Back (1955) or Let’s Do It Again (1953) which I will
zone out to. I didn’t put it down in the
list, because I was watching it in the middle of the night and drifted in and
out, but The Last Detail (1973)
seemed quite interesting – a movie about soldiers that had nothing to do with
war but was a character study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)