Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Pride and Prejudice

This is the first and the best Colin Firth film. Based, of course, on the Jane Austen novel, it's your basic romance novel but with lovely Brit accents and sentences that are deliciously complex. Plot: girl meets boy, girl hates boy, boy proposes marriage to girl, girl utterly rejects boy, girl discovers the errors of her ways. The film isn't really based on the novel; it IS the novel. I had no trouble watching the film after reading the book. They do add some lines that make the proposal scene all that more yummy. All the characters from the novel are acted pitch-perfectly in the film, especially the mother (who will tend to grate on your nerves), but Colin Firth takes the cake. Is there another actor around who simply by staring at the screen can evoke longing, desire, willpower, ache and sadness? He needs a new agent. What a Girl Wants? Ack. He's so much better than the fluff he's been choosing, Bridget Jones's Diary notwithstanding.

year: 1995
length: 327 min. (6-part mini-series)
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112130/combined

Touch of Evil

This film has quite a famous story behind it. Orson Welles directed and starred as a broken-down, corrupt cop along the Mexican border who comes up against a murder that he can't turn in his favor. Presumably because of Welles's history in Hollywood -- his transparent portrayal of Howard Hughes in Citizen Kane caused him to essentially be blacklisted in that town -- the studio took this film and significantly edited it, resulting in a final product with little of Welles's vision left intact. Welles wrote a 40+ page memo to the studio asking for certain edits to be re-considered. Nothing doing. It wasn't until a few years ago that someone in the film industry unearthed this letter and used it to create the film that Welles always meant to make. Example: the opening shot, which is one continuous 4 minute 15 second shot (where do you think Brian de Palma got that trick from?) tracking Charlton Heston (the Mexican cop) and Janet Leigh, newlyweds, as they walk across the border. The bar music drifts in and out of the score, the shot rolls on, the characters develop, you tangibly feel what a border town is like. It's incredible, and the studio hacked it to pieces for the original release. Welles was also a master of suspense (you think Hitchcock had it sewn up?). As Welles's character gets out of a car at the beginning of the film, the camera is positioned below the running board of the car shooting upwards. This is typical for showing suspense and danger, but he uses it in places (like this one) where you wouldn't expect it. The very best thing about the film is how everything comes together. The plot is seamless (heck, even Welles's cane plays a part!) and the ending truly is a stroke of genius. Down to the last conversation.

year: 1958
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052311/combined

Bend It Like Beckham

Fresh, that's how I would characterize this film. It has a great sense of what's funny about an Indian girl from a traditional family wanting to play soccer instead of getting married like her sister. (Keep an eye out for the "aloo gobi" kitchen scene.) Someone also spent their time working on the soccer scenes. The camerawork and the music act together to make you feel that soccer is THE sport, and why have you been wasting your time with anything else? An added benefit is learning about traditional Indian culture (watch Monsoon Wedding if you want to learn even more). But why, oh why, do they have to ruin nice, sweet films like this with cliches? I was gritting my teeth at the ending. Of course the boy and girl have to get together in the end (it can't be more obvious, so I don't think I'm giving anything away). Of course the sister has to get married and be pregnant at the end. Bleah. Why not do something totally original like making it clear that even though the girl wants to play soccer and is breaking her family's heart because of it, she still loves her family, comes from their tradition, and respects it to some degree. So, no kissing the boy until you're engaged! I'm probably asking too much.

year: 2002
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286499/combined

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

The Day the Earth Stood Still

What better film to watch during the war? An alien visits Earth and appeals to the leaders of nations to stop their aggressive and violent policies towards each other. Except that no one will pay attention to him and to his warning that the Earth will be destroyed if they don't listen up and act wisely. Sound vaguely familiar? Of course, this film was produced during the Cold War and is most relevant to that period, but it certainly wouldn't hurt for Mr. Bush and his advisors to watch it now. I missed watching the commentary on the DVD, which I heard was full of wonderful anecdotes from the director, Robert Wise. And what do you think "Klaatu Barata Nicto!" means? My guess: "Klaatu's okay, you big dumb robot, so quit killing people, it's not helping matters any."

year: 1951
length: 92 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/combined

Daredevil

I'm pretty sure that this film meant to be something else. So many deft comparisons of vision and sound -- reflections in mirrors and glasses, how Ben Affleck's character uses his extra- sensory capacity, what happens when it rains -- but this premise is downplayed and confused because they had to modify the film to compete with X-Men and Spider-Man and The Matrix (X-Men became wildly popular as they were filming this). OK, so a film about a comic-book hero is going to have a lot of action in it anyway, but it's obvious that many of the action and CGI animation sequences were tacked on after the script was finished. Daredevil, for the uninitiated, is a blind lawyer/superhero who meets the woman of his dreams but loses her when he fights the bad guy, Bullseye. Everyone in the film is slumming -- not much thoughtful acting happening -- especially Colin Farrell. He showed such promise in Tigerland but hasn't lived up to that eyebrow-raising performance. I hear Phone Booth is supposed to be decent, thank goodness. For the those in the know, there are some cameos by famous artists and moguls within the comics world. Even the characters are named after artists who have done stints drawing Daredevil. So, at least that part was fun.

year: 2003
length: 103 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287978/combined

Fail-Safe

Oh, wait, an even better film to watch during the war. This one scared the pants off me -- it wasn't as subtle as The Day the Earth Stood Still. Besides being beautifully written, it's also very well acted by Walter Matthau, Henry Fonda and Larry Hagman (that "Dallas" guy). Bombers fly from their fail-safe points (in reach of the enemy but still within their own airspace) into Russia to drop bombs on Moscow because of a computer glitch, while the military back in the U.S. is trying to stop them. A terrifying ending that will leave you cogitating for days. There is one point about the ending that bugs me, but you'll have to email me to find out, because I don't want to give it away here. Suffice it to say, this is a film everyone should see.

year: 1964
length: 112 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/combined

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

I will confess right up front that I don't much like Westerns. I think it's something about the role women play (either they're being punished or they're there for the guys to look at, but hey, that's their role in Hitchcock movies and I stomach those pretty well) or maybe it's because the way they make reference to good vs. bad is not how I personally see these weighty issues. Case in point, Clint Eastwood stars as the "good" guy in this classic Western, but how good is someone who shoots 5 guys dead in the space of 2 minutes so he can get a chance at laying his hands on $200,000? And I don't buy the argument that that's just the way things were then. Eli Wallach plays the "ugly" guy (what does that actually mean?), and in some respects you empathize with him more than with Eastwood. OK, so he shoots a guy who's come to kill him while he's soaking in the bathtub, but he gets to deliver a great line afterwards the essence of which we can't not agree with: "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk." Plus he has this hilarious tic worth watching for, similar to ToshirĂ´ Mifune's tic in Akira Kurosawa's samurai films (there are many parallels between samurai and Western flicks). The music is a hoot, constantly making fun of what's happening on screen. And Eastwood is so young! He's nowhere near as scary here as in the Dirty Harry films, but you're aware that he's going to be a force to be reckoned with later.

original title: Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Cattivo
year: 1966
length: 162 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/combined

Heat

James Berardinelli is one of the critics I pay attention to (along with Glenn Kenny and Roger Ebert), and in general, I agree with his reviews or at least his ratings, but on this film I think he really missed the boat. His review describes this caper heist film with a (big) twist as follows: "not only is it not a great movie, but it's not even an especially good one." How could he miss the overtones of loyalty, trust, and obsession that are strewn liberally throughout this film? It's not like this hasn't been done before in many other suspense or crime films, but I've never seen it done with such craft and style before. Michael Mann is known for big pictures in which he goes all out to get the right effect. This picture is full of effects (and by effects I mean both stylistic and plot-driven); it's hard to know where to start. If I had to pick two, I'd say the warehouse-trailer scene (watch for the camera technique) and the incredibly noisy and over-the-top bank job that goes awry (such a long sequence, but never boring). He also tends to be a master of music placement (remember the music from Last of the Mohicans?; I still do) and coaxing perfect characterizations out of his actors. Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, well, it's hard to say anything negative about their performances, but Val Kilmer, Ashley Judd, William Fichtner, Diane Venora and Kevin Gage -- holy cow, are they spot-on or what? If any of you saw Far From Heaven, I defy you to pick out Dennis Haybert the first time he appears. Now, that's a character actor for you.

year: 1995
length: 171 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113277/combined

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days

When Steel Magnolias came out, a New York Times film critic gave the film a five word review -- "Fingernails scratching on a blackboard." While I don't agree with the sentiment, I find the brevity admirable. I could probably sum up this film in two words -- "ultimately unsatisfying." A lot of "chick flicks" are like this. You enjoy the wisecracks, the styles, the female centered sensibility, but in the end you're left with very little more than you came in with. However, unlike other women, or so it seems, I enjoy watching Matthew McConaughey -- he's a handsome man, and he's also a better actor than most realize. (If you get a chance, see him in Thirteen Conversations About One Thing, a drama about fate, and definitely not a chick flick.) He's slacking in this film, but at least it's obvious he's slacking. I remain on the fence about Kate Hudson. She has some kind of spark, but I don't think she's focused it yet and I'm sure she's not working up to her potential. I'm discussing the acting in this review because there really isn't anything else to talk about -- I'm sure you can figure out the plot from the title, and the direction isn't anything special. If you find yourself on a Friday night after a hard week and you can't even decide what toppings you'd like on your pizza, lose yourself in this film for a couple hours. That's what it's for.

year: 2003
length: 116 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251127/combined

The Seven Year Itch

Now this is the kind of comedy I like -- smart! Any die-hard feminist watching this film would choke. Marilyn Monroe giggling, cooing, and slinking her way through the film -- I can see where some women could get mighty upset about it. I think Billy Wilder wrote the film with that fully in mind, though. Not a moment passes without reference to sex in some form or another. The film ends up thwarting any feminist issues such as male domination or misogyny. Monroe is clearly on top in this film -- she's the manipulator and the guys end up looking like fools. As I've said before, I'm not a huge Monroe fan, but she was born for this film. There is none other who could have pulled it off, and I don't think that's because of her fantastic acting skills. She's more than a sexpot, she's a living, breathing representation of femininity. Oh, the plot! A nice, hard-working seven-years- married husband sends his wife and kid away for the summer, but a bewitching girl moves into the apartment above. (Be sure to watch for a hilarious send-up of vegetarianism as perceived by 1950s culture.)

year: 1955
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048605/combined

Breathless

Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most influential New Wave French cinema directors. Translated that means that he "invented" some new film styles, namely the jump cut (when a scene gets chopped into little bits and put back together in a jumpy, but still essentially continuous manner). The French in the 1960s were also influential in making things look very natural, what I expect would be called neo-realism. The actors (Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg, whose careers took off after this film) look straight at the camera at points and they talk like we talk. This film is so natural in its conversation style and character mannerisms that you don't even realize you're watching film sometimes. But then Godard will put in some heavy-duty melodramatic music and you laugh because you remember. There is a plot, which almost seems not to matter, mostly about a criminal on the loose. The film is of the beat generation, so fairly loose in its morals, and that keeps us edgy because we're not sure what the characters will do next. We like them but we don't understand why they keep doing such awful things, especially at the end of the film. Try to ignore Seberg's French accent. She does a fairly good job except for those hard American R's.

original title: À Bout de Souffle
year: 1960
length: 87 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053472/combined

Carrie

Watching the DVD extras gave me more insight into the technique behind this film. That should have upped my rating, but the film is just so corny and camp that I couldn't give it more than "enjoyable, decently made." Critics seem to love the beginning shot -- this slow-mo pan of women in a locker room in all states of undress with Carrie in the shower getting her period for the first time (foreshadowing, anyone?). I got the fact that the shower scene underscores the erotic overtones of the film, e.g., the overly religious mother (played perfectly by Piper Laurie) who confesses her inner sexual thoughts at the end of the film, the romance and beauty of the prom before all hell breaks loose. And it is a powerful scene, it just seemed gratuitous. Of course that may be the point and I'm just missing it. While there is some great acting (Sissy Spacek is a marvel), there is also some bad acting, especially on the part of William Katt as the prom date. What a dumb, smirky grin! If he's supposed to be so enlightened and nice, why does he have such an evil grin, especially in the prom scene? As horror films go, it's good enough, and not that horrific even when Carrie unleashs her power and burns everything at the end (especially if you compare it to the incredibly creepy The Exorcist).

year: 1976
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/combined