Ocean's Twelve

Apparently, there is this bastion of people who detested the re-make of Ocean's Eleven (from 2001). I can sorta understand where they're coming from -- the current Brat Pack getting together, having a lark, you know what the outcome will be, what's the big deal? (Of course, the other part of me says, if you don't like stuff like this, why'd you go see it?) But, Steven Soderbergh and the screenwriter of the original film deserve quite a bit of credit, in my opinion. My husband and I watched the original film in Milwaukee a few Christmases ago, when there was nothing else to do, and we wondered whether our enjoyment of it was due to our need for anything to entertain us. Still, we woke up the next morning with certain plot twists still on our mind and have watched that film a couple times over the years. We still enjoy it -- it's clever, twisty, funny, one of my favorite heist films of all time. Ocean's Twelve has all of those elements except the last. It tries to bring back the magic of the first, but it's biggest problem is that, well, nothing happens. I think it was an NPR commentator who was the first I heard to remark on the complete lack of action. Granted, the first one wasn't your blow-'em-up type of heist. Still, one daring stunt in the second film, and it isn't even performed by one of the twelve? The cleverness is almost worth the price of the film, and if you like cinematic (ok, Hollywood) in-jokes, it'll be particularly fun. But it is the Soderbergh pack, scraping by on the acting (except Catherine Zeta-Jones, who apparently wasn't aware that these films are supposed to be one big party), and just having a ball. It should bring a smile to your face, if nothing else.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/combined

Open Range

Since I don't much like Westerns, I'm not sure why I was inclined to rent this film. Like everyone else, I probably want to give Kevin Costner just one more chance to prove he can act AND can bring in the money. It seems as if he (or his producers) are catching on, since he doesn't headline this film, Robert Duvall does. And yet there's another actor I don't always enjoy (mostly for the giggling-while-talking affectation). But I liked this film just fine. Maybe because it's talking about an issue that really occurred out West (as opposed to the West as a fantasy world, which is mostly why I don't like the genre) -- the point in time when free range cattlemen started to butt heads with ranchers and their barbed wire. Maybe because it also stars Annette Bening, who is one of the few brave women over 45 who will act without gobs and gobs of makeup. Maybe because it's not macho, and while full of cliches, manages to say some pithy things about human relationships. Maybe because Costner is not so bad. At acting or at directing. I like his take-it-slow approach very much. So, I'm willing yet again to give him that one more chance. But I do wish he would choose a comedy next -- he has a fine comedic range (see Dances With Wolves again) that's barely been tapped.

year: 2003
length: 139 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316356/combined

Only Angels Have Wings

This is one of those sweet older films that has some fantastic lines, but then also has dreadful lines that make you crinkle your nose at the screen. The scenes between Jean Arthur and Cary Grant sparkle, for the most part, because of the understated sexual innuendo that you don't hear in films nowadays (i.e., flirting the clever way). But then there are breast-heaving scenes between Rita Hayworth and anyone within spitting distance, and that's simply embarrassing. The film is set in some fantastical South American country with dripping palm fronds and ice-covered mountains. And tiny planes (hence the wings in the title) to carry the mail to and from the palm fronds through narrow fissures in the ice-covered mountains. There is a piece in the middle where things get wonderfully complex and you feel the film might completely redeem itself, but then you are subjected to an ending that shows what the Hollywood powers-that-be assumed was how a man should react to a woman asking him whether he loves her. Sigh. The film's worth it to watch Jean Arthur's glorious performance (and Cary Grant's to a lesser degree) and to think, albeit very briefly, on the strange mix of morality depicted by everyone involved.

year: 1939
length: 121 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031762/combined

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

All I remembered about this film was the last 10 minutes. Yeah, a darn amazing last 10 minutes, true! But I couldn't remember one word of the rest of the film so I knew it was time to see it again. As my ancient movie reviews book at home states (the one I go to when I'm too lazy to boot up the computer), this film works on so many levels. While I think I'd have to start a dissertation to find them all, what I was most impressed by was how Jack Nicholson and, in particular, Louise Fletcher developed their characters. Nicholson plays a man who has compassion for his fellow human beings, no matter whether they're supposedly insane or not, while Fletcher as the nurse has no compassion whatsoever for her patients. Nicholson is the only person who could have played R. P. McMurphy. He makes him completely real and believable. Fletcher's role is much more subtle. You see her character modulate her voice and be consistently polite (although not nice) by using her patient's last names. By creating a character that we can easily imagine meeting, she makes us detest that character more than if it were a black "Darth Vader" caricature. On the other hand, I'm sure that when I watched it before, I sided completely with Nicholson's character. This time I viewed it from more angles, and it made the film that much more complex. Who really is to blame for what happens to Billy? That's a tough question, one which will be part of that dissertation I write. Last word, though: Kirk Douglas, who starred in the play, championed this film for years, and from the beginning thought Milos Forman was the perfect director for it. He eventually passed it off to his son, Michael, to find a producer who would be willing to make it. From start to finish, it took 13 years to make. Definitely better late than never.

year: 1975
length: 133 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/combined

Ocean's Eleven

I don't know exactly why I like this film so much. Maybe because it's smart and fun and it never stops. Maybe because the plot is so intricate (So when did they actually blow up the vault? How did all the bags of money get moved out? How did they fake Carl Reiner's character's attack?). Maybe because of its humor ("Ted Nugent called. He wants his shirt back."). Maybe because it just seems like the actors were having a lark and it shows on-screen. Maybe because it's nothing like what Steven Soderbergh did in his early career (this is the same guy who did Sex, Lies and Videotape?). Heck, maybe you should just go see it. Enjoy. And if you figure out the plot twists in the last 10 minutes of the film, shoot me an email. This is my second time seeing the film and I'm not exactly lying awake nights to figure it out, but man, I've never seen a more complex heist plot.

year: 2001
length: 116 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240772/combined

October

My first Sergei Eisenstein film. We talked about him so much in film class that I felt I'd already seen one of his films. Finally seeing one was a revelation -- there's a reason the man was a genius! As might be imagined, this is the story of the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, re-enacted in all the same places by the filmmaker. Eisenstein proves he is a master of montage, juxtaposing images of harps when peace is discussed or the statue of a baby when the revolution is in its infancy. While the revolution seems strangely devoid of bloodshed (was it really this peaceful?), the story is engaging and surprisingly easy to follow, with all its factions and intrigues. I found it bizarre that the film had a sound effects and music score (Shostakovich) soundtrack, it being billed as a silent film, but at least the score helped keep me engaged. The biggest surprise was the ending scenes in which the Bolsheviks overrun the palace. Hollywood action film directors would do well to take a page from this film (book). Large crowds, explosions, tons of props. I'm sure it's more expensive today, but it couldn't have been more complex. Eisenstein more than pulls it off with a fluidity and grace that is eye-opening. I also think the film's subject is relevant today as well. Watch for the looting at the end...

original title: Oktyabr
year: 1927
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018217/combined

Ossessione

This film is clearly all about trust. The trust of a husband for his wife, the trust between friends, the trust between two lovers. Apparently, the film is based on The Postman Always Rings Twice, but since I've never read the novel or seen the films, I can't compare it adequately enough. I thought it was more like Double Indemnity -- the wife uses her lover to kill her husband -- but that's only the surface of the film. It's filmed in beautiful black and white detail, which highlights every nuance and gesture better than any color film could do. Clara Calamai is the lustrous Giovanna, the wife. The camera simply loves her every expression. Luchino Visconti is a famous war-time Italian director, and this is the first film he ever directed. Quite the debut! For those of you who love black and white, aren't disturbed by sub-titles and adore sensually filmed, emotion- filled films, this is one for you.

year: 1943
length: 142 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035160/combined