"Living way beyond his means, corporate recruiter Roger Brown steals
rare
artwork to maintain his lavish lifestyle. But when he plans to boost an
especially valuable painting, he targets a man who has headhunting
skills of a different variety." That's the Netflix summary for
"Headhunters" and all I knew about it before I watched it. If you
haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend not reading further than this
paragraph because while there's no huge plot twist that if revealed will
spoil a future viewing for you, the way "Headhunters" plays out from
the second half of the film on is a big shock. So there's your warning.
This
film, man oh man, this film. As the Netflix summary says, Roger Brown
(imagine James Spader in Steve Buscemi's body) leads a double life as a
corporate recruiter/art thief. We're introduced to him in a similar
fashion as to Ed Norton's character in "Fight Club", with voice-over
combined with stylish visuals. Brown is a bit of a scoundrel with a
napoleon complex, overcompensating for his short stature (5'6'') by
being an asshole to everyone he meets, including at times his tall,
blond wife, Diana. Under the guise of interviewing prospective clients
for jobs, he teases out if they own expensive paintings and whether a
dog or wife is at home during the day, collecting information for future
art robberies. He lives his life as if it were a game, never showing he
cares, especially if it's regarding something he wants.
At
the opening of Diana's new art gallery she introduces Roger to Clas
Greve (played by f'n Jaime Lannister!), former CEO of a surveillance
company, who has contacted her regarding a painting his grandmother left
him. This painting (Rubens' "The Calydonian Boar Hunt"), long thought
lost after being stolen by the Nazis in World War II could be worth
upwards of 100 million dollars if Roger can get his hands on it.
Fortunately he's headhunting for the rivals of Clas' former company and
is able to get information about the Rubens under the false pretense of
an interview. The theft goes down flawlessly with help from Roger's
inside man at the home security company (who's also responsible for
fencing the stolen art), but while leaving the scene of the crime, he's
surprised to find Diana's cell phone left by Clas' bed. In response he
sabotages the job offer to Clas and prepares to confront his wife, only
to find that his fencer has yet to make the big sale, having been
poisoned and left in the front seat of Roger's own car.
So
it seems like "Headhunters" is setting itself up as a Hitchockian
thriller (there's even a Bernard Herrmann-like score), with art theft,
love triangles, and retaliatory murder, but instead things get f'n
crazy. We've already learned that Clas originally got his job at the
surveillance company because of his prior experience as an army commando
known for his tracking skills so when the plot turns toward him hunting
Roger using microscopic trackers it's not a huge surprise. What is, is
how the film becomes a totally different film for the second half.
The tone continues to be semi-serious, but the plot begins to morph into more of a Coen Brothers-type black comedy with lots of quirky, sometimes gross set-pieces and then goes way past even them to the point where it's almost like Roger Brown got transported to a different move. Characters (and animals) die in unexpected, silly ways. Clas is a terminator, chasing Roger like if Wile E. Coyote actually knew what he was doing. Roger hides out in an incredibly deep port-a-potty, is trapped in a police car that gets rammed off a cliff by a mack truck, and is involved in a slow speed tractor chase. And it continues in that vein until we find just about everything and everyone we know is wrong. It's not a plot twist, it's a totally different film.
I respect the risks this film takes, but I have to say I stopped being along for the ride once everything became topsy-turvy. The world of the film is set up in a certain manner and Roger Brown, despite being an asshole is a character you identify with (at least I did). Once everything goes from zero to one thousand in the span of a few minutes, it's almost impossible to continue to care about the characters because it's like watching a cartoon. To the film's credit, there's no winking at the camera and everything is played relatively straight. And it's cool Norwegian filmmakers can be like F this, we're doing what we want, but I kept feeling like this is not what I signed up for. I do have to admit I enjoyed the film as a whole, and I can't get angry because "Headhunters" didn't go exactly the way I wanted. I wish more American films would try and pull off something as audacious as this. But the first half of the story sits there like an unfinished short story and I would have loved to see how it might have been wrapped up without changing everything completely.
Rating - 3.5 out of 5 stars
Random Thoughts -
One of the reasons I got so involved with the first section of "Headhunters" is because I love heist films. I can't get enough. Every time I see something like "Rififi" or "Le Cercle Rouge" or even something like "The Great Escape it makes me want to be part of a plan. I'm no criminal, but if I found out a bunch of my pals had some sort of scheme set up, I'd be all over that. I just have to decide whether I'm an explosives expert, master of disguise, or the guy who makes the mistake which gets us caught.
Despite being disappointed with the path this films takes, there are some great set-pieces in the second half of the film. There is a port-a-potty scene which overtakes "Trainspotting"'s as the grossest poop related thing I've ever seen in a movie. I can't imagine Norway actually has public toilets deep enough that you could immerse yourself completely in them. And I do admire how everything comes together in the end, with Roger using the same attention to detail he paid to stealing artwork to cleaning up the mess his life has become and defeating Clas.
The first clue Clas is not someone to mess with is when Roger spots a mess of mysterious scars on his back while changing after a friendly game of squash. It's what you'd imagine Batman's body must look like under the costume. I'd have forgotten about stealing from him right then and there.
Next - "The Last Picture Show" early Tuesday, November 6th (Before I vote).
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
The Last Detail - JD Salinger Meets Wes Anderson? Yes Please.
There is no feeling I dislike more than dread. When you know something bad is on the horizon, yet you have to get through however many days it takes for it to actually happen. Whether it's an end of the month bill payment, a trip to the dentist, or in seventeen year old sailor Larry Meadows' case, a trip up the coast from Virginia to New Hampshire where he will be spending eight years (six if he behaves himself) in the brig, punishment for trying (but failing) to steal forty dollars out of the Navy's charity poor box. Fortunately, he's got "Badass" Buddusky and "Mule" Mulhall as the chaperones assigned to his detail and despite the sword of Damocles hanging over his head, they're not planning on letting him miss the best days of his youth in prison without one last good time.
Jack Nicholson plays Buddusky and here in 1973 we get him as a star just about to breakout into the superstar stratosphere. After a decade of doing various gigs in Hollywood, "Easy Rider" in 1969 launched him onwards and upwards with his charismatic intense performances showing he was not going to be forgotten without tasting some more of the big time's pie. He's got a plum role here, as the Navy "lifer" who starts out planning on sprinting Meadows up to New Hampshire as fast as possible and then using the rest of his week and pay on a "lost weekend" in the major cities of the Northeast, until he decides that Meadows must experience the sex, drugs, youthful indiscretions he will sorely miss in prison and he's the guy that's gotta lead him to it. He's not an immediately likable character (it's a role you'd normally see someone like Joe Pantoliano in) and the Nicholson persona is not complete yet, but Nicholson's unparalleled charisma and ability to play every scene in an interesting, but unobtrusive way make Buddusky a character we enjoy spending time with. Meadows (played by a baby-faced 22 year old Randy Quaid; he and Nicholson both got Oscar nominations for this film) isn't a fully formed man yet with no opinions of his own and Buddusky takes it upon himself to act as his Id, lashing out at mistaken burger orders and cheap prostitutes on Meadows' behalf. Buddusky is able to paint himself and his feelings onto the blank canvas that is Meadows and it's only right for him to give him the best time he can before he and Mulhall are forced to pull an "Old Yeller".
There's not much to the first two-thirds of this movie other than watching the three sailors engage in "Animal House"-like activities throughout Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston, but the way it plays out reminded me of two of my favorite storytellers, JD Salinger and Wes Anderson. I've never seen any other piece of fiction that captured the tone of "The Catcher In The Rye" as well, even if it wasn't on purpose. There's obvious comparisons between the two, what with immature youths wandering through the big city, grime and all, trying to delay bad times to come, but there's also a melancholia that hangs over the proceedings that called to mind many of Salinger short stories. Wes Anderson, so influenced by Salinger in "The Royal Tenenbaums" also calls Hal Ashby (director of "The Last Detail") one of his favorite directors. Ashby's "Harold And Maude" might contain more of the whimsy associated with Anderson's oeuvre, but "The Last Detail" more accurately predicts Anderson's obsession with the things left unsaid. Meadows, Buddusky, and Mulhall spend a lot of the picture on trains where subtle explanations to their behavior are sometimes revealed and I can only assume Anderson remembered those scenes when he made "The Darjeeling Limited". I see a lot of "The Royal Tenenbamus" here as well. The cities Buddusky and friends travel through merge into one gigantic uber-Metropolis with an atmosphere that reminded of "Tenenbaums" New York except slightly more real.
There is a constant malaise that hangs over the first two-thirds of "The Last Detail" despite the fun the main characters seem to be having. Meadows displays very little outward emotion toward his unfortunate future, but happily participates with glee once Buddusky starts feeding him beer and buying him prostitutes to "pop his cherry". The three become first acquaintances and then friends, with Meadows even classifying Buddusky and Mulhall as his very best friends but it's clearly not meant to last. The circumstances lend themselves to the three characters having a memorable time, but it's not something that could ever be repeated in another walk of life. I've had many a wild time in places like New York City and London with people who were great companions at that time, but just at that time and any attempts are reliving those early twenties years would end in disaster I suspect. These three work well together precisely because of the circumstances. This is not a farewell party and there's no light at the end of this tunnel. Thus, the film ends exactly how you'd imagine it end were it to happen in real life.
It's a simple story and most definitely a product of the seventies, and as a time capsule it holds up well. You're not going to get a ton of surprises when the entire film is basically a travelogue of good times, but the overarching plot looming in the background adds sobriety to every scene. We get to know these guys, especially Meadows and Buddusky very well and I spent the last half of the film waiting for the shoe to drop. When it did, I was left with a despondent feeling of hopelessness, but the best kind of hopelessness. The kind you get from watching a great film.
Rating - 4 out of 5 stars.
Random Thoughts -
I didn't say much about Otis Young's performance as "Mule" Mulhall and that's because there's not much to say. It's a fine job and his character is amiable enough, but he's mostly used as a counterpoint to Buddusky's wild plans and doesn't have a whole lot to do. I do think it's cool that only fifteen or so years after "The Defiant Ones" was a whole film about how hard it is for a black guy and a white guy to be handcuffed to each other, "The Last Detail" doesn't bring up race once. It's perfectly normal for two men of separate races to be in the navy together and treat each other civilly.
The first twenty minutes of "The Last Detail" could have been a stand alone short film. There are many serene shots of the characters traveling on trains with little character idiosyncrasies popping up, like Meadows' constant kleptomania. We learn a little of everyone's backgrounds and it plays out with a patience that is only seen in "art house" films today. Actually, this would totally be a Fox Searchlight production in 2012.
The first scene is Buddusky and Mulhall being assigned shore duty because it's their turn. Both of them accept the duty without much excitement, but I'd been thrilled. I used to love when teachers would choose me to deliver messages to the principal's office, like a little quest. I even remember in middle school being called over the intercom to the guidance counselor's office where she asked me to show a new student around. I still don't know why I was asked out of the 200 kids in my grade, but any excuse to get out of class was awesome. Here I just would have been like "Mission? Hell yeah!".
The score is at various points polka and classical and both work great. The polka that plays over quiet scenes on the train is surprisingly perfect. I don't normally notice scores unless the melody stands out, but the juxtaposition used with different styles of music and scenes going on were interesting enough for me to make note of.
There's a few future stars who pop up here. Gilda Radner has a cameo as a member of the super seventies Buddhist church thing Meadows finds alluring in New York City. She even gets to do a silly monologue. Carol Kane is the waif-like prostitute who ruins Meadows' quest to lose his virginity by causing him to explode with one stroke. My favorite "Law And Order" actor ever, Michael Moriarty is the asshole Marine Duty Officer who pisses of Nicholson at the end.
Next - On Halloween, the Swedish thriller "Headhunters"
Jack Nicholson plays Buddusky and here in 1973 we get him as a star just about to breakout into the superstar stratosphere. After a decade of doing various gigs in Hollywood, "Easy Rider" in 1969 launched him onwards and upwards with his charismatic intense performances showing he was not going to be forgotten without tasting some more of the big time's pie. He's got a plum role here, as the Navy "lifer" who starts out planning on sprinting Meadows up to New Hampshire as fast as possible and then using the rest of his week and pay on a "lost weekend" in the major cities of the Northeast, until he decides that Meadows must experience the sex, drugs, youthful indiscretions he will sorely miss in prison and he's the guy that's gotta lead him to it. He's not an immediately likable character (it's a role you'd normally see someone like Joe Pantoliano in) and the Nicholson persona is not complete yet, but Nicholson's unparalleled charisma and ability to play every scene in an interesting, but unobtrusive way make Buddusky a character we enjoy spending time with. Meadows (played by a baby-faced 22 year old Randy Quaid; he and Nicholson both got Oscar nominations for this film) isn't a fully formed man yet with no opinions of his own and Buddusky takes it upon himself to act as his Id, lashing out at mistaken burger orders and cheap prostitutes on Meadows' behalf. Buddusky is able to paint himself and his feelings onto the blank canvas that is Meadows and it's only right for him to give him the best time he can before he and Mulhall are forced to pull an "Old Yeller".
There's not much to the first two-thirds of this movie other than watching the three sailors engage in "Animal House"-like activities throughout Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston, but the way it plays out reminded me of two of my favorite storytellers, JD Salinger and Wes Anderson. I've never seen any other piece of fiction that captured the tone of "The Catcher In The Rye" as well, even if it wasn't on purpose. There's obvious comparisons between the two, what with immature youths wandering through the big city, grime and all, trying to delay bad times to come, but there's also a melancholia that hangs over the proceedings that called to mind many of Salinger short stories. Wes Anderson, so influenced by Salinger in "The Royal Tenenbaums" also calls Hal Ashby (director of "The Last Detail") one of his favorite directors. Ashby's "Harold And Maude" might contain more of the whimsy associated with Anderson's oeuvre, but "The Last Detail" more accurately predicts Anderson's obsession with the things left unsaid. Meadows, Buddusky, and Mulhall spend a lot of the picture on trains where subtle explanations to their behavior are sometimes revealed and I can only assume Anderson remembered those scenes when he made "The Darjeeling Limited". I see a lot of "The Royal Tenenbamus" here as well. The cities Buddusky and friends travel through merge into one gigantic uber-Metropolis with an atmosphere that reminded of "Tenenbaums" New York except slightly more real.
There is a constant malaise that hangs over the first two-thirds of "The Last Detail" despite the fun the main characters seem to be having. Meadows displays very little outward emotion toward his unfortunate future, but happily participates with glee once Buddusky starts feeding him beer and buying him prostitutes to "pop his cherry". The three become first acquaintances and then friends, with Meadows even classifying Buddusky and Mulhall as his very best friends but it's clearly not meant to last. The circumstances lend themselves to the three characters having a memorable time, but it's not something that could ever be repeated in another walk of life. I've had many a wild time in places like New York City and London with people who were great companions at that time, but just at that time and any attempts are reliving those early twenties years would end in disaster I suspect. These three work well together precisely because of the circumstances. This is not a farewell party and there's no light at the end of this tunnel. Thus, the film ends exactly how you'd imagine it end were it to happen in real life.
It's a simple story and most definitely a product of the seventies, and as a time capsule it holds up well. You're not going to get a ton of surprises when the entire film is basically a travelogue of good times, but the overarching plot looming in the background adds sobriety to every scene. We get to know these guys, especially Meadows and Buddusky very well and I spent the last half of the film waiting for the shoe to drop. When it did, I was left with a despondent feeling of hopelessness, but the best kind of hopelessness. The kind you get from watching a great film.
Rating - 4 out of 5 stars.
Random Thoughts -
I didn't say much about Otis Young's performance as "Mule" Mulhall and that's because there's not much to say. It's a fine job and his character is amiable enough, but he's mostly used as a counterpoint to Buddusky's wild plans and doesn't have a whole lot to do. I do think it's cool that only fifteen or so years after "The Defiant Ones" was a whole film about how hard it is for a black guy and a white guy to be handcuffed to each other, "The Last Detail" doesn't bring up race once. It's perfectly normal for two men of separate races to be in the navy together and treat each other civilly.
The first twenty minutes of "The Last Detail" could have been a stand alone short film. There are many serene shots of the characters traveling on trains with little character idiosyncrasies popping up, like Meadows' constant kleptomania. We learn a little of everyone's backgrounds and it plays out with a patience that is only seen in "art house" films today. Actually, this would totally be a Fox Searchlight production in 2012.
The first scene is Buddusky and Mulhall being assigned shore duty because it's their turn. Both of them accept the duty without much excitement, but I'd been thrilled. I used to love when teachers would choose me to deliver messages to the principal's office, like a little quest. I even remember in middle school being called over the intercom to the guidance counselor's office where she asked me to show a new student around. I still don't know why I was asked out of the 200 kids in my grade, but any excuse to get out of class was awesome. Here I just would have been like "Mission? Hell yeah!".
The score is at various points polka and classical and both work great. The polka that plays over quiet scenes on the train is surprisingly perfect. I don't normally notice scores unless the melody stands out, but the juxtaposition used with different styles of music and scenes going on were interesting enough for me to make note of.
There's a few future stars who pop up here. Gilda Radner has a cameo as a member of the super seventies Buddhist church thing Meadows finds alluring in New York City. She even gets to do a silly monologue. Carol Kane is the waif-like prostitute who ruins Meadows' quest to lose his virginity by causing him to explode with one stroke. My favorite "Law And Order" actor ever, Michael Moriarty is the asshole Marine Duty Officer who pisses of Nicholson at the end.
Next - On Halloween, the Swedish thriller "Headhunters"
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Iron Giant - A Perfect Animated Film
My favorite band is the Zombies. They had a couple of hits back in the sixties, but that's all they're really known for. I got heavily into them after "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou" had one of their songs on the soundtrack, plus when I discovered Rolling Stone Magazine had ranked their album "Odessey And Oracle" as the eightieth greatest album of all time. The album was released in 1967 and it took a year for one of its songs to break out, "Time Of The Season". Too bad the band broke up in between, as the immediate response to the album was of such mass indifference they felt there was no point in continuing. There's no question "Odessey And Oracle" is one of the greatest albums I've ever heard and it's a tragedy that it was the grand finale on their career. "The Iron Giant" falls into the same category. This is the greatest non-animated Disney film I've ever seen. Future Pixar director Brad Bird was able to make a film with little to no studio interference and was able to produce a real masterpiece. Why were there no more films like this? Oh, because no one saw it and it made no money.
In 1957 Rockwell, Maine, young Hogarth Hughes discovered a giant robot who fell from space in the woods near his home where he lives with his widowed mother. He develops a "Boy And His Dog" relationship with the Iron Giant and ends up having to hide him from FBI agent Kent Mansley and the US Military who are investigating strange goings-on around the area. I vaguely remember seeing previews for this back in 1999 when it was first released. The prior decade had been a gold mine of animated awesomeness. Disney put out a murderer's row of titles like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty And The Beast", "Aladdin", and "The Lion King" that were the introduction to movies for my generation. But starting with "Pocahontas" the formula had begun to get stale and by the end of the decade, I was thirteen and more interested in buying tickets for "Tarzan" and sneaking into "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo". That's why watching this film almost made me sad in a way. We don't see too many classically animated films anymore. It's hard to even write a review for this because it's practically perfect.
Pixar and Dreamworks have cornered the market on celebrity voiced computer animated films with enough adult humor to appeal to both small children and the parents forced to watch with them. Unfortunately when the balance shifts towards the adults, you're stuck with films like "Shark Tale" and when it shifts towards the children you get "Cars". "Iron Giant" would be two different films for both groups, and both would be spectacular. I'll never know how I would have viewed this as a youngster, but as the twenty-seven year old I am at the moment, I was blown away by the story, the animation, the voicework, and the combination of it all. It wears its influence on its sleeve by naming the town after the great Norman Rockwell, and his influence shines through the faces of the people and the scenery surrounding them.
The traditional animation works well for a film set in the fifties. There are shades of the classic Disney style from films of that period like "Sleeping Beauty" and "The Sword In The Stone", but also a more hyper-kinetic style similar to works from the nineties. The pace reminded me at times of the energy of "The Simpsons" while the humor had a dryness to it like "King Of The Hill". The animation of the faces was especially entertaining. There are moments where I wanted to freeze the frame just to study the different expressions characters were making. The amount of detail put into every character's personality and movement would be something most live action films would like to achieve. At the same time, there are no breaking the fourth wall, wink at the camera moments, and no out of place modern references like you'd get in rival children's films. You do get all the classic fifties trademarks, diners, beatniks, G-men investigating aliens and commies, "duck and cover" and when an anomaly like the Giant is thrown into the mix, it's treated with humor, but also with realistic responses from every character involved. That's what's so refreshing about "The Iron Giant". There's no reason why an animated film or a children's movie can't also be of strong quality. Here the story is so well told, that every visual flourish is just a great bonus. And were it but for the Iron Giant himself, this easily could have been a film like "Stand By Me" or "A Christmas Story", it's that well developed.
The Iron Giant himself should have been the big toy of 1999. Voiced by Vin Diesel (his voice mostly sounds like the grinding of metal, but Diesel's voice is low enough that when he enunciates, it does sound like what a giant robot would sound like), the Giant was created as a weapon, but after losing his memory and befriend Hogarth, he's basically Andre the Giant from "The Princess Bride" only easier to understand. The physical humor his giant form allows is some of the funniest I've seen from any genre of film. If he's damaged, his body automatically repairs itself, which lends itself to hilarious scenes of Hogarth trying to hide the giant's huge hand (acting like a dog) from the view of his mother and Kent Mansley. I wasn't predisposed to like the Giant (I'm inherently afraid of anything from outer space made to kill humans), but his character is surprisingly sympathetic and so full of childlike naivety that by the middle of the movie I was totally on his side.
I've glossed over most of the plot to focus on everything else, but rest assured it's pretty amazing. Bird is able to tell a story combing the Cold War fears of the 1950's with a parable about being who you want to be. The Iron Giant may have been built as a weapon, but he chooses to believe "I am not a gun" which is a great message every young child should learn. And while the undercurrent of the red scare which populates the film is old hat to me, a young child would most likely be encountering this era of American history of the first time, hopefully leading them to find out more about it. And it's still relevant in today's post-911 political landscape. It's scary how close we were getting to the days of "The Crucible" and I'd hope films like this would open kids' eyes to the dangers of hysteria, despite who their parents may vote for.
Warner Brothers hasn't made a traditionally animated full length film since this came out thirteen years ago. As it stands, this is one of the last connections to the prior sixty-five years of animation. Again it all comes down more to the quality of story over how it's told and here we have a simple, but fantastic story told very well. Bird went on to make "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille", and while I like Pixar I've always found myself left wanting more their pictures. "The Iron Giant" stands tall among both animated and non-animated films as an example of a film that succeeds on every level. I just wish I'd gotten to it sooner.
Rating - 5 out of 5 stars
Random Thoughts -
I usually don't like seeing films with plots like this. I'm not a fan of stories where the world is undeniably changed forever because in real life, I'd be absolutely terrified. The universe has certain rules and if I ever saw a ghost or if a stuffed animal starting moving around by itself, I wouldn't be able to live rationally anymore. Here we have a giant iron robot crashing on earth opening the door to all sorts of problems, eventually leading to the threat of total destruction. Even after everything turns out fine for the most part, I wouldn't be able to live knowing that things like the Giant exist. And the last scene, which is supposed to be reassuring and happy, kind of horrified me.
Fantastic voice work all around here.The standout to me is Christopher McDonald who plays the G-Man, Kent Mansley as a combination of Fox Mulder and Shooter McGavin. McDonald hits all the right notes as a smug buffoon, who nevertheless has connections to the US Army and is a genuine threat to the boy and his giant. If this was a live action film, it would have to be one of the most amusing performances in the history of film.
The timing of the comedy is this film is astounding. I laughed out loud a bunch of times and the detail paid to everything on the screen is remarkable. The whole section after Mansley moves into the spare room Hogarth's mother has rented out is a masterclass in perfect timing.
There's a great scene where we find out how a giant robot would react to seeing "Bambi's mother getting shot (He gets sad).
This film already had me on its side since its set in the fifties and I'll read/watch/listen to anything set in that time. Hell, the only reason I enjoyed "The Majestic" was because of the time period. One of the best books I've read over the past year is Stephen King's 11/22/63. The first 500 pages were honey to my brain as it's just a guy using a time machine to live in the fifties until 1963 where he can stop the Kennedy assassination. That first half is him living a life from 1958 onwards, but once he gets closer to the assassination I started skimming the rest, hoping it would get back to just living in the fifties.
Comic books were undoubtedly a big influence of the film. Hogarth reads to the Giant from his Superman comics and the Giant later chooses to identify with the "Man Of Steel" rather than his original fate as a giant weapon. For those of you who read comic books, I see the film "The Iron Giant" as the design of Mignola's Hellboy + the humor of Giffen/Dematteis' Justice League + the tone of Robinson's Starman.
Next - Monday the 29th, The Last Detail
In 1957 Rockwell, Maine, young Hogarth Hughes discovered a giant robot who fell from space in the woods near his home where he lives with his widowed mother. He develops a "Boy And His Dog" relationship with the Iron Giant and ends up having to hide him from FBI agent Kent Mansley and the US Military who are investigating strange goings-on around the area. I vaguely remember seeing previews for this back in 1999 when it was first released. The prior decade had been a gold mine of animated awesomeness. Disney put out a murderer's row of titles like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty And The Beast", "Aladdin", and "The Lion King" that were the introduction to movies for my generation. But starting with "Pocahontas" the formula had begun to get stale and by the end of the decade, I was thirteen and more interested in buying tickets for "Tarzan" and sneaking into "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo". That's why watching this film almost made me sad in a way. We don't see too many classically animated films anymore. It's hard to even write a review for this because it's practically perfect.
Pixar and Dreamworks have cornered the market on celebrity voiced computer animated films with enough adult humor to appeal to both small children and the parents forced to watch with them. Unfortunately when the balance shifts towards the adults, you're stuck with films like "Shark Tale" and when it shifts towards the children you get "Cars". "Iron Giant" would be two different films for both groups, and both would be spectacular. I'll never know how I would have viewed this as a youngster, but as the twenty-seven year old I am at the moment, I was blown away by the story, the animation, the voicework, and the combination of it all. It wears its influence on its sleeve by naming the town after the great Norman Rockwell, and his influence shines through the faces of the people and the scenery surrounding them.
The traditional animation works well for a film set in the fifties. There are shades of the classic Disney style from films of that period like "Sleeping Beauty" and "The Sword In The Stone", but also a more hyper-kinetic style similar to works from the nineties. The pace reminded me at times of the energy of "The Simpsons" while the humor had a dryness to it like "King Of The Hill". The animation of the faces was especially entertaining. There are moments where I wanted to freeze the frame just to study the different expressions characters were making. The amount of detail put into every character's personality and movement would be something most live action films would like to achieve. At the same time, there are no breaking the fourth wall, wink at the camera moments, and no out of place modern references like you'd get in rival children's films. You do get all the classic fifties trademarks, diners, beatniks, G-men investigating aliens and commies, "duck and cover" and when an anomaly like the Giant is thrown into the mix, it's treated with humor, but also with realistic responses from every character involved. That's what's so refreshing about "The Iron Giant". There's no reason why an animated film or a children's movie can't also be of strong quality. Here the story is so well told, that every visual flourish is just a great bonus. And were it but for the Iron Giant himself, this easily could have been a film like "Stand By Me" or "A Christmas Story", it's that well developed.
The Iron Giant himself should have been the big toy of 1999. Voiced by Vin Diesel (his voice mostly sounds like the grinding of metal, but Diesel's voice is low enough that when he enunciates, it does sound like what a giant robot would sound like), the Giant was created as a weapon, but after losing his memory and befriend Hogarth, he's basically Andre the Giant from "The Princess Bride" only easier to understand. The physical humor his giant form allows is some of the funniest I've seen from any genre of film. If he's damaged, his body automatically repairs itself, which lends itself to hilarious scenes of Hogarth trying to hide the giant's huge hand (acting like a dog) from the view of his mother and Kent Mansley. I wasn't predisposed to like the Giant (I'm inherently afraid of anything from outer space made to kill humans), but his character is surprisingly sympathetic and so full of childlike naivety that by the middle of the movie I was totally on his side.
I've glossed over most of the plot to focus on everything else, but rest assured it's pretty amazing. Bird is able to tell a story combing the Cold War fears of the 1950's with a parable about being who you want to be. The Iron Giant may have been built as a weapon, but he chooses to believe "I am not a gun" which is a great message every young child should learn. And while the undercurrent of the red scare which populates the film is old hat to me, a young child would most likely be encountering this era of American history of the first time, hopefully leading them to find out more about it. And it's still relevant in today's post-911 political landscape. It's scary how close we were getting to the days of "The Crucible" and I'd hope films like this would open kids' eyes to the dangers of hysteria, despite who their parents may vote for.
Warner Brothers hasn't made a traditionally animated full length film since this came out thirteen years ago. As it stands, this is one of the last connections to the prior sixty-five years of animation. Again it all comes down more to the quality of story over how it's told and here we have a simple, but fantastic story told very well. Bird went on to make "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille", and while I like Pixar I've always found myself left wanting more their pictures. "The Iron Giant" stands tall among both animated and non-animated films as an example of a film that succeeds on every level. I just wish I'd gotten to it sooner.
Rating - 5 out of 5 stars
Random Thoughts -
I usually don't like seeing films with plots like this. I'm not a fan of stories where the world is undeniably changed forever because in real life, I'd be absolutely terrified. The universe has certain rules and if I ever saw a ghost or if a stuffed animal starting moving around by itself, I wouldn't be able to live rationally anymore. Here we have a giant iron robot crashing on earth opening the door to all sorts of problems, eventually leading to the threat of total destruction. Even after everything turns out fine for the most part, I wouldn't be able to live knowing that things like the Giant exist. And the last scene, which is supposed to be reassuring and happy, kind of horrified me.
Fantastic voice work all around here.The standout to me is Christopher McDonald who plays the G-Man, Kent Mansley as a combination of Fox Mulder and Shooter McGavin. McDonald hits all the right notes as a smug buffoon, who nevertheless has connections to the US Army and is a genuine threat to the boy and his giant. If this was a live action film, it would have to be one of the most amusing performances in the history of film.
The timing of the comedy is this film is astounding. I laughed out loud a bunch of times and the detail paid to everything on the screen is remarkable. The whole section after Mansley moves into the spare room Hogarth's mother has rented out is a masterclass in perfect timing.
There's a great scene where we find out how a giant robot would react to seeing "Bambi's mother getting shot (He gets sad).
This film already had me on its side since its set in the fifties and I'll read/watch/listen to anything set in that time. Hell, the only reason I enjoyed "The Majestic" was because of the time period. One of the best books I've read over the past year is Stephen King's 11/22/63. The first 500 pages were honey to my brain as it's just a guy using a time machine to live in the fifties until 1963 where he can stop the Kennedy assassination. That first half is him living a life from 1958 onwards, but once he gets closer to the assassination I started skimming the rest, hoping it would get back to just living in the fifties.
Comic books were undoubtedly a big influence of the film. Hogarth reads to the Giant from his Superman comics and the Giant later chooses to identify with the "Man Of Steel" rather than his original fate as a giant weapon. For those of you who read comic books, I see the film "The Iron Giant" as the design of Mignola's Hellboy + the humor of Giffen/Dematteis' Justice League + the tone of Robinson's Starman.
Next - Monday the 29th, The Last Detail
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The Guns Of Navarone - This Is A Movie
The purpose of movies has changed dramatically over the past fifty years. We live in an age of blockbusters, full of sound and fury signifying nothing and sometimes even less than that. These are quick snacks, as disposable as the popcorn you eat while watching them. But when you look back half a decade ago, it's clear that while large scale movies existed, they were made with loftier goals. This was still a time where going to the movies was an event. Television existed, but its overall quality paled into comparison as to what Hollywood was putting out. You'd spend the week looking forward to Saturday, when perhaps your mother and father would bestow upon you a dollar to spend the day watching a double feature, a newsreel, and maybe even a cartoon at grand local theatre. And the blockbusters? Well they were the big events, the ones where the studios would tell an epic story, using the biggest actors at their disposal. There would be action, humor, special effects, maybe some romance and songs, but above all a sense of quality.
"The Guns of Navarone" is a fine example of this. This is not one of the best films I've ever seen, and probably not the best of this type of film either, but I had a great time watching it. Some of that would be attributed to seeing it on the big screen at the New Beverly Cinema (the Quentin Tarantino owned revival house in Hollywood), but also because it felt like something that I hadn't seen in a long time. The story is of a fictional 1943 World War Two mission to destroy the titular "Guns of Navarone", radar-directed guns located on a German fortress in the Aegean sea, preventing the British navy from rescuing two thousand British soldiers marooned on a nearby Greek island. The guns are hunkered away in a cave on top of an unconquerable peak, meaning they are safe from any aerial attacks. With only a week until to destroy these weapons, the British assemble a super team consisting of "The Human Fly", Capt. Keith Mallory (Gregory Peck) the greatest mountain climber in the world, Cpl. John Miller (David Niven) an explosives expert, Col. Andrea Stavrou (Anthony Quinn) Mallory's Greek buddy, Pvt. Butcher Brown (Stanley Baker) handy with a knife, and Pvt. Spyros Pappadimos (James Darren) called a "born killer", who are all led by Maj. Roy Franklin (Anthony Quayle), nicknamed "Lucky". These six men are responsible for traveling to Greece by boat, scaling an unscalable cliff, making their way through the country unseen, and entering the German fortress to blow up the invulnerable guns. Great concept for an adventure film. And so begins a two and a half hour odyssey with tons of surprising twists and suspenseful turns.
It's a paint by numbers story and it checks off all the major sixties action film plot points. There are quiet character moments where private trials and tribulations are revealed, encounters and escapes from the enemy, injuries, deaths, and of course a mole. "Navarone" does pull most of them off however. Looking back at my notes, there are many places where I've written things like "F'n ships mast falls off" or "F'n shot a bunch of Nazis" in reference to instances that played against my expectations in hugely positive way. This is a relic of a different age, a fictional war film. Whereas today films like "Band Of Brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan" want to convey the World War Two experience as accurately as possible, "Navarone" was instead trying to entertain and thrill a nation still reeling from a war that had only ended fifteen years earlier. As such, this is much closer in tone to "The Expendables" then to something like "The Hurt Locker".
As to why it's not the greatest movie; It's not a huge deal in a film like this, but there is a distinct lack of character development. Similar to things like "The Magnificent Seven", "The Great Escape", and "The Dirty Dozen", each character has a hook and that's how we're suppose to know them. Here and there a line will be thrown out to supposedly explain their back stories, but it's done very lazily. For example, while the six are first getting to know each other on their way to Greece, Mallory and Franklin share a chat where Mallory reveals that while he and Stavrou are best buds, Stavrou has sworn to kill him after the war for mercifully leaving some Germans alive who later killed Stavrou's wife and children. That's some heavy stuff, but it's never mentioned again. On one hand it adds some tension to every scene between Stavrou and Mallory from then on in, including one where Stavrou has an opportunity to let Mallory fall to his death from the previously mentioned unscalable peak, but this happens so immediately after the reveal that all subtlety is lost. And by the end, it doesn't even matter.
Another, but different kind of example is Butcher Brown's story. He's a knife expert who we see almost get himself killed after stopping to polish his knife while the crew is fighting Nazis. Mallory pulls him aside like a football coach asking why his star player missed the important play and Brown reveals that the stress of killing people close and personal for the past six years has made him weary to ever take another life. Again, perfectly fine character plot point, but it's never mentioned again until the very end and I'm not sure if he gets another five lines over the next two hours. I'm not complaining because honestly who cares in a genre like this, but the script is very haphazard in trying to push these character moments into the picture just because.
The momentum builds and builds as they are able to make their way in the nick of time to the German fortress to being the final step of their mission, but then the film falls flat. This should have been the big moment, a half hour of seeing the soldiers accomplish their goal, but it's just boring. "The Dirty Dozen" has the great attack on the Nazi-filled chateau while "The Great Escape" has well the great escape, but this final assault on the guns isn't done particularly well. A mole is revealed to have sabotaged the explosives, but it doesn't really effect the mission. This is true of most of the setbacks they suffer, no real consequences. And the mole reveal is unremarkable and unnecessary. The writer of the book this is based on (Alistair MacLean) also wrote "Where Eagles Dare" which also deals with a mole(s), but in way that's much more related to the plot. This one seems like it's done because that's what the template of movies like require. There are a couple of deaths thrown in here as well and both are shot very clumsily to the point where you know people died, but are not sure how.
I don't mean to make it sound like this is in any way a poor picture, because it's not. It's jam packed with enough greatness that it's certainly worth seeing. It's a real studio system era production and those moguls surely knew how to make films that filled theatres. And there's definitely room for films like this today. It's not incredibly intelligent, but not hopelessly stupid either. And there's aspirations here to be more than just a waste of two hours. I wish the summers of today weren't choices between Comic Book Film 4 and Special Effects Franchise 6. And that's why I'll be heading to the New Beverly a few times a year to get my fix of this.
Rating - 3.5 stars out of 5
Random Thoughts -
Gregory Peck is awesome. If this film was remade today, Jon Hamm would be the perfect replacement. Peck's character "speaks Greek like a Greek and German like a German" and he has an awesome scene near the beginning of the mission where the six are on a shabby Greek fishing boat, disguised as swarthy-looking fisherman trying to sneak their way past the Nazis. When they encounter a Nazi vessel whose Captain wishes to inspect their boat, Peck plays up the Greek fisherman act to great comedic relief. I'd never seen him so charismatic. And in an example of subverting my expectations, instead of playing Greek to get around the Nazis undetected, the guys just blow them all away. That's when I knew this was going to be an awesome movie. Plus I can't watch a film from this era that takes place on a boat without thinking of Steve Zissou, so that added another couple of points from me.
This is sort of the "Space Cowboys" of World War Two pictures. Four of the six main characters were in the age range of 45-55 when filming this movie. David Niven especially looks like he's everyone's father. I'm not a World War Two expert (he says modestly), but I am almost certain the Allied forces would have had some soldiers in their thirties who were just as useful. Apparently, much was made of the advanced age of the cast at the time as well, so good to know it was noticed.
Seeing the Greek people made me realize that if Zeus and his pantheon of gods were Greek, then they probably looked Greek. Zeus as a dark haired mustachioed man is a concept that needs to be followed up on. Same thing with the Roman versions. There is no reason that a "Sopranos"-type show dealing with these gods of old should not be made.
The whole plot is based around destroying these guns to make it safe for the marooned British soldiers to be rescued, but how the hell did they get marooned in the first place? The reason it's so dangerous to rescue them is because the Germans have the whole place surrounded, so were they just joyriding and crashed their ship?
The British Commodore who hands out the mission sounds exactly like Matthew Berry from "Garth Marenghi's Darkplace". Look it up
Back tomorrow with "The Iron Giant".
"The Guns of Navarone" is a fine example of this. This is not one of the best films I've ever seen, and probably not the best of this type of film either, but I had a great time watching it. Some of that would be attributed to seeing it on the big screen at the New Beverly Cinema (the Quentin Tarantino owned revival house in Hollywood), but also because it felt like something that I hadn't seen in a long time. The story is of a fictional 1943 World War Two mission to destroy the titular "Guns of Navarone", radar-directed guns located on a German fortress in the Aegean sea, preventing the British navy from rescuing two thousand British soldiers marooned on a nearby Greek island. The guns are hunkered away in a cave on top of an unconquerable peak, meaning they are safe from any aerial attacks. With only a week until to destroy these weapons, the British assemble a super team consisting of "The Human Fly", Capt. Keith Mallory (Gregory Peck) the greatest mountain climber in the world, Cpl. John Miller (David Niven) an explosives expert, Col. Andrea Stavrou (Anthony Quinn) Mallory's Greek buddy, Pvt. Butcher Brown (Stanley Baker) handy with a knife, and Pvt. Spyros Pappadimos (James Darren) called a "born killer", who are all led by Maj. Roy Franklin (Anthony Quayle), nicknamed "Lucky". These six men are responsible for traveling to Greece by boat, scaling an unscalable cliff, making their way through the country unseen, and entering the German fortress to blow up the invulnerable guns. Great concept for an adventure film. And so begins a two and a half hour odyssey with tons of surprising twists and suspenseful turns.
It's a paint by numbers story and it checks off all the major sixties action film plot points. There are quiet character moments where private trials and tribulations are revealed, encounters and escapes from the enemy, injuries, deaths, and of course a mole. "Navarone" does pull most of them off however. Looking back at my notes, there are many places where I've written things like "F'n ships mast falls off" or "F'n shot a bunch of Nazis" in reference to instances that played against my expectations in hugely positive way. This is a relic of a different age, a fictional war film. Whereas today films like "Band Of Brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan" want to convey the World War Two experience as accurately as possible, "Navarone" was instead trying to entertain and thrill a nation still reeling from a war that had only ended fifteen years earlier. As such, this is much closer in tone to "The Expendables" then to something like "The Hurt Locker".
As to why it's not the greatest movie; It's not a huge deal in a film like this, but there is a distinct lack of character development. Similar to things like "The Magnificent Seven", "The Great Escape", and "The Dirty Dozen", each character has a hook and that's how we're suppose to know them. Here and there a line will be thrown out to supposedly explain their back stories, but it's done very lazily. For example, while the six are first getting to know each other on their way to Greece, Mallory and Franklin share a chat where Mallory reveals that while he and Stavrou are best buds, Stavrou has sworn to kill him after the war for mercifully leaving some Germans alive who later killed Stavrou's wife and children. That's some heavy stuff, but it's never mentioned again. On one hand it adds some tension to every scene between Stavrou and Mallory from then on in, including one where Stavrou has an opportunity to let Mallory fall to his death from the previously mentioned unscalable peak, but this happens so immediately after the reveal that all subtlety is lost. And by the end, it doesn't even matter.
Another, but different kind of example is Butcher Brown's story. He's a knife expert who we see almost get himself killed after stopping to polish his knife while the crew is fighting Nazis. Mallory pulls him aside like a football coach asking why his star player missed the important play and Brown reveals that the stress of killing people close and personal for the past six years has made him weary to ever take another life. Again, perfectly fine character plot point, but it's never mentioned again until the very end and I'm not sure if he gets another five lines over the next two hours. I'm not complaining because honestly who cares in a genre like this, but the script is very haphazard in trying to push these character moments into the picture just because.
The momentum builds and builds as they are able to make their way in the nick of time to the German fortress to being the final step of their mission, but then the film falls flat. This should have been the big moment, a half hour of seeing the soldiers accomplish their goal, but it's just boring. "The Dirty Dozen" has the great attack on the Nazi-filled chateau while "The Great Escape" has well the great escape, but this final assault on the guns isn't done particularly well. A mole is revealed to have sabotaged the explosives, but it doesn't really effect the mission. This is true of most of the setbacks they suffer, no real consequences. And the mole reveal is unremarkable and unnecessary. The writer of the book this is based on (Alistair MacLean) also wrote "Where Eagles Dare" which also deals with a mole(s), but in way that's much more related to the plot. This one seems like it's done because that's what the template of movies like require. There are a couple of deaths thrown in here as well and both are shot very clumsily to the point where you know people died, but are not sure how.
I don't mean to make it sound like this is in any way a poor picture, because it's not. It's jam packed with enough greatness that it's certainly worth seeing. It's a real studio system era production and those moguls surely knew how to make films that filled theatres. And there's definitely room for films like this today. It's not incredibly intelligent, but not hopelessly stupid either. And there's aspirations here to be more than just a waste of two hours. I wish the summers of today weren't choices between Comic Book Film 4 and Special Effects Franchise 6. And that's why I'll be heading to the New Beverly a few times a year to get my fix of this.
Rating - 3.5 stars out of 5
Random Thoughts -
Gregory Peck is awesome. If this film was remade today, Jon Hamm would be the perfect replacement. Peck's character "speaks Greek like a Greek and German like a German" and he has an awesome scene near the beginning of the mission where the six are on a shabby Greek fishing boat, disguised as swarthy-looking fisherman trying to sneak their way past the Nazis. When they encounter a Nazi vessel whose Captain wishes to inspect their boat, Peck plays up the Greek fisherman act to great comedic relief. I'd never seen him so charismatic. And in an example of subverting my expectations, instead of playing Greek to get around the Nazis undetected, the guys just blow them all away. That's when I knew this was going to be an awesome movie. Plus I can't watch a film from this era that takes place on a boat without thinking of Steve Zissou, so that added another couple of points from me.
This is sort of the "Space Cowboys" of World War Two pictures. Four of the six main characters were in the age range of 45-55 when filming this movie. David Niven especially looks like he's everyone's father. I'm not a World War Two expert (he says modestly), but I am almost certain the Allied forces would have had some soldiers in their thirties who were just as useful. Apparently, much was made of the advanced age of the cast at the time as well, so good to know it was noticed.
Seeing the Greek people made me realize that if Zeus and his pantheon of gods were Greek, then they probably looked Greek. Zeus as a dark haired mustachioed man is a concept that needs to be followed up on. Same thing with the Roman versions. There is no reason that a "Sopranos"-type show dealing with these gods of old should not be made.
The whole plot is based around destroying these guns to make it safe for the marooned British soldiers to be rescued, but how the hell did they get marooned in the first place? The reason it's so dangerous to rescue them is because the Germans have the whole place surrounded, so were they just joyriding and crashed their ship?
The British Commodore who hands out the mission sounds exactly like Matthew Berry from "Garth Marenghi's Darkplace". Look it up
Back tomorrow with "The Iron Giant".
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Change Of Plans And New Schedule
I found myself busier than usual the past three days and now I'm left with three hours or so to watch "The Iron Giant" and write up a review. I don't like to rush these things so I'm calling an audible. Instead, here are four reviews I wrote up in January-February 2010 when I tried a film blog for the first time. They are a little different style-wise, but I'm proud of them and hope you all find them worthwhile.
To keep myself on track here is my schedule for the next eight reviews.
Wednesday, October 24th - The Guns Of Navarone
Thursday, October 25th - The Iron Giant
Monday, October 29th - The Last Detail
Wednesday, October 31st - Headhunters
Monday, November 5th - Flight
Wednesday November 7th - Tell No One
Thursday, November 8th - Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
Wednesday, November 14th - Lincoln
To keep myself on track here is my schedule for the next eight reviews.
Wednesday, October 24th - The Guns Of Navarone
Thursday, October 25th - The Iron Giant
Monday, October 29th - The Last Detail
Wednesday, October 31st - Headhunters
Monday, November 5th - Flight
Wednesday November 7th - Tell No One
Thursday, November 8th - Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
Wednesday, November 14th - Lincoln
Classic Phil Review Number Four - Billy Liar
Phil note from 2012 - This is my all-time favorite film.
Billy Fisher is an incrediblely relatable young man who lives with his parents, has a boring job at a funeral home, two fiancee's, and tries to keep himself sane by spending as much time as possible daydreaming about Ambrosia, a perfect world where he is the king, war hero, and all other types of interesting people. He does believe that he has a job waiting for him in London working for a famous comedian as a writer, but first he needs to quit his job and get rid of the fiancee's he doesn't want anyways.
I was instantly struck by how easy it was to emphasize with Billy. He knows that he's better than the situation he's found himself in and just has to find a way to get out. He uses little fibs to make social situations easier, but these have snowballed into him finding himself with two unappealing fiancee's. When he seemingly catches a lifeline from comedian Danny Boon, it seems like everything will be easy from then on in. Boon however has never even heard of him and was probably just sending him a polite thank you for his material. It's a completely accurate representation of what happens when you build something up in your head as being much more important than it is. This setback just kills Fisher inside and might be the thing changes the course of his life forever.
Tom Courtenay made Billy into the most everymanish everyman possible. I constantly thought I was watching scenes from my life play out on screen, not by what he was doing, but by how he reacted to everything. Here is this young man who just wants to be comfortable, but has sank so deep into the rut that is his average life that he can't find a way out. The daydream sequences are entertaining to be sure, but the scenes where we see Billy truly react against his life are my favorites. When he is in the graveyard with one of his fiancee's and he has to lie to keep his facade going, but he becomes so frustrated he almost blows up at her; it's such a great example of the daily balance one must go through between one's own needs and society's. Billy has his own little successes like having a song he wrote be played at the local club, but he is so overcome by the dampers on his life that this seemingly important moment has no effect on him. By the end of this film, I felt like someone had took all my character traits and made a film to mock me with them.
The first time I watched this, I was drained by the ending. I was hoping to see the perfect ending play out as what I'd like to happen in my life, but then it all slipped away. The second time I watched it, it was even worse because I knew it was coming, and I was really hoping that somehow it would change. The ending involves the most frusterating yet entertaing part of the movie, Liz, played by a really attractive Julie Christie. She's a girl that Billy had a fling or something with sometime before the setting of the movie. She represents what Billy wishes he could be. At her first appearence in the movie, Billy remarks to a friend that "She's crazy. She's does anything she's feels". We then see her walking carefree past a bunch of shops and then encountering Danny Boon at a store opening ceremony. When she finally meets up with Billy, he's at the end of his rope. She convinces him to go with her to London where they could live free and pretty much do whatever they wanted. Billy could visit with Danny Boon and try to sell him some jokes. It would be the perfect scenario. He meets up with her at the train station and they board the train. At the last moment, he tells her he wants to grab some milk to bring on the train and we see him agonizing over whether he should go or not. We hear the train leave and when he aimlessly walks after the leaving train we see that his bag is waiting for him on the side of the tracks. He goes home and imagines himself in Ambrosia again. It makes sense, but still fills me with a combination of anger, confusion, and most of all despair. Billy just didn't have the courage to go after the dreams he constantly pined for, instead choosing to retreat to his boring, yet comfortable home. I would be on that train in a heartbeat with 1960's Julie Christie.
Billy Fisher is an incrediblely relatable young man who lives with his parents, has a boring job at a funeral home, two fiancee's, and tries to keep himself sane by spending as much time as possible daydreaming about Ambrosia, a perfect world where he is the king, war hero, and all other types of interesting people. He does believe that he has a job waiting for him in London working for a famous comedian as a writer, but first he needs to quit his job and get rid of the fiancee's he doesn't want anyways.
I was instantly struck by how easy it was to emphasize with Billy. He knows that he's better than the situation he's found himself in and just has to find a way to get out. He uses little fibs to make social situations easier, but these have snowballed into him finding himself with two unappealing fiancee's. When he seemingly catches a lifeline from comedian Danny Boon, it seems like everything will be easy from then on in. Boon however has never even heard of him and was probably just sending him a polite thank you for his material. It's a completely accurate representation of what happens when you build something up in your head as being much more important than it is. This setback just kills Fisher inside and might be the thing changes the course of his life forever.
Tom Courtenay made Billy into the most everymanish everyman possible. I constantly thought I was watching scenes from my life play out on screen, not by what he was doing, but by how he reacted to everything. Here is this young man who just wants to be comfortable, but has sank so deep into the rut that is his average life that he can't find a way out. The daydream sequences are entertaining to be sure, but the scenes where we see Billy truly react against his life are my favorites. When he is in the graveyard with one of his fiancee's and he has to lie to keep his facade going, but he becomes so frustrated he almost blows up at her; it's such a great example of the daily balance one must go through between one's own needs and society's. Billy has his own little successes like having a song he wrote be played at the local club, but he is so overcome by the dampers on his life that this seemingly important moment has no effect on him. By the end of this film, I felt like someone had took all my character traits and made a film to mock me with them.
The first time I watched this, I was drained by the ending. I was hoping to see the perfect ending play out as what I'd like to happen in my life, but then it all slipped away. The second time I watched it, it was even worse because I knew it was coming, and I was really hoping that somehow it would change. The ending involves the most frusterating yet entertaing part of the movie, Liz, played by a really attractive Julie Christie. She's a girl that Billy had a fling or something with sometime before the setting of the movie. She represents what Billy wishes he could be. At her first appearence in the movie, Billy remarks to a friend that "She's crazy. She's does anything she's feels". We then see her walking carefree past a bunch of shops and then encountering Danny Boon at a store opening ceremony. When she finally meets up with Billy, he's at the end of his rope. She convinces him to go with her to London where they could live free and pretty much do whatever they wanted. Billy could visit with Danny Boon and try to sell him some jokes. It would be the perfect scenario. He meets up with her at the train station and they board the train. At the last moment, he tells her he wants to grab some milk to bring on the train and we see him agonizing over whether he should go or not. We hear the train leave and when he aimlessly walks after the leaving train we see that his bag is waiting for him on the side of the tracks. He goes home and imagines himself in Ambrosia again. It makes sense, but still fills me with a combination of anger, confusion, and most of all despair. Billy just didn't have the courage to go after the dreams he constantly pined for, instead choosing to retreat to his boring, yet comfortable home. I would be on that train in a heartbeat with 1960's Julie Christie.
Classic Phil Review Number Three - Chinatown
It's ridiculous how badly my generation was robbed when it comes to
motion pictures. Watching a movie like "Chinatown" for the first time is
an eye-opening experience. It was made in the 1970's and tells a story
that takes place in the 1930's, but its overall production is timeless.
To call Jack Nicholson a "Movie Star" would be putting it mildly. He's
in every scene of this film and in every scene he's on. He's not just
full of charisma and swagger, he's not just a handsome model type, he's
an actor to the fullest degree. And the best part is, you can't tell.
Nicholson is Jake Gittes from the moment you see him onscreen. I've read
that Nicholson in the early 70's can compete with any actor's peak and
I'd be hard pressed to argue that. Watching Brando in "On The
Waterfront" is like watching Pete Rose run out a groundball. He's
talented and hustling like nobody's business, but the strain is
noticable. Nicholson at this period is like frickin' Sandy Koufax
steaming curves past the National League in the early '60s before his
arm gave out. Effortless.
There is no actor today off the top of my head who can compare. Dicaprio has the look of a young Nicholson, but nowhere near the prescence. Not even close. It helps that the script for "Chinatown" is top notch. The story is played out subtlely and the intelligence of the audience is assumed. Polanski shoots the entire movie from Nicholson's perspective, meaning we find out clues when Gittes does. We don't hear other characters conversations and when Gittes gets knocked out, we do too. Nicholson plays everything understated too for the most part. That way, when he does blow up or get excited about something, it means much more.
I've only seen Faye Dunaway in two movies, "Bonnie & Clyde" and now "Chinatown". Her character in this was more diffrent than Bonnie Parker than I expected, but she played it just as well. There are little scenes of character development between her and Nicholson which separate movies of this era from today's average release. There are generic scenes today where you find out items that happened in a character's past. To me, these usually feel shoehorned into the plot between action scenes and unauthentic. In "Chinatown", every scene flows, one into another. We barely find anything out about the main character at all, yet he's not really a mystery to us. We know his personality, what's important to him, and what he's trying to do. Nothing else matters. Then we find out whatever he finds out.
There are movies that I like a little more than "Chinatown" like "L.A. Confidential" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" that take place in a similar time period as "Chinatown" (1930's L.A.). However, although I may have my reasons why I like those movies better (Kevin Spacey dies and keeps his eyes open FOREVER, "When I killed your brother, I looked just like THIS!!!"), I believe "Chinatown" is much better at showing that period than any other movie. Within a few minutes of the movie starting, I had forgotten I was watching a period piece and just took for granted that this was 1937 Los Angeles. I don't know how authentic everything was, but the way it was shot led me to believe everything I was seeing. There are movies today that take place 40 years ago that either try to shoot the footage more "arty" and "flashy" or the color scheme looks wrong, or somehow or another your taken out of the picture. With "Chinatown", Polanski shot a movie in the 1970's using 1930's costumes and props and it worked perfectly. No crazy camera tricks either. There are points where the camera is RIGHT THERE in the scene and that's all I really need to feel like what I'm watching is real.
It was refreshing to see a movie have no generic feel to it at all, even though it came out 40 years ago. I wish more movies assumed that the core audience was intelligent. I wish more actors were like Nicholson, who plays every line the opposite way you'd expect (in a good way). I wish there were more villains like John Huston, who is so incredibly evil and monstrous in this movie without acting like it at all. I wish there more actresses like Faye Dunaway, who is ten times a better actress than she is beautiful and she is gorgeous. I guess I'll take what I can get.
There is no actor today off the top of my head who can compare. Dicaprio has the look of a young Nicholson, but nowhere near the prescence. Not even close. It helps that the script for "Chinatown" is top notch. The story is played out subtlely and the intelligence of the audience is assumed. Polanski shoots the entire movie from Nicholson's perspective, meaning we find out clues when Gittes does. We don't hear other characters conversations and when Gittes gets knocked out, we do too. Nicholson plays everything understated too for the most part. That way, when he does blow up or get excited about something, it means much more.
I've only seen Faye Dunaway in two movies, "Bonnie & Clyde" and now "Chinatown". Her character in this was more diffrent than Bonnie Parker than I expected, but she played it just as well. There are little scenes of character development between her and Nicholson which separate movies of this era from today's average release. There are generic scenes today where you find out items that happened in a character's past. To me, these usually feel shoehorned into the plot between action scenes and unauthentic. In "Chinatown", every scene flows, one into another. We barely find anything out about the main character at all, yet he's not really a mystery to us. We know his personality, what's important to him, and what he's trying to do. Nothing else matters. Then we find out whatever he finds out.
There are movies that I like a little more than "Chinatown" like "L.A. Confidential" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" that take place in a similar time period as "Chinatown" (1930's L.A.). However, although I may have my reasons why I like those movies better (Kevin Spacey dies and keeps his eyes open FOREVER, "When I killed your brother, I looked just like THIS!!!"), I believe "Chinatown" is much better at showing that period than any other movie. Within a few minutes of the movie starting, I had forgotten I was watching a period piece and just took for granted that this was 1937 Los Angeles. I don't know how authentic everything was, but the way it was shot led me to believe everything I was seeing. There are movies today that take place 40 years ago that either try to shoot the footage more "arty" and "flashy" or the color scheme looks wrong, or somehow or another your taken out of the picture. With "Chinatown", Polanski shot a movie in the 1970's using 1930's costumes and props and it worked perfectly. No crazy camera tricks either. There are points where the camera is RIGHT THERE in the scene and that's all I really need to feel like what I'm watching is real.
It was refreshing to see a movie have no generic feel to it at all, even though it came out 40 years ago. I wish more movies assumed that the core audience was intelligent. I wish more actors were like Nicholson, who plays every line the opposite way you'd expect (in a good way). I wish there were more villains like John Huston, who is so incredibly evil and monstrous in this movie without acting like it at all. I wish there more actresses like Faye Dunaway, who is ten times a better actress than she is beautiful and she is gorgeous. I guess I'll take what I can get.
Classic Phil Review Number Two - Dark City
1939 is often regarded as Hollywood's peak year. "Gone With The Wind",
"The Wizard of Oz", "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", and "Stagecoach"
among others all were released in that short period of time along with
France's "The Rules of the Game" along as a bonus. Those are all
bonafide classics, but I've always thought of 1998 as a year filled with
top notch entertainment. "Saving Private Ryan", "Pleasantville", "The
Truman Show", "There's Something About Mary", "Out Of Sight", "The Big
Lebowski", "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels", "Rushmore", and
"Blues Brothers 2000" have all made lasting impressions on me, and
that's not counting the other great 1998 films I haven't yet watched.
I'm aware now that 1998 was the year I started to notice non-Disney
films so those 12 months of movies hold a special place in my mind.
"Dark City" was Roger Ebert's pick for "Best Movie of 1998", (Siskel's was "Babe: Pig In The City", another 1998 classic I haven't yet seen). It's also one of the few DVD's he's done a commentary track for, indicating his support and love for it. I've always been interested in seeing it; I'd only heard that it was similar to "The Matrix", but better and released earlier. I also dig those mindbending sci-fi thrillers in the vein of "Minority Report", "Vanilla Sky", and the 1960's classic "Seconds" (See Seconds NOW).
Anyway after not only watching "Dark City" for the very first time, but also choosing to indulge in the 11 minute extra "Director's Cut" for my first taste of the movie, I feel like the case for 1998 being a golden year for cinema has just gotten a little stronger. This movie is a trip. The title is pretty literal, the setting is a "Dark City", and this dark city is home to some of the most engrossing effects I've ever seen. You can keep your Avatar, here director Alex Proyas has buildings grow and shape themselves like organic objects in his 1930's film noir town. You are thrown right in without a net right from the start as it seems to be a noirish detective story. A man wakes up in a hotel tub with amnesia, next to a dead body. As he struggles to figure out what's going on, we do too..., but all of a sudden things go kind of crazy and you realize this is a totally different world you're dealing with. Answers don't come fast and they don't come easy. By the end, there is a bit of exposition to fill in some of the blanks that appear, but while that helps answer some questions, it also raises lots more.
As I watched more and more, I realized what made "Dark City" stand out from other similar movies of its time period was its overall feel and design. Proyas was hugely influenced by the silent German expressionistic movies of the early part of the 20th century. The city in this movie is vast and mysterious, and becomes almost terrifying once you see it grow and morph. There is no sun and the constant electrical light adds a lot to the atomsphere. There were times where I was reminded of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil", especially during the chase scenes. Thinking your safe, but then realizing you are not where you supposed you were is a terrifying feeling.
There's a great cast including Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connolly, Kiefer Sutherland, and William Hurt (who, like Michael Caine, makes any movie better; example: Mr. Brooks). Sewell and Connolly both do fine work, but their characters aren't very interesting. Hurt is a police detective and no one plays a noble authority figure like William Hurt. He fits perfectly into this mashed up film noirish world. Kiefer Sutherland, in between his roles as the raging a-hole in "Stand By Me" and Jack Bauer is almost unrecognizable as a sort of Quasimodo psych doctor who knows the secrets of the city. He's really fun to watch and even as his character is somewhat over the top, he manages to underplay that. There's also a character who's a former policeman, who's going crazy because he's started to realize what wrong with their world. Apparently Proyas was going to base the story around this character, but flipped it to focus on Sewell's "fugitive" character instead to make it less analytical and more emotional. Well the crazy police guy is also fun to watch and fills his scenes perfectly.
The plot itself is more a story to ponder than to watch. Halfway through I realized I wasn't that interested in what was happening, I just wanted to find out the answers to what was going on. It also stuck me fascinating just how many "This isn't what you think it is" stories were produced in the late '90s-early '00s period. At various points I was reminded of the inferior "Thirteenth Floor", "The Truman Show", and "Vanilla Sky". There's also a fantastic "Twilight Zone" episode referenced in "Vanilla Sky" that also falls into this sort of genre. "Shadow Play" with Dennis Weaver, about a guy on death row claiming that the world is only his recurring nightmare he has over and over. As a piece of art, "Dark City" is 5 stars, fantastic. It wasn't nominated for any Oscars, not even an Art Direction one, which is ridiculous. As a story however, it has its faults, which is why I still love "The Truman Show" and "Pleasantville" much more
"Dark City" was Roger Ebert's pick for "Best Movie of 1998", (Siskel's was "Babe: Pig In The City", another 1998 classic I haven't yet seen). It's also one of the few DVD's he's done a commentary track for, indicating his support and love for it. I've always been interested in seeing it; I'd only heard that it was similar to "The Matrix", but better and released earlier. I also dig those mindbending sci-fi thrillers in the vein of "Minority Report", "Vanilla Sky", and the 1960's classic "Seconds" (See Seconds NOW).
Anyway after not only watching "Dark City" for the very first time, but also choosing to indulge in the 11 minute extra "Director's Cut" for my first taste of the movie, I feel like the case for 1998 being a golden year for cinema has just gotten a little stronger. This movie is a trip. The title is pretty literal, the setting is a "Dark City", and this dark city is home to some of the most engrossing effects I've ever seen. You can keep your Avatar, here director Alex Proyas has buildings grow and shape themselves like organic objects in his 1930's film noir town. You are thrown right in without a net right from the start as it seems to be a noirish detective story. A man wakes up in a hotel tub with amnesia, next to a dead body. As he struggles to figure out what's going on, we do too..., but all of a sudden things go kind of crazy and you realize this is a totally different world you're dealing with. Answers don't come fast and they don't come easy. By the end, there is a bit of exposition to fill in some of the blanks that appear, but while that helps answer some questions, it also raises lots more.
As I watched more and more, I realized what made "Dark City" stand out from other similar movies of its time period was its overall feel and design. Proyas was hugely influenced by the silent German expressionistic movies of the early part of the 20th century. The city in this movie is vast and mysterious, and becomes almost terrifying once you see it grow and morph. There is no sun and the constant electrical light adds a lot to the atomsphere. There were times where I was reminded of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil", especially during the chase scenes. Thinking your safe, but then realizing you are not where you supposed you were is a terrifying feeling.
There's a great cast including Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connolly, Kiefer Sutherland, and William Hurt (who, like Michael Caine, makes any movie better; example: Mr. Brooks). Sewell and Connolly both do fine work, but their characters aren't very interesting. Hurt is a police detective and no one plays a noble authority figure like William Hurt. He fits perfectly into this mashed up film noirish world. Kiefer Sutherland, in between his roles as the raging a-hole in "Stand By Me" and Jack Bauer is almost unrecognizable as a sort of Quasimodo psych doctor who knows the secrets of the city. He's really fun to watch and even as his character is somewhat over the top, he manages to underplay that. There's also a character who's a former policeman, who's going crazy because he's started to realize what wrong with their world. Apparently Proyas was going to base the story around this character, but flipped it to focus on Sewell's "fugitive" character instead to make it less analytical and more emotional. Well the crazy police guy is also fun to watch and fills his scenes perfectly.
The plot itself is more a story to ponder than to watch. Halfway through I realized I wasn't that interested in what was happening, I just wanted to find out the answers to what was going on. It also stuck me fascinating just how many "This isn't what you think it is" stories were produced in the late '90s-early '00s period. At various points I was reminded of the inferior "Thirteenth Floor", "The Truman Show", and "Vanilla Sky". There's also a fantastic "Twilight Zone" episode referenced in "Vanilla Sky" that also falls into this sort of genre. "Shadow Play" with Dennis Weaver, about a guy on death row claiming that the world is only his recurring nightmare he has over and over. As a piece of art, "Dark City" is 5 stars, fantastic. It wasn't nominated for any Oscars, not even an Art Direction one, which is ridiculous. As a story however, it has its faults, which is why I still love "The Truman Show" and "Pleasantville" much more
Classic Phil Review Number One - Babe: Pig In The City
I've never seen the first "Babe", the one that was nominated for Best
Picture in 1995. I was ten when it came out and a non-animated film
about a talking pig did not pique my interest. The sequel that followed
in 1998 didn't register on my radar at all as I figured it would just be
more of the same shenanigans. However, "Babe: Pig In The City flopped
at the box office and was lambasted by some critics for being too
different from its predecessor. Fans were expecting another light romp
with their favorite barnyard characters and director George Miller (of
Mad Max fame) instead supplied them with a darker, more visually
stunning approach. As the film ended up making both Siskel and Ebert's
top ten of 1998 list, even topping Siskel's, and has now developed a
cult following, I decided it was time to forget my biases and watch this
underrated film.
"Babe: Pig In The City" is a remarkable achievement. It defies classification as a family film or children's picture. Obviously the main characters are talking animals, but they live in a world straight out of a Terry Gilliam movie. I can't stress enough how fantastic this movie is. Pixar fans consistantly tout those films as being made for all ages; that there are jokes subtle enough for the parents, but the kids will love the characters and scenery. "Wall-E" and "Up" have made adults bawl in their theatre seats. Personally, I've enjoyed every Pixar film I've watched, but none would ever make any top movie list of mine. "Babe: Pig In The City" is the first film I've seen in who knows how long that fits those qualifications.
Within ten to twenty minutes I knew I was watching something special. The set of "Metropolis", the city where Babe and his owner stay, is wonderfully charming, quaint, mysterious, and wild at the same time. It represents all cities, having landmarks as varied as the Statue of Liberty, Sydney's Opera House, and the Golden Gate Bridge, and the sight of seeing all those buildings and monuments in one realistic setting was mind-blowing. The narrator describes the farm Babe is from as a "little left of the Twentieth Century". The farm is a beautiful place and the juxtaposition of Babe on the farm and in the city is jarring at first. Then we discover that "Metropolis" has Venitian waterways home to a hotel for talking animals and Mickey Rooney in a clown suit and everything feels a little better.
I don't know how they made it look like the animals were talking, (a combination of real animals, special effects, and puppets I presume), but the "acting" by the variety of creatures Babe the pig encounters is realistic and engrossing. There are monkeys wearing clothes, including an orangutan named Thelonius who has come to adore his human keeper and perhaps like King Louie, aspires to be human too. The animals' faces in this movie all carry very realistic human expressions and Thelonius with his combination of wisdom, sadness, and mysteriousness was my favorite character.
There were defintely some dark moments. There is a scene where a character comes close to drowning that reminded me of the scene in the most recent episode of "Lost" where Sayid is forcebly held underwater. What makes the dark scenes in this movie even darker is that unlike a old time Disney cartoon or even computer animated Pixar creation, the animals in this movie are real and lifelike. It's not like watching Nemo the fish or Ratatouille the rat narrowly escape death. The fact that these are real animals in a real world with real rules with discernable personalities is very affecting for the viewer. I didn't cry, but some scenes made me feel very anxious and sad. The movie's also hilarious, with the laugh out loud scenes outnumbering the melancholy ones.
I find it hard to describe just what the tone of "Babe: Pig In The City" was. It's similar to a lifelike version of those old Warner Brothers and Disney shorts, minus most of the slapstick. It's one of the few films made for children in the last decade-plus with the same intelligence as those old cartoons from the forties and fifties. It almost felt like a children's movie that Terry Gilliam or Guillermo Del Toro would create, but there was something about that transcended any sort of description. The combination of the art direction, sets, characters, music (including Piaf's "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien", Martin's "That's Amore", and Elvis' "Are You Lonesome Tonight" sung by high-pitched mice), and script took me away so fully to this world that I can only be in awe of the people behind it. If you're against the idea of watching a movie like this just like I was, I implore you to give it a look anyway. This is why movies exist.
"Babe: Pig In The City" is a remarkable achievement. It defies classification as a family film or children's picture. Obviously the main characters are talking animals, but they live in a world straight out of a Terry Gilliam movie. I can't stress enough how fantastic this movie is. Pixar fans consistantly tout those films as being made for all ages; that there are jokes subtle enough for the parents, but the kids will love the characters and scenery. "Wall-E" and "Up" have made adults bawl in their theatre seats. Personally, I've enjoyed every Pixar film I've watched, but none would ever make any top movie list of mine. "Babe: Pig In The City" is the first film I've seen in who knows how long that fits those qualifications.
Within ten to twenty minutes I knew I was watching something special. The set of "Metropolis", the city where Babe and his owner stay, is wonderfully charming, quaint, mysterious, and wild at the same time. It represents all cities, having landmarks as varied as the Statue of Liberty, Sydney's Opera House, and the Golden Gate Bridge, and the sight of seeing all those buildings and monuments in one realistic setting was mind-blowing. The narrator describes the farm Babe is from as a "little left of the Twentieth Century". The farm is a beautiful place and the juxtaposition of Babe on the farm and in the city is jarring at first. Then we discover that "Metropolis" has Venitian waterways home to a hotel for talking animals and Mickey Rooney in a clown suit and everything feels a little better.
I don't know how they made it look like the animals were talking, (a combination of real animals, special effects, and puppets I presume), but the "acting" by the variety of creatures Babe the pig encounters is realistic and engrossing. There are monkeys wearing clothes, including an orangutan named Thelonius who has come to adore his human keeper and perhaps like King Louie, aspires to be human too. The animals' faces in this movie all carry very realistic human expressions and Thelonius with his combination of wisdom, sadness, and mysteriousness was my favorite character.
There were defintely some dark moments. There is a scene where a character comes close to drowning that reminded me of the scene in the most recent episode of "Lost" where Sayid is forcebly held underwater. What makes the dark scenes in this movie even darker is that unlike a old time Disney cartoon or even computer animated Pixar creation, the animals in this movie are real and lifelike. It's not like watching Nemo the fish or Ratatouille the rat narrowly escape death. The fact that these are real animals in a real world with real rules with discernable personalities is very affecting for the viewer. I didn't cry, but some scenes made me feel very anxious and sad. The movie's also hilarious, with the laugh out loud scenes outnumbering the melancholy ones.
I find it hard to describe just what the tone of "Babe: Pig In The City" was. It's similar to a lifelike version of those old Warner Brothers and Disney shorts, minus most of the slapstick. It's one of the few films made for children in the last decade-plus with the same intelligence as those old cartoons from the forties and fifties. It almost felt like a children's movie that Terry Gilliam or Guillermo Del Toro would create, but there was something about that transcended any sort of description. The combination of the art direction, sets, characters, music (including Piaf's "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien", Martin's "That's Amore", and Elvis' "Are You Lonesome Tonight" sung by high-pitched mice), and script took me away so fully to this world that I can only be in awe of the people behind it. If you're against the idea of watching a movie like this just like I was, I implore you to give it a look anyway. This is why movies exist.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Grosse Pointe Blank - I Killed The President Of Paraguay With A Fork. How've You Been?
High school reunions are obsolete. Before Facebook and other social media, former friends and classmates could conceivably go for a decade without reconnecting, but in today's world that's rare and usually because they don't want to be found. My ten year high school reunion is coming up in 2013 and I'm probably not going to go. I actually just got back from a week long vacation to my hometown of Norwich, CT. I love it there and I always say I wish it was forty miles outside of Los Angeles so I could have both. I did stop by my old high school to say hello to some teachers and scope the place out and that was enough to hold me over until 2023 or whenever. I don't need to revisit my childhood since I still eat Gushers and Lunchables anyway. But that nostalgia is interesting to watch on screen. A group of people in their late twenties standing around awkwardly in the old high school gymnasium pretending to care about what an old acquaintance has been up to is inherently funny.
I was shocked at how great this movie was. The plot almost sounds like a comedy sketch, "Hitman goes to his ten year reunion", but it's treated in a way that draws you into this world, no questions asked. John Cusack is Martin Blank, a well-liked classmate who disappeared after standing up his long time girlfriend Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver) the night of their senior prom. Turns out he joined the army and was found to have a psychological profile necessary to be an assassin for the CIA. Ten years later, he's an independent hitman living in Los Angeles with a secretary and paintings of ships hanging on the wall of his office. He's even invited to join a burgeoning hitman union thought up by his friendly rival Grocer played hilariously by a joyful Dan Aykroyd. When his secretary (Joan Cusack) informs Blank that an invitation to his ten-year reunion has arrived, Blank brushes off the idea, but after meeting with his reluctant psychiatrist (Alan Arkin in an awesomely dry performance) to deal with the leftover feelings for Debi and getting booked for a hit in the same Detroit suburb as the reunion, Blank unexpectedly finds himself back in Grosse Pointe for the first time in ten years.
Many popular comedies today follow the Apatow school of thought which is to have a script, but then shoot hours and hours of additional improv to get wild non sequiturs for bonus laughs. I grew up loving that stuff, but there's just not enough variety when a combo of Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and the "Parks & Recreation" cast are in every mainstream comedy. Here we have a script which was rewritten by Cusack and his old high school buddies which has the spontaneity of improv without the randomness of an improvised scene. Cusack smartly fills the cast with people like his sister Joan and his best friend Jeremy Piven (as Blank's high school BFF) so the dialogue is fast and easy. The chemistry Cusack has with Aykroyd, Driver, and Piven is Altmanesque. And the romance between Cusack and Driver differs from the norm in that while she is upset with him leaving her all those years ago, she's missed him just as much as he has her. It was a relief to watch two leads who like each other from the start without any obstacles thrown in just to extend the courtship. And the conflict once she sees Blank kill a dude is believable and untarnished by any prior problems between the two of them. Driver was a big discovery in this and looking back over her credits, really was the queen of late '90s down to earth romances. She's not 27 anymore, but I bet she could be good in more movies like this.
The interesting thing about this film is how it combines comedy with action, but in a lighthearted way. While Blank is in town, he's being tailed by four rival hitmen all looking to kill him in retaliation for a hit gone wrong. However, "Grosse Pointe Blank" seems more concerned with the interactions of Blank with all the people he's reconnecting with which does wonders for the film as a whole. I never got tired of hearing people react to Blank's confession of killing people for a living. I would totally go back to my high school reunion just to have conversations like that. And since no one reacts like, "OMG YOUR A HITMAN WTF!!!" the film is able to explore this world without having to bring in the law or any outside forces that would interfere with the fun of seeing a hitman returning home. I can't stress enough how normal this all seems in the movie and I really enjoyed that. Even, the hit Blank is in town for is pushed into the background until the very end and the encounters he has with the other hitmen still feel like they could really happen in a normal setting. Cusack's ease at throwing off understated one liners lets the audience identify with him despite his profession and he's just a really likable guy.
This is what "popcorn movies" should be defined as in the dictionary of film. An absurd situation treated in a down to earth humorous manner. It can't stand on the same shelf as the Godfather, but in some ways it's just as good.
Rating - 4.5 stars out of 5.
Random Thoughts -
The nineties are all over this movie which I love. The overall feeling of detachment, the killer soundtrack and the realistic levity towards the concept of a hitman explaining to old friends what he does for a living are all great. A world is built here, very similar to ours, but with a bit more heightened realism which is still treated as normal. And it was really cool remembering what bags of Cheetos used to look like.
The soundtrack really is killer. Driver's character has grown up to be the "cool DJ" with a studio right on main street. Because the "class of '86" is back in town, she's running an all-80's week with such awesome artists as the Violent Femmes, the Clash, the English Beat and the Specials. The soundtrack of this movie is still worth getting as a decent mixtape. Seeing bits of this at the age of thirteen at summer camp introduced me to "Blister In The Sun" for the first time.
Dan Aykroyd runs away with every scene he's in. He obviously the villain since this is Blank's story, but his obsession with forming a hitman community with him as the ringleader is so funny. What the hell happened to Aykroyd? When I was growing up watching old VHS's of the best of early SNL, he was always my favorite even over Belushi and Murray. He has an Oscar nomination and "Ghostbusters", "Blues Brothers", and "Tommy Boy" on his resume. He disappeared from big screen comedies after "Blues Brothers 2000", which as a kid I thought was WAY better than the original. I guess he got sucked down into the black hole which was "Soul Man", but I really wish he would pull a Bill Murray and do something outside his comfort zone and get a nice comeback. Just forget about "Ghostbusters 3" Danny Boy.
Alan Arkin also gets a great small role as Blank's psychiatrist pre-Sopranos. Arkin obviously doesn't want to be in the same room as this killer, but is still able to offer some sound advice, "Don't kill anybody for a few days. See what it feels like" and listen to Blank's recurring dream of being the Energizer Bunny.
Joan Cusack gets to have a lot of fun in her scenes as the secretary. Wearing a Sgt. Pepper wardrobe, we get to see her deal with errands like ordering ammo, burning down the office once Blank has decided to leave the hitman business and correcting her sister's soup recipe.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who realized that Martin Blank might just be Lloyd Doppler ten years later. And Rob Gordon is Blank five years later after giving up the killing business and settling down with a shit-ton of records.
Next - "The Iron Giant" Sunday the 21st.
I was shocked at how great this movie was. The plot almost sounds like a comedy sketch, "Hitman goes to his ten year reunion", but it's treated in a way that draws you into this world, no questions asked. John Cusack is Martin Blank, a well-liked classmate who disappeared after standing up his long time girlfriend Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver) the night of their senior prom. Turns out he joined the army and was found to have a psychological profile necessary to be an assassin for the CIA. Ten years later, he's an independent hitman living in Los Angeles with a secretary and paintings of ships hanging on the wall of his office. He's even invited to join a burgeoning hitman union thought up by his friendly rival Grocer played hilariously by a joyful Dan Aykroyd. When his secretary (Joan Cusack) informs Blank that an invitation to his ten-year reunion has arrived, Blank brushes off the idea, but after meeting with his reluctant psychiatrist (Alan Arkin in an awesomely dry performance) to deal with the leftover feelings for Debi and getting booked for a hit in the same Detroit suburb as the reunion, Blank unexpectedly finds himself back in Grosse Pointe for the first time in ten years.
Many popular comedies today follow the Apatow school of thought which is to have a script, but then shoot hours and hours of additional improv to get wild non sequiturs for bonus laughs. I grew up loving that stuff, but there's just not enough variety when a combo of Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and the "Parks & Recreation" cast are in every mainstream comedy. Here we have a script which was rewritten by Cusack and his old high school buddies which has the spontaneity of improv without the randomness of an improvised scene. Cusack smartly fills the cast with people like his sister Joan and his best friend Jeremy Piven (as Blank's high school BFF) so the dialogue is fast and easy. The chemistry Cusack has with Aykroyd, Driver, and Piven is Altmanesque. And the romance between Cusack and Driver differs from the norm in that while she is upset with him leaving her all those years ago, she's missed him just as much as he has her. It was a relief to watch two leads who like each other from the start without any obstacles thrown in just to extend the courtship. And the conflict once she sees Blank kill a dude is believable and untarnished by any prior problems between the two of them. Driver was a big discovery in this and looking back over her credits, really was the queen of late '90s down to earth romances. She's not 27 anymore, but I bet she could be good in more movies like this.
The interesting thing about this film is how it combines comedy with action, but in a lighthearted way. While Blank is in town, he's being tailed by four rival hitmen all looking to kill him in retaliation for a hit gone wrong. However, "Grosse Pointe Blank" seems more concerned with the interactions of Blank with all the people he's reconnecting with which does wonders for the film as a whole. I never got tired of hearing people react to Blank's confession of killing people for a living. I would totally go back to my high school reunion just to have conversations like that. And since no one reacts like, "OMG YOUR A HITMAN WTF!!!" the film is able to explore this world without having to bring in the law or any outside forces that would interfere with the fun of seeing a hitman returning home. I can't stress enough how normal this all seems in the movie and I really enjoyed that. Even, the hit Blank is in town for is pushed into the background until the very end and the encounters he has with the other hitmen still feel like they could really happen in a normal setting. Cusack's ease at throwing off understated one liners lets the audience identify with him despite his profession and he's just a really likable guy.
This is what "popcorn movies" should be defined as in the dictionary of film. An absurd situation treated in a down to earth humorous manner. It can't stand on the same shelf as the Godfather, but in some ways it's just as good.
Rating - 4.5 stars out of 5.
Random Thoughts -
The nineties are all over this movie which I love. The overall feeling of detachment, the killer soundtrack and the realistic levity towards the concept of a hitman explaining to old friends what he does for a living are all great. A world is built here, very similar to ours, but with a bit more heightened realism which is still treated as normal. And it was really cool remembering what bags of Cheetos used to look like.
The soundtrack really is killer. Driver's character has grown up to be the "cool DJ" with a studio right on main street. Because the "class of '86" is back in town, she's running an all-80's week with such awesome artists as the Violent Femmes, the Clash, the English Beat and the Specials. The soundtrack of this movie is still worth getting as a decent mixtape. Seeing bits of this at the age of thirteen at summer camp introduced me to "Blister In The Sun" for the first time.
Dan Aykroyd runs away with every scene he's in. He obviously the villain since this is Blank's story, but his obsession with forming a hitman community with him as the ringleader is so funny. What the hell happened to Aykroyd? When I was growing up watching old VHS's of the best of early SNL, he was always my favorite even over Belushi and Murray. He has an Oscar nomination and "Ghostbusters", "Blues Brothers", and "Tommy Boy" on his resume. He disappeared from big screen comedies after "Blues Brothers 2000", which as a kid I thought was WAY better than the original. I guess he got sucked down into the black hole which was "Soul Man", but I really wish he would pull a Bill Murray and do something outside his comfort zone and get a nice comeback. Just forget about "Ghostbusters 3" Danny Boy.
Alan Arkin also gets a great small role as Blank's psychiatrist pre-Sopranos. Arkin obviously doesn't want to be in the same room as this killer, but is still able to offer some sound advice, "Don't kill anybody for a few days. See what it feels like" and listen to Blank's recurring dream of being the Energizer Bunny.
Joan Cusack gets to have a lot of fun in her scenes as the secretary. Wearing a Sgt. Pepper wardrobe, we get to see her deal with errands like ordering ammo, burning down the office once Blank has decided to leave the hitman business and correcting her sister's soup recipe.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who realized that Martin Blank might just be Lloyd Doppler ten years later. And Rob Gordon is Blank five years later after giving up the killing business and settling down with a shit-ton of records.
Next - "The Iron Giant" Sunday the 21st.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Argo Fuck Yourself (In A Good Way)
Quick background: In late 1979, the Iranian Revolution succeeded in having overthrown it's hated Shah, and installing the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini in his stead. The history leading up to this is explained in the opening credits of "Argo" and boy does it make America look like crap. After World War II, America and the UK had a bunch of "puppet" dictators put into place in smaller countries all around the world. Before 1953, Iran had a democratically-elected leader who was overthrown and replaced by the Shah in a coup d'état, maintaining foreign control of the Iranian oil fields. By the late seventies, Iran had had enough and the Revolution began. At the same time, innocent Americans worked in the Iranian American Embassy which in this film is portrayed as a psudo-bus station, full of Iranians waiting for the "5:15" to America. With Iranian hatred of America at an all-time high, the embassy was stormed with fifty-two American workers taken hostage for over a year. Six lucky Americans were able to escape and spent the next seventy-nine days hiding out in the home of the Canadian ambassador, unable to leave for fear of being captured. "Argo" portrays the nail-biting plot to sneak these six out of Iran under cover of them being a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a new "Star Wars" ripoff, "Argo".
Ben Affleck wins my "Leonardo DiCaprio Comeback Kid Award" for the past five years. After being written off as an actor more concerned with being a movie star than with doing quality like his good buddy Matt Damon, Affleck started directing some actual good stuff. This, his third movie is without a doubt his best. As an actor, Affleck plays the lead, Tony Mendez, the CIA's famed master of disguise, but his real talent shows through with the directing. As the movie takes place at the end of the Seventies, Affleck made a real effort to replicate the style of films from that era, going as far as to "grainy" up the film stock to make it look like it did back then. He's got a real knack for building up his casts with some of the best character actors around, most of whom don't have more than five lines, but still it's great to see them. John Goodman and Alan Arkin anchor the first half of the film, before Affleck heads to Iran, playing John Chambers, a real life Oscar winning make up artist, and a fictional producer. They both bring such fun to what are not huge roles, that every time we get a glimpse of them after their main part in the plot is over, we're thankful for it.
This movie stands out as compared to the normal feel-good non fictional dreck Hollywood puts out, as it's obviously a labor of time and love. The period details, the quality of the acting and the lack of melodrama all puts it head and shoulders over something like "The Blind Side" or "Public Enemies". I've read that Affleck uses original footage during some of the Iranian embassy scenes, but he blends it together so well with the reenactment I had no clue. The pace is fantastic; It's one of the first films I've seen in a while that was two hours long, but didn't drag at all. Many people feel cable television has surpassed films in the quality department, but this gets very close to having the feel of a show like "West Wing". There's even scenes with a swearing chief of staff which show what "West Wing" might have looked like on HBO.
My only big problem I had with "Argo" was the third act. The actual story of the hostage escape is already so unbelievable, there was no reason to add the typical "underdog" formula to make it more suspenseful. Hours before the mission is to kick into high gear, the CIA abruptly realizes that the mission sounds unbelievable so they cancel it. Affleck is forced to not only go against orders and continue, but also convince the hostages who were already weary on the idea to begin with that it might work. This never happened and for a few minutes, all of a sudden I was watching Gordon Bombay, coach of "The Mighty Ducks" trying to convince his young hockey team that he wasn't actually insulting them to another coach and they might have a chance to win the championship. Add onto that security stoppages at the airport, missing tickets, an unanswered phone in Hollywood that needs to be answered in order to prove they're actually a film crew, and an absolutely ridiculous police car/airplane chase scene, all of which never happened, or at least not the extent they're portrayed to have have.
In the end, the enthralling real life story combined with some great actors doing their thing makes this easy to recommend. If only Hollywood could realize that if they're making a movie about a real life subject, that probably means it's interesting enough without throwing in a bunch of cliches.
Rating - 4 out of 5 stars
Random Thoughts -
All of history should be made into movies. From Ancient Rome to the modern war if Afghanistan, there are so many interesting, remarkable and unheard of stories. I'd be fine with shutting down every fictional production in order to begin a century long process of recreating stories from all of time. Can you imagine Wes Anderson directing a film about vikings? Or David Lynch doing the "Trail of Tears"?
The reenactment of the Embassy takeover is the some scary stuff. I know I'm going to be raked over coals for this, but the sight of hundreds of angry, shouting Iranians yelling in Farsi while swarming over the walls reminded me of "Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes". An enemy that outnumbers you, that you can't communicate with, angry with you for reasons you don't understand is a frightening thing. Minutes after I thought of that, Affleck shows his character's son watching "Battle Of The Planet Of The Apes" which kick starts the CIA Hollywood plan, so I think I'm onto something.
The biggest obstacle in a movie like this is we all know what happened. I think there should be some sort of machine at movie theatres that remove the historical knowledge you possess about whatever movie you're about to see so you can be surprised when for instance, Lincoln frees the slaves.
There needs to be a lighthearted dramatic show about the CIA on television.One of the earlier scenes is a meeting between the state department and CIA where various people throw out ideas as to how to rescue the six hostages. The banter and wacky plans reminded me of "Mad Men" and I bet guys in this scene like Titus Welliver, Zeljko Ivanek, Kyle Chandler, and Bob Gunton would all be willing to do it again on a weekly basis.
Next - We begin to mix up new films with older ones with Grosse Pointe Blank on 10/18th
Friday, October 12, 2012
Seven Psychopaths - Mediocre Meta
I had high expectations for this film, or more accurately stated "hopeful" expectations.
When Martin McDonagh's previous film "In Bruges" was released over four years ago, I thought the trailers made it look worthless, but following a cavalcade of super glowing reviews I ended up seeing it in the theatres and was blown away. The amazing acting and character-work of Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, the beautiful location of Bruges, and the wonderful lyrical script of the director-writer Martin McDonagh. Last year that experience repeated itself with the release of McDonagh's brother John Michael McDonagh's debut feature "The Guard". Unappealing trailer, great reviews, wonderful viewing experience with a great performance again by Brendan Gleeson. Because the McDonagh brothers' scripts have such great dialogue, interesting set-pieces, and twisting turning plots, it's had to bundle them up into a rock solid forty-five second trailer.
"Seven Psychopaths" started on the same path this year. The trailer was so bad I almost wanted to throw in the towel right there, but I knew this was a McDonagh film with one of the best casts I've ever seen. Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson. That's a Four Horsemen of Awesomeness right there. And again this got great reviews, only just recently sliding below the ninety percent approval status at Rotten Tomatoes (it's stuck at eighty-four right now). Unfortunately, although I'm happy I saw it, I'm gonna have to hope brother John Michael's next film "Calvary" about Brendan Gleeson (who's missing from this film, BIG MISTAKE Martin McDonagh) as a priest beset upon by a sinful congregation brings the standard of the McDonagh's films back up to par.
It's almost impossible to describe the plot of this film. It's a bit of a mess, but totally followable. I just don't know how well I'll be able to convey it here. Basically it's a black comedy with a lot of meta, "Adaption" like qualities to it. The main character Martin (Colin Farrell) is a Hollywood screenwriter (with the same name as the writer-director of the actually film) working on a script called "Seven Psychopaths". The stories of these psychopaths are based off of people Martin's heard about from the newspaper and his actor friend Billy (Sam Rockwell).
Billy and his older friend Hans (Christopher Walken) are also dog thieves who kidnap mutts to later claim the reward money given out by their thankful owners. However Billy steals the shih-tzu of a local gangster Charlie (Woody Harrelson) who happens to be obsessed with the dog which leads to Charlie killing various people connected to the main characters on his way to getting his dog back.
Along the way are comments on the cliches and current state of cinema, characters that blur the lines between the actual universe of this film and Martin's fictional screenplay, and a ton of non-plot related interesting scenes. I found that the more the film moved the plot along, the less exciting it was. The characters as a whole are unlikable. In "In Bruges" McDonagh created characters who did bad things, but were human and caused you to empathize with them. This time I ended up being entertained by the line readings Rockwell and Walken gave because their characters were just so wacky, but I couldn't relate to anyone. Now to be fair I think McDonagh is much more interested in blurring the lines of fact and fiction in the plot than writing another quiet character based film, but this just didn't grab me like the prior one did.
That said, there is a lot of interesting stuff nestled into the movie as a whole despite its flaws. I just feel that unlike "Adaptation" which exists as certain kind of movie for the first 2/3rds before changing into something excitingly different, "Seven Psychopaths" slowly starts to lose steam once McDonagh reveals his bag of tricks. It is worth watching as there is a lot I'm not really able to get into without spoiling everything, but just know that as a whole it's nothing compared to "In Bruges" or "The Guard".
Rating - 3 out of 5 stars
Random Thoughts -
Christopher Walken got laughs from the audience I saw it with just by appearing on screen for the first time. He actually gives an interesting "normal", but quirky performance, but all I could think about was how annoying it would be to have a conversation with him. I don't know if he talks like off-screen, and honestly it wouldn't be as annoying as talking to Gilbert Gottfried, but Walken's style of speech never really intrigued me like it has others. I'm just imaging sharing an apartment with him, coming home, asking him "How was your day?". He's like "The...toilet is clogged,...I called a...plumber he should...BE able...to come tomorROW...". I'd go mental.
The movie has this cool thing in the first half where it'll cut to the tales Farrell's including in his screenplay. We see an awesome short piece dealing with a Quaker psychopath (Harry Dean Stanton), a father who is taking revenge on the man who murdered his daughter many years before. Also Tom Waits stops by to tell a story after Billy posts an ad in LA Weekly looking for the stories of psychopaths for Martin to include in his script. There's a lot of twists and turns that come up later that bring these stories closer to the main plot, but I found these later surprises not that surprising or interesting and just felt the muddied up what was already a spiraling story. The short stories are reminiscent of Martin McDonagh's play "The Pillowman" which is required reading if you enjoy quality.
The location of this film is Los Angeles as opposed to Belgium or Ireland. This hurt my interest in it a little since I live in Los Angeles and it holds very little exotic curiosity toward me. The fun of "In Bruges" and "The Guard" were that they were not only fascinating stories, but also in a small way, travelogues.
Sam Rockwell has a lot of fun in this film. He's incredibly charismatic and you can just see the joy in his eyes as he get's to play this wild character. He's the center of one of the best scenes in the film. He, Farrell, and Walken are in the Joshua Tree desert hiding out from Harrelson's crew when Farrell decides to let Rockwell and Walken help him write his screenplay. Rockwell gives this monologue dealing with what he thinks the ending of the film should be which is just delightfully entertaining and which of course comes into play later as the lines between fiction and reality continue to blur. The movie is worth seeing just for this scene as well as the short stories I mentioned above.
The first scene in the movie is on the verge of greatness. Two recognizable actors (especially if you watch "Boardwalk Empire") who I don't want to spoil, cameo as hitmen who work for Harrelson's character. The philosophical hitmen genre has been trod upon many times, by writers such as Pinter and Martin McDonagh himself, but I still get a kick out of it. It's almost like a mini-play. These two mooks have a "Pulp Fiction"-like conversation at the Lake Hollywood Reservoir as they get ready to make a hit and the few minutes they're on screen mistakenly made me think I was in for another "In Bruges"-like experience.
Next - Argo on 10/15th.
This is long and rambling, but I'm still working out the kinks in my writing process. As I do more I should be able to get a decent style going, but for now bear with me and feel free to leave any comments on these pieces here.
When Martin McDonagh's previous film "In Bruges" was released over four years ago, I thought the trailers made it look worthless, but following a cavalcade of super glowing reviews I ended up seeing it in the theatres and was blown away. The amazing acting and character-work of Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, the beautiful location of Bruges, and the wonderful lyrical script of the director-writer Martin McDonagh. Last year that experience repeated itself with the release of McDonagh's brother John Michael McDonagh's debut feature "The Guard". Unappealing trailer, great reviews, wonderful viewing experience with a great performance again by Brendan Gleeson. Because the McDonagh brothers' scripts have such great dialogue, interesting set-pieces, and twisting turning plots, it's had to bundle them up into a rock solid forty-five second trailer.
"Seven Psychopaths" started on the same path this year. The trailer was so bad I almost wanted to throw in the towel right there, but I knew this was a McDonagh film with one of the best casts I've ever seen. Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson. That's a Four Horsemen of Awesomeness right there. And again this got great reviews, only just recently sliding below the ninety percent approval status at Rotten Tomatoes (it's stuck at eighty-four right now). Unfortunately, although I'm happy I saw it, I'm gonna have to hope brother John Michael's next film "Calvary" about Brendan Gleeson (who's missing from this film, BIG MISTAKE Martin McDonagh) as a priest beset upon by a sinful congregation brings the standard of the McDonagh's films back up to par.
It's almost impossible to describe the plot of this film. It's a bit of a mess, but totally followable. I just don't know how well I'll be able to convey it here. Basically it's a black comedy with a lot of meta, "Adaption" like qualities to it. The main character Martin (Colin Farrell) is a Hollywood screenwriter (with the same name as the writer-director of the actually film) working on a script called "Seven Psychopaths". The stories of these psychopaths are based off of people Martin's heard about from the newspaper and his actor friend Billy (Sam Rockwell).
Billy and his older friend Hans (Christopher Walken) are also dog thieves who kidnap mutts to later claim the reward money given out by their thankful owners. However Billy steals the shih-tzu of a local gangster Charlie (Woody Harrelson) who happens to be obsessed with the dog which leads to Charlie killing various people connected to the main characters on his way to getting his dog back.
Along the way are comments on the cliches and current state of cinema, characters that blur the lines between the actual universe of this film and Martin's fictional screenplay, and a ton of non-plot related interesting scenes. I found that the more the film moved the plot along, the less exciting it was. The characters as a whole are unlikable. In "In Bruges" McDonagh created characters who did bad things, but were human and caused you to empathize with them. This time I ended up being entertained by the line readings Rockwell and Walken gave because their characters were just so wacky, but I couldn't relate to anyone. Now to be fair I think McDonagh is much more interested in blurring the lines of fact and fiction in the plot than writing another quiet character based film, but this just didn't grab me like the prior one did.
That said, there is a lot of interesting stuff nestled into the movie as a whole despite its flaws. I just feel that unlike "Adaptation" which exists as certain kind of movie for the first 2/3rds before changing into something excitingly different, "Seven Psychopaths" slowly starts to lose steam once McDonagh reveals his bag of tricks. It is worth watching as there is a lot I'm not really able to get into without spoiling everything, but just know that as a whole it's nothing compared to "In Bruges" or "The Guard".
Rating - 3 out of 5 stars
Random Thoughts -
Christopher Walken got laughs from the audience I saw it with just by appearing on screen for the first time. He actually gives an interesting "normal", but quirky performance, but all I could think about was how annoying it would be to have a conversation with him. I don't know if he talks like off-screen, and honestly it wouldn't be as annoying as talking to Gilbert Gottfried, but Walken's style of speech never really intrigued me like it has others. I'm just imaging sharing an apartment with him, coming home, asking him "How was your day?". He's like "The...toilet is clogged,...I called a...plumber he should...BE able...to come tomorROW...". I'd go mental.
The movie has this cool thing in the first half where it'll cut to the tales Farrell's including in his screenplay. We see an awesome short piece dealing with a Quaker psychopath (Harry Dean Stanton), a father who is taking revenge on the man who murdered his daughter many years before. Also Tom Waits stops by to tell a story after Billy posts an ad in LA Weekly looking for the stories of psychopaths for Martin to include in his script. There's a lot of twists and turns that come up later that bring these stories closer to the main plot, but I found these later surprises not that surprising or interesting and just felt the muddied up what was already a spiraling story. The short stories are reminiscent of Martin McDonagh's play "The Pillowman" which is required reading if you enjoy quality.
The location of this film is Los Angeles as opposed to Belgium or Ireland. This hurt my interest in it a little since I live in Los Angeles and it holds very little exotic curiosity toward me. The fun of "In Bruges" and "The Guard" were that they were not only fascinating stories, but also in a small way, travelogues.
Sam Rockwell has a lot of fun in this film. He's incredibly charismatic and you can just see the joy in his eyes as he get's to play this wild character. He's the center of one of the best scenes in the film. He, Farrell, and Walken are in the Joshua Tree desert hiding out from Harrelson's crew when Farrell decides to let Rockwell and Walken help him write his screenplay. Rockwell gives this monologue dealing with what he thinks the ending of the film should be which is just delightfully entertaining and which of course comes into play later as the lines between fiction and reality continue to blur. The movie is worth seeing just for this scene as well as the short stories I mentioned above.
The first scene in the movie is on the verge of greatness. Two recognizable actors (especially if you watch "Boardwalk Empire") who I don't want to spoil, cameo as hitmen who work for Harrelson's character. The philosophical hitmen genre has been trod upon many times, by writers such as Pinter and Martin McDonagh himself, but I still get a kick out of it. It's almost like a mini-play. These two mooks have a "Pulp Fiction"-like conversation at the Lake Hollywood Reservoir as they get ready to make a hit and the few minutes they're on screen mistakenly made me think I was in for another "In Bruges"-like experience.
Next - Argo on 10/15th.
This is long and rambling, but I'm still working out the kinks in my writing process. As I do more I should be able to get a decent style going, but for now bear with me and feel free to leave any comments on these pieces here.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Introduction - Oh Man What Am I Thinking
I love movies.
I hate writing.
So in my infinite wisdom and need to have something non-work related to focus on, I've decided to start a serious blog about films and film-related things. The goal is to write up either a current or classic movie every 3 days. My first two normal posts will be on Seven Psychopaths tomorrow, Friday the 12th, and on Argo Monday the 15th. From there I plan on seeing Flight, Holy Motors, Lincoln, and Killing Them Softly over the next two months, with Cloud Atlas and Skyfall on the maybe side right now. In between these new releases, I'll be watching films from various time periods, most of which I've always wanted to see, but as of yet, never have. One of these will be The Guns Of Navarone, which I plan to see on the big screen at Quentin Tarantino's New Beverly Cinema on the 22nd of this month. 8 bucks for classic goodness with super cheap popcorn and soda. Doesn't get much better than that.
A little background before I go... Some would say I'm obsessed with cinema. If you know me, you'll recognize that I tend to fill any lull in the conversation with movie or TV related queries and opinions. Like the world of literature, movies cover so many different topics and I find the sheer amount available mesmerizing. I've lived in Los Angeles for the last 3 1/2 years so that's only added to my interest.
I tried writing a blog about this two years ago, but only got two weeks in before I gave up. I love reading, but writing bores and frustrates me. However, I'm making myself commit to this, even if I'm the only person whoever reads it. But if you have found this, I hope you enjoy. I have no real set agenda as of yet. My movie reviews will be whatever I feel like writing at the time, although I'll try and keep them to 1-2 pages long. There's a very good chance I'll end up on stream of consciousness tangents which will probably become more regular over the next few weeks as I get into the groove here.
I tend to only watch films I have an interest in or believe will be quality so hopefully the amount of movie bashing here will be rare.
That said, the idea of doing this came last week while I was vacationing in my hometown of Norwich, CT. I spent the day with my buddy Brad who wanted to see a movie to pass the time. I'd already seen Looper and The Master so we settled on Trouble With The Curve. Now normally under no circumstances would I plan on seeing this, but baseball at least gives me an interest boner so we checked it out. Honestly, it wasn't bad, but it was just so generically mediocre. Clint Eastwood plays an elderly (obviously) baseball scout who's losing his sight and opens up the film standing over his toilet, yelling at his penis for not functioning. I have a terrible fear that the Academy (constantly suffering from Meryl Streep disease) will nominate him for Best Actor just because he exists. Sitting there with Brad as the only two people in the theatre, I had so much fun just cynically commenting on the weird emotional turns the story took that I knew I had to find an outlet to express my opinions to EVERYONE.
Anyway, I'll stop myself here, but apparently I'll have no trouble finding stuff to talk about as I just wrote 600 words on virtually nothing. Be back tomorrow with my first real review.
I hate writing.
So in my infinite wisdom and need to have something non-work related to focus on, I've decided to start a serious blog about films and film-related things. The goal is to write up either a current or classic movie every 3 days. My first two normal posts will be on Seven Psychopaths tomorrow, Friday the 12th, and on Argo Monday the 15th. From there I plan on seeing Flight, Holy Motors, Lincoln, and Killing Them Softly over the next two months, with Cloud Atlas and Skyfall on the maybe side right now. In between these new releases, I'll be watching films from various time periods, most of which I've always wanted to see, but as of yet, never have. One of these will be The Guns Of Navarone, which I plan to see on the big screen at Quentin Tarantino's New Beverly Cinema on the 22nd of this month. 8 bucks for classic goodness with super cheap popcorn and soda. Doesn't get much better than that.
A little background before I go... Some would say I'm obsessed with cinema. If you know me, you'll recognize that I tend to fill any lull in the conversation with movie or TV related queries and opinions. Like the world of literature, movies cover so many different topics and I find the sheer amount available mesmerizing. I've lived in Los Angeles for the last 3 1/2 years so that's only added to my interest.
I tried writing a blog about this two years ago, but only got two weeks in before I gave up. I love reading, but writing bores and frustrates me. However, I'm making myself commit to this, even if I'm the only person whoever reads it. But if you have found this, I hope you enjoy. I have no real set agenda as of yet. My movie reviews will be whatever I feel like writing at the time, although I'll try and keep them to 1-2 pages long. There's a very good chance I'll end up on stream of consciousness tangents which will probably become more regular over the next few weeks as I get into the groove here.
I tend to only watch films I have an interest in or believe will be quality so hopefully the amount of movie bashing here will be rare.
That said, the idea of doing this came last week while I was vacationing in my hometown of Norwich, CT. I spent the day with my buddy Brad who wanted to see a movie to pass the time. I'd already seen Looper and The Master so we settled on Trouble With The Curve. Now normally under no circumstances would I plan on seeing this, but baseball at least gives me an interest boner so we checked it out. Honestly, it wasn't bad, but it was just so generically mediocre. Clint Eastwood plays an elderly (obviously) baseball scout who's losing his sight and opens up the film standing over his toilet, yelling at his penis for not functioning. I have a terrible fear that the Academy (constantly suffering from Meryl Streep disease) will nominate him for Best Actor just because he exists. Sitting there with Brad as the only two people in the theatre, I had so much fun just cynically commenting on the weird emotional turns the story took that I knew I had to find an outlet to express my opinions to EVERYONE.
Anyway, I'll stop myself here, but apparently I'll have no trouble finding stuff to talk about as I just wrote 600 words on virtually nothing. Be back tomorrow with my first real review.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)