Fear of sounding like a philistine kept me silent for quite a while about the fact that I simply did not like this movie. However, I finally feel free to say it: My name is Brooke, and I did not like “La Dolce Vita”.
Never before has a film so highly regarded in the canon disappointed me so greatly. Its sin was not to be offensive; while I don’t particularly care for “Salo”, I respect its boundary-pushing and don’t begrudge it an inclusion on anyone’s great films list. Nor was it impenetrable; you’re talking to one of the great evangelists for “Last Year at Marienbad” here. I have no problem with a movie making an artful sort of nonsense. No, “La Dolce Vita”’s sin was that it bored me.
I am not a newcomer to Fellini, as anyone who knows me well is already aware. In fact, I adore “8 ½” and am generally fond of many of his other works despite our differing sensibilities. (Give me one mid-century European art-house director’s films for a desert island, and I’m going to take Bergman every time.) However, “La Dolce Vita” had me checking my watch in several places as it appeared that entire scenes were taking place for no reason. Whole conversations would pass without a single interesting line and without any discernible point.
The plot concerns a playboy who has grown disillusioned with his life of endless parties and women and seeks out a series of escapes from the “sweet life” to which he has grown accustomed. None work, however, and he ends the film resigned to continue living the life of pleasure he is immune to enjoying. I could understand the point of long, seemingly endless scenes at parties as a way to make the audience understand the plight of our hero. However, these scenes also contain no poetry, no sense of connection; the filmmaker has aligned himself instead with the bores our hero longs to escape.
Roger Ebert adores this film and claims that it improves with viewings throughout life. I admit to the possibility that I will see this film again in my forties or fifties just to see if his opinion, which I so greatly respect, but for now I must file it under “possibly misunderstood, probably just overrated”.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
2012, 2.5 stars
Roger Ebert gave this film a nearly perfect review, and in a way I see his point. No one who knows anything about this movie will leave feeling disappointed. The special effects are hilariously over-the-top, as is the acting, the plot, and just about everything else. The plot is this: through typical disaster-movie pseudoscience, solar flares have caused the earth's crust to boil and shift and the magnetic poles to reverse. Of course, this means many long scenes of explanation where scientists are asked to explain things, "in English, please!", another scene wherein a man and his daughter outrun the Yellowstone supervolcano, and many feats of physically impossible aviation.
However, I could have done with a bit less of the kitchen-sink approach to throwing cliches into the film. In a way this felt like a perfect disaster-movie corollary to Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which did the same for summer action blockbusters. However, Roland Emmerich as a director is above such postmodern nonsense. Trimming a few subplots and characters or including fewer completely improbable sequences would have made this a tight yet still excessive action film. Emmerich has a better eye for spatiotemporality than Bay does and should use it to make a disaster film that is truly interesting, instead of one that simple grinds its gears, goes through the motions, and then shuffles quietly out the door.
However, I could have done with a bit less of the kitchen-sink approach to throwing cliches into the film. In a way this felt like a perfect disaster-movie corollary to Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which did the same for summer action blockbusters. However, Roland Emmerich as a director is above such postmodern nonsense. Trimming a few subplots and characters or including fewer completely improbable sequences would have made this a tight yet still excessive action film. Emmerich has a better eye for spatiotemporality than Bay does and should use it to make a disaster film that is truly interesting, instead of one that simple grinds its gears, goes through the motions, and then shuffles quietly out the door.
The Brothers Bloom, 4.5 stars
OK, Rian Johnson really needs to get out of my head. First he sets a film noir in a high school, creating one of the most original and charming genre blends of the past decade. It's one of those ideas that left everyone wondering why they hadn't tried that before. Now here he comes with a film that blends a classic con-game plot with the trappings of an aggressively quirky indie film such as those lovingly crafted by Wes Anderson.
Stephen and Bloom (whose last names are actually never given) are brothers who have made a career out of long cons. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has seen even one con-game film, one of the brothers wants out but is talked into one last con before retirement. The object is an heiress right out of Bringing Up Baby by way of Garden State. She is played by Rachel Weisz, a perfect choice for the role because she is a woman who can never seem dumb. Despite her character's inherent ditziness, she is never an object of our pity because her warmth and intelligence make her a believable target for con men.
The film is laugh-out-loud funny at times and quietly poignant at others. It suffers from the common con-game film reversals at the end which leave some audiences feeling cheated. However, anyone familiar with the films Johnson is referencing will realize that this is homage instead of derivation, and leave the theater with a smile on their faces at the lovingly crafted mashup that has resulted.
Stephen and Bloom (whose last names are actually never given) are brothers who have made a career out of long cons. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has seen even one con-game film, one of the brothers wants out but is talked into one last con before retirement. The object is an heiress right out of Bringing Up Baby by way of Garden State. She is played by Rachel Weisz, a perfect choice for the role because she is a woman who can never seem dumb. Despite her character's inherent ditziness, she is never an object of our pity because her warmth and intelligence make her a believable target for con men.
The film is laugh-out-loud funny at times and quietly poignant at others. It suffers from the common con-game film reversals at the end which leave some audiences feeling cheated. However, anyone familiar with the films Johnson is referencing will realize that this is homage instead of derivation, and leave the theater with a smile on their faces at the lovingly crafted mashup that has resulted.
Orgazmo, 1.5 stars
I really wanted to like this film, and caught hell on Facebook for disliking it. Living in the thick of Mormon country as I do, I wanted to appreciate a spoof on the religion's squeaky-clean adherents; as a former resident of Los Angeles I was also willing to see the cultural cesspool beneathe the surface of L.A. parodied equally.
Instead I was treated to a film so sophomoric and poorly shot that at times I was convinced that the directors had used a single camera. No other excuse could explain some of the film's shots. There were a few mildly funny running gags (such as the "I'm not gay, but..." spiel) but overall the production seemed haphazard and overlong. Folks, a 95-minute movie has no business feeling overlong.
Even the execrable "Idiocracy", which runs in a similar vein of humor, had more genuinely funny moments than this. I failed to laugh aloud even once. Skip this and rent "Borat" or "The Hangover" for scatological, risque humor that still...well, works.
Instead I was treated to a film so sophomoric and poorly shot that at times I was convinced that the directors had used a single camera. No other excuse could explain some of the film's shots. There were a few mildly funny running gags (such as the "I'm not gay, but..." spiel) but overall the production seemed haphazard and overlong. Folks, a 95-minute movie has no business feeling overlong.
Even the execrable "Idiocracy", which runs in a similar vein of humor, had more genuinely funny moments than this. I failed to laugh aloud even once. Skip this and rent "Borat" or "The Hangover" for scatological, risque humor that still...well, works.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Number 23, 2.5 stars
Wow, what a hideous mess of a movie. Here is a movie that goes so completely to the side of "wrong" that it almost makes a full circle and comes back around to being gloriously, irrepressibly right. Jim Carrey plays dual roles, one as a mild-mannered dogcatcher whose life changes when he chases a dog into a graveyard one afternoon, and the other as the fictional detective hero of a story read by the dogcatcher character. Carrey attacks this as if it's an assignment from an acting class; he sets up the two characters as polar opposites of each other and refuses any actions which might hint that they have something in common. While this helps keep the film's big twist under wraps, it also robs both characters of their humanity.
It fails to rob them of their power to amuse, however. Walter, the dogcatcher character, finds himself obsessed by a book about the 23 enigma that he finds in a used bookstore. The author, incidentally, is named Topsy Kretts, and with a name like that I think it's unnecessary to issue a spoiler warning for what follows in my review. Walter gradually alienates his family and friends by obsessing over the number 23 and its permutations in his life. In the parallel storyline of the book Walter is reading, a modern noir-type detective antihero is watching beautiful blondes throw themselves out of windows to the accompaniment of painfully emo music. Walter eventually comes to the realization that the book was written by him about events he suppressed, including a murder he committed. Freed of his burdens, he cheerfully allows himself to be carted off to prison.
Plot summary cannot describe how campy and humorous this movie is. Director Joel Schumacher actually succeeds at creating some striking images within the parallel world, but such skill is immediately negated by Carrey's hilariously intense brooding over a saxophone while flaunting tribal tattoos. In the more mundane world, Carrey's attempts at acting retiring and unassuming (used to far better effect in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") simply serve to make his histrionics when he finds out what he has done all the more humorous. This film was a notorious failure, but I enjoyed every minute. I was not bored even once and laughed aloud numerous times. The film's two-star rating, in fact, was gathered from an average of 0 stars and 5, since I still remain undecided as to whether this film is utter trash or some sort of perverse masterpiece.
It fails to rob them of their power to amuse, however. Walter, the dogcatcher character, finds himself obsessed by a book about the 23 enigma that he finds in a used bookstore. The author, incidentally, is named Topsy Kretts, and with a name like that I think it's unnecessary to issue a spoiler warning for what follows in my review. Walter gradually alienates his family and friends by obsessing over the number 23 and its permutations in his life. In the parallel storyline of the book Walter is reading, a modern noir-type detective antihero is watching beautiful blondes throw themselves out of windows to the accompaniment of painfully emo music. Walter eventually comes to the realization that the book was written by him about events he suppressed, including a murder he committed. Freed of his burdens, he cheerfully allows himself to be carted off to prison.
Plot summary cannot describe how campy and humorous this movie is. Director Joel Schumacher actually succeeds at creating some striking images within the parallel world, but such skill is immediately negated by Carrey's hilariously intense brooding over a saxophone while flaunting tribal tattoos. In the more mundane world, Carrey's attempts at acting retiring and unassuming (used to far better effect in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") simply serve to make his histrionics when he finds out what he has done all the more humorous. This film was a notorious failure, but I enjoyed every minute. I was not bored even once and laughed aloud numerous times. The film's two-star rating, in fact, was gathered from an average of 0 stars and 5, since I still remain undecided as to whether this film is utter trash or some sort of perverse masterpiece.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Black Christmas, 3 stars
This was praised to me as a classic of the slasher genre, and I must admit it takes several stylistic risks that I was not expecting. Possible spoilers are ahead, although I'm fairly confident most of my readers will be aware of the plot points that this film was the first to use.
Most importantly, this film is apparently the first to use the "the calls are coming from inside your house!" ending, wherein the police discover that the harassing phone calls that have tormented a group of women all night were actually placed from another floor of the house. It also features extensive subjective camerawork from the POV of the killer, and the killer's identity and motives are deliberately left open-ended. For a film that at times seems mechanical (a fault many slasher movies share), it broaches the subject of abortion and seems surprisingly comfortable not tying up all the loose plot ends. It makes extensive use of the Christmas setting to create a feeling of dread about a holiday that, if we're honest with ourselves, we've all felt a little discomfort about for one reason or another. Overall, a tight little slasher picture with a few surprises up its sleeve: an ideal gift to give yourself on a dark night this holiday season.
Most importantly, this film is apparently the first to use the "the calls are coming from inside your house!" ending, wherein the police discover that the harassing phone calls that have tormented a group of women all night were actually placed from another floor of the house. It also features extensive subjective camerawork from the POV of the killer, and the killer's identity and motives are deliberately left open-ended. For a film that at times seems mechanical (a fault many slasher movies share), it broaches the subject of abortion and seems surprisingly comfortable not tying up all the loose plot ends. It makes extensive use of the Christmas setting to create a feeling of dread about a holiday that, if we're honest with ourselves, we've all felt a little discomfort about for one reason or another. Overall, a tight little slasher picture with a few surprises up its sleeve: an ideal gift to give yourself on a dark night this holiday season.
Border Incident, 3 stars
Let me make one thing clear: this is a two-star film with a four-star premise, particularly for the time. Plotwise it is a typical film noir: g-men infiltrate an illegal operation and one of them gets put in mortal danger in the process. The difference is that this time the illegal operation is the smuggling of immigrants across the US-Mexico border. A plot that addressed this issue at all would have been quite progressive for the time. Yes, there are stereotypes of Mexicans, including sombreros and banditry, but the main characters are fleshed out and the plot does not shrink from showing the human toll of the operation.
Anthony Mann apparently directed this film in his sleep, save for a few striking nighttime sequences such as a harrowing scene where a man is chased relentlessly by an approaching combine. Ricardo Montalban is excellent in an early role that gives him little to do; he makes the most of it. The other performances are undistinguished, but this is definitely a B-movie with an edge that elevates it above other stock entertainments of the time.
Anthony Mann apparently directed this film in his sleep, save for a few striking nighttime sequences such as a harrowing scene where a man is chased relentlessly by an approaching combine. Ricardo Montalban is excellent in an early role that gives him little to do; he makes the most of it. The other performances are undistinguished, but this is definitely a B-movie with an edge that elevates it above other stock entertainments of the time.
Crazy Stone, 3 stars
This is a film I watched because it apparently typifies the films actually seen by Chinese people, in contrast to the serious art-house films we Americans are fed. It was sold as a Chinese "Ocean's Eleven", and while it doesn't quite live up to the slick coolness of that film's veneer, it was a perfectly entertaining example of popular cinema. Of course, China's cinema is so varied that no one film can encompass the tastes of the country, but it was nice to have something to contrast with widely praised, stiff films like "Yi Yi".
The plot, which is as straightforward and uninvolved as caper plots usually are, concerns a valuable piece of jade which several groups of men are attempting to steal. Many reversals occur, a replacement piece wounds up stolen, then it turns out not to have been, and all the while flashy editing and over-the-top performances are keeping our interest in the proceedings high. Many of the cuts and zooms reference classical Hong Kong action films, and the characters are recognizable as stereotypes even to Western eyes. I probably missed some economic commentary (the jade is being displayed in a factory by a social-climbing factory owner). However, none of the film was a waste of time and I appreciated its insights into what draws bodies into Chinese theaters. I'll take this over "Farewell My Concubine" or an American blockbuster like "Transformers" any day.
The plot, which is as straightforward and uninvolved as caper plots usually are, concerns a valuable piece of jade which several groups of men are attempting to steal. Many reversals occur, a replacement piece wounds up stolen, then it turns out not to have been, and all the while flashy editing and over-the-top performances are keeping our interest in the proceedings high. Many of the cuts and zooms reference classical Hong Kong action films, and the characters are recognizable as stereotypes even to Western eyes. I probably missed some economic commentary (the jade is being displayed in a factory by a social-climbing factory owner). However, none of the film was a waste of time and I appreciated its insights into what draws bodies into Chinese theaters. I'll take this over "Farewell My Concubine" or an American blockbuster like "Transformers" any day.
Surviving Desire, 4 stars
Perhaps the McCarran airport after a week in Vegas was not the ideal setting for watching a literate, heartfelt exploration of love and lust. However, I think my opinion of Hal Hartley's sweet, lightly humorous romantic drama was actually improved by the louche hedonism all around me. Martin Donovan portrays a literature professor who enters an affair with one of his students, a Jean Seberg type who insists on discussing her feelings in eloquent, insistent monologues.
In a parallel storyline, Donovan's best friend enters a strange and impulsive romance with a street woman who proposes to any man who walks by. These opposite and complementary relationships provide a charming, featherweight commentary on the extremes of attraction and love. Hartley can be a filmmaker of very big hits and wide misses, and with this short film he pushes no boundaries but simply gives us characters who say the things we wish we could say to those we desire. The title is misleading; this is not a film to be survived but enjoyed minute by precious minute.
In a parallel storyline, Donovan's best friend enters a strange and impulsive romance with a street woman who proposes to any man who walks by. These opposite and complementary relationships provide a charming, featherweight commentary on the extremes of attraction and love. Hartley can be a filmmaker of very big hits and wide misses, and with this short film he pushes no boundaries but simply gives us characters who say the things we wish we could say to those we desire. The title is misleading; this is not a film to be survived but enjoyed minute by precious minute.
9, 3 stars
Here is an example of why one should never mix new age psychobabble with steampunk aesthetics. (Yes, I'm sure the world was clamoring for more proof that this should not be attempted.) Here is a film that has the look of Little Big Planet and the half-baked plot and ideas of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The plot concerns a group of sentient sack-people who awaken self-aware in a postapocalyptic wasteland. They struggle to understand how they got to this world and why they have been awakened.
I will not give away the ending here, since to do so would be to invite a long diatribe on its new age treacle, but suffice to say it requires a belief in a higher power and an afterlife that I just couldn't summon, particularly not after a buildup so visually interesting as the one that "9" establishes. For about the first 20 minutes of this movie I was entranced by its visual style, which borrowed from "The Triplets of Belleville" and certain Marilyn Manson music videos as well as from the classic steampunk look. However, as I realized there was another hour of the film left and not much substance to fill it, the look of the film suddenly became repetitive and hollow, as I longed for the characters to do something besides engage in another chase sequence or go through labored plot mechanics. Steampunk should not mean that we can hear the gears of the plot creaking.
I will not give away the ending here, since to do so would be to invite a long diatribe on its new age treacle, but suffice to say it requires a belief in a higher power and an afterlife that I just couldn't summon, particularly not after a buildup so visually interesting as the one that "9" establishes. For about the first 20 minutes of this movie I was entranced by its visual style, which borrowed from "The Triplets of Belleville" and certain Marilyn Manson music videos as well as from the classic steampunk look. However, as I realized there was another hour of the film left and not much substance to fill it, the look of the film suddenly became repetitive and hollow, as I longed for the characters to do something besides engage in another chase sequence or go through labored plot mechanics. Steampunk should not mean that we can hear the gears of the plot creaking.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Holy Mountain, 2.5 stars
I think I have come to Alejandro Jodorowsky backwards. I started with his short "La Cravate" and moved on to "Fando & Lis", which I found perfectly maddening in that art-film way that I love. Now I come to one of his most praised works and find it simply dull.
It tells an allegorical story of a priest gathering people to symbolize the nine planets and then taking them to the top of a holy mountain for mystical knowledge. However, Jodorowsky insists on telling this story through amateurish camerawork and a script that focuses on long monologues full of new age psychobabble. I checked my watch multiple times and broke the movie up over two nights to relieve the boredom. I can't see much to recommend this film unless you have an ample supply of pot or other intoxicants available. That might make this film feel something like its 2 hours, instead of the 4 it felt like to me.
It tells an allegorical story of a priest gathering people to symbolize the nine planets and then taking them to the top of a holy mountain for mystical knowledge. However, Jodorowsky insists on telling this story through amateurish camerawork and a script that focuses on long monologues full of new age psychobabble. I checked my watch multiple times and broke the movie up over two nights to relieve the boredom. I can't see much to recommend this film unless you have an ample supply of pot or other intoxicants available. That might make this film feel something like its 2 hours, instead of the 4 it felt like to me.
Sorority Row, 2.5 stars
Well, well. Here is a typical slasher film, full of bad acting, undeveloped subplots, and the world's nosiest cats. I had a special relationship to this film, in that the lead role was played by Leah Pipes, a former client of a talent scouting agency I worked for in Los Angeles. This was probably the largest role I had ever seen anyone I know play on the big screen, and I had trouble properly evaluating the movie for that reason.
However, from what I could discern, the film was shot and edited in workmanlike, indistinguished fashion. It concerns a sorority prank gone wrong when a group of friends tricks a boy into thinking one of their group is dead. When they go to hide the "body", the boy takes things too seriously and actually kills the sorority sister. The rest of the movie is taken up with plot mechanics so rusty we hear the gears grinding. Is the killer now stalking campus the sorority sister resurrected from the dead? Do we care?
As a paint-by-numbers thriller this is perfectly serviceable, but I have trouble finding anything to recommend it over many better options in the genre.
However, from what I could discern, the film was shot and edited in workmanlike, indistinguished fashion. It concerns a sorority prank gone wrong when a group of friends tricks a boy into thinking one of their group is dead. When they go to hide the "body", the boy takes things too seriously and actually kills the sorority sister. The rest of the movie is taken up with plot mechanics so rusty we hear the gears grinding. Is the killer now stalking campus the sorority sister resurrected from the dead? Do we care?
As a paint-by-numbers thriller this is perfectly serviceable, but I have trouble finding anything to recommend it over many better options in the genre.
Gamer, 3 stars
After the pyrotechnic pastiche of the Crank films, I had such high expectations for the next stop on the Neveldine/Taylor thrill ride. Their sly humor and offbeat palette were sadly missing for most of this serviceable but strangely heartless action film. Shot mostly in a gray color scheme that shows all the flaws of digital video, it concerns a future where people control real-life avatars in video games that end in real death. Gerard Butler, whose emotional affect often implies that he is being controlled by outside forces even when the plot suggests otherwise, is our hero, who must win only one more battle to be released from the prison where he has landed after being framed.
There are moments of genuine wit and near-brilliance in the film. There is a choreographed dance fight set to "I've Got You Under My Skin" near the end of the film that is largely carried by Michael C. Hall's calmly villainous performance, and there are a few easter eggs for the eagle-eyed, such as the screen behind an obese gamer that displays nothing but an endless loop of bacon frying. Overall, however, the film is shrill without the self-referential humor and bright, thoughtful production design of the Crank films. Let's hope this is Neveldine/Taylor's sophomore slump, and that they soon come back with another fantastic postmodern mishmash that doesn't waste most of its time in a grayscale, oh-so-predictable gaming set.
There are moments of genuine wit and near-brilliance in the film. There is a choreographed dance fight set to "I've Got You Under My Skin" near the end of the film that is largely carried by Michael C. Hall's calmly villainous performance, and there are a few easter eggs for the eagle-eyed, such as the screen behind an obese gamer that displays nothing but an endless loop of bacon frying. Overall, however, the film is shrill without the self-referential humor and bright, thoughtful production design of the Crank films. Let's hope this is Neveldine/Taylor's sophomore slump, and that they soon come back with another fantastic postmodern mishmash that doesn't waste most of its time in a grayscale, oh-so-predictable gaming set.
Monday, October 26, 2009
On Dangerous Ground, 3 stars
It's always refreshing to see the marvelously formulaic film noir genre try a few new tricks. By now we all know the hallmarks: urban setting, femmes fatales, expressionistic lighting, world-weary protagonist, etc. Here is a film, directed by the masterful Nicholas Ray, that tries a few refreshing twists on the old formulas.
At first it seems as though we are in for the same old, same old. Robert Ryan plays a cynical, washed-up cop with no hope or ethics left. He works the dirty city streets and has let them soil his soul. But just when we think we know where this is going, the story opens up. Ryan is assigned to a case in the country in the winter, and suddenly the film noir has gone blanc, with a setting of a countryside full of snow and a bucolic mountain cabin. Ida Lupino is no femme fatale, either; instead she is a gentle blind woman who is trying to protect her murderous but uncomprehending brother. And instead of seducing or destroying Ryan, she sets out to open his heart and make him forget the cynicism he embraced in the city.
Openness is a theme that resounds through "On Dangerous Ground". While its script and performances are fine if not outstanding, it deserves credit for attempting to toy with some very familiar conventions. The ideas of taking the police chase off the city streets and setting it in a snow-covered field or making the lone female a character of sympathy instead of disdain show a willingness to experiment with form that was all too infrequently attempted by noir directors. Ray, of course, would go on to prove himself a master at transcending genre, and "On Dangerous Ground" shows this tendency of his just beginning to take form.
At first it seems as though we are in for the same old, same old. Robert Ryan plays a cynical, washed-up cop with no hope or ethics left. He works the dirty city streets and has let them soil his soul. But just when we think we know where this is going, the story opens up. Ryan is assigned to a case in the country in the winter, and suddenly the film noir has gone blanc, with a setting of a countryside full of snow and a bucolic mountain cabin. Ida Lupino is no femme fatale, either; instead she is a gentle blind woman who is trying to protect her murderous but uncomprehending brother. And instead of seducing or destroying Ryan, she sets out to open his heart and make him forget the cynicism he embraced in the city.
Openness is a theme that resounds through "On Dangerous Ground". While its script and performances are fine if not outstanding, it deserves credit for attempting to toy with some very familiar conventions. The ideas of taking the police chase off the city streets and setting it in a snow-covered field or making the lone female a character of sympathy instead of disdain show a willingness to experiment with form that was all too infrequently attempted by noir directors. Ray, of course, would go on to prove himself a master at transcending genre, and "On Dangerous Ground" shows this tendency of his just beginning to take form.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
N is a Number, 3 stars
Any comments I have on this film must be prefaced by the fact that I am not the target market for this film. It is a modest, charming documentary about the mathematician Paul Erdos, of whom I was vaguely aware before seeing this film. I suppose I know more about him after seeing it, though it would have been difficult for me to know less.
I will give the film credit for being as layperson-friendly as possible in the segments where Erdos himself is not speaking. The filmmakers try to drum up interest in Erdos' love life and curiously vagrant lifestyle, which are indeed charming peculiarities of the man himself. Erdos, when he speaks, is witty, expansive, and curious. However, he simply does not make for a compelling screen presence. Those viewers who tune out at the more technical segments will not find much between those segments to hold their interest. As someone with a passing and general interest in mathematics, I found this to be a serviceable documentary that is unlikely to convert anyone to a life in math. However, if you too have a general interest in getting to know more about one of the leading figures of modern mathematics, this is a perfectly fine place to start.
I will give the film credit for being as layperson-friendly as possible in the segments where Erdos himself is not speaking. The filmmakers try to drum up interest in Erdos' love life and curiously vagrant lifestyle, which are indeed charming peculiarities of the man himself. Erdos, when he speaks, is witty, expansive, and curious. However, he simply does not make for a compelling screen presence. Those viewers who tune out at the more technical segments will not find much between those segments to hold their interest. As someone with a passing and general interest in mathematics, I found this to be a serviceable documentary that is unlikely to convert anyone to a life in math. However, if you too have a general interest in getting to know more about one of the leading figures of modern mathematics, this is a perfectly fine place to start.
12 Angry Men, 4 stars
Well, don't I feel sheepish. Here I was, paying most of my attention to this movie and finding a well-acted but psychologically trite drama that, for its time period, I found to be well above average. Then I went to read the secondary literature on it and found that the director, Sidney Lumet, had subtly changed the focal length of his lenses to pull us more into the action and flatten out the frame as the film progressed to create a sense of claustrophobia. I had one of those forehead-slapping moments where I thought I should just be sent back to film analysis 101 until I learn to notice these things myself.
After forgiving myself, however, I did not alter my rating of the film. Its flaws are unimproved by this new knowledge about the lenses. While it is a taut drama that was probably quite daring formally for its time, the fact remains that the psychology of the film is suspect. It is unlikely that men with such strong personalities would change their minds in the course of an afternoon, and that they would reveal their psychological failings so quickly to a roomful of other men that they barely know. The film's strengths are many, however: the aforementioned "lens plot", the performances (Henry Fonda is rightly praised but the entire cast is deserving), and the formal daring required to set a film essentially in one room, in near-real time, and trust the script and performers to draw the audience into such a closed setting.
This is a classic film for those interested in the law, and I read with interest that a remake has been made in Russia which addresses the Chechen conflict there. I also note that this remake is nearly twice as long as the original. It will be interesting to see what "12" (the remake) does with such a tight, flawless conceit as the one found in the classic "12 Angry Men".
After forgiving myself, however, I did not alter my rating of the film. Its flaws are unimproved by this new knowledge about the lenses. While it is a taut drama that was probably quite daring formally for its time, the fact remains that the psychology of the film is suspect. It is unlikely that men with such strong personalities would change their minds in the course of an afternoon, and that they would reveal their psychological failings so quickly to a roomful of other men that they barely know. The film's strengths are many, however: the aforementioned "lens plot", the performances (Henry Fonda is rightly praised but the entire cast is deserving), and the formal daring required to set a film essentially in one room, in near-real time, and trust the script and performers to draw the audience into such a closed setting.
This is a classic film for those interested in the law, and I read with interest that a remake has been made in Russia which addresses the Chechen conflict there. I also note that this remake is nearly twice as long as the original. It will be interesting to see what "12" (the remake) does with such a tight, flawless conceit as the one found in the classic "12 Angry Men".
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Racket, 3 stars
Now here is the perfect definition of a formulaic film noir. The formula goes something like this:
((Robert Mitchum + Robert Ryan) x (gangsters + cops)) + shadows + women= "The Racket".
A perfectly serviceable film, but for excitement or technique it's best to look elsewhere.
((Robert Mitchum + Robert Ryan) x (gangsters + cops)) + shadows + women= "The Racket".
A perfectly serviceable film, but for excitement or technique it's best to look elsewhere.
Inglourious Basterds, 4.5 stars
Well, it's obviously been quite a while since I saw this film, and in the meantime I have been pleased to see an entire eloquent and vital web discussion spring up around the film. Strong arguments have been made on all sides, and while I happen to think the film is a masterpiece I can definitely see the points of view of those who disagree in whole or in part with that opinion.
The film itself is almost secondary to the controversies at this point, but this is not a "controversist" blog, so I will attempt to confine myself to the strengths of the film as I see them and only bring in other sources when necessary. The film is a revisionist World War II fantasy filtered through the lens of spaghetti westerns, Nazi exploitation films, and (of all things) The Wizard of Oz. The titular Basterds are a group of American soldiers who make a point of scalping and defacing Nazis wherever they may find them. In a parallel storyline, Shoshanna Dreyfus, the lone survivor of a Nazi massacre of her family, plans to murder all of the top Nazi officials during a premiere of a Nazi film in her theatre in occupied France.
I didn't realize until seeing "Basterds" how much Tarantino influenced the way I read films. I take his manner of reference as a default. When watching something by, for example, the Dardenne brothers, it is much harder for me to spot references because I am so accustomed to the way they are made in Tarantino. But the "Sunset Boulevard" and "Wizard of Oz" references in the theater inferno scene stood out to me instantly. Perhaps this is because Tarantino possesses all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. But I like to think that it is because seeing "Pulp Fiction" at a pivotal and formative age prepared me to read his films naturally and that I have to work harder to understand a style too different from his.
But the question remains: Will you like this film as much as I did? Bizarrely, I believe the best litmus test for this would be your feelings about Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" (not coincidentally my second-favorite film of all time). If you feel that subjugating plot to a general atmosphere of love for the cinema is unfair and boring, perhaps you should skip it. If on the other hand you enjoy the feeling that you are catching Emil Jannings references before the rest of the crowd, and that the filmmaker has secretly planted these Easter eggs for you, the true cinephile, then you will be just as rapt as I was for the movie's perfectly paced running time. If the general idea of the film's alternate history offends you (this has been one of the main "controversies" to which I referred), obviously your time would be better spent elsewhere. For my money, this is one of the best films of the year, even including that Eli Roth..."performance". See it, love it, hate it, but I guarantee you'll have something to talk to your companions about afterward.
The film itself is almost secondary to the controversies at this point, but this is not a "controversist" blog, so I will attempt to confine myself to the strengths of the film as I see them and only bring in other sources when necessary. The film is a revisionist World War II fantasy filtered through the lens of spaghetti westerns, Nazi exploitation films, and (of all things) The Wizard of Oz. The titular Basterds are a group of American soldiers who make a point of scalping and defacing Nazis wherever they may find them. In a parallel storyline, Shoshanna Dreyfus, the lone survivor of a Nazi massacre of her family, plans to murder all of the top Nazi officials during a premiere of a Nazi film in her theatre in occupied France.
I didn't realize until seeing "Basterds" how much Tarantino influenced the way I read films. I take his manner of reference as a default. When watching something by, for example, the Dardenne brothers, it is much harder for me to spot references because I am so accustomed to the way they are made in Tarantino. But the "Sunset Boulevard" and "Wizard of Oz" references in the theater inferno scene stood out to me instantly. Perhaps this is because Tarantino possesses all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. But I like to think that it is because seeing "Pulp Fiction" at a pivotal and formative age prepared me to read his films naturally and that I have to work harder to understand a style too different from his.
But the question remains: Will you like this film as much as I did? Bizarrely, I believe the best litmus test for this would be your feelings about Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" (not coincidentally my second-favorite film of all time). If you feel that subjugating plot to a general atmosphere of love for the cinema is unfair and boring, perhaps you should skip it. If on the other hand you enjoy the feeling that you are catching Emil Jannings references before the rest of the crowd, and that the filmmaker has secretly planted these Easter eggs for you, the true cinephile, then you will be just as rapt as I was for the movie's perfectly paced running time. If the general idea of the film's alternate history offends you (this has been one of the main "controversies" to which I referred), obviously your time would be better spent elsewhere. For my money, this is one of the best films of the year, even including that Eli Roth..."performance". See it, love it, hate it, but I guarantee you'll have something to talk to your companions about afterward.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Satantango, 4.5 stars
When reading others' thoughts on this amazing and completely unique film, I came across the notion (I fear I have forgotten where) that this film was a slap in the face to the "easy" art-house movies that were coming to America in droves in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Loads of family-friendly or unchallenging dramas and comedies were released and were essentially interchangeable at art-house cinemas.
Bela Tarr threw down an unmistakable gauntlet with this 7.5-hour, black-and-white long-take masterpiece. It is a very nearly perfect film, suffering only from some very minor problems with pacing. Honestly, when pacing something this long, it would be a miracle for a director and editor to have absolutely no moments which lag, no moments which make the viewer consult his watch. But for the most part it is madly successful, telling a deceptively simple story of a con man who comes to a collapsing communal farm in an attempt to con the residents out of their savings. Essentially this describes the plot. But the map is not the territory.
The story is told in fragments, dancing around the story like the tango for which the the movie is named. Various perspectives and time changes occur between the movie's 12 portions. 8 and 9 minute unbroken takes are commonplace. This is truly a film which redefines what it means to watch a movie. During some of these takes we at first grow impatient. Then we begin to search the scene for additional points of interest. At some point after that we are simply in the room, drinking and dancing or arguing with the characters. The transition is so subtle that we only realize it when the scene changes and we have the sense of having just left a room ourselves.
This is probably the most humanist film I have ever seen, in a pure and simple interpretation of the word. Tarr clearly knows and loves humanity, and has tried to recreate it as closely as possible while telling a story that is so bleak that it barely allows for love at all. These marvelous contradictions are given room to breathe and develop within Tarr's expansive canvas, and the result is a gift we can only humbly accept and offer murmured thanks.
Bela Tarr threw down an unmistakable gauntlet with this 7.5-hour, black-and-white long-take masterpiece. It is a very nearly perfect film, suffering only from some very minor problems with pacing. Honestly, when pacing something this long, it would be a miracle for a director and editor to have absolutely no moments which lag, no moments which make the viewer consult his watch. But for the most part it is madly successful, telling a deceptively simple story of a con man who comes to a collapsing communal farm in an attempt to con the residents out of their savings. Essentially this describes the plot. But the map is not the territory.
The story is told in fragments, dancing around the story like the tango for which the the movie is named. Various perspectives and time changes occur between the movie's 12 portions. 8 and 9 minute unbroken takes are commonplace. This is truly a film which redefines what it means to watch a movie. During some of these takes we at first grow impatient. Then we begin to search the scene for additional points of interest. At some point after that we are simply in the room, drinking and dancing or arguing with the characters. The transition is so subtle that we only realize it when the scene changes and we have the sense of having just left a room ourselves.
This is probably the most humanist film I have ever seen, in a pure and simple interpretation of the word. Tarr clearly knows and loves humanity, and has tried to recreate it as closely as possible while telling a story that is so bleak that it barely allows for love at all. These marvelous contradictions are given room to breathe and develop within Tarr's expansive canvas, and the result is a gift we can only humbly accept and offer murmured thanks.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Julie & Julia, 3.5 stars
A bland crab cake of a movie like this is disappointing on many levels, because it has such potential. The plot follows Julie Powell, who in a year cooked all 500+ recipes in Julia Child's French cookbook, and Julia Child herself, who is shown discovering her passion for food in postwar France. The movie clearly should have been a conventional biopic of Child, whose life is rich enough for two movies and doesn't need the sagging support of the underdeveloped and somnolent Julie Powell chapters. It seems simply unfair to throw Meryl Streep and Amy Adams together as the protagonists of parallel stories and expect the stories to stand up as equals. The effect the movie leaves is of having been in a room papered half in red leather and half in garish children's wallpaper, and being flung between the halves regularly for two hours.
You can't really blame Amy Adams too much for doing her best with what is clearly an underwritten afterthought to the Julia Child story. Adams makes Julie as appealing as possible (the facts we are given through the screenplay make it impossible to see her as much more than a spoiled child out of her league). The Paris scenes with Child, however, sparkle with a wit and sense of place that the movie's other half lacks. It is encouraging to see Julia and her husband living with gusto and verve and remaining sexually active for their entire lives together, a portrait of marriage not often seen in a conventional Hollywood film. If this had been Julia's movie, it would have been encouraging, new and fresh. However, much like Julie's versions of Julia's food, I can't help feeling that her chapters are a lame and uninspired rehash.
You can't really blame Amy Adams too much for doing her best with what is clearly an underwritten afterthought to the Julia Child story. Adams makes Julie as appealing as possible (the facts we are given through the screenplay make it impossible to see her as much more than a spoiled child out of her league). The Paris scenes with Child, however, sparkle with a wit and sense of place that the movie's other half lacks. It is encouraging to see Julia and her husband living with gusto and verve and remaining sexually active for their entire lives together, a portrait of marriage not often seen in a conventional Hollywood film. If this had been Julia's movie, it would have been encouraging, new and fresh. However, much like Julie's versions of Julia's food, I can't help feeling that her chapters are a lame and uninspired rehash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
