Films I Watched - July, 2007
Submitted by lbangs on Thu, 07/05/2007 - 01:26
Tags:
- 7/4 -Casablanca - It bears emphasizing that Humphrey Bogart is not a good-looking man. He ain't no pretty boy. In fact, to stare at his picture, you'd never believe he made it in Hollywood. This disbelief only works, though, if you are indeed staring at a still, mute picture, because Bogart had something few people on film ever really exude, and arguably nobody more so than he. He had charisma. He oozed it. When he walks across a room holding that cigarette, you immediately fix upon him. When he sits drunk at the table nearly passing out, you can't stop watching him. When he sees the woman who abandoned him for the first time in years, you can feel the crackle from his eyes heat up the room like the glowing burn of metal on a space heater. We don't really value this quality much today - we make idols out of pretty faces who couldn't charm a drugged snake or say a riveting word in a lifetime - but somehow, Humphrey made it onto screen, and we had no choice but to make him one of the brightest stars ever. He could not be denied. Casablanca is a hell of a film, one that plays more modern in its complexity than you might suspect. It has one of the most quotable scripts ever written, showering sparkling lines recklessly and without pause; it packs a great cast giving perfect performances into its frame; it manages to touch upon continental wartime worries while exploiting them for its very personal tortured romantic tale; and it packs one of the greatest endings a major studio ever coughed up, daring to dodge temporary crowd tickling for a tragic twist we still haven't quite shaken. It actually deserves its hype and reputation, and it never fails to play surprisingly fresh and moving every time it fires up again. You never leave Casablanca, or at least, it never leaves you. ****
- 7/5 - Hot Fuzz - If you’re like me (and you’re not), you only have to hear that Jim Broadbent, Timothy Dalton, Steve Coogan, and - wow - The Equalizer are in a comedy, and you’re interested. If it is from the writing team of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, the fine folks behind Shaun of the Dead, you’ve no choice, really. The team tackles slam-bang cop action films with the same move they used on horror in the early film, having enough respect to serve up a credible exercise in the genre while poking it in the ribs repeatedly. The cast has a hoot revving this puppy up, and if the editing is a little sub par, maybe that’s a tribute to Michael Bay. This isn’t quite as clever as Shaun, but that’s hardly a slam; Hot Fuzz is loads of fun (and funny) from beginning to end. ***
- 7/7 - Once - Obviously, the inspiration here is Before Sunset and Before Sunrise. Sure, there is music this time around, and some of it quite good, but despite that pleasing element, this is an attempt at a love story without cliché or cheese. It nearly gets there. The two leads are good and adorable, the music (if not always the lyrics) are often very moving, and the directing gets that handheld you are there documentary intimacy down pat. The film is good, but it never quite captures the magic of its idols. The best scene here is riveting; Glen Hansard is banging out a hurt love song at night in a pool of yellow light. You start off at a distance, perhaps just passing by, and his voice, a dead-on echo of Cat Stevens, pulls you in until you are nearly in his face. He howls, and then the song slowly settles and you back up breathless, surprised to discover that somebody is beside you also stunned and sucked into the sonic sorrow. It is a few minutes of marvelous movie magic, a special effect that shames any car that converts into a robot. Unfortunately, this all happens within the first ten minutes of the film, and nothing else quite gets there again. It is a good movie, but you won't forget that great scene it never manages to match. ***
- 7/9 - Sicko - I think we are finally through wringing our hands over Michael Moore’s style of filmmaking (for the record, if you don’t like calling his films documentaries, stick with non-fiction; they are not objective records - they are essays, complete with a strong point of view, material manipulation, and careful selection of facts that bolster the author’s thesis). Like it or not, his once renegade style now largely defines most of the work done in the popular documentary field. Here, he tackles America’s troubled health system, one that works wonderfully for the haves and brutally shafts the have-nots. As usually, he often tugs on heart-strings rough enough to break them, he loves his stunts, and he at times vies with his subject for the film’s focus. Even with these flaws, though, he digs surprisingly deep here, frankly deeper than I expected him to go. He examines the history of HMOs in our nation, points out how Americans were duped in the nineties into rejecting universal health care (the main tactic the industry used was to scare the public into believing the government would put them into HMOs, even though companies turned right around and did the very same thing, only now controlled by for-profit entities), and even studies why the powers that be like our current system. The true tragedy here is that the phrase powers that be does not include the American people, who are either too stupid or too lazy (or both) to demand change and determine the policy that controls their lives and their health. The Bush administration hates this film, so much so that they are now trying to prosecute a few 9/11 heroes who participated in getting the vital care they needed in Cuba after not finding it in the country they served. Have you not noticed that if you are not rich, Bush (and Inhofe, and Coburn) does not care about you? You don’t make them care, and you reward them for their disdain with re-election. I’m babbling. The bumps along the road keep this from being one of the very best films of the year, although it may well be one of the most important. *** 1/2
- 7/10 - 28 Days Later - Boyle makes him some vinaigrette here, shaking up oil and vinegar and proving that you can temporarily get opposites to blend. His gritty video work screams bloody realism while his surrealistic images often invoke a dreamscape of both nightmares and beauty. You also get a little Outbreak sprinkled in along with liberal doses of Night of the Living Dead kicked up with enough spice to zip rather than stumble along. Everything starts to separate toward the end, though, with the unfortunate introduction of an army unit which twists the story in a different, not altogether successful, direction; the symbolic commentary begins sitting in for the terror, and it just doesn't swing quite as hard. It can’t ruin this concoction, but it does hold it back from pure gory glory. ***
- 7/12 - Ratatouille - The line for the most over-rated film of the year begins here. Don’t misunderstand me, this is a pleasant enough family film, and it scores much good will by emphasizing stories and characters over easy laughs or the fart jokes that run rampant in children movies nowadays. The animation is stunning, nearly three-dimensional in its eye-popping clarity and vivid detail. You really want to love this Brad Bird film, but the slight story, misguided subplots, and lack of creativity in the hectic chase scenes Pixar films usually excel in seriously hamper all that good feeling. The food will make you hungry, and the well-utilized locale adds plenty of charm, but the end results just aren’t up to the company or the director’s usually high quality. This is a very likable film, but you want to love it, you really want to love it, but it just can’t quite qualify for such strong devotion. ***
- 7/12 - Disturbia - A good story idea and a strong director should be enough to float this modest film. It has the fun idea of tying up Rear Window in the bright candy wrapper of 80s teen genre films, especially Risky Business and Fright Night; that’s an appealing idea, but it fumbles in the details. Current It Boy or not, Shia LeBeouf does not have the charisma this movie is relying on him to provide, coming off instead as a poor boy’s Jason Dohring. Sarah Roemer also can’t bring anything alluring to the plate. This combines with pathetic attempts at hipness that are woefully off-target (namechecking iPods and YouTube doesn’t make you cool in 2007, only topical, and forgive me if I’m wrong, but I somehow doubt that a cool teenager today would decorate his wall with the exact same posters a cool teenager from my day might have used (Led Zeppelin and The Doors?)) to capsize this effort pretty quickly. If you’re counting on charm and personality to keep you above the surface, you better bring plenty of both, and Disturbia doesn’t. By the time we hit the oddly unsatisfying climax, we’re more annoyed than riveted. The directing is the major saving grace here - D.J. Caruso proved some talent with 2002’s The Salton Sea - and a few elements are rather creative, but it all ain’t grace enough to save this (and the screenwriters’) leaky craft. **
- 7/12 - 28 Weeks Later - When people scan my top ten lists for this decade, one of the films that gets the blankest stares and most questions is Intacto, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s debut film. I was eagerly anticipating his next film until I learned it was going to be 28 Weeks Later. Why the disappointment? Because most horror films are rather awful, and all sequels to horror films are horrible. I struggle and fail to think of a single exception to that rule. Until now. This is an amazing film, far superior to its predecessor, and one of the best horror films ever created. It never lets you relax, never even lets you figure out exactly what sort of film you’re dealing with. When you think you see where everything is going, you’re knocked flat. Those plot and tone twists, however, never stop this from being a truly frightening film. This isn’t just a scary film, it is a horror film, and moments here are some of the most horrifying scenes caught on a fictional film. It admirably picks up the stray strands left by the first part and twists them into an entirely unique tapestry of terror, and even more impressively, every experiment works. The entire affair is so fresh, it can afford not to draw too much attention to its own originality, allowing the viewer to stay focused solely on the main characters and their plight. Those characters are brought to life and, often, convincing death by a terrific cast. Robert Carlyle gives the sort of sterling performance he always dishes out, and all of America’s wannabe teeny boppers can hang it up, because Imogen Poots is not only perhaps the most beautiful teenager ever to hit the silver screen, she can actually act also! There are themes and subtexts galore to ponder here, but you’ll have to do it after the film, because while the projector is running, you will only be able to focus on what you’re watching. This is one of the greatest horror films we’ve yet to see. Fresnadillo has arrived, fulfilling every bit of the promise he extended with Intacto. I can’t wait to see this again. ****
- 7/20 - You Kill Me - John Dahl loves his darkly humorous crime stories (Red Rock West, The Last Seduction), but upon revisiting this territory, he plays this more as comedy than neo noir. Sly, slick style seeps through the screen, and the performances are top notch. You really don’t expect anything less than terrific from Ben Kingsley, and Luke Wilson and Dennis Farina are dependable, but especially striking here is how well Téa Leoni casually handles the sexy wit in her slingshot lines, or how delightfully unique Bill Pullman’s turn as a real estate agent proves. In some ways, this is a quieter version of the under-rated The Matador from two years back, except that where that film had a quite light, breezy plot, this has hardly any. While the setup and feel of the film are unique, what little story is here is not. It is a shot in the foot, crippling this otherwise fun flick. **
- 7/21 - Golden Door - This interesting take on a poor family immigrating from Italy to the United States of America veers from the usual course of such dramas by spending a third of the time in Sicily, a third on the boat, and a third on Ellis Island enduring the various processing and tests there. Not a single shot reveals the ‘new world’ to the audience, even though that is what the film’s original title actually translates as. This is explored at a deliberate pace. The director exchanges a quicker narrative for a poetic tone, and this allows several striking images that are some of the most beautiful, moving, wondrous sights I’ve seen on the big screen in some time. This is not novel material, but it is a unique, fresh way of presenting it. You’ll be too involved to consider how many times you’ve seen a similar scenario before. *** 1/2
- 7/22 - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - David Yates takes his first turn behind the camera here. He will also direct the next installment, making him only the second director to do two of these films. He certainly does a better job than Chris Columbus did with the first two chained-to-the-book installments, but he unfortunately doesn’t come too close to clearing the high bar set by the previous two parts. The opening is a sheer bore. The entire mini-plot that opens the story seems tacked on solely for the sake of the story that follows, and when it wraps, it feels as if Yates took a big sigh of relief and delighted that he could finally start the real stuff. From there, the film finds an inspiring, rebellious energy that thrills. Imelda Staunton is a good part of that lift, providing an excellent, chirpy portrayal of a conservative spirit-crusher, and I always love to see Helena Bonham Carter at work.. The conclusion settles a bit, too often relying on electric zaps through the dark to cover for the real lack of tension in the way the magical showdown is handled. I caught this at the IMAX theater, where the climax showed in three dimensions. It was mostly well done and amazing, only losing definition in scenes of rapid movement. Even lacking the emotional and artistic heft of the previous two films, this still clobbers most blockbusters quite handily, and I hope that Yates gets even better next time around. ***
- 7/23 - Evening - There’s a scene here where Hugh Dancy, wonderfully hamming up a horribly written role, drunkenly boogies down to I’ve Got the World on a String in 1957. It doesn’t take long before you realize that the filmmakers switched Sinatra’s classic with a newer, tamer, and lamer rerecording by Michael Buble, and frankly, this tells you all you need to know about this film. He sings fine if restrained and showy, but the horns are now fuzzy and comforting rather than the ripping, blaring brass from the authentic version. The two hints this surrenders is that this film is soft and squishy to the point of utterly splashing apart, and it panders to the suburban female audience it is counting on to make it a sleeper hit. All of this (excepting deleting Frank) might be forgivable if this was actually any good, but with a stupid script (What exactly does, “You’re famous to me!” mean anyway?), a good cast either slumming it or clueless what to act with, given the lack of a decent screenplay, and a haphazard structure aiming at dreaminess but landing firmly in a pool of sloppy, clumsy cluelessness, this hasn’t a chance. There a good scene with Vanessa Redgrave and Meryl Streep, Gyula Pados’s cinematography is lush and gorgeous, and that’s it. The rest is sap spilling into a spatter puddle on the excellently-filmed floor. * 1/2
- 7/24 - Paprika - Candy-colored confections of rioting childhood dreams, wild layers of white noise and simple melodies clawing on top of each other, and pop psychology skimming the surface of serious depth - Good anime is like little else on this planet, and Paprika proves to be one of the better examples of this highly stylized genre. The contrast between the bright preschool elements and the efforts to spark grave philosophical debate over the nature of science versus fantasy and the human need for both, either, or neither can be a rough seam for the uninitiated to pass over smoothly, but hang with it, and this is both sweet and saucy enough to win most dedicated viewers over. Even in this insane world (and short running time), there are a few tiring patches, but hopeful these do not discourage newcomers, as this is a pretty painless introduction into a growing, yet still foreign to most Americans, realm of cinema. ***
- 7/28 - Rescue Dawn - When Herzog's attempt to make friends with American viewing audience begins with a character explicitly stating some of the director's career-long ruminations on nature, you might worry this is a sell-out. Luckily, you're wrong. Unluckily, you're not really in for anything much better. This is his first English screenplay, and every time a character opens his mouth, you believe this is his first English screenplay. Steve Zahn still gives an astonishing performance, but Christian Bale can't quite manage, playing especially unconvincing in the opening scenes. Too bad he is the main actor. The middle portions of the film work best, with less talking, more images, and the director doing the type of man staring down nature fare he does best, but the ending is rather ho-hum. In fact, on average, so is this film, and that is very unexpected from the man who just two films ago created perhaps the best documentary of the decade (Grizzly Man). ** 1/2
- 7/30 - Killer of Sheep - This was a student film? Well, yeah, and on a technical level, it shows. A few scenes have that 'one take of improvisation' feel, and the sound is frankly too muddled to make out at points. Still, the overwhelming impression here is that Charles Burnett is a director and writer bursting with talent, from his wise decision to structure this slice of life episodically, thus capturing the true nonlinear feel of life in the slums, to his very clever, even ingenious, use of surprising reveals to shock and to surprise his audience. His knack for striking and moving imagery easily survives a few scenes showing signs of a too-heavy hand. Even more amazing is the fact that he shows such skill while, according to lead actor Henry Sanders, doing everything besides actually appearing in the frame. Yes, too a large degree, this film is being vastly overrated on merits of good intentions, which is really a disservice, reducing a work of art to something closer akin to a dose of medicine. This is a good film, and like all good art, it doesn’t need to be 'good for you' to be good for you. ***
Author Comments:
I'm rating the films on a zero to **** basis. ** 1/2 is average.
Ratatouille overrated and 28 Weeks Later the best movie of the year? Has the world gone mad?
What a ringing endorsement for a film I was sure I'd hate! I'm still not totally convinced that I'll enjoy this sequel to a film I didn't really like in a genre I don't really like, but I'm thinking maybe I'll check out Intacto and see what I think of the director. Perhaps I too will be sold on Mr. Carlos Fresnadillo, enough to check out 28 Weeks Later.
I was going to ask you why you thought it received a fairly tepid critical response, except I just noticed its score is actually pretty high on Metacritic, especially given its horror sequel status, so you're certainly not alone.
The planet has turned upside-down. Does Al Gore know about this?
28 Weeks Later was the biggest surprise I've had in some time at the movies. I think it may be the only horror sequel in history to kick the original's booty all about. And to think I waited until it hit the dollar theater...
I think this film was better than Intacto, but by all means, check that one out first, if you wish! :)
I am very happy to see the national critics were kind to this film.
I'd love to talk more about the movie, but frankly, I fear giving away too much of the plot.
Ratatouille was a fine film, just not nearly as good as I thought it would be.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Wow, 28 Weeks Later... I did not see that one coming. It was already in my queue, but now I'm actually looking forward to it!
Sorry if I contributed to boosting your Ratatouille expectations! Curiously, had I written my review upon coming home, it would have looked a lot like yours. But the more I talked with other people the more scenes I really enjoyed kept coming to the fore, and the more I remembered, and the more I loved how the plot arc does not end with Gusteau's getting the stars back, and it's not the quirky human kitchen staff that overcomes their prejudices to rise to the occasion, and that perfect Anton Ego flashback sequence, and... Well, I could go on and on. Whether that makes my later review the refined product of further reflection or whether it was tainted by a fan-driven feedback loop I'll never know. Well, maybe I'll know when it hits DVD.
Anyway, glad you liked it, even if it was pretty low on that spectrum.
I also didn't see 28 Weeks Later coming. I might see it again this week, as it is still at the dollar theater here! :)
Don't worry about the Ratatouille. It seems to be getting better reviews than any other film this year, and it boasts incredible talent, so high expectations were unavoidable. I agree with much of what you wrote (I also especially dug that flashback scene), but I found the entire affair rather underwhelming. I hate to damn with faint praise, but....
Maybe a DVD viewing will straighten me out! :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Cool. Hey, how 'bout the short, Lifted? Man, the girls and I thought that was a hoot.
Honestly, we arrived too late and only saw the last ten seconds of it.
So...
...I guess that DVD viewing is in my future! :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Hot Fuzz is the movie of the year to me ;) There was too much care put into the script to ignore.
Sicko - you know I've always found Michael Moore to be a fascinating character, even though I hated Bowling for Columbine. That movie was way too manipulative and tried to link together things that weren't there. The way he waltzes into Target and makes a scene, accusing *them* of killing all the Columbine students in a way, and then acting like a victim when they wouldn't let Moore and the wounded student see the manager was a terrible piece of filmmaking, although the scene where he interviews a senile Charleton Heston and (more or less) accuses him of killing a little girl, leaving her picture on his doorstop or whatever...what the hell? And if the interview was supposed to be "uncut" like he says why does the clock in the background keep moving??
Okay, so Fahrenheit 9/11 was better. It was, again, very manipulative - it implied that the Bush election was rigged from the get go and that FOX news was in on it, and that Bush either set up 9/11 or at least knew about it...but still, I agree that this administration is a joke and even if the film shouldn't even be called a documentary that there is a lot of merit to it. It gets people to question their government and doubt that our administration is REALLY looking out for us, which is good. Sicko I saw in the same light. Once again it's completely biased (if you see where he gets his statistics from, it's ridiculous...I remember reading something about how he found the spending per person on health care for US and Cuba on two lists, one of which had higher numbers, so he used the higher list for US and the lower one for Cuba) but I do agree with him. Our health care system is terrible. I'm terrified of getting some kind of disease like cancer, HIV, or multiple schooloroizostis because I know that I will be in debt for life.
You'll have to search the site for my thoughts on the man (I'm too lazy to do it myself!), but I agree with much of what you say. I actually think Bowling is a much better film than Fahrenheit, even given the weaknesses in the former (and that Heston scene did bother me).
I enjoyed Hot Fuzz. Good stuff!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
You know, I've heard a few people say that Moore essentially accuses Charlton Heston of killing the little girl, but to me it never came across that way. I never got the sense that he was saying "This is a picture of the little girl your organization basically murdered" - but rather, "Your organization tries to escape the human tragedy of gun violence by making this girl's death into a political opportunity to rally the gun-toters, but in the end you can't escape the fact that you held a protest shortly after a little girl died." Indeed, I think the fact that Heston turned this tragedy into an opportunity for a pro-gun rally is far more objectionable than the fact that he thinks every American should have the right to own a gun (even if his belief in the latter does result in gun violence), and I would bet Moore feels the same way.
As for the linking things together that weren't there - I could agree with you about the Target scene, but I think the main point of the movie (how the media keeping us scared shitless is a huge cause of gun violence) is a very solid one. In fact, I was inspired to read Barry Glassner's The Culture of Fear after seeing Bowling for Columbine, and this point is very well-documented there.