Films I Watched - March, 2007
Submitted by lbangs on Mon, 03/12/2007 - 04:25
Tags:
- 3/28 - The Lives of Others - Walking into this film knowing only that critics have festooned it with some glorious reviews and that moviegoers hate it sight unseen for beating Pan’s Labyrinth in the Best Foreign Film Oscar race, I really did not know what direction this film would veer off into. This ignorance made for many nice unexpected turns. This film takes that worn film device of using voyeurism as a plot device in a medium that inherently demands its audience watch as virtual voyeurs and applies it to East German’s surveillance spy programs of the eighties. It is an idea that plays fairly fresh and works surprisingly well, and married to a film that has a few unexpected but realistic twists, it creates a heightened experience of prying into other people’s world and finding ourselves emotionally involved. Reminiscent of another good recent film (Zodiac), Donnersmarck’s film also subverts standard genre plot structure to recreate the confused experiences of its characters and draw the audience deep inside those very emotions. It is a little soft-minded in sections, and the ending has at least one too-convenient coincidence, but this works quite well. No, it is not a better film that Pan, but it is still a good movie on its own merits. *** 1/2
- 3/25 - 300 - The film world brings us fans of classical history and literature to tears. Gladiator, Troy, Alexander, and now this. Honestly, Frank Miller’s story does an admirable job of making the dumb thugs of Sparta seem noble and somewhat intelligent, but that and the computer aptitude evident in the digital manipulation of the images on the screen are the only impressive elements of this movie. Okay, I lied. The bodies are for the most part rather impressive as well. None of this saves the film, though. For all its strengths, Miller’s story has a lame, lame ending and entirely too many obvious moments, and the only good lines in the entire script are straight out of history (“Only Spartan women give birth to real men.” “Come home with your shield or on it.” “Then we will fight in the shade.” - read any history at all, and you already know these great lines.). That’s fine, but when the dialogue isn’t copped from reality or Herodotus, it reeks; it might pass in a football team huddle (I’ve heard worse in many) or in a frat haze, but in a film, it is horrid. The forced intrigues at home are particularly predictable and awful. Really, though, that isn’t the main problem here. Zach Snyder is. He doesn’t foil the buildup at the beginning of the film too much, but he delivers squat. He directs battles scene with skill, but all that skill is merely technical, not artistic. Speeding up a fight scene and then dramatically slowing it down to show the sword enter the flesh is not particularly effective, especially when backed by a nu-metal soundtrack sadly out of date a decade ago. Contrasting these scenes to those of, say, The Lord of the Rings series, shows just how poorly the ones in 300 were conceived and executed. If loud guitars and flying blood are all it takes to get your pulse racing, you'll love this movie. If you require anything more, stay at home. Forget the distortions of history (Don't get me started how stupid and selfish Spartans truly were or what all that talk of freedom really amounted to), and forget the political propaganda honed especially for a nation in the middle of a war that demands its citizens to turn off their brains and cheer, this film fails as art. It fails as a good time. It fails miserably at everything except making money, and while we're relying on quotes to carry the day, I'll look up what Mencken has to say about that. * 1/2
- 3/24 - Brazil - It frightens me that the futuristic dystopia this movie mocks resembles America today so closely. Time continues to prove this a visionary masterpiece, one that I enjoy and appreciate more the older I get. The first time I watched this, I was around ten years old and was still two years away from recognizing the Potemkin references. Those quick nods are minor compared to the dark humor satirizing society today and tomorrow. The incredibly intelligent screenplay isn’t the only highlight here, though. Terry Gilliam’s imagination and direction create a tour de force, an entire dark world filmed on the cheap. The cast is in on the joke, even Robert de Niro as a “terrorist” ductman! Brazil smears on a smirk as it uses fantasy to take dead aim at our reality and hits us smack dab between the eyes. It is a nightmare to be sure, but sometimes dreams do come true. ****
- 3/17 - Zodiac - Fincher has made some good movies, but this is his finest yet. Taking his time (all three hours of it) to tell several stories and juggle multiple moods, he drops nothing and dazzled continuously. Immediately, he flashes a Paramount Pictures’ logo from the seventies. To his immense credit, this doesn’t play as an attempt to capture that decade’s vibe; this seems like a film straight out of that creative decade. Scenes inside the newspaper office would’ve seem at home in All the President’s Men, the bar scenes have that faded smoky feel you’d expect thirty years ago, minutes are used solely to flesh out characters, and gee, Robert Downey Jr. even looks like Pacino’s Serpico for a good part of the movie. The brilliant quality here, the fact that lifts this film well above impressive era recreation, is that all this is just window-dressing for the Fincher’s finest display of audience manipulation to date. He is known for his eye (and ear, as the soundtrack here attests) for detail, but while that could take over the film in a horrible trainspotting accident, it merely serves as support for the real action. This movie has movements, effortlessly driving the audience from horror and suspense to police and newsmen procedural to psychological excavation and character examination. The transitions are seamless, and no one style overshadows the others. The cast is a dream. The names here are not quite as loaded as those in The Departed, but this ensemble packs every bit as powerful a shot. I’m avoiding a few specific sections that wowed me because I try to keep this silly review fairly spoiler-free, but trust me - I’m just scratching the surface of what makes this film so terrific. With Zodiac, Fincher delivers the finest film of his career, his masterpiece, and, as of early March, the best movie of this young year. ****
- 3/16 - Shopgirl - For a film aching for that slow, meditative, artsy sheen, this is rather a mess. Some scenes play awkward and misplaced, some stabs at humor should have been cut, and a few of the deleted scenes really should be here in the place of others. When Steve Martin’s writing hits a high note, though, you forget all that. Claire Danes disappears into her character as only a great actress does, and Schwartzman is fine even if his character is too often an afterthought or plot device. The story is simple but more honest than most, and even though Tucker’s Starbucks direction will date this quickly, the movie is still strong enough to merit a sip. ***
- 3/15 - Breach - This film has no nudity, explosions, or obvious computer-generated effects. The studio has not done much to promote it, and these are the only reasons I can imagine for this movie's relative obscurity. Hopefully, that will change when Chris Cooper nails an Oscar nomination for his phenomenal portrayal of FBI spy and traitor, Robert Hanssen. Yes, it is early in the year, and that timing and commercial neglect may sink it, but the Academy loves Cooper, and believe me, he cooks here. Know what else? Ryan Philippe does good work here too; combine this with his acting in the excellent Flags of Our Fathers and the horrid Crash, and you're faced with enough talent that you really can't poke fun at the boy. Laura Linney gives life to an underwritten character, an impressive feat that Caroline Dhavernas sadly cannot repeat. Every scene involving her stock character as Philippe's wife is limp and boring. This is extremely unfortunate, as these scenes are the only moments in this film that do not work (although some of the incidental music in the opening scenes could have been chopped). Take out the stupid wife subplot, and you have a thinker's spy story and a very good movie. *** 1/2
- 3/9 - INLAND EMPIRE - I have a few guiding principles I use in evaluating art. The supreme dictum is that no hard, fast rules exist. Sure, many good general guidelines are around, and they do much to settle certain conventions and to sharpen dull senses, but the history of art tends to be a parade of works that shattered all the believed rules of various times. There is not a single aesthetic commandment which has not been successfully exploded by some masterpiece somewhere, and any critic who is not aware of this fact should hang it up and retire. Another principle - this one a generality rather an absolute - is that most attempts at unifying narrative works of art around an element other than plot fail miserably. I would argue that David Lynch’s career offers many fascinating proofs of this statement, and to a large degree, his masterpiece, Mulholland Dr., works because the plot, as confusing as it is, steps up and pulls the piece together into a coherent whole. The viewer may have to work to follow the story, but it is there and offers enough help to tempt most serious viewers down the path. While very similar to that effort, INLAND EMPIRE is essentially, fundamentally different in that respect. It tosses that aspect, the attempt to weave the strands of story together with a coherent plot, clear out the window and right over the railing. I considered being cautious here - after all, maybe I’m missing an important hint or two, just like most reviewers did with Mulholland Dr. - but wimpy critics are worthless, and so I sin boldly. This film does not tell a comprehensible story. Instead, Lynch relies on emotional and thematic threads to sew this long project up, and in a very rare miracle, he succeeds. The lack of a traditional plot with easily understood movements and endings will of course force most people to hate this film, but for the few willing to let the movie move them where it will, an incredible experience awaits. Autonomy of personhood, love, the illusions of Hollywood and the television, the politics of relationships, and various other subjects are explored and used to connect patches of plot only barely, if at all, logically attached to each other, and while the viewer can never quite put it all together, the human resonances are palpable and stirring. Certain scenes here are mysterious and yet moving being the grasp of most flicks. The mind boggles while the heart swells. All this, of course, means INLAND EMPIRE joins Tarnation as one of the few excellent experimental films of the decade. Not every frame here is perfect, but enough are. ****
Author Comments:
I'm rating the films on a zero to **** basis. ** 1/2 is average.
I admire your boundless optimism. Your hope for historical accuracy in a Hollywood movie based on a comic book is endearing.
You are not alone. The mere thought of Achilles surviving until the sack of Troy makes me want to scream.
Actually, I was trying to indicate that I didn't expect historical accuracy, just a good time at the movies.
That is why I am so disappointed in the film.
It is hard enough sometimes getting historical accuracy from one's historians. I certainly place no such burden on a feature filmmaker...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I was going to write that I have high hopes for Fast Food Nation.
And then I saw that it was released last year. I'm so divorced from pop culture that it's now paying me alimony. How'd that happen?
I will now pin my hopes to Amazing Grace (and Youssou N'Dour.) Or was it Amazing Grace and Chuck?
Thanks for the warning. I've been seeing pop culture off and on for a bit now, and I hope you're cool with that.
I highly recommend Amazing Grace & Chuck & Buck & Alice.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
lbangs, your reviews are so fine.
You're too kind. Thanks!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs (superfine, dammit)