Films I Watched - October, 2005
Submitted by lbangs on Mon, 10/03/2005 - 11:18
Tags:
- 10/30 - Aguirre, the Wrath of God - Aguirre takes on humanity and nature, displaying incredible force of will and, of course, madness. Herzog has a unique way of presenting dramatic material. He focuses on some element nearly quiet on the surface, and as the storm bellows about the silent characteristic, he watches the studied feature change, revealing itself. It is focusing on the eye of the tornado and trusting the sharp observation will somehow reveal all one needs to know about the whirling winds that wrap around the point of concentration. Here, it works; the audience watches the title character's calm exterior as he searches for an El Dorado that does not exist and plows through the jungle as hell descends on the cannons and the crosses which are all the "gifts" the Spanish offer to the people they now enslave. The ending is truly horrifying and unsettling. ****
- 10/28 - Saw - It is a terrific opening any spooky film envies; two men wake up in an abandoned bathroom chained by the ankles to the corners and without a clue of how they ended up there or why. Clues slowly reveal a truly horrific scheme behind the madness. For an hour or so, this movie really cooks, despite relying too much on MTV/nu-metal techniques, both visual and aural. It even survives various cops off of Seven, but it eventually sinks beneath one implausible plot twist too many. And then another. And then another. And then... ** 1/2
- 10/28 - Malevolence - You really want to cheer this film on, especially when you realize exactly how little of a budget Stevan Mena made this movie with. Unfortunately, there is a thin line between referencing classics and outright copying them, and this film falls on the wrong side of that divide. When a scene echoes Reservoir Dog dialogue right before a bank heist with camera angles straight out that classic, the film is pushing it. When the soundtrack, while excellent, is straight from Halloween, the movie is in trouble. When you realize that even the most novel twist here, having a film start as a heist flick and slide into horror, is an adaptation of Psycho's feinting first act, all is lost. The commentary, though, could probably serve as an excellent experience in filmmaking on the cheap for aspiring directors. * 1/2
- 10/26 - Red Eye - Wes Craven continues inching away from the horror genre, and he proves this time around that as long as he has a great script, he can deliver the goods. Too bad Red Eye has no such screenplay. It does have the adorable Rachel McAdams (may she never be blonde again) oozing star power every second she is on the screen, and Cillian Murphy matches her nearly every move. The premise is a high-concept affair, and like most such stories, it does not quite know how to follow up the set up, eventually disintegrating into yet another genre cliche festival. Still, Craven directs this with style; without the lead performances and Wes' eye behind the camera, this film would be unbearable. Instead, both elements combine to lift this one out of the murky moss most movies of this ilk sink into. The finished product is not quite a triumph, but it is surely loads better than Carl Ellsworth's script deserves. ** 1/2
- 10/23 - The Merchant of Venice - Some good acting and source material oddly enough still cannot save this from a rather boring, bloodless mediocrity. ** 1/2
- 10/21 - Mad Max - If only all films were as wonderful as our memories of them are. This one plays out as a very rough, dry run for the vastly superior sequel, lacking the over-the-top vroom that pushes The Road Warrior into sheer dumb bliss. The first installment is around 95% setup and 5% clunky, rushed climax, and while the directing has a terrific low-budget edge to it, the film is little more than a curiousity leading up to the fun second part. **
- 10/20 - Oliver Twist - Roman Polanski is one of the best directors alive, and after a triumphant return to remind the public of this fact (The Pianist), I reckon we can forgive him a little uninspired craft. Few ever wish a film that tops out at over two hours had an even greater running time, but this is a Dickens' adaptation, and without editing the sheer mass of material, the story just cries out for more minutes. Polanski's decision to rush through the first half of the film to concentrate on the later events stumbles mightily; by the time the audience reaches the dramatic happenings toward the end, it is not likely to care what happens to the underdeveloped characters who have just shot through the earlier scenes. The first hour has a very workmanlike quality, as if Polanski captured the main plot essence of the scene and hurried on to the next setup without much regard for the emotional content. The film is certainly not without its virtues; the complicated story possesses a clarity rare for a visual version of a Dickens' novel, the cast is terrific and aids that vision, and the cinematography is nothing less that brilliant and deserving of grand recognition. When the director does slow the story down, we suddenly find him focusing on some of his usual obsessions, digging into the material to uncover some gold, but even then, the uninspired rush of the earlier moments robs the final act of the force it craves, and the film ends as one of the director's weaker adaptations of classical literature (especially compared to his stabs at Shakespeare and Hardy). **
- 10/15 - Serenity - The most common complain against this film I hear is that it plays like a two-hour television show. My response to this, as to most silly meta-criticisms, is, "So what? It is a good show?" In this case, it is. The explicit surfacing of the Western roots under most science fiction here works wonders, the characters live, and the story, while often merely clever, is still quite involving. Whedon can certainly take a stab at the cinema world with efforts this good. ***
- 10/15 - The Wool Cap - Obviously, TNT is returning to the well once more, striving to become the new Hallmark Presents. The screenplay falters here, especially in the final act and the fashioning of the girl's character, but the star power shines, as expected, most brightly in William H. Macy portrayal of an alcoholic mute. ** 1/2
- 10/14 - Nick Park Shorts - I've already foamed over these wonderful shorts, but the more I see them, the more I am struck by the sheer directing might behind them, which is more impressive and clever than most of the skill behind the majority of live-action flicks. A Grand Day Out: ***; The Wrong Trousers: ****; A Close Shave: ****
- 10/9 -Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit - AJ and I recently discussed how long it has been since an excellent comedy earned critical and commercial acceptance. The answer to that quest is simple now. This is not only the funniest recent animated movie, it is the funniest film in quite some time. The animation is terrific, Nick Park continues to direct his clay figures with more skill behind the camera than most live-action filmmakers, and the endless allusions and puns never wear thin or steal from the originality of the final product. Sorry, Tim Burton; you no longer deserve the Oscar for Best Animated Film. In fact, looking at the year so far, you can probably scratch the word Animated from that statue. ****
- 10/8 - The Yin and Yang of Dr. Go - At times, it hurts more to be right than to be wrong. I bet a friend that this and not his nominee, Tron, is the worst Jeff (excuse me, Jeffrey) Bridges film. This, of course, demanded a viewing. I am even more convinced now of the sureness of my claim. My, this film is putrid, although unintentionally funny at times. Sadly, though, it proves more boring than humorous. 1/2
- 10/8 – The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - Insomnia struck Friday night, so I stayed up and watched the extended version of the first installment of this epic series again. I still believe this is my favorite of the three. *** 1/2
- 10/6 - 2046 - I saw it a second time, and I still love it. ****
- 10/5 - Shaolin Soccer - One of the finest virtues a comedy can cultivate is following through on convinction. If, for example, you are going to be a goofy comedy, go all out. Don't try to lamely tack on some stupid dramatic device in the third act, and don't pull your punches when you ought to be swinging away. Chow's American breakthrough is no masterpiece, but it does play like a warm-up from an athlete aiming for greatness. He knows what type of film he wants to create, and he makes no concessions to any other silly pressures. I suspect his Kung Fu Hustle might be the fruition of the seeds obvious here; the brief dance scene that supposedly foreshadows longer numbers in his next film certainly promises greatness. He's not there yet, but the kid is certainly on to something...** 1/2
- 10/2 - Collateral - Michael Mann is great at dirty claustrophobic thrillers, and while this is not his best, it is certainly one of his good ones. Anchored by great performances from both Cruise and Foxx, this moody film begins with an introduction that could nearly be a short film in itself before launching into the night. If the ride is not quite as grimy and harrowing as it seems to think it is, it probably is close enough to a nightmare for most viewers, and while some of the twists toward the end are questionable zigzags at best, the attempts to blur the lines between the good guy and the bad guy are miraculously not as forced as I feared they would be, and the directing never nods. Since the claws never dig too deep, the ride races off without cutting nearly as sharply as it should, but it is worth the price of admission anyway. ***
- 10/2 - 2046 - Talented directors often plunge forward into unknown territory seeking a method for forging a new cinematic language, expressive and unique. About once a decade, one actually succeeds. Hal Hartley pulled off that rare feat in the nineties, and Wong Kar-Wai is our current success. When I was writing a novel years ago, I was often frustrated by people asking what the novel was about. My stock response evolved from, “About 350 pages,” to, “the small, silent moments.” I am either sensitive or delusional, but I have always felt that most of the major incidents in our lives fly by nearly unnoticed, that the seconds of the most inner significance are often barely visible from the outside. I suspect Wong Kar-Wai feels the same, as he takes a series of interlocking short stories and shoves scalpels into it, splitting and fragmenting narratives to open them up and expose the blood beneath the skin. Since the stories are already incredibly moving, mixing some of the best elements of Philip K. Dick with Raymond Carver and Christopher Isherwood, the vivisection releases visuals never before seen but immediately recognizable as some sort of schematic of the inner workings of the hearts and minds of the characters, especially Tony Leung Chiu-Wai’s enigmatic lead and Zhang Ziyi’s Oscar-deserving Bai Ling. One unmoved by the hypnotic narcotic neon visions and the slow motion shots lingering to catch every subtle dripping emotion will immediately cry, “Melodrama!” That is not necessarily a lie. Not seeing the genius of sponging such insightful heart-wringing, however, is worse than an lie in the way that blindness can be worse than an illusion. 2046 is an incredibly personal film that invites you to learn its erotic, longing lingo without spoonfeeding you food you can never digest pureed (and make no mistake, this film is not only beautiful and insightful, it is also the most erotic film of the last decade or so). It is also the best film this decade has yet produced, and I will not be surprised if I am still making the same proclamation as the 00s fade into the past. If at all possible, see it at the theater; these impossible dreamscapes were not intended for small screens. ****
- 10/1 - Plaza Suite - In high school, a lovely young woman and I decided to perform one of the three acts of this play for an open stage night at our school. For reasons unknown to anybody, after rehearsing all three parts, we landed on the final piece. Sparks continuously flew between us, with conflict expressing attraction in a charged manner that no doubt justified Dr. Lehman’s famous maxim. I think our unstated hope was that the sexual tension would somehow translate into the annoyed arguing the long-married couple in the play excelled in. Of course, that was a dream; in our young hands, the sexual tension simply came out as sexual tension; the scene played very differently than Neil Simon intended. With a frenetic pace, some real accidental blood, and an aggression all too young and lustful for a couple about to marry off their daughter, the act had to be seen to be believed. It was a bizarre accident, one I would pay good money to watch from the audience once. I can only imagine... and smile.
- Like myself, Walter Matthau tries on each of the male roles in this film. Unlike me, he expertly adjusts himself for each part; how he avoided the trap I fell into while he played opposite Barbara Harris and Lee Grant earns my never-dying respect. The material here is excellent, and if the roaming camera still does not defeat the feeling of a one-setting play, I also think it is ridiculous for critics to complain about a film seeming stage-bound if the play is still stellar. I will not even go into the detail of how odd it is purely by coincidence to watch this film before seeing 2046, given the many odd similarities in these very different films… ***
- 10/1 - A History of Violence - If the Coen brothers in their prime decided to remake Hal Hartley's masterpiece, Amateur, the results might well closely resemble this film, Cronenberg's most mainstreamed attempt since The Fly. The odd twist here is that inside this moody, stylized film, the very elements that most Hollywood films handle artificially, namely sex and violence, are represented with stark realism alternately awkward and shocking. As the film examines questions of identity, history, and the banal effectiveness of violence, it resolutely centers the themes around a strong if simple narrative brought to grave life by an exemplary cast. William Hurt will almost certainly nab a supporting nomination for his turn here, but he simply shines brightest in an already luminous constellation of performances. Cronenberg’s risky strategy works, and from the gasps of the large audience watching the film, the realism of the extreme elements did the job intended. It is a triumph, and easily one of Cronenberg’s finest. *** 1/2
- 10/1 - Alien – I wrote an extensive review of this film for another list on this site, so I will spare you any lame rehash here. I wanted to see this film on the big screen since it first appeared in the late seventies; for some strange reason, my parents did not let my six-year-old self go. I really enjoyed finally realizing the desire. ****
Wow, what a way to start the month! Two days, two four-stars, two three-stars, and one in between. Not too shabby.
I must see 2046 in the theater. I'm not sure if it'll be possible, but I'll certainly give it a shot!
The dawning of October has been very kind to me. October nearly always is.
I feel a bit odd raving over 2046, since I know:
A) I have now built the film up with huge expectations (which I think the movie meets);
B) 90% of all people who see the film will likely hate it;
C) Few will have the chance to see it in a theater.
Still, I really do think it is every bit as good as I claim, and I am hoping to catch it again this week. I adored it, and I hope you enjoy it if you get to see it!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
By 90%, you mean 90% of America, right? Not 90% of Listologists? I think they represent very different demographics...
I noticed it is playing at the Roxy Theatre in Philadelphia, though God only knows for how long. Despite your love for the film, though, I'm not sure what I'll think. The reception from the sources I care about has been polarized, to say the least. My friend Alan, who loves Wong Kar-wai and was the person who loaned me In the Mood for Love, called the film visually mesmerizing but muddled and empty. Even more puzzlingly, he tends to be pretty positive on films, liking pretty much everything he sees, from Le Fils to The Incredibles.
Then there's Ebert, of course, but... ah, hell, why do I bother?
Hopefully I will catch it soon, though.
I think my percentage prediction is not tied to Listies or Americans. I suspect 90% of everybody who sees the film will not like it. I hope I'm wrong!
It is an odd film, but I think it both makes more sense than many give it credit for and is far more emotionally involving than those who claim it is empty believe it to be.
I suspect people who appreciate Carver's short stories will be a bit more predisposed to appreciate it, but many people believe I am horrible at drawing such cross-medium comparisons...
I think Ebert is very, very wrong. The director, if anything, may be a bit too sure and deliberate for most folk's taste, but then I see a pattern behind what Roger might see as random. I certainly defiantly reject that the film, "exists primarily as a visual style imposed upon beautiful faces."
Try it. Definitely try it. I think you'll be glad you did, even if you don't end up loving it as much as I do.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Carver's short stories, eh? Well, uh, I loved Short Cuts. Does that count? :-)
I have learned to take Ebert's opinions with a grain of salt by now. The only thing that troubles me is that, from what I've heard and seen from the trailer, this seems like exactly the kind of methodical, beautiful foreign film Ebert likes to lavish praise upon. He only tends to underrate great foreign / independent films when they are fast-paced (e.g. Snatch, Reservoir Dogs) or have a really unconventional style (e.g. Amateur). On the other hand, he gave three stars to Chungking Express and In the Mood for Love, which are good ratings but quite a bit below the critical radar, so maybe he's never really appreciated Wong Kar-wai.
What I failed to realize is that the Roxy Theatre is a bit of a craphole. Think the porno theater in Taxi Driver and you're pretty close.
Yeah, I loved the film, though I still think Before Sunset is the best of 2004 (I think). A review will pop up... eventually...
I am very glad you caught and enjoyed the film. I like it a bit more than Before Sunset, but since we are not only talking about my two favorite films from that year, but my choices for the two best of the entire decade so far, I shan't split hairs!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Sorry the last three reviews are so brief and breezy. I'm in a hurry today and wanted to post them before I forgot about them (always a danger with my feeble mind).
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
The Merchant of Venice just came out here about two weeks ago, and I'd like to see it, even though your rather negative review makes me a little more careful about it. On the other hand (I know I repeat it often enough) the film was made here in Luxembourg (in a realistic reconstruction of Venice), just a few kilometres from my doorstep.
P.S.: Also thanks for sharing your views on Oliver Twist.
The art direction in Merchant is excellent, with the film reproducing a very credible Venice circa 1600. Really, there isn't anything markedly wrong about the film; it just feels like it is coasting on the material and performances, and shifting the focus to add tragic weight to Shylock leaves the rest of the scenes and characters feeling often purposeless and weightless. I'm pretty stingy with my ratings - my ** 1/2 is probably close to most people's ***, so I certainly don't mean the movie is bad. It is just rather average, with some very strong and some rather weak elements.
I am a bit baffled as to the love for Oliver Twist, unless critics are starstruck by the man behind the camera. I had hopes for the film - if anybody should love yet another version of Oliver Twist, surely it is I - but I feel Polanski fumbled the ball while running much too fast...
I regret the two too-brief reviews I threw up this morning, but time and work left me lucky to even get the short write-ups up I did manage...
Even now, I am typing way too fast; forgive any jumbles that may occur!
Thanks for the comments. If you see either film, be sure to let me know your reactions!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I saw The Merchant of Venice yesterday at the theatre, and I mostly agree on your views now. First of all, I haven't read Shakespeare's play (and before I only knew it superficially). In fact, I didn't feel very comfortable about the movie. The beginning nearly put me to sleep (moreover the sound quality of the copy was awful), towards the middle part it somehow became more interesting. The trial sequence is quite well-done, and, as I don't know the play, it was pretty entertaining to see how they'd outwit Shylock.. Unfortunately the film was't over then. The following scenes were boring, and appeared pointless.
I think Al Pacino (as usual) stole the show, and he's at the same time the film's greatest point in favor and its worst drawback. I mean, his performance is credible and all in all convincing, but the problem is that it's Al Pacino. He is a very popular actor (the least you can say), and no matter how nasty the character he portrays, eventually is, the audience (or at least I) likes him even then, which shouldn't be the case. I'd say that Shylock is probably a very ambiguous character, but you didn't get that through Pacino's performance.
Compared to him, the other actors seemed just pale. Especially Joseph Fiennes disappointed me this time. His character was one-dimensional. In my opinion it's only Jeremy Irons who comes close to Pacino's class, but then again, he seemed to me to be more of a character who makes his appearences only now and then, and that's all.
So, all in all, maybe slightly above average, but just slightly.
I don't think we're supposed to dislike Shylock entirely. To that extent, casting Pacino worked rather well.
I'm not sure the slightness of the other characters, though, had nearly as much to do with the acting as with the shifting of emphasis from them to Shylock. I can't swear to it, but...
Thanks for your thoughts. I enjoyed reading them!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
It's been many years since I've seen either Mad Max or The Road Warrior, and looking back at my own lists I have the former down as "Very Good" and the latter as "Good". I strongly suspect I have that backwards (and inflated), but that's what I get for writing up those years separately, and forgetting to cross-reference. I should do a double-feature one of these nights and refresh my memory. When's the last time you caught The Road Warrior?
I think I last caught the sequel about a decade ago; I no doubt should revisit it soon.
I remember liking Mad Max much more in the past than I did recently. This was the first time I saw the full Australian cut (Mel's voice comes out of Mel's mouth - Amazing!), but I don't think that was the big difference.
I watched this with a friend, and he also remembers the film more fondly than an actual viewing supports.
If you do try a double-decker Max adventure, let me know your thoughts! I suspect your ratings may have gotten switched, but who knows? :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs