directed by Alex Proyas
For some strange reason, it seems that in the last year or so, filmmakers have taken great concepts and just not really known what to do with them. This is the case with KNOWING, something that strives to be a clever film just as it tries (and fails) to have a clever title. There's nothing quite like a ridiculously compelling mystery/suspense scifi thriller to keep you guessing until the last thirty minutes, when you're subsequently forced to watch the thing come apart at just the point when it should be coming together. Ever had a great album with scratches that only appeared on your favorite song? That's what it's like to watch this movie.
Nic Cage can act. But he's not terribly versatile, so he only shines when he's in a role made for him, and he's only done that on a couple of occasions in his terribly long career. The rest of the time, he has a grab-bag of reflexes that he pulls out, or he just talks in a bored sort of manner. It's all well and good until your young costar has to show an emotion. Poor kid...
Basically, the story goes that there's this list of numbers that serves as a guide-map to future catastrophes. There's only numbers on it, no spacing, which in the end serves more as an allusion to the film as a whole than to any real deeper meaning. You have to figure out what the numbers mean like it's a puzzle, then when you do, you have to confront the fact that there's really not much you can do with the information you're given other than stick a bag of popcorn in the microwave and enjoy the show.
In fact, once you get past all the sci-fi hooha that passes for a climax, what you're left with is basically an excuse to see things blow up. Fine by me, I love a good explosion. However, it appears the filmmakers were more interested in a mass audience than a happy one, so even though crazy shit happens and lots of people die, the special effects themselves are just shy of the uncanny valley and appear just cartoonish enough to keep the teenagers in the room. Also, there are no tits. A movie with explosions should have tits. Just sayin'. (I had a teacher fantasy in the first scene... alas, the film jumps in time 50 years and the teacher aged with it. Pity).
What's my point? I don't really need to have one. Once you see the final shot of the film and manage to control your snickering, you'll realize why I leave it at that.
7.23/10
Sunday, March 29, 2009
THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001-2003)
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001)
THE TWO TOWERS (2002)
THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)
directed by Peter Jackson
I take no real pleasure in making distinctions between the three films that comprise THE LORD OF THE RINGS, though I believe the most poignant, well-crafted, and focused of the three is FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. For the most part, they all hold the same sense of magnitude: these are the seminal cinematic achievement of their era. They are walking in the proud footsteps of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, GREED, GONE WITH THE WIND, and STAR WARS. When people think of the period of 1990s-2000s, these will be the first films that spring to mind.
They are, of course, not without their flaws, and share them all equally. The more plotlines you have to follow, the more apparent are the same flaws that each of them has in common. Poor TWO TOWERS, with its three separate subplots bouncing in and out of each other. They all seem terribly important for one reason or other until you show the film sans one of them to somebody who's never read the books. Jackson always had a problem with editing. He loves his subject more than he loves the medium and would gladly have filmed each separate book as 6 3-hour movies if New Line had given him the money for it. (for those unaware, Tolkien originally meant for RINGS to be in six separate volumes. In this day and age, publishers would have happily obliged, and probably requested that he stretch it out even more. Back then, though, it was understood that people didn't have credit cards and couldn't just keep spending on a book that never seemed to have any resolution in sight).
Of course, since the film, in brief glimpses, seems essentially perfect, let's throw out a quick flaw the three collectively have real quick just to get it out of the way: Honestly, there's too many subplots. Not that it needs to modify the existing plot in any significant way, but certain aspects would be just as readily accepted if they were simply alluded to rather than focused on. I have my own ideas, but I'd rather not piss off the fan-base by naming them. It wouldn't require a re-shoot; just a more extensive editing session. (in a glaring example of this problem Jackson has when he has access to the resources, watch his version of KING KONG and ponder why it's twice as long as the original 1933 classic).
This is really the only significant flaw in the films. There are other, lesser flaws, such as the tendency for the dialogue to move from 'holy' to 'cheesy' and back again, but this is another thing editing could have taken care of. Once you cut them down to reasonable running times... you would have made a trilogy of amazing films into undeniable masterpieces.
8.69/10
THE TWO TOWERS (2002)
THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)
directed by Peter Jackson
I take no real pleasure in making distinctions between the three films that comprise THE LORD OF THE RINGS, though I believe the most poignant, well-crafted, and focused of the three is FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. For the most part, they all hold the same sense of magnitude: these are the seminal cinematic achievement of their era. They are walking in the proud footsteps of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, GREED, GONE WITH THE WIND, and STAR WARS. When people think of the period of 1990s-2000s, these will be the first films that spring to mind.
They are, of course, not without their flaws, and share them all equally. The more plotlines you have to follow, the more apparent are the same flaws that each of them has in common. Poor TWO TOWERS, with its three separate subplots bouncing in and out of each other. They all seem terribly important for one reason or other until you show the film sans one of them to somebody who's never read the books. Jackson always had a problem with editing. He loves his subject more than he loves the medium and would gladly have filmed each separate book as 6 3-hour movies if New Line had given him the money for it. (for those unaware, Tolkien originally meant for RINGS to be in six separate volumes. In this day and age, publishers would have happily obliged, and probably requested that he stretch it out even more. Back then, though, it was understood that people didn't have credit cards and couldn't just keep spending on a book that never seemed to have any resolution in sight).
Of course, since the film, in brief glimpses, seems essentially perfect, let's throw out a quick flaw the three collectively have real quick just to get it out of the way: Honestly, there's too many subplots. Not that it needs to modify the existing plot in any significant way, but certain aspects would be just as readily accepted if they were simply alluded to rather than focused on. I have my own ideas, but I'd rather not piss off the fan-base by naming them. It wouldn't require a re-shoot; just a more extensive editing session. (in a glaring example of this problem Jackson has when he has access to the resources, watch his version of KING KONG and ponder why it's twice as long as the original 1933 classic).
This is really the only significant flaw in the films. There are other, lesser flaws, such as the tendency for the dialogue to move from 'holy' to 'cheesy' and back again, but this is another thing editing could have taken care of. Once you cut them down to reasonable running times... you would have made a trilogy of amazing films into undeniable masterpieces.
8.69/10
Saturday, March 28, 2009
CHANGELING (2008)
directed by Clint Eastwood
You wouldn't think the LAPD could be such dicks.... (heh)... but apparently it happened, and it happened pretty much just the way Clint Eastwood and screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski says it does. And it is almost absolutely true, with maybe a few disheartening details and some of the nastier bits indicated rather than flat-out shown.
Christine Collins, a female supervisor in 1928 (which basically makes her absolutely awesome), is called in to work one day just as she and her child Walter (Gattlin Griffith) are about to go to the cinema. She leaves her kid at the house and never sees him again (in real life, she gives him the dime and tells him to go to the movies by himself, which makes more sense, but also makes her somewhat negligible).
There's a search for the kid which takes about six months, and when the LAPD very proudly find him again, Christine shows up at the train station to be reunited with... some kid that she's never seen before in her life. The LAPD essentially tells her if she doesn't think it's her kid, then she's batshit insane, and from then on, the film becomes mostly about her battle with them. It's told in a very straightforward manner (as are most Eastwood films), and you spend quite a few moments calling bullshit, when in fact (unlike A BEAUTIFUL MIND), most of what you're seeing actually happened. It's no wonder nobody trusts the cops. Somebody should make a good movie about them that doesn't criminalize them or make them look incompetent. I'm trying to remember one, but... I guess when they're actually doing their job, it's not very interesting. Although I do love me some LAW AND ORDER (espcially SVU)!
8.16/10
You wouldn't think the LAPD could be such dicks.... (heh)... but apparently it happened, and it happened pretty much just the way Clint Eastwood and screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski says it does. And it is almost absolutely true, with maybe a few disheartening details and some of the nastier bits indicated rather than flat-out shown.
Christine Collins, a female supervisor in 1928 (which basically makes her absolutely awesome), is called in to work one day just as she and her child Walter (Gattlin Griffith) are about to go to the cinema. She leaves her kid at the house and never sees him again (in real life, she gives him the dime and tells him to go to the movies by himself, which makes more sense, but also makes her somewhat negligible).
There's a search for the kid which takes about six months, and when the LAPD very proudly find him again, Christine shows up at the train station to be reunited with... some kid that she's never seen before in her life. The LAPD essentially tells her if she doesn't think it's her kid, then she's batshit insane, and from then on, the film becomes mostly about her battle with them. It's told in a very straightforward manner (as are most Eastwood films), and you spend quite a few moments calling bullshit, when in fact (unlike A BEAUTIFUL MIND), most of what you're seeing actually happened. It's no wonder nobody trusts the cops. Somebody should make a good movie about them that doesn't criminalize them or make them look incompetent. I'm trying to remember one, but... I guess when they're actually doing their job, it's not very interesting. Although I do love me some LAW AND ORDER (espcially SVU)!
8.16/10
Friday, March 27, 2009
BATMAN BEGINS (2005)
directed by Christopher Nolan
I remember being in a bar in my hometown right after BATMAN BEGINS was released. I hadn't had a chance to see it yet, and a lot of these guys were already making plans to see it again. First chance I got, I was there. And I wasn't disappointed.
Nolan's BATMAN is a different breed altogether. It shrouds itself in a modicum of realism, which is to say it's not realistic at all, but it certainly makes a good effort at pretending to be. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) actually has a relationship with his father, actually trains to become a ninja (though he appears quite talented before he ever gets there... how he goes from millionaire playboy fuck-up to prison-nightmare is beyond me), and actually puts together all the separate elements to become Gotham's dark knight.
The film doesn't jump from origin to climax either, which is nice. Origin stories have a tendency to do that. As soon as the superhero comes to fruition, he kills off the main baddie and the credits begin rolling. It makes the entire film feel like a 2-hour long preview. BATMAN BEGINS feels like a complete film. And the final scene, a rooftop conversation between Batman and Gordon (Gary Oldman) almost makes you wish a sequel hadn't been in the works (though now that THE DARK KNIGHT is out, I'm glad they made one).
8.33/10
I remember being in a bar in my hometown right after BATMAN BEGINS was released. I hadn't had a chance to see it yet, and a lot of these guys were already making plans to see it again. First chance I got, I was there. And I wasn't disappointed.
Nolan's BATMAN is a different breed altogether. It shrouds itself in a modicum of realism, which is to say it's not realistic at all, but it certainly makes a good effort at pretending to be. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) actually has a relationship with his father, actually trains to become a ninja (though he appears quite talented before he ever gets there... how he goes from millionaire playboy fuck-up to prison-nightmare is beyond me), and actually puts together all the separate elements to become Gotham's dark knight.
The film doesn't jump from origin to climax either, which is nice. Origin stories have a tendency to do that. As soon as the superhero comes to fruition, he kills off the main baddie and the credits begin rolling. It makes the entire film feel like a 2-hour long preview. BATMAN BEGINS feels like a complete film. And the final scene, a rooftop conversation between Batman and Gordon (Gary Oldman) almost makes you wish a sequel hadn't been in the works (though now that THE DARK KNIGHT is out, I'm glad they made one).
8.33/10
THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD (1965)
directed by George Stevens
Oh Holy Bore!
Being a bit of a bible buff, I was actually looking forward to this. I bought it in a 2-pack with Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (total price for both: $9). Like PASSION, it's a Jesus movie, in that it's a biopic of the birth, life, death, and (occasionally) the resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua, Joshua, Josh) of Nazareth. Such an amazing life he lived that the Greek variation of his name, the one most prominent in texts, got "retired", so to speak (Central/South American Jesus doesn't count because it's pronounced"hey-soos" instead of "jee-zus").
Unfortunately, while the overall story is probably the greatest version of the story ever told, the pious monotone of nearly everyone involved renders this an unmitigated snooze-fest. Jesus is played here by Max von Sydow, a young man with an old soul who made his mark doing Ingmar Bergman films. He always appears sad and desolate, which is understandable, given that Bergman typically engages in atheistic nihilism. In fact, this Jesus spouts the good news as though he just walked off the set of a Bergman film. Everything comes out hollow as the umpteenth mass performed on a rainy unimportant day by an alcoholic Catholic priest. He carries a quiet smile the entire time, but if what he's saying will subject him to a thinly veiled government assassination and eventual cult following to the point of greatest religion ever, God is truly working miracles indeed. He's about as charismatic as your typical near-retirement calculus professor. This is made all the more ridiculous by the presence of Charlton Heston as John the Baptist, Donald Pleasance as Satan, and Sidney Poitier as Simon. These are, by far, the three most compelling characters in this film, and when they appear, the movie suddenly comes alive. Unfortunately, their presence makes up roughly thirty minutes of screen-time. Simon doesn't even say anything, but Sidney's portrayal is spot-on in its intensity. (It also comes right around the time of the Civil Rights Act, so there's great potency in seeing a black man carrying the cross for Christ). At least it would, were it any other Christ but our cardboard cut-out Jesus.
All this boring Jesus business would be forgivable if the movie wasn't so damned long. Jesus is barely around for the first third of the movie, as its deemed extremely important that we know exactly who holds power in the region and where. There's apparently a tetrarchy of kings who are under control of a governor, who bows to.... really, who gives a shit? Jesus is here to open up the doorway of salvation to the world. He chooses to come at the perfect time: the Roman Empire owns 1/3 of everything inhabited, so anything that makes a ripple in Caesar's palace has accomplished 33% of the ultimate shout-out. He's also born to the last generation of old-school Israel (they would be dispersed by Nero before the turn of the century). So... you show us a little Rome and your mission's basically accomplished. Why get lost in drearily unimportant politics? What are you, THE PHANTOM MENACE?
Two hours into the film, we see a passage which includes the verse "Jesus wept." That's the entire verse. The connotation is that Jesus spent a considerable bit of time crying his eyes out. In this film, there's a half-minute shot of Jesus doing just this... except he doesn't. His eyes water, his jaw sets and we get: one single tear. I recalled that scene from TERMINATOR 2 where Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator spends the same amount of time straining to offer up a smile. Then the screen goes dark and we're treated to: "Intermission."
Why are these people trying to kill Jesus? He's obviously quite dead already.
6.66/10 (the mark of the devil is unintentional, I promise).
Oh Holy Bore!
Being a bit of a bible buff, I was actually looking forward to this. I bought it in a 2-pack with Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (total price for both: $9). Like PASSION, it's a Jesus movie, in that it's a biopic of the birth, life, death, and (occasionally) the resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua, Joshua, Josh) of Nazareth. Such an amazing life he lived that the Greek variation of his name, the one most prominent in texts, got "retired", so to speak (Central/South American Jesus doesn't count because it's pronounced"hey-soos" instead of "jee-zus").
Unfortunately, while the overall story is probably the greatest version of the story ever told, the pious monotone of nearly everyone involved renders this an unmitigated snooze-fest. Jesus is played here by Max von Sydow, a young man with an old soul who made his mark doing Ingmar Bergman films. He always appears sad and desolate, which is understandable, given that Bergman typically engages in atheistic nihilism. In fact, this Jesus spouts the good news as though he just walked off the set of a Bergman film. Everything comes out hollow as the umpteenth mass performed on a rainy unimportant day by an alcoholic Catholic priest. He carries a quiet smile the entire time, but if what he's saying will subject him to a thinly veiled government assassination and eventual cult following to the point of greatest religion ever, God is truly working miracles indeed. He's about as charismatic as your typical near-retirement calculus professor. This is made all the more ridiculous by the presence of Charlton Heston as John the Baptist, Donald Pleasance as Satan, and Sidney Poitier as Simon. These are, by far, the three most compelling characters in this film, and when they appear, the movie suddenly comes alive. Unfortunately, their presence makes up roughly thirty minutes of screen-time. Simon doesn't even say anything, but Sidney's portrayal is spot-on in its intensity. (It also comes right around the time of the Civil Rights Act, so there's great potency in seeing a black man carrying the cross for Christ). At least it would, were it any other Christ but our cardboard cut-out Jesus.
All this boring Jesus business would be forgivable if the movie wasn't so damned long. Jesus is barely around for the first third of the movie, as its deemed extremely important that we know exactly who holds power in the region and where. There's apparently a tetrarchy of kings who are under control of a governor, who bows to.... really, who gives a shit? Jesus is here to open up the doorway of salvation to the world. He chooses to come at the perfect time: the Roman Empire owns 1/3 of everything inhabited, so anything that makes a ripple in Caesar's palace has accomplished 33% of the ultimate shout-out. He's also born to the last generation of old-school Israel (they would be dispersed by Nero before the turn of the century). So... you show us a little Rome and your mission's basically accomplished. Why get lost in drearily unimportant politics? What are you, THE PHANTOM MENACE?
Two hours into the film, we see a passage which includes the verse "Jesus wept." That's the entire verse. The connotation is that Jesus spent a considerable bit of time crying his eyes out. In this film, there's a half-minute shot of Jesus doing just this... except he doesn't. His eyes water, his jaw sets and we get: one single tear. I recalled that scene from TERMINATOR 2 where Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator spends the same amount of time straining to offer up a smile. Then the screen goes dark and we're treated to: "Intermission."
Why are these people trying to kill Jesus? He's obviously quite dead already.
6.66/10 (the mark of the devil is unintentional, I promise).
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2008)
directed by David Fincher
I've never read the F. Scott Fitzgerald story, though I've heard enough about it to know there's no reason for me to. In terms of adapting it into a film, David Fincher has made quite the allegory.
I've never read the F. Scott Fitzgerald story, though I've heard enough about it to know there's no reason for me to. In terms of adapting it into a film, David Fincher has made quite the allegory.
Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) is born eighty years old and reverts back to infancy, all the while retaining the soul and emotional state of a normal human being. He simply looks old. The script (by Eric Roth) keeps him quiet and Pitt portrays him with a level-headedness that makes you wonder from time to time if he actually is, in fact, as eighty-years-old as he looks, but so far as I can tell, there's a kid in that body.
He grows up in an old folks home. Is this poignant or ironic? The film wishes it were both, and I found the film itself teetered on both. It wants to be poignant, but as long as Button keeps his mouth shut, the emotional resonance is a bit muddled and lost.
Much the same for the direction of the film. As Button grows older, Roth's pen tries to set him on an adventure that's also supposed to be poignant. Everywhere he goes, he finds himself surrounded by lonely people. He's on a boat to Russia with a captain that drinks and reminisces about lost dreams. He begins an affair with Elizabeth Abbot (Tilda Swinton), who stays up nights drinking and reminiscing about... err, lost dreams. He comes home to find Daisy, a girl he knew, has all grown up (and being played by Cate Blanchett). She's doing fine until he shows up, then she has an accident and spends the rest of the film... well, she doesn't really drink much, but she certainly spends her time wishing things had turned out differently.
And because our "hero" is only at home around lonely people, as soon as she makes the best of things by getting pregnant and starting a dance studio, he comes up with a reason to leave so the whole "old man loneliness" thing can continue.
This film is the flip-side of Roth's earlier "follow-a-life" melodrama Forrest Gump. Where Gump was a "forever child" no matter how old he got and managed to constantly surround himself with "progress" and moving forward and people who were always looking ahead and planning for the future, Button is a "forever senior citizen" no matter how young he looks and manages to constantly surround himself with people that have seen better days. Both have lifelong loves that can't relate to them, and only seek them out in desperation. Both end in a touch of sadness. Where Forrest Gump reaches the level of poignancy that tugs at your heartstrings (Gump grows up to an extent with a heavy price), Button never really grows young as he could have. Instead, he disappears for a spell just when his life (and the movie) could have really become interesting.
I kept wishing that we had followed Diasy. Pitt's Button is a curious character, but not an interesting one. Blanchett's Daisy is far more interesting, and her storyline would've made for a better film, IMHO. Fincher/Roth/Pitt wants us to treat Button like a case study, when there's nothing to study beyond the shallow. And the shallow end of things (the look of the film) is expert and without reproach. It's the rest of the film that, while certainly not being horrible, is still found wanting.
7.66/10
Monday, March 23, 2009
RACHEL GETTING MARRIED (2008)
directed by Jonathon Demme
Indie films don't get much better than this. And it's almost entirely due to a tremendous script by Jenny Lumet and tremendous acting ensemble (Anne Hathaway, Rosemary Dewitt, Bill Irwin, and Debra Winger being the highlights). To me, when one actor shines, I give them the credit; when all the actors shine, I credit the writing and directing.
Jonathon Demme hasn't worked much with actors lately. He apparently doesn't like them. With their often preening egos, I can't imagine why... However, this is an indie film, and with indies, the actors are in it for the art and not the money. Demme, almost by default, gets far more control out of them than he would were this a big-budget Hollywood production. And it shows.
I'm not usually one for indie films. While I appreciate the opportunities they present to people to work for the sake of art and not for the sake of mullah, they often tend to have sub-par acting, prententious scripts, and self-important (nonexistent) themes. It's nice when established professionals take a step back and do something they just purely enjoy doing.
Should I mention much of the plot? I hate doing that. Kim (Anne Hathaway), is out of rehab just in time for her sister Rachel's (Rosemary DeWitt) wedding. Shit-timing, to be honest, as Kim has a lot of open wounds that need to be tended and has come to face the awkward stare of a preoccupied family who have had a long history of dealing with her and just don't have the time or the desire. They love her, and you can see this, but good god, there's a wedding going on! Upon the arrival of Kim and Rachel's absent mother (Debra Winger), some past haunts plague the group and threaten to sever their already tenuous relationships.
Lumet has these characters figured out completely. Even when they respond irrationally (and they do, quite often), they remain true to themselves and don't service the plot. She doesn't wade into melodrama for the sake of melodrama (see: Slumdog Millionaire, which is so popular for the exact reason it's so not great), and beyond a desperately contrived and somewhat unnecessary scene involving an old party favor hidden in a stack of dishes (have they not used those dishes in five years time? Really? I mean, really?), there's not a moment of this movie that doesn't feel completely real and not an ounce of that seems overwrought.
On a minor note, would it have been a huge disgrace if they'd thrown in a couple more bucks for a steady-cam?
8.27/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)