As I suggested a little while back, I thought it be a good idea to create an ongoing thread for us GE contributors to give short reviews to films (old or new) that aren’t really worth creating an entirely new thread for… but are worth commenting on anyway.
Mar3
Same Time, Next Year (1978) – Film version of a hit 1970s play where two married people (played by Ellen Burstyn and Alan Alda) carry on an affair at the same inn on the same weekend for 25 years.
It sounds like a rather flimsy plotline that can get by on stage but is less likely to stand up on film and that’s pretty much what happens. It’s especially weak when it tries to reflect the changing social mores of American society (from early 1950s to late 1970s). In particular with the changes to Burstyn’s character who goes from a housewife to a fully-fledged hippie to a rich businesswoman in an incredibly heavy-handed manner. Her initial appearance as a hippie is cringe-worthy.
Still, there’s quite a bit to enjoy here, especially in the later scenes where there are genuinely affecting and poignant moments. Both Alda and Burstyn are fine although I’m not really sure Burstyn deserved an Oscar nom for this.
An overrated, but ok film (if you can get past the theme song that is).
Eagle vs. Shark (2007) – Comedy from New Zealand about two outcasts who fall in love while one prepares to battle his childhood nemesis in a knock-down, drag-out fight.
Reminded me of a cross between Napoleon Dynamite and any mid/late 90′s indie romantic comedy: quirky love story + annoyingly oddball supporting characters + some stylized visuals (that dip into embarrassing student film-levels at times) and very few laughs. The characters are almost uniformly unlikeable, particularly Jemaine Clement, who went on to create and star in HBO’s Flight of the Conchords.
Doomsday (2008) a British action film starring Rhona Mitra. It’s sort of like 28 Days Later meets Mad Max II: The Road Warrior. There’s been a virus that has necessitated the sealing off of Scotland from the rest of the world. When the virus turns up again in London, a team of commandos, led by Mitra (who as a child was airlifted out of Scotland) go back into the hot zone to find a cure. They find a new society has grown from the survivors–one is a medieval feudal system ruled by a doctor, Malcolm McDowell, and the other is a punk-rock inspired crew of people with mohawk haircuts and multiple piercings.
As with any end of the world films, questions arise, such as where they get their gas. But this film was moderately entertaining. Mitra, who has the permanent pout of a fashion model, makes a pretty good action chick, and there’s some well-done car chases and several beheadings.
Sex Drive (2008) a teen comedy that would seem to be unnecessary, as the plot is almost entirely lifted from Road Trip plus The Sure Thing. This one, though, has our hero, a virginal high school student, stealing his brother’s GTO to go to Knoxville to hook up with a girl he has been flirting with on MySpace. He goes with his best friend, who is a champion make-out artist, and his BFF, a hot girl who he is in love with but they’re “just friends.” If you don’t know who he’ll end up with at the end of the film then you’ve lived in a cave your entire life.
Lots of dick jokes and euphemisms for anal sex, plus the somewhat amusing sight of our hero holding a gun while dressed in a donut costume. I also liked Seth Green as a sarcastic Amish guy who knows how to fix cars (the Amish must be easy prey–they don’t watch movies, and as far as I know there’s no Amish Anti-Defamation League).
First, Eagle vs. Shark:
So annoyingly oddball, you can’t look away.
The stop-motion sequence with the sleeping bags on the mountaintop was strongly painful to watch, but oddly endearing in an “Hey…that’s almost what it’s like to be in love sometimes.”
And the stop motion of the bugs? Terribly painful.
But the rest?
It’s worth the entire movie alone to wait until the end, for the dude in the chair and listen to the friend yell: “Yeah! Kick his ass!”
I almost couldn’t stop laughing the entire last third of the movie. But maybe I’m just easily amused.
I didn’t enjoy Doomsday that much, but I thought the villain (some post-apocalyptic hybrid of superstar entertainer/leader/violent cannibal) was pretty interesting. I’d rather the whole film had just been about him.
“It’s worth the entire movie alone to wait until the end, for the dude in the chair and listen to the friend yell: “Yeah! Kick his ass!””
Yeah, that was solid. There were a handful of laughs, but they didn’t come close to offsetting the general annoyance.
Just wanted to say a little about Face, the British gangster film from about ’97. Most likely doesn’t warrant mentioning twice, but it’s a solid gangster flick elevated to a watchable movie by a great central performance from Robert Carlyle.
My love of the movie stems from my love of British Gangster films, hence my love for Layer Cake (most likely even stronger due to the watchability of the Craigster) and because Ray Winstone is also at the top of his game and it was weirdly engaging to see Damon Albarn as a sub-level gangster.
The love story is oddly affecting for a gangster film and again, made stronger by the performances of Carlyle along with Lena Headey.
All-in-all, a stock gangster flick made watchable by the performances of the well-put-together cast.
I hear you, filmman. It is worth noting that Albarn would go on to score another Antonia Bird flick, “Ravenous”, that glorious underrated dark comic chestnut, also with Carlyle. And as British gangster film fan, man, I know you are probably down with cool motherfucker of a film known as “Gangster No. 1″: “Whatdya think I am, a cunt?” Wouldn’t Paul McGuigan be better offer if he was still making films with Paul Bettany(Gangster No. 1, The Reckoning) versus his latter collaborations with Josh Hartnett(Lucky Number Slevin, Wicker Park)? And “Doomsday” is the best film John Carpenter never made and certainly beats most of his latter career output with a fucking stick.
Damn good career dressing-down, that…if McGuigan ever read that, I’m sure there’d be more than a little soul searching going on…
Been stewing over this all night…(along with myriad other personal dilemmas)…and not sure I agree with that.
Yes, it beats anything he’s made since Ghosts of Mars, at a genre level, but even Carpenter’s worse output can be found to make some sort of social or personal commentary about however you want to view what you’re seeing.
Maybe I didn’t say that right, but Carpenter is a genre filmmaker unparalleled, whose putput has slipped much like the master Sidney Lumet has. They are each in their way as large a personality as the other ever was, but have, of late, slipped into a late-career mediocrity.
But saying Marshall is anywhere near Carpenter is just…more than I can fathom.
Just sayin’…
Eldorado (2008): Saw a movie tonight that I was thisclose to walking out of halfway through. It’s called Eldorado, a Belgian film by Bouli Lanners.
It’s about two strangers who end up on a road trip together due to circumstances that defy credibility. If I were a less rational person, I would wonder if Lanners reads this site and concocted the film just to piss me off. It’s filled with all of the things that drive me nuts: self-absorbed, “quirky” characters, a meandering narrative that feels like it’s being made up as it goes along, and generally an oppresively “arty” pretension.
Not sure if US distribution is in its future or not, but definitely one to skip.
Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog (2008)- a rather enjoyable one-time diversion that was unfortunately destined to become a cult classic because of the Whedon.
Conceived (or at least, written) during the writers’ strike of ’07-’08 this musical spoof on low-level “super”heroes mashes The Tick & Mystery Men together with Rent. It churns out a few laughs and a surprisingly emotional/touching final shot in a sort of made-for-tv, independent kind of way.
Your 43 minutes won’t be entirely wasted on this. (I watched it on Hulu yesterday).
A couple of fairly recent rom-com films of varying quality:
13 going on 30 (2004) - A 13 year-old girl in 1987 unhappy with her life gets transported to 2004 as a 30 year old where on the surface all her dreams have come true… or so it seems.
Hardly an original plot, but quite a likable movie. The material is reasonable (with one or two missteps) but it’s Jennifer Garner in the central role who makes it’s work with a terrifically charming performance which makes the whole plot device palatable. The ending is very nicely done as well.
Must Love Dogs (2005) – Diane Lane and John Cusack star as recently-divorced people who have to overcome their own insecurities and obstacles that only happen in movies to become a happy couple.
Starts off moderately well but sinks in a sea of lameness as the film progresses and manages to waste a fine cast.
Contrived, unoriginal and phony throughout with two standout examples. A cringeworthy scene where Lane’s family (constantly meddling to a disturbing degree in her personal life) “spontaneously” engage in singing the theme song from ‘The Partridge Family’. And then there is Cusack’s superficial and crude best friend. It’s completely inconceivable that these two would be best buddies and he’s clearly only there to show the path that Cusack’s partner shouldn’t go down.
As for the two leads, Lane certainly comes off better. Right from his opening scene Cusack seems to be phoning it in and never displays the charisma required for such a role.
While an insignificant film, it is significant in hindsight for Lane and Cusack. Their careers have both stalled since this film and one can’t help but wonder that choosing such a ho-hum project was the beginning of that rut.
Must Love Dogs was pretty awful. I remember Stephen King writing about how he was looking forward to that movie based on the TV work of director Gary David Goldberg. It caused me to reflect that a romantic comedy from a sitcom guy sounded dire indeed.
And of course it was, one of the worst movies I saw in 2005, and probably the most amateurish from a technical standpoint that I’ve ever seen in a big-studio release. I could hardly believe what I was seeing.
I also remember thinking that Christopher Plummer’s performance was uncommonly annoying. He’s an actor that I feel is overrated somewhat anyway, but he was truly grating here.
The Goldberg involvement interested me as well. Partly because I was fan of his 1980s TV series ‘Family Ties’ and I thought that the 1995 film he wrote ‘Bye Bye Love’ despite some major flaws (lazy sitcom moments, weak finale, Matthew Modine plays the most unconvincing womanzier ever) wasn’t a bad film.
But he struck out with this one and as you say, from a technical and structural standpoint it was often inept. He really muffed scenes that had some easy laughs in them (the scene where Lane finds out her blind date is her father) and was cluttered with far too many unnecessary character (e.g. the youngest sister of Lane).
A few reviews I read have pointed out how unrealistic it was for Lane’s character (single pre-school teacher) to be living in such a stylish house. That’s a common flaw in a lot of modern Hollywood films imo.
As for Plummer, has he ever been rated as a great actor? Probably his greatest strength is that he’s been in the film business for 50 years and is a survivor.
Metropolitan Opera: Madama Butterfly – I know it’s not a film, but I thought I’d post my comments here for anyone interested in those “one night only” non-film events that seem to be taking over the theater.
Madama Butterfly is about a young Japanese girl (Butterfly) who marries an American Naval officer (Pinkerton). Pinkerton promises to return to Japan, and Butterfly faithfully awaits his return.
This production was directed by the late Anthony Minghella and his wife Carolyn Choa. This was by far the best production I’ve ever seen of MB, and it had me (and seemingly everyone else around me) bawling starting at about half-way through. Instead of elaborate stage sets, the smallest amount of props are used. Most of the props are controlled by ninja-like puppeteers. A screen moves here and there for the house, lanterns and reeds float around for the garden, and the little boy puppet is more animated and cute than a live child actor who is usually too young and nervous to act.
As for watching this in a movie theater instead of an opera house, I have to admit that I would have rather seen the live performance in person. However, for people on a budget (like the buses full of seniors in the sold out auditorium) this is a great way to experience great productions like these. The sound was far from perfect as the speakers in the back would go in and out. And the presentation itself hesitated once or twice because it was a digital recording (encore) of the live satelite feed a couple of weeks before. It’s hard to know if the technical issues were those of the theater, or the original content reception.
There are some bonuses to seeing this on the big screen. The ushers hand out one-page playbills. The pre-show content is only the sound of the orchestra “warming up” and slides with information about the production and the Metropolitan Opera. During intermissions, there were interviews with the stars and Carolyn Choa and an old interview with Anthony Minghella. This was also the best theater audience – no cell phones, no texting, no talking, so it was very easy to get lost in the moment.
I know the Metropolitan Opera also repeats these events on PBS, as I have seen The Magic Flute (a Julie Taymor production) on TV. I’d like to have this production of MB on DVD (if it exists). But overall, minus the technical issues I would definitely see an opera on the big screen again.
Yeah, that’s been an issue since the late 80′s/early 90′s (seems like Chris Columbus and Meyers/Shyer productions may have started the trend) and it’s present in every studio romantic comedy these days.
My favorite recent instance was Greg Kinnear’s character in Baby Mama. He’s a struggling Manager (not owner) of a juice bar who packs massive works of art, Viking Ranges and Sub Zero refrigerators in a city apartment the size of an aircraft hanger.
It’s interior design or appliance porn.
Blades of Glory (2007) - Ice skating comedy with Will Ferrell and Jon Heder as a pair of disgraced skaters who seek redemption as a rather unlikely combo.
It’s nothing more than a throwaway and has too many silly gags (including the final one), but a pretty good comedy overall. It’s quite likable and slick, has quite a few laughs and Ferrell and Heder make a good comic duo (even if much of Ferrell’s comic bits are pretty similar from stuff in his eariler films).
Jenna Fischer is probably the standout of the supporting cast in an endearing performance. Amy Poehler and Will Arnett are only mildly funny as the villains and Craig T Nelson is miscast (should’ve been a more naturally comic actor) as an ice skating coach.
I enjoyed BOG myself, despite recognizing it as a lesser effort for all involved.
(Since I can’t seem to be able to write a long review of it, I’ll try a brief one)
The Hurt Locker (2009) – Following a three man Army bomb squad in Iraq, the film is basically a series of extended scenes depicting the team defusing different situations they are put in, connected by short scenes of them on leave. Superficially it’s a quite simple film, but somehow, weeks after I’ve seen it, the way it bends the action genre still bounces around in my head. Can’t decide whether it is more or less than the sum of its many individually impressive parts. I found there to be weaknesses, mainly dramatically and in story, but I’m not sure if they detract from the film as a whole.
One thing I’d like to single out is Jeremy Renner as the team leader, who in a regular action film would come off as the ostensible hero of the piece, but here comes off like an asshole to his comrades.
I have a feeling that this film might come to influence a lot of young action directors in the future. For anyone who likes film and is not averse to some pretty harsh scenes, this is definitely one you should see. Whenever someone here gives a more proper review of it, I would love to discuss it.
Can’t wait to The Hurt Locker.
Bigelow is the most underrated American director.
How did you get to see it?
Shock Treatment (1981) - Forgotten sequel to the ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show’, this time set entirely in a TV studio and satirising various aspects of television, pop and American culture.
Most of the music numbers are enjoyable (and star Jessica Harper has a great singing voice). But the plot is so incoherent, the satire so scattershot and the characters so strident and tiresome (and there are too many of them) that the film is a trial to get through.
Actually I think TRHPS is only marginally better, has many of the same strengths/weaknesses and is quite overrated. I think that Brian De Palma’s similarlish ‘The Phantom of the Paradise’ from the same era (which also had Harper) is a far better musical.
Gary the Tennis Coach (2009): Seann William Scott vehicle shot way back in 2006 and finally released a month ago (likely to take advantage of the actor’s recent hit, Role Models, hitting video). It’s about a former tennis star who becomes Assistant Coach for a fledgling High School team.
I’m a big fan of the actor and have enjoyed Director Danny Leiner’s previous efforts (Harold and Kumar, Dude, Where’s my Car?) but both guys really make a mess of things here. The characters are schizophrenic, much of the gross out humor falls flat and the thing seems like it’s been chopped up and re-assembled ad nauseam over the last three years. How it was ever considered for theatrical release is beyond me.
It’s not completely without value (I thought the pseudo-romance between Scott and a 15 year old student was kinda ballsy/funny and there are some random gags that hit hard) but it really seems like the type of thing you’d expect from a fledgling first-time director, not a guy with multiple studio comedies under his belt.
The Rain People (1969) – Written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, as forgotten today as his next film – ‘The Godfather’ – is remembered. Character drama starring Shirley Knight as Natalie, a NY wife who bolts from her home and husband and drives aimlessly east on learning that she is pregnant.
Certainly much different from the output Coppola was to produce over the next decade (although there style has a shade of ‘The Conversation’ about it), but certainly the signs were clear this was an impressive young filmmaker on the rise. It’s particularly noteworthy that his film displays none of the flashy, psychadelic film tricks that were so common in this era and displays his own individualistic style (which makes it far less dated than so many other films of the time) instead. TRP also validates my theory that a well-made credits sequence leads to a good film, as there is a preciseness and stylishness about this one that is reflective of the film that follows.
Considering that not terribly much happens narrative-wise, it’s an impressively compelling character study. I admired its courage in making the central character so disagreeable and selfish; if this were made today (and it could easily be done so as an ‘indie’ film) I’m sure there would be more ‘compassionate’ traits instilled into Natalie to make her more likable.
This isn’t a perfect film; there are a few contrived plot turns and the melodramtic ending is a misjudgement imo. But this hard to find film is well worth seeking out, especially for fans of Coppola.
Exactly…where did you see it?
On the Turner Classic Movies channel on pay-TV.
Død Snø (Dead Snow, 2009) – Norwegian zombie comedy/thriller. Seven med students take a vacation up in the snowy mountains of Norway, where they’re accosted by a vengeful army of Nazi zombies. Much mutilation and mayhem ensues.
Either you laugh at a film about zombie Nazis with the tagline “Ein! Zwei! Die!” or you don’t. Execution is shoddy and – despite being shot along the magnificent Norwegian fjords – the film doesn’t look that great. Let’s not get into the character work. Derivative in the extreme. Even has an old guy drop by ten minutes in to provide “spooky” exposition.
Despite all that, since it rarely takes itself seriously (or probably because of that), you end up liking it. Aspires to be a sort of Scandinavian Braindead or Evil Dead, and doesn’t do too bad a job of it. There are some fun parts, if you find original ways of disposing of the undead to be fun. Fans of aforementioned films will probably enjoy this one.
The Nanny Diaries (2007) – A higher education graduate trying to ‘find herself’ (Scarlett Johansson), goes to work as a nanny for a rich New York family.
Reasonably diverting, with some nice gimmicky touches (especially in the opening segment) and a couple of sharply observed scenes. But it’s a bit too bland and by-the-numbers to be considered a success. Especially so in the closing stages of the film where things are wrapped up too easily and a key character has a change of personality that just doesn’t convince.
Going by what some reviews have said, if I’d read the book beforehand I would’ve liked the film a whole lot less as it cut out a lot of the potential sharpness and insight.
Johannson has gotten a bit of criticism but I thought she was OK. She’s not the most natural of actresses but I thought her occasional awkwardness gave authenticity as a character in her fish-out-of-water situation would be awkward at times. Nice to see Giamatti underplay for once.
The film probably wasted a fair bit of its potential, but I thought it was adequate enough.
The Admirable Crichton (1957) - Entertaining film version of a J.M. Barrie play (the creator of Peter Pan) about an upper-class British family that gets stranded on a desert island and the upheaval to the class structure that occurs with the butler running the show.
This brief plot outline makes it sound an obvious take on the class system but in fact it’s quite a complex film, and there was quite a bit of debate about many aspects of the film with the people who I saw it with. For example the ending is quite surprising and if it were remade today I’m pretty sure would be changed to make it more of a ‘crowd pleaser’.
No classic but full of professional all-round qualities typical of a standard mainstream film of its era that make it a pleasure to watch.
Tokyo! (2008)
3-part analogy picture exploring modern life in Japan. I’ll review each part separately.
- Interior Design: Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Be Kind, Rewind, The Green Hornet) kicks things off with what feels like an ultra-condensed version of Lost in Translation. Story follows a young woman who wanders Tokyo looking for an apartment, feeling directionless in the wake of her film director husband’s burgeoning career. Instead of forming a relationship with Bill Murray, she finds peace and meaning to her life by transforming into a wooden chair. No, not metaphorically.
While I admire Gondry’s inventiveness, I wouldn’t exactly count myself as a fan. Fortunately, the short film format suits him and Interior Design is probably the most grounded thing he’s ever done.
Unfortunately, the director’s typical self-indulgence eventually derails things. We can’t have a straightforward tale and interesting character dilemmas resolved in a way that doesn’t involve silly FX and puppetry. I still enjoyed it, but Gondry either needs to mature or I need to stop expecting him to and move on. 7.5/10
- Merde: A disturbed white man in a green suit and long, unkempt beard rises from the sewers to Godzilla’s theme song. He walks down a crowded city street randomly assaulting/licking people, eating flowers and basically acting like a living anti-social nightmare to the reserved citizenry. After his brief crime spree, he descends beneath the streets and uncovers a lost ammunition dump from the 1930′s. That night, he massacres dozens with hand grenades before being taken down by police.
He’s put on trail and defended by a French attorney who both resembles him and can speak his bizarre language. The trial is a fantastic 24-esque split-screen affair, in which the defendant (who calls himself Merde) mocks the Japanese in the most offensive ways imaginable and expresses his complete contempt for humanity, particularly innocents. He becomes a media icon and gets an action figure line while awaiting his fate.
I’m not 100% sure I understand what director Leox Carax (Pola X) was going for (a parody of how the West treats the East? How the East views the West? Both? Neither?) but I wish it were funnier than he probably thinks it is. 6.8/10
- Shaking Tokyo: Bong Joon-Ho (The Host, Memories of Murder) closes things out with the tale of an agoraphobic man who falls in love with a pizza delivery girl after she passes out in his apartment during an earthquake. After he learns that the girl has quit her job to become a fellow shut-in, he ventures outside for the first time in a decade to convince her to rejoin society.
As with Gondry’s installment: I felt the ending was a let-down (particularly after a great build-up) but it’s still the best of the bunch. Beautifully shot, well-acted and visually inventive without going to Gondry’s extremes.
This was also one of the strangest theatrical exhibitions I’ve ever encountered. Will write up in a separate post.
Terminator: Salvation (2009)
In six words: Brian was right, I was wrong.
Not terrible. Just bland, safe and completely lifeless. While much of the blame clearly falls on McG, Bale (who forced radical, last-minute story changes) and Nolan (who tried and failed, to carry them out) are at equal fault. Everyone’s stock is down as a result of this.
Franchise dead, see you at the remake.
Remake? Dear God, why?
The Paper (1994) – In the space of 24 hours, amongst a million other small issues, an editor of a NY tabloid has to decide whether to take up a cushy job offer at an upmarket paper that he really doesn’t want that his wife is pressuring him into as well as a murder story that could make or break the credibility of his paper.
I didn’t have great hopes for this film as it didn’t have a particularly great reputation and I haven’t been a fan of Ron Howard’s directorial work. And it would be easy to point out the flaws of this film; it’s a sometimes uneasy mix of comedy and drama, even by Hollywood mainstream melodrama standards some of the events are unlikely and everything is wrapped up too easily at the end.
But for all that, I really enjoyed this movie. It’s lively and engrossing and really got me hooked into the fate of the central characters. Howard does a fine job of keeping all the various plots coherent and really creates a convincing atmosphere of what being part of a newspaper team is like. And while the script breaks no new ground, it does have some nicely written scenes and one or two genuinely funny lines.
But what probably really makes this work is the cast. I read somewhere suggest this was probably the best cast assembled for a Hollywood movie of the 1990s and it’s a pretty fair call imo. Michael Keaton in the lead role as the editor probably isn’t entirely convincing but he’s enjoyable to watch, especially in the lighter moments of the film. And Spalding Gray is a standout in a small role as the editor of the paper who Keaton is considering joining.
One interesting sidelight is watching the technology on display here. Film cameras, no mobile phones on display, computers with no GUI (let alone Internet) – it feels like it belongs in the Middle Ages such has been the changes in technology in the past 15 years.
Just saw the straight-to-DVD film Killshot, and while I was watching it I couldn’t help but wonder at the state of the film industry. With all the crap that they let ooze into the multiplexes, why did they hold this on the shelf for so long, and then bypass theaters all together? It’s a very good film, with a serenely scary performance by Mickey Rourke as a half-Indian hitman who, along with a sublimely stupid partner (the great Joseph Gordon-Levitt) they track down an innocent couple who have witnessed one of their crimes.
I read the original novel by Elmore Leonard about twenty years ago, and imagined the novel in my head while I read it. This film is very similar to how I imagined it, including a scene in which someone is shot in the face while they are blowing bubblegum, but the tone is far more menacing than Leonard’s book, which is has a dry sense of comedy.
By the way, I gave this thread a category, because otherwise it becomes very hard to find after lying dormant for a while.
Marco:
I loved the paper when it came out, but I think I loved pretty much everything i saw then, seeing how in love I was with movies.
But I was taken with Howard’s Parenthood and The Paper, though written by the Koepp brothers, apparently got a strong re-write from Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel and that was the impetus that got Howard involved, as they wrote Parenthood.
I remember this being REALLY well acted by Keaton, who I don’t think ever really got the recognition he deserved.
I also remember the scene with Spalding Gray on the phone.
Duvall, Tomei, Close, Keaton…it was an amazing cast.
I remember reading somewhere that he got such great reviews for the Parenthood cast that he wanted to one-up it with The Paper…
Dans Paris:
(Hope this doesn’t get me in trouble with Brian again, but honestly, this is all I can get from the film):
?
Hmm, I don’t see any record of seeing that. Fire away.
The Jacket (2005): I wasn’t expecting much when I rented this, but I was pleasantly surprised. Producers Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney reached out to avant-garde director John Maybury to make a Hollywood film, and I found the results pretty engrossing. Adrien Brody is a Gulf War veteran who received a serious head wound, and he ends up in a mental hospital for the criminally insane. Mean doctor Kris Kristofferson does experiments on him–namely shutting him up in a morgue drawer. But while Brody is in there he travels forward to the future.
Maybury was influenced by both Stan Brakhage and Eric Von Stroheim for this, which you don’t get in a typical multiplex movie.
Hope you guys don’t mind these reviews being really brief, but that’s why I assume this thread exists, so:
BRUNO:
Atrocious to the point of unwatchable.
filmman – and it dropped 72% this weekend. I wonder what the record for highest percentage dropped is?
Good to hear about Killshot, JS. I’ve been meaning to bump it up my queue.
I’ve never exactly been in love with Madden’s work, but I feel for the guy for having the ungrateful Weinsteins kick sand in his face twice in a row (after delivering them Oscar glory).
And I liked Bruno. It’s sloppy, cruel and Sacha missed the point of what made Borat (and the series) work, but I laughed consistently.
The only movie I’ve seen recently was Eagle Eye: glossy nonsense. I’d say it’s probably the dumbest “man on the run from a high-reaching conspiracy!” picture I’ve seen in a long time. Makes Enemy of the State look like North by Northwest.
It does fit perfectly within Shia’s resume of vapid, unoffensive, big-budget spectacles.
Saw ‘Eagle Eye’ at the cinema last year and fully agree. The kindest thing you could say about it was that it wasn’t as nasty as it could’ve been as it was a passable time-filler. But it was totally insignifcant in all areas.
THE BIG BLUE:
Luc Besson’s first English-language movie could easily be classified a phenomenon in his home country, as it was the biggest money-maker in France that decade. In America, however, it died an ignominious death as a commercial failure.
The film is, though, a mesmerizing, languorous, beautifully-shot and impressively-scored film that takes its time getting there, but has a truly pitch-perfect, astounding final ten minutes.
Like most of Fatih Akin’s work, the true nature of the piece and what it’s trying to say is not readily discernible until that final ten minutes, when everything we’ve watched about all the different plot threads and people comes together and finishes the final part of the tapestry and lets us understand the piece as a whole.
I’ve never quite understood the hatred for Besson and his films, as I’ve always enjoyed every movie he’s made. And this one is one of my two favorites. The framing of the shots and the liberal use of the wide angle lens are a joy to behold. The transfer on the dvd was some of the best I’ve seen and both the color and black and white cinematography are a master-class in form and function.
But it’s the ending that really makes it shine, especially the haunting, astounding final minutes of acceptance of who and what a person is and must be.
Absolutely worth checking out.
(Note: This is the 2 hour and 40 minute director’s cut. A far cry from the 1 hour 55 minute American cut. Wonder what they took out and how it differed.)
I always wanted to see The Big Blue, but never got around to it.
Is there a lot of Besson hatred out there? I can’t claim that he’s one of my favorites (I thought The Messenger was utterly embarrassing), although I haven’t seen most of his films. But I haven’t picked up on a lot of hatred aside from maybe a stray critic or two.
It’s really a film I think you and Nick would really like and be able to appreciate a lot.
As for the hatred of Besson, that was just the overall idea I got from all things I’ve read on numerous blogs and movie sites.
Angel-A, which I LOVED and thought was one of his strongest films was vilified over here. Europe liked it quite a bit, but here…not so much. Just an impression I get that people have of him.
In looking over his filmography I’ve seen three of this films: La Femme Nikita and The Professional were okay, but The Fifth Element was bad enough to ruin any reputation.
The Fifth Element might have been rewatchable to some extent if not for Chris Tucker. It had some ideas and I loved the production design but, good god, Tucker brought some powerful annoying to that movie.
Loved The Professional and Nikita when I was in my late teens/early 20′s. Can’t say that they’ve held up particularly well against time and maturing tastes.
The Fifth Element is ok. Besson basically just let his actors (particularly Oldman and Tucker) run wild, which didn’t really work out in the end.
Have any of you watched the European cut of The Professional titled Leon? Makes a good movie even better. It’s a little bit longer due to a few more scenes between Reno and Portman that help redefine their relationship. They were apparently trimmed for US consumption because we would be corrupted by the thought of a young girl loving an older man and trying to seduce him.
And agreed about Fifth Element… Chris Tucker ruins every scene he’s in.
Johnnie To’s Election:
I prefaced the title with the director, so as to avoid any initial confusion with that Witherspoon-as-high-school-shrew movie that came out a bit ago. You know, the one with a grown-up Ferris Bueller who never looks like he’s grown up yet.
This was titled Election, Vol. 1 in the UK and apparently there’s a sequel, which I will get around to shortly.
This is now my favorite Johhnie To movie, behind Breaking News. And though Breaking News had the best-ever action movie opening (honestly, rent it, borrow it, but watch the first four minutes of Breaking News. If you’re a lover of the form, it will be difficult not to be impressed), the second half left me asking if we were even watching the same movie we started with.
With Election, however, To really uses his camera skills to take us into the election of a high-powered Triad boss and what happens when one of the other men in the Triad, Big D, decides he’s not going to go along with the election.
Most of To’s movies can be summed up in one sentence. This one is no different. It’s a bunch of old and young men arguing about who will run the gang. But where most may feel this is a weakness of To’s, it’s what endears me to his and most of Hong Kong cinema.
As in A Bittersweet Life, plot is stripped away and we get to see characters moving towards a singular goal set out at the beginning. It’s the essence of action and what I feel Hong Kong action filmmakers just get so right.
Great movie with a great performance from Tony Leung Ka Fai as Big D.
The Lady Vanishes (1938): This is probably the silliest Hitchcock movie I’ve seen, about the disappearance of an elderly British woman on a train in Hungary. Hitchcock was frequently indifferent to plot, but this one is a narrative jumble unlike anything I’ve seen for some time, culminating in a gunfight that doesn’t really make the slightest bit of sense and doesn’t even resolve anything.
It is quite funny, and at times it’s quite suspenseful, with some great archetypical Hitchcock moments, but in the end, however, it’s simply too uneven in tone and too sloppy with its narrative to be considered one of his best. It does make a good companion piece to The 39 Steps, though, which was made
immediately afterwardsseveral years earlier, even if it is inferior to that film.I love TLV, one of my favourite Hitchcock films. The only real standout flaw for me was the opening shot of the train station and its surrounds which are so obviously miniature models they’d look cheap by YouTube standards.
I’ve also seen the 1979 remake with Cybill Shepherd and Elliot Gould in the main roles. They don’t really gel and the film is clearly inferior to the original, although if you haven’t the 1938 version it’s passable entertainment.
Re: plot problems, I don’t recall that many glaring ones with this film although certainly that was a common problem with Hitchcock films. Even in a film that I loved like ‘North by Northwest’ there are some glaring ones and in one that I liked in ‘Frenzy’ there are some absolutely mind-bogglingly obvious plot issues.
Definitely, Maybe (2008) – Romantic comedy starring Ryan Reynolds as a late 30s advertising executive, about to be divorced who is prompted by his 10 year-old daugher to tell the story of how he met with his soon to be ex-wife. The story then flashes back to the 1990s and three potential women he has relationships who could be that person.
The story and genre has all sorts of pitfalls, but it manages to avoid most of them and be quite aimable, thanks to Reynolds who is suprisingly adept and funny in the lead role. As for the three women, Isla Fisher gives the best performance, in part because she has the best character of the three. Rachel Weisz is good but slightly wasted in her role and Elizabeth Banks struggles to give her limited role any dimension.
It’s a fairly slick and enjoyable film, although unmemorable and its attempts to convey a 1990s atmosphere (a difficult task) don’t really work.
Definitely, Maybe was definitely better than I thought it would be.
Agreed on Definitely, Maybe.
One of the plot issues in TLV is at the end, after they get the train moving. There’s still the gunman on board at that time – what happens to him? When we last see him, he’s pointing the gun at everyone. Then flash-forward to London and the happy ending. But – bad guy still on board!
Really? I haven’t watched it in a while but I thought they’d all been taken care of. I’ll have to get around to watching it again.
He’s Just Not That Into You (2009) – Rom-com documenting the romantic stories of various interlinked men and women, all of whom in standard Hollywood style are well-off and attractive.
Not surprisingly, this is fairly frivilous, by-the-numbers stuff. It’s various ‘rules’ and observations about love and relationships are pretty generic and without insight. And the various endings seem to contradict most of the rules anyway.
Despite it being inconsequential and occasionally silly (with stock characterisations), it was still fairly enjoyable to watch and was never really bored despite its excessive running time (over 2 hours!)
That was in part because it was slickly and pleasantly done. And also it had a top-shelf cast who were generally enjoyable to watch (even if there were too many main characters in the film). Standout was Jennifer Aniston, perhaps because she’s done so many of these types of films and is therefore more adept at it. Ben Affleck seems a more relaxed and better actor than he was at his popularity peak a few years ago. Ginnifer Goodwin was also quite charming given the rather idiotic character she was saddled with.
On the other hand Drew Barrymore made little impression; indeed her character could’ve been excised entirely (there are too many central characters in the film).
Also, it could’ve done without the segments where various people are giving their thoughts on relationships, and the vox pops with all the central characters during the end credits was unnecessary.
Overall, watchable but forgettable.
Best Friends (1982) – Contrary to the common perception that Burt Reynolds’s film career from the late 1970s to mid-1980s almost entirely consisted of ‘good old boy’ car hijinxs efforts, he actually made quite a few romantic/relationship movies, and this is one of them.
Hawn and Reynolds are a screenwriting team who’ve been in a long-term romantic relationship. They decide to get married but when they visit both their sets of parents things go awry (vague echoes of ‘Meet The Parents’) and their relationship falls apart.
It has great credentials considering the cast, is directed Norman Jewison and co-written by Barry Levinson. But it’s an uninspired effort, badly lacking in sharpness and wit (probably Jewison wasn’t the director most suited to it); it’s easy to see why this is largely forgotten today.
Jessica Tandy is a standout, rising above her rather one-note role to give an amusing and effective performance.
What Women Want (2000) – Mel Gibson plays a self-obsessed chauvanistic advertising executive whose life and persona change when he gets the ability to hear the thoughts of all other women.
The central idea is a good one with lots of potential and it clearly worked a treat on audiences as this was amongst the 5 most popular films of its year, which is quite something in an era where they’re almost exclusively the reign of animation/action/kids films.
Unfortunately, the idea is largely wasted and only occasionally made clever use of. Indeed, Gibson doesn’t have the ‘gift’ for that much of the film; instead we get self-indulgent sequences where he dances to a 1950s Frank Sinatra tune.
The film aims to be insightful on the battle of the sexes and relationships but is never more than superficial (though occasionally funny).
On the plus side, the film is smoothly done and easy to take and Helen Hunt is good as Gibson’s love interest. But overall, this is a forgettable film and a bit of a mystery why it was such a megahit back in its day.
What Planet Are You From? (2000) – Sci-fi comedy starring Garry Shandling as an alien looking to mate with a woman and have a child so his planet can take over Earth.
Knowing of its bad rep I had very low expectations but remarkably, it couldn’t even reach those. Apart from one or two funny moments, this is a complete disaster; unfunny, idiotic, and full of baffling character behaviour just so that it can reach it’s predictable denouement. It’s probably the most technially and structually inept mainstream Hollywood I’ve seen released this decade.
One of the film’s biggest problems is Shandling, who is totally out of depth here and it’s easy to see why his film career ground to a halt after this. Annette Bening does well to come out of his unscathed as the love interest while an excellent cast is largely wasted.
If the 2000 Year in Review thread was done now, this would be in a battle with ‘Scary Movie’ for the worst of its year.
I remember it being terrible as well, Marco (I saw it first-run). All the more surprising for having been made by Mike Nichols. At the time, I thought maybe I just didn’t get Shandling’s humor – he was popular at the time, even though I didn’t ever see his show.
I like Shandling a great deal, but it’s a terrible film. I remember that it was in development for ages (believe from 93 or 94) yet seemed like it had been written over a long weekend.
I can only summarise that it had massive post-production problems because at times it appears scenes have been thrown in at random and numerous plot points/subplots are either unresolved or make no sense.
I’ve never seen Shandling’s TV work either, even though his 1990s show had a cult following here in Australia. As co-writer and star he has to take prime blame for this; you can see at times what type of film he’s trying to make but clearly he’s struggled with the different requirements film has over TV and is in way over his head. As a few reviewers noted, co-star Greg Kinnear would’ve been a much better choice for the lead role.
As for Mike Nichols, notwithstanding his patchy career, it is amazing how badly this is directed. It would be close to the worst film I’ve seen by an Oscar-winning director.
Hmm, now that’s an interesting topic…
Mississippi Mermaid (1969): Truffaut’s film is dedicated to Jean Renoir, but it’s clearly got Hitchcock on the brain. In true Hitchcock mode, it’s got a mostly goofy storyline and loads of subtext, although it’s breezier than later Hitchcock fare like The Birds or Marnie. And, of course, it has the icy blonde, in this case Catherine Deneuve, who plays her role as if she’s trying to give Hitchcock a stroke. Take that, Tippi!
As far as I can tell, it’s not regarded as one of Truffaut’s greater pictures, but it’s a fun time.
Private Parts (1997) – Biopic of highly successful American radio ‘shock jock’ Howard Stern (with him playing himself from adulthood), covering the period from his childhood to when he became New York’s No. 1 radio personality in the mid-1980s.
While this certainly feels like a PR job instead of a warts-and-all biopic – his outrageous behaviour is carefully balanced to show that (most of the time) he’s a good husband – one can’t deny that this is a slick and entertaining picture.
It’s sharply directed and fast paced with a particularly good early performance by Paul Giamatti as an obnoxious radio manager. Stern and several members of his radio team play themselves and do a solid job.
There are weaknesses in the film; segments where the characters talk directly to the camera to explain their behaviour feels like padding and implicity a lack of faith in that character motivation was established during the core of the film.
Also, the scenes with Stern and his wife feel rather unconvincing as it’s hard to believe that two such contrasting personalities could survive in a marriage. Indeed, that their real-life marriage broke up not long after the film was made makes sense from that perspective.
Despite being an insubstantial film in many ways, even non-Stern fans would get some entertainment out of this film.
The Bad and the Beautiful (1952) – An inside look at the Hollywood system as we see the story – mainly in flashback – of a Hollywood producer (played by Kirk Douglas) who rises to the top through a combination of skill, intuition and… ditching friends and lovers once his film needs are obtained.
This film came with a great reputation and as a result, despite its many qualities I was slightly disappointed. To be sure it’s compelling and incisive at times and Douglas is very good in the central role. But there’s an element of stodginess – even dreariness – that creeps into the film during its latter stages. That’s in part perhaps because of the plot structure which has three Hollywood personalities each recount their relationship with Douglas’ character and how they were exploited by him. It would’ve been a lot more effective if his story had been done in a traditional chronological structure.
The Goodbye Girl (1977) – One of Neil Simon’s biggest cinematic hits; a single mother (Marsha Mason) and her young daugther through circumstance are forced to share an apartment with an idiosyncratic young actor (Richard Dreyfuss). The two don’t get along at first but eventually…
A bit like ‘The Bad and the Beautiful’, while this was an above average film because of its high reputation I was slightly disappointed by it.
By Simon’s standards, the ratio of one-liners is low and not many of them are memorable. The young daughter is irritating (although she got an Oscar nomination) and Mason’s character is hard to get a grip on at times. As well, there are scenes where Dreyfuss’ character is playing the lead in Richard III in a very camp style which many have found funny but I found idiotic.
There are significant compensations though. The film is agreeable for the most part and the romance between Dreyfuss and Mason works quite well, with a finale that’s nicely done. But best of all is Dreyfuss who gives an excellent performance and is the best thing in the film.
A pretty good film, but not really deserving of the Best Picture Oscar nominee it got; it certainly is far below ‘Annie Hall’ in terms of standard.
Buddy Buddy (1981) – One of the many films where Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau co-starred; here Matthau is a hitman in the process of completing a series of hits of ‘friendly witnesses’ but is severely derailed when he has to deal with a suicidal Jack Lemmon (whose wife has just left him).
The plot has a lot of potential for comic humour and it starts off reasonably well with a couple of big laughs – thanks mainly to Matthau’s fine performance. But the longer it goes on the flatter it gets and by the end ther are barely any jokes – let alone laughs – on display.
This killed off famed director Billy Wilder’s career and it’s easy to see why. In many aspects his filmmaking style comes across as very old hat for an early 1980s setting (maybe it would’ve worked better as a period piece). In supporting roles, Klaus Kinski is wasted and the usually reliable Paula Prentiss is dire (no wonder she virtually ended her film career after this).
I Knew It Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale (2009) – Documentary (which premiered at Sundance this year) abou John Cazale, who had a short but remarkable film career (after success on stage) in the 1970s before dying from cancer in 1978 at just 42.
He only made 5 films, but all of them were nominated for Best Picture Oscar, a record that surely will never be equalled.
This is a slick and entertaining piece which wisely doesn’t attempt to be a more traditional documentary length; it’s 40 min length seems just about right.
Many notable names of 1970s cinema who worked with Cazale give tributes, with the input of Al Pacino and Meryl Streep (life-long friend and fiancee at the time of his death respectively) are particularly effective. Streep’s comments about how Cazale inspired her at the start of her acting career are particularly noteworthy.
Perhaps even more interesting are the comments by present-day actors like Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Sam Rockwell and Steve Buscemi who give very good insights into why Cazale was such a good actor.
The only jarring notes are a segment where people walking down a street are shown a picture of Cazale from The Godfather and don’t know his name. I’ve always found this vox pop style superficial and proving nothing (except what the filmmakers want) and this is no exception.
Also jarring is one of the interviewees is Brett Ratner (not exactly a favourite of GE contributors), who really has no place in this documentary except that he’s exploiting his producing credit.
Still, worth a look and is currently online at YouTube (recorded from a recent broadcast on Australian TV), although perhaps not for long.
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (called The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans in the titles for some reason) – apparently not at all a remake of its namesake – a 1992 drama starring Harvey Keitel. The only similarity is that both films focus on corrupt cops. Nicolas Cage stars as the titular Lieutenant and gets progressively crazier and more entertaining as the film goes on. Things start a little slow and the oddly serious music might have you expecting something more standard, but once the iguanas show up – you’ll know that’s not the case. Stick with the film.
Cage drives the film and he’s pretty damn good. He sometimes doesn’t get credit for doing crazy well, but he does seem to be this time around – and rightfully so. He has to constantly be in character – hunching, twitchy, nervous and increasingly manic. There’s no phoning this in. No starring with only a slightly furrowed brow at some National Treasure clue. Somehow – Eva Mendes was actually alright in this. She’s usually vacant at best and distractingly bad at worst, but she works here – a vestige of decency and sanity, despite being a cocaine snorting hooker that gets Cage into the worst trouble. Val Kilmer is good, but he’s barely in the film. I think he’s in 5 scenes – only 3 of which he does anything in. Brad Dourif is good as a put-upon bookie. Xzibit manages not to give a Ja Rule or DMX performance, but isn’t anything special.
The film does look cheap as heck, but that kind of works in its favor.
B- (but a fun B-)
I didn’t like Bad Lieutenant, and I like Werner Herzog. I don’t even know how to describe how I felt after watching that except thinking that Herzog was on drugs.
Harry Brown (2009) – Michael Caine stars as the titular character, a pensioner in a London suburb overrun by gangs. When first his coma-ridden wife dies and then his one friend left in the area is brutally murdered by a group of kids, Brown begins a series of occasionally accidental activities to clean up the area. A task he is uncommonly suited for.
The easy analogy for this is a Brit flick Gran Torino, and Michael Caine is always a joy to watch, but this is possibly an even more rote treatment of Death Wish For an Old Man. Plot is like a double episode of an above-average police procedural.
Performances are all excellent, though. Emily Mortimer plays the detective uncovering the trail left by Brown and one drug dealer (played by Sean Harris) might be the creepiest portrayal of drug abuse since Requiem for a Dream.
While by no means revolutionary, the film is solid and always watchable, thanks to Caine and the other performers. Film looks good, as good as you can make a British suburb riddled with crime, anyhow.
New memorable Michael Caine quote: “You’ve failed to maintain your weapon, son.”
The Onion Movie (2008) – The creators of famous satirical news comedy website ‘The Onion’ attempt to replicate that humour on film through a sketch format based around a news broadcast.
A few of the gags and sketches are funny (especially early), but generally this is pretty lame stuff. Central sketches are either initially funny, then way overextended (Steven Seagal as ‘Cock Puncher’, a Britney Spears parody) or were never funny in the first place (a bizzare role-playing game sketch).
Clearly there were obvious problems; not only was this released direct-to-DVD but it took 5 years after its actual production to get even that, as evidenced by Rodney Dangerfield’s cameo appearance.
A pity, as I’ve enjoyed sketch-based comedy films in the past like ‘Kentucky Fried Movie’. As it is, not only is not even close to KFM, it’s not even as good as it’s followup ‘Amazon Women on the Moon’.
Nick:
Thanks for the review…I really want to see Harry Brown.
Love the quote, too.
And Marco:
Just wanted to say I really enjoy your capsule reviews. I read them and enjoy them. Keep it up.
Oh, and Marco:
You forgot one of the most classic sketch-based comedies, one a close second to Kentucky Fried Movie:
Cracking Up
Not the Jerry Lewis Movie, but this. Worth checking out if you like sketch movies:
http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev324.html
Just had a thought – can we add a tab/page for brief reviews? That way it’s easier for people to find instead of recent comments?
The context of the quote is what made it really good.
You’d think it would be easier than this, but aparrently wordpress does not make it so
http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/turn-a-post-into-a-page?replies=11
Thanks filmman.
And I think Jeanine has a good idea. Might be worth creating a tab for bite-size reviews like this instead of a thread, as it’s something that we’ve all contributed to I think at some stage.
Done (see above!)
Cool! Thanks James.
@ Nick:
I liked Harry Brown, but felt it didn’t add up to the sum of its parts.
*****************SPOILERS************
Man, was that ending rough. And it felt as though the riot just appeared out of nowhere, and the death of the male detective felt forced and the female detective didn’t feel nearly fleshed out enough to be anything other than a tool to make the men really mean and nasty.
Everyone just died so Caine’s character could be built as a put-upon old man who just wants to end it.
There are, however, some REALLY effective scenes in the first half…the way he takes the young thug and leads him into the tunnel is awesome.
And yeah…that line comes at a really cool time and after a tense, awesomely effective scene.
Just wasn’t as good as I was hoping it would be.