Review: Greedy (1994)

In 1985 Michael J. Fox had done what very few actors had done before him – be highly successful on Television and film at the same time. Not only was he spearheading the highly successful sitcom ‘Family Ties’ but he was the star of the most successful film of that year ‘Back To The Future’, as well as having another hit with ‘Teen Wolf’. An enormously successful film career seemed his for the taking.

But instead his film career gradually lost momentum and by the mid-1990s his career was focussed largely on sitcom television. It was perceived that he lacked a certain gravitas or presence required to last on the big screen. But after viewing him in the 1994 comedy ‘Greedy’, this seems to be an unfair call.

Directed by Jonathan Lynn, ‘Greedy’ is centred on Joe (Kirk Douglas) a self-made millionaire in his twilight years surrounded by an array of slimy family relatives only interested in his inheritance. Panicked by Joe developing a close relationship with his nurse (Olivia D’Abo), the relatives draft in Daniel (Michael J. Fox) the son of an estranged relative and whom Joe took a shine to as a young child. But in multiple ways, things don’t go as planned.

Even though ‘Greedy’ was made less than 20 years ago, it feels almost refreshingly ancient in its film style. In a present era where comedies consider chaos, action, noise and freneticism as the basis for humour, ‘Greedy’ feels a refreshing contrast. It’s leisurely paced, limited background music and lengthy scenes. Clearly Lynn had the confidence in the screenplay and cast to deliver what was required without artificial manipulation and he is largely justified. In what has been an uneven career, this is one of his better efforts.

‘Greedy’ is bolstered by having a deep and talented cast. A particular standout is Phil Hartman as probably the slimiest of the relatives. Wisely he’s only in the film sparingly so he is able to go at full blast throughout, creating a gem of a comic performance. My favourite bit is when he tells the British nanny, “I didn’t like the Beatles and I don’t like you.”

Douglas clearly has a ball with the role of Joe. As portrayed in the film it’s easy to see why he’s disliked by so many but Douglas uses his charisma and charm to make him mischievously likable, even when it’s clear he’s pulling tricks on just about every other character in the movie.

But the key character and performance in the film is Fox as Daniel and he does an impressive job with it. Not only his well-known comic timing on display, but he also gives his character convincing dramatic substance in how he’s struggled through life and how Joe treats him. It enables us to empahsise and care about his plight and give added weight to the film’s more dramatic scenes. It’s a fine performance and pivotal to the film’s success.

The film is quite deft in how it develops Daniel’s character throughout the film. We are introduced to him as having a decent persona, in a good romantic relationship but dispirited by his failure as a professional tenpin bowler. Thrust into the madness of Joe and his scheming relatives, Daniel loses his bearings and becomes gradually corrupted. In a film populated by various types and caricatures, the realistic portrayl of Daniel’s characterisation is essential to maintaining one’s interest over the fairly lengthy running time.

Director Lynn also makes the wise decision to begin the film from the perspective of (relatively speaking) the least loathsome of the relatives only interested in Joe’s money. While they’re not likable, it helps one have some empathy for their plight and how they’ve been stuck for years in grovelling towards Joe at every turn in the forlorn hope for monetary assistance.

‘Greedy’ has a difficult task of balancing several contrasting styles within the one film. It has both realistic characters and comic buffoons that are basically caricatures. It has scenes largely of drama, but also scenes not only of comedy but slapstick and farce. For the most part the film maintains the balance very well, with the possible exception of a climatic scene in a legal office where drama and farce clash to a rather disconcerting effect.

Also, in the middle stages ‘Greedy’ gets somewhat bogged down in the rather convoluted and confusing nature of its plot (especially related to Joe’s scheming). A segment where Joe takes his nurse for a seemingly romantic encounter in Washington could’ve probably been excised from the film entirely.

Largely ignored upon its release and perceived as symbolic of Fox’s failure to cement a long-term film career, ‘Greedy’ can be seen now as an fine and funny film which is a good demonstration of Fox’s talents.

Rating: B

Things I should’ve watched… but haven’t

One of the things that astonishes me the most about cinema isn’t so much the films I have seen, but the films that I haven’t seen. Or, to be more precise, the amount of films that I have yet to see.

Even if one limits cinema to just the English-language aspect, there are thousands upon thousands of worthy films that I have yet to see, and most I will probably never get around to seeing. Even as someone who has been fascinated and devoted to cinema since a young age, it’s always felt I’ve never seen enough films as I should’ve. And now well into adulthood and with the responsibilities and requirements that entails, the time to watch films seems less than ever.

Despite all that, there are holes in my film-viewing experience that are inexplicable, even embarrassing. Not just individual films, but directors and genres that I’ve watched far less than I should’ve.

Now, seven years into this site, now is as good a time as any for us regular contributors to confess what parts of cinema we’re a bit embarrassed as to not have viewed as yet.

The one that stands out for me is that I’ve never actually watched a Danny Boyle directed film, something I only realised this week when I saw mention of his latest film ‘Trance’ within the media. It occurred to me that despite being a highly-acclaimed filmmaker for over 15 years, with early films like ‘Trainspotting’ having a major cultural impact and won international recognition and the Oscar for ‘Slumdog Millionaire’, I’ve never gotten around to seeing any of his work. It feels a bit embarrassing, not only as a long-time contributor to this movie blog but also because people who know me assume I’m a film buff, and yet haven’t seen a film of a director that most of the public have seen at least one of his films.

Until fairly recently and even more inexplicably, I had also never seen a film directed by Steve Soderbergh. Again, there was never any conscious choice to avoid his films, I just never got around to seeing any of his work. Funnily enough, the first film of his that I did see a couple of years ago was one of his most obscure, ‘King of The Hill’, which I watched on a giveaway VHS tape (still hasn’t been released on DVD as yet). I’ve seen ‘Out of Sight’ also since, but there’s a heck of a lot of his film work that I need to catch up on.

So to the other contributors here (and anyone else for that matter), is there any gaps in your film experience you feel regretful or baffled about?

 

Review: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013)

(Warning: contains some spoilers)

In my opinion the genre that’s declined in quality more than any other in films in recent decades (with mainstream Hollywood films at least) is the comedy. Year after year, I see comedies that fall almost completely flat. Too often it they’ve been made for a trailer as opposed to an entire film. A sense of rhythm, timing and texture seems to have been lost. Sure, it’s great if the script has funny gags in them but if you don’t utilise them right, they can just die when seen by an audience.

A good example of this is ‘The Incredible Burt Wonderstone’, a film that has a lot of good elements and potential (and does have some occasional laughs), but overall just doesn’t work.

The film begins in 1982 showing how young Burt Wonderstone developed his love of magic and met Anton Marvelton, forming a magic act. The film flashes forward to the present (now played by Steve Carell & Steve Buscemi) where they are highly successful Vegas stage magicians. But they’ve jaded and complacent (especially Burt) and challenged by radical street magician Steve Gray (Jim Carrey) they break up and Burt’s life spirals out of control. Can he get back to the top?

The biggest problem this film has is that its tone and timing are so erratic. Sometimes it’s a farcical comedy with non-realistic gags flying everywhere. Sometimes it’s a ‘realistic’, sentimental film, such as in the by-the-numbers unconvincing relationship and romance between Burt and Jane (Olivia Wilde).

As well the plot is a tedious mix of unbelievable and contrived events to get to its predictable conclusion. For example towards the latter stages of the film Burt appears at a child’s birthday party (that of his former boss) to do a magic show and for no good reason Steve Gray is an attendee, only so the a confrontation between the two can occur and the film can wheeze it’s way another step towards its conclusion.

The problem with the film’s tone are reflected in Carell’s performance as Burt. In the first half he portrays (reasonably amusingly) Burt as thoroughly narcissistic, jaded, sexist and obnoxious. And after a brief period of introspection, in the second half of the film Burt becomes considerate, thoughtful and well-meaning (more or less the stock Carell type). One can understand the character going through a character change but it’s done in such a perfunctory, lazy manner it distances one’s interest in the film.

It’s not surprising that the writers of this film also wrote 2011’s ‘Horrible Bosses’ as they have a similar tone – a smattering of good moments amongst an array of shock gags, perfunctory plotting and weak characterisation.

The film does have compensations, especially in the performance of Carrey. In his most enjoyable work in years, he’s very amusing as Gray. He creates a compelling persona where one can see why he garners such wide public appeal but also see his limitations and likely downfall through his egotism. To be frank, if the film had been centred around Gray, it would probably have been a better one.

Alan Arkin is also enjoyable as Rance Holloway (Burt’s inspiration for getting into magic). It’s been pleasing to see Arkin have a late-career renaissance since his Oscar for ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ as he shows that after all these decades, he’s always good to watch. However, his fairly realistic and enjoyable portrayal of an elderly, long-retired magician is jarring compared with the almost cartoon-like characters and farcical events elsewhere in the film. At no stage of the film does the tone properly mesh.

‘The Incredible Burt Wonderstone’ does have its positive aspects and funny moments but put simply this isn’t a very good film. It’s just yet another example of the inability of present-day filmmakers to properly construct a comedy film.

Rating: C

Review: Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)

The 1992 film ‘Memoirs of an Invisible Man’ was directed by John Carpenter and starred Chevy Chase, which surely has to be one of the most unusual director/star combos to appear in a mainstream Hollywood film during the mid-1990s. There seems no common ground between Chase (a popular leading mainstream comedy man during the 1980s) and Carpenter (creator of many individualistic sci-fi/horror films) so therefore the question arises: is MOAIM more of a typical Chase or Carpenter film?

The answer surprisingly, is none of the above; it feels like a unconventional movie for both men. And perhaps that’s one of the reasons why the film is more interesting and enjoyable than expected (or its reputation suggests).

Chevy Chase plays Nick Halloway (he also narrates the story), a fairly non-descript businessman who one day is unfortunately caught in the middle of a scientific accident that renders him invisible. Not only does he have to deal with the horrors of his situation, but is endlessly on the run from a ruthless government agents, led by the increasingly irrational David Jenkins (Sam Neill). His only hope appears to be a woman he just met the night before, Alice (Darryl Hannah).

Considering Chase is in the lead, one would expected a light-hearted, goofy comedy based around all the possibilities of invisibility. And yet while there are comic bits, the tone of the film is surprisingly downbeat and sombre. Indeed the tone of Halloway’s narration feels like that of a struggling private eye in a film noir. Invisibility is seen as a nightmarish curse with Halloway’s life a living hell where the ability to even sleep (he can see through his eyelids) is almost impossible.

Chase’s performance is an interesting one. He largely eschews his comic persona for a more serious, intense tone. He really makes the viewer feel the despair of his character’s predicament in a convincing manner. His romantic scenes with Hannah are also appealingly done, bringing to mind his similar efforts with Goldie Hawn in his breakthrough 1978 film ‘Foul Play’. It’s a shame that Chase hasn’t attempted more roles like this during his career. In fact, he hasn’t had as interesting movie role since.

The character of Halloway is interestingly devised. We learn in the early scenes that he’s basically a non-entity pre-invisibility. He cruises through his job without much interest, has no family and not many genuine friends. In fact it’s through his invisibility and the struggles he encompasses that Halloway develops passion, intensity, romance and a genuine identity.

Probably the film’s biggest weakness is the performance of Sam Neill as Halloway’s adversary David Jenkins. Neill is way over the top in his role – it almost feels like he should have a moustache to twirl. In contrast to the more realistic style of the film and performances of Chase and Hannah, Neill’s performance seems especially ill-suited and jarring.

Carpenter’s direction is competent but impersonal – he clearly enjoys displaying the special effects demonstrating Halloway’s predicament – and he helps create a downbeat, even sour tone. But Carpenter fans would probably be hard-pressed to find many of the touches that usually define his work.

As for the special effects, they deserve particular mention. In the film’s critically lukewarm response they were the only aspect to get significant praise and it’s easy to see why. Convincingly displayed are aspects of the invisible man like seeing smoke go through his lungs and even him digesting food. They’re of almost as high a standard as the groundbreaking special effects from Terminator 2 (released almost at the same time) and stand up very well today.

MOAIM doesn’t mark a high point in the careers of either Carpenter or Chase but it is an interesting and often entertaining work that is better than its reputation.

Rating: B-

Review: The Guilt Trip (2012)

(warning: this review contains mild spoilers)

The Guilt Trip didn’t hold much promise when it was released in Australia recently. A critical and commercial flop in America and one of the co-leads was an actor (Seth Rogen) who’d I never really rated. But it was still of interest to me as it also co-starred Barbra Streisand in a fairly rare screen appearance. As I wrote in my recent review of ‘The Owl and the Pussycat’ in her early films at least she displayed a genuine talent for flair and comic timing. I was curious to see several decades later whether she still displayed this talent.

The story concerns a struggling inventor in his mid-30s (Seth Rogen) who has created a potentially wondrous cleaning product. But as we see from the opening scene, he’s a lousy salesman of it. He has a somewhat strained relationship with his well-meaning but interfering mother (Barbra Streisand) but when he locates a man she loved but hasn’t seen for decades, he decides to take her on a road trip where he hopes to finally sell his product, as well as help her meet her lost love.

One of the most interesting aspects of TGR is how the relative lack of raunchy language, shock humour and toilet gags – which are prevalent in so many mainstream comedies these days – give it a relatively old-fashioned feel. It’s feels like a film that was made in the early 1990s more than the present.

This is not a negative observation; in fact the relative lack of crude humour is quite refreshing and gives TGT a genial feel.

But while there is absence of low-brow content in TGT, what is in its place? As it turns out, not much. While the film is setup for some funny situations and good mother/son character conflict, very little of note occurs. While TGT is easy to take, its geniality borders on the bland at times.

And this perhaps provides a clue as to why so many film comedies rely so excessively on raunchy humour these days – the art of comic timing, genuinely witty lines and funny situations has declined so rapidly in films in the last few decades that crudeness and vulgarity are all many filmmakers have to fall back on.

And this trend is also reflected at an individual level with the performance of Seth Rogen as the son. Rogen is someone I’ve never really rated as an actor (notwithstanding a good ‘serious’ performance in ‘Take This Waltz’); he’s always seemed to me someone who relies on lazily having something confrontational and shocking to say in his fast-paced verbal style for laughs, instead of the harder work of developing comic timing or amusing characterisation.

And this is fully illustrated in TGT. Saddled with material that has very little low-brow content, he is all at sea creating anything of interest, let alone humour. For most of the film he is boringly one-note in his sulky persona, and he is unable to convince when his character suddenly changes to a more positive outlook in the film’s latter stages. As a result, Rogen’s character is much less sympathetic than the film probably intends.

But what about Streisand? While she has thin material to work with, the spark and talent she showed at the start of her career is still on display here. She is far more entertaining than her co-star and the mild amusement the film generates is largely through her work. And during a serious confrontation scene halfway through the film she shows she has the dramatic skill to make the scene work.

Apart from Streisand’s enjoyable performance, the best that can be said about the TGT is that it’s fairly easy to take and has some nice moments here and there; the concluding scene where the mother meets a person she loved for the first time in decades (or does she?) is tactfully done.

But overall there isn’t enough in TGT to recommend it. It’s too slight and bland and a week or so after seeing it, it’s largely faded from the memory. It’s a bit of an inditement on the standard of modern comedies that this puts it above a lot of other comedies I see at the cinema.

Rating: C

Review: Star Trek Insurrection (1998)

The 1998 Star Trek film ‘Insurrection’ was the third of four films based around the crew from ‘The Next Generation’ TV series and I was intrigued to see how it would rate in what was an erratic series of pictures. The second of these films – 1996’s First Contact – was a terrific film by any measure but 1994’s Generations was patchy at best and 2003’s Nemesis was downright lousy. So where did Insurrection fit in?

The plot has Admiral Dougherty (Anthony Zerbe) leading the Federation (which the Star Trek ship Enterprise is part of) in observing the advanced and peaceful Ba’Ku people on their home planet. However, Enterprise captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) learns to his shock that the Federation’s real aim is to remove the Ba’ku from the planet so they can utilise the planet’s advanced natural resources, supported by the devious leader of the Son’a tribe (F. Murray Abraham). As the title of the film implies, the response of Picard and the Enterprise is to rebel against the Federation and save the Ba’ku people.

After a rather slowish start, the film builds up its central plotline nicely as a battle of beliefs as much as anything else. Alas, the second half of the film largely wastes this potential and the film fizzles out to a harmless, forgettable experience. Why is this?

Above all else its failure lies in the inability to seriously or interestingly examine the film’s central topic of whether the livelihood and needs of a tiny minority (the Ba’Ku population totals barely 600) should prevail over the essential needs of the majority. It’s a fascinating topic but apart from a scene where Picard and Dougherty debate it, it’s never analysed in any detail except for some generic platitudes from Picard. It’s an inditement that I found more interesting debate about this within reviews on the film than I did within ‘Insurrection’ itself.

In terms of sustaining narrative interest, ‘Insurrection’ is only moderately successful. There are some pleasing aspects, including a romance between Picard and one of the Ba’Ku that is deftly handled. And the holodeck being pivotal both to the plan at the start of the film to deceive the Ba’ku and then being central to their salvation towards the end has an impressively subtle sense of irony to it.

But on the debit side, the film becomes increasingly less interesting in the second half. The characterisations of the ST crew (especially Picard) are far less compelling than they were in the previous series entry ‘First Contact’. Also the way the fate of Dougherty is resolved is crude and regrettable.

With the philosophical base of the film so weak, the standard weaknesses of the ST films become more pronounced. There are plenty of action scenes that are respectably done but none of them are memorable and in anycase, who watches a ST for the action scenes? Also, humour has never been a strong suit of ST and as per usual all attempts to create laughs are heavy-handed, clunky and DOA. It’s always baffled me how a series so renowned for its intelligence always resorts to a child-like mindset when it comes to comedy.

When I reviewed the J.J. Abrams Star Trek ‘reboot’ on here back in 2009, I wrote of my disappointment at how the best features of ST (sophistication, thoughtfulness, a genuine debate of ideas and perspectives) had been largely jettisoned for action and flashiness.

But after watching ‘Insurrection’, I realised that this process was already well under away during the series of films made with the crew from ‘The Next Generation’ TV series. Indeed, ‘Insurrection’ feels like a somewhat milder, half-baked imitation of Abrams’ Star Trek.

Rating: C

Review: The Owl And The Pussycat (1970)

Many years ago I bought a book by writer Joe Queenan on his experiences being a journalist in the Hollywood film industry. Queenan was noted for his blunt, cynical style and regularly mocked various actors/actresses for the work they’ve done.

When it came to Barbra Streisand, Queenan was typically unsparing in her increasingly bloated and self-serving films she’d made over the years. But he did make an interesting observation about her that before she descended into self-parody, she displayed in her early films a genuine talent and flair for comedy and comic timing.

Probably the most well-known example of this is 1972’s “What’s Up Doc?”, but an equally good example is her 1970 comedy film “The Owl & The Pussycat”.

The film centres on a repressed, pretentious wannabe fiction writer Felix (George Segal) and model/ prostitute Doris (Streisand) who over the course of one night have each other kicked out of their respective apartments. Despite the natural antagonism that results from this, a romantic relationship develops. However this relationship will only prosper if they mature and face up to some home truths about themselves.

The film is based on a two-character stage play and despite attempts to open it up with other characters and different settings, it still feels like that. The film’s basic success comes down to whether Felix and Doris are funny and entertaining characters. As it turns out, they are.

This is in part because of the excellent work by Segal and Streisand. They work terrifically as a bantering couple, they create interesting individual characters and they both have great comic timing. It’s especially notable to see Streisand perform as such a fresh and lively performer in comedy, validating Queenan’s assertion. By the mid-1970s had gone as she was mired in bloated vanity films like ‘Funny Lady’ (made by the same director, Herbert Ross).

As impressive as Streisand is, Segal’s contribution is as good. He’s terrific as Felix, making his character both obnoxious and pitiable at the same time. And he has some wonderful humourous moments, especially when he does a frenzied impersonation of various television shows. He gradually transforms Felix from a dull, self-serious personality to a disturbed, even manic person who needs Doris despite his initial disdain for her. It’s this creation of internal tension in Felix’s personality that provides an ongoing interest beyond the jokes.

I’ve always thought Segal has been an underrated actor – he’s always been adept at intense drama (1965’s ‘King Rat’), black comedies (1967’s ‘No Way To Treat A Lady’) to light comedies like this. It’s not a surprise that as recently as the late 1990s that he found success with the TV sitcom ‘Just Shoot Me’.

Turning a two-character stage play into a film isn’t an easy task even when the source material is strong. Writer Buck Henry and director Ross do a pretty good attempt to convert it to a cinematic format. Largely the first half is confined to one room and they successfully create a sense of rhythm and momentum to the proceedings and give the dialogue its best context.

Ross/Henry struggle a bit more in the second half when the film is ‘opened up’ into other sets and locations. This is probably because the film is really all about the banter and relationship between Doris and Felix and extra characters and situations seem a distraction (although Robert Klein is amusingly understated in his small role as Felix’s co-worker).

It’s essential that the characters and performers work to the level that they do otherwise the film would’ve quickly become tedious as it’s a loud, bawdy film which largely consists of two characters talking and arguing. Despite the excellent all-round work and relatively short running time of 95 minutes, the energy begins to fade in the second half and the seams slightly show.  Also, the film is dated by using Doris’s derogatory terms towards homosexuals as a source of humour.

Despite being somewhat a relic of its era and running out of momentum in its latter stages, ‘The Owl and the Pussycat’ is a fine comedy film. And it is a good demonstration of Queenan’s view that before she descended into self-parody that Streisand was a very capable cinematic talent.

Rating: B

Review: Family Plot (1976)

Released in 1976, ‘Family Plot’ was the final film in Alfred Hitchcock’s outstanding directorial career. While never regarded as amongst his best films, it has reputation as a good film and when I’d seen it previously had enjoyed it. Having not seen it for many years I was interested to see how it held up.

The plot centres on two couples who initially have no connection with each other. The first couple is fake psychic Blanche (Barbara Harris) and her boyfriend George (Bruce Dern), with the second couple being jeweller Arthur (William Devane) and his girlfriend Fran (Karen Black) who are also ruthless kidnappers. When Blanche and George go searching for a lost heir (with the prospect of $10000 for themselves) their paths cross with Arthur and Fran… which could cost them their lives.

‘Family Plot’ has the elements to be a top-class entertainment – a good cast, an interesting and fairly unusual plot and one of the most acclaimed directors ever. But despite its good qualities the film never really catches fire. The elements are there for a thrilling and tense ride but the film is never more than mildly diverting.

Considering he was so often the biggest asset of films he was associated with during his epic career, ironically probably the main reason for the failure of Family Plot is Hitchcock’s direction. For a film and a plot that needs a snappy and brisk feel, Hitchcock’s direction is rather flabby and laboured. Apart from a tense car chase that Blanche and George experience, there are precious few of the famed Hitchcock touches on display.

Also Hitchcock’s style – so innovative and captivating for most of his career – feels rather ‘old-hat’ here. The film is visually uninteresting and it has jarringly obvious back projection that’s used not only for scenes set in cars, but even in Arthur’s jewellery store. Such back projection was not really an issue in the 1940s & 1950s but by 1976 it gives the film a rather cheap look..

Despite Hitchcock’s direction the film is still solid entertainment. The main credit for this can go to Ernest Lehmann’s script. While it makes the plot a tad too convoluted, it’s full of good characterisation and witty lines. Crucially, it creates an interesting dynamic between not only the two central couples but even between Arthur and his sidekick Maloney (well played by Ed Lauter); indeed because of the deft writing the Arthur/Maloney scene is probably the most enjoyable in the film.

Lehmann’s script also makes an interesting contrast between the two couples. Arthur and Fran are portrayed as wealthy, composed, slick and charismatic while Blanche and George are messy, coarse and chaotic. Indeed by traditional Hollywood standards you would almost expect Arthur and Fran t be the charismatic heroes of the film,  with Blanche/George with the rather buffoonish enemy. And yet the script turns things on its head in the latter stages as we see the intelligence and ingenuity of Blanche and George come to the fore while the truly nasty side of Arthur is exposed.

Due to the talky, non-flashy style of the film, it’s to the film’s benefit that the main characters in the film are portrayed by character actors, not the stars that so often fronted Hitchcock films. Particularly good is Bruce Dern as George. It’s a good example of the benefits of having a character actor in such a role as he adds lots of interesting details to his character’s persona; even before watching this again after many years, the way he tapped a gravestone with his pipe always stayed in my mind. He’s great fun to follow in his investigating as he slowly uncovers the conspiracy. Also William Devane (sounding a lot like Jack Nicholson) is entertainingly smooth and smarmy as Adamson. The only weakness on the acting front is the seance scenes where Barbara Harris (who’s otherwise good in this film) indulges in tedious and incomprehensible mugging.

To be sure ‘Family Plot’ is well down the list of Hitchcock’s best works and is probably one of the worst examples to use of his directorial skills. But overall it’s a decent, well-acted and intelligent film that provides solid entertainment throughout.

Rating: B-

A comment on the comedies starring Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthau

Recently for the first time I watched the 1993 comedy ‘Grumpy Old Men’. It starred the acclaimed Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as the title characters constantly indulging in petty battles against each other. Over the years the critical and public consensus seems to have been that while it’s no classic, the film is a pleasure to enjoy, mainly because of seeing Lemmon and Matthau work together again, backed up by a quality veteran cast.

However notwithstanding a handful of amusing moments, I found the film to be very underwhelming. Mediocre on every level, all the clichés of hack Hollywood 1990s comedies are on display with the only source of humour seemed to be the elderly swearing and being obnoxious. As well, the concept that someone as attractive and sophisticated as Ann-Margret’s character would consider – let alone fall for – both Lemmon’s and Matthau’s dreary characters was too much for even a film like this to bear.

On its own, GOM wouldn’t be worth commenting about. But in the broader context of the comedies that Lemmon/Matthau made it was of significance. Namely that it illustrated to me how overrated and disappointing as a whole the Lemmon/Matthau comedies were.

Lemmon/Matthau appeared in seven comedies from 1966 to 1998* and the only really quality film of the lot was ‘The Odd Couple’ (which I reviewed here) where their talents shone thanks to a wonderful Neil Simon script.

Otherwise their films I’ve seen were disappointing or worse (I haven’t seen their 1974 effort ‘The Front Page’).  Their first comedy was the 1966 Billy Wilder film ‘The Fortune Cookie’. Notwithstanding that Matthau got an Oscar for his performance as a lecherous lawyer (and making him a major star), the film is far from their best work, or for Wilder for that matter.

However the film is a masterwork compared to their 1980s/1990s efforts. Wilder reteamed Lemmon/Matthau in 1981 for the film ‘Buddy Buddy’ with Matthau playing a hitman constantly interrupted by a suicidal Lemmon. After a few initial amusing moments, the film is an almost total washout that ended Wilder’s career and arguably his worst film.

After Grumpy Old Men and its 1995 sequel (unseen by me), they made the equally mediocre ‘Out To Sea’ and a dispiriting 1998 sequel to The Odd Couple. All these films seem to be interchangeable from one another with only the settings (a snowbound town, a cruise ship, a road trip) different. And Lemmon and Matthau by now are going through the motions that they don’t even offer much entertainment and the supporting players are more appealing.

And yet the Matthau/Lemmon partnership (if not their films specifically) always seemed to be treated in the public domain with great fondness. The public seem happy enough to see them together no matter how weak the material and critics gave them a free pass despite not particularly liking the film. For example Roger Ebert’s review of ‘Grumpy Old Men’ basically has little positive to say about the film but then refers to Lemmon/Matthau in the most positive light to more or less give the film a pass.

And I’m speaking as someone who is a fan of both Lemmon and Matthau’s work – over many decades they displayed themselves as not only skilled comedians but also very strong dramatic actors (e.g. Matthau in ‘Fail Safe’ and Lemmon in ‘The China Syndrome’).

But it seemed that whenever they got together to do a comedy (especially in their later years) their laziest aspects came to the fore and they just went through the motions of another humdrum film, knowing that critics and audiences would give them a pass because of their hallowed status.

The films that Lemmon/Matthau appeared in together are often mentioned as the equivalent of seeing old pros at their best – in my opinion it was the very opposite as they were a display of them at their weakiest. Almost anything else in their respective careers are better viewing than these.

*Lemmon and Matthau also appeared together in the 1995 film ‘The Grass Harp’ (not one of their standard comedies and unseen by me). They also appeared in the 1991 drama ‘JFK’ but not in any scenes together.

Review: Margaret (2011)

The problems in the production of Kenneth Lonergan’s ‘Margaret’ are so bizarre and unusual that they’re probably worthy of their own film. After his debut success with ‘You Can Count On Me’ in 2000, writer/director Kenneth Lonergan filmed his next project Margaret in 2005 with much anticipation and a strong cast including Anna Paquin, Mark Ruffalo and Matt Damon. But due to the studio’s dissatisfaction with the version and length of it he provided, it was stuck in limbo for several years. By the time it was released in 2011, two of the film’s producers (Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack) had passed way several years before.

This led to a sense of fascination around the film when it was finally released. It has gotten generally favourable notices with the consensus being that it was worth the wait. And after seeing the film, it is a sentiment I agree with.

The film centres around a fairly well-off 17 year-old New York student Lisa (Paquin) whose parents are divorced (her mother is a successful stage actress and her father lives in Los Angeles). Her early scenes show her to be on the surface a confident – verging on conceited – character but that veneer is shattered when she inadvertently causes a bus crash that kills a middle-aged woman. Devastated by the incident, Lisa tries to obtain redemption and justice by targeting the bus driver involved (Mark Ruffalo) but things don’t go as planned. Meanwhile, her erratic behaviour leads to consequences for friends and family.

The irony of this film’s production stalling over it being too long is that even at 150 minutes or so, this film never dragged. Certainly, it could’ve been cut by approximately 30 minutes without losing the narrative essence but this is missing the point. ‘Margaret’ isn’t a film driven by narrative, but by characterisation and on that front it is a triumph and a pleasure to follow. The great strength of this film is that not only is the central character of Lisa fascinating to follow, but so are 7-8 supporting characters. They all are clearly detailed with a convincing backstory and you want to know more about them, the sign of a quality film.

The film’s leisurely style and length really suits Lonergan’s style of filmmaking as he lets conversations between characters develop naturally and organically. Some scenes work better than others but overall it creates a good base for interesting characterisation. Probably his most skilled direction is of the scene of the bus fatality incident itself which is done in basically in real time covering several minutes. This long scene effectively captures the horror that Lisa goes through and in its own way, the scene is more devastating and frightening than you’re likely to experience in most horror films.

There are many themes in ‘Margaret’ but probably the main one is the naivety and limitations of youth. In one of the scenes at Lisa’s school we see one of the students with great sincerity say that those her age are the most valued members of society because they’re not held back by the cynicism that older generations accumulate. But everything in this film is against this belief as those of Lisa’s age are shown to be vastly ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of modern life. We see this at a broad level with students debating  terrorism and Middle East problems without sophistication or subtlety, and instead being reduced to generalisations and naïve idealism before it  degenerates into a slanging match.

And on an acute level we see this with the examination of Lisa. Her quest to have ‘justice’ done over the bus accident death is well-meaning to an extent, but also driven by self-serving interests to absolve herself of blame she is too immature to deal with. Her inability overcome the roadblocks and agendas in her quest for justice sees her constantly lose her composure and her selfishness alienates even those she befriends (such as the dead woman’s best friend, well played by Jeanine Berlin).

For this film to work it needs to a compelling central character and Paquin provides that with her portrayal of Lisa. She’s not afraid to make her character unlikable and even unsympathetic as it makes her character appear truthful and fascinating to follow. She’s a teenager out of her depth dealing with major issues and without much adult support, so it’s understandable that the strain would show and her more unsavoury personality traits would bubble to the surface. It is a high-class performance which matches the quality of the material she’s provided with.

As is inevitably with its protracted production history, there are issues with ‘Margaret’s structure. On occasion it’s clear that scenes end where they weren’t originally supposed to end. As a result, supporting characters such as Lisa’s teacher (played by Matt Damon) seem incomplete in their composition.

Despite these imperfections, ‘Margaret’ is an impressive work full of quality. It may have been made in 2005 but there’s no better film I’ve seen so far at the cinema in 2012.

Rating: B+

The 100 most overlooked films of the 1990s

One of the constants in film writing is various types of ‘best of’ lists produced – various publications and organisations. Often, I find these boring with predictable choices and a dull basis for the lists themselves.

But one such list that I found particularly entertaining and interesting was when the Online Film Critics Society published their list of the most overlooked films of the 1990s. It seems to have disappeared off their site but can be found at this link.

I liked this list for several reasons. Underrated (or overrated) lists I usually find more interesting than usual as it forces the people choosing to put more thought into it than usual and go for some well thought out and compelling choices. As well the 1990s seems to be rarely chosen as a basis for film lists, perhaps because it isn’t considered a standout decade for film. Above all else, this seems to be a well-chosen list of films with non-English language and non-USA films well represented.

After the jump there is the full list of films (which you can see at the link I showed earlier anyway) with brief comments on the films I have seen. Above all else, it just highlights there’s a lot of good quality film that I need to get out and see some day!

Review – Woody Allen: A Documentary (2011)

Even those who aren’t major fans can’t deny that Woody Allen is a person of enormous significance within cinema – indeed he’s perhaps the most noteworthy individual within American cinema in the last 40 years.  For a period in the 1980s it seemed obligatory that every new Allen film would be widely rated as amongst the best films of the year. While the Academy Awards aren’t always a reliable barometer of class, that he has acquired an astonishing  15 Oscar nominations for screenplays he’s written or co-written (for 3 wins) is a true testament to his quality.

Therefore, a three-hour documentary examining Allen’s life and career is essential viewing for any fan of cinema, let alone fans of Allen. Especially so when Allen is prepared to be substantially interviewed in Robert B. Weide’s documentary, simply titled ‘Woody Allen: A Documentary’, released on TV late last year.

This documentary is effectively in two segments. The first segments covers Allen’s life chronologically from childhood to 1980’s ‘Stardust Memories’, which Weide obviously perceived as a crucial decisive period in Allen’s career. The second segment is a more pottered account of Allen’s his post-1980 work and his overall impact on cinema.

Technically, this documentary is impressively done. The clips chosen to show Allen’s career and films are judiciously and intelligently inserted and Weide is prepared to take some risks unusual in a documentary like when a series of talking heads are shown saying the same phrase in rapid succession to underline a point. Even at three hours there’s barely a dull and stagnant moment.

Of course the main reason the documentary is entertaining is the scope and substance of Allen’s career. The segment I found the most interesting was Allen’s stand-up career and rise to fame and acclaim in the 1960s as he succeeded despite himself. Deeply reluctant to pursue stand-up when he was already a successful comic writer, he struggles for a while as his distinctly uncomfortable persona mitigates against his talent. But he persists (and is pushed by perceptive managers) and becomes one of the defining stand-up acts of his era. From the clips that are shown he always looks awkward during his routine and paradoxically, perhaps that was the secret of his success. Perhaps audiences of the 1960s were tired of the traditionally slick and manufactured comics and found Allen’s style genuine and appealing, especially as it fitted in with his self-depreciating style of comedy. And of course, it was also because he was an exceptionally gifted comic.

Even more interesting from this era is how his management pushed him into the public eye in the 1960s so that he wasn’t just a noted stand-up comic, but a mainstream American celebrity. We see footage of him singing in a broadway style musical number (and his singing is indeed dire) and even participating in a boxing match with a kangaroo! While some of this must’ve been galling for him to participate in, it helped give him the celebrity credit that film producers began to see him as a viable talent. And the rest is history.

The section covering his film career is also constantly interesting. While most of it was familiar to me, there were some new revelations, like how the scene in ‘Annie Hall’ where Allen and Diane Keaton’s characters are both shown talking in therapy at the same time in what appeared to be a split screen segment, were both filmed at the same time.

Allen himself is interviewed extensively throughout the documentary, with significant excerpts from earlier interviews. Curiously enough considering he’s the whole basis of the documentary, when Allen is interviewed it’s probably the least interesting part of the doco. This is because Allen’s patented self-deprecating, self-loathsome persona is rather tiresome to hear in this format, especially when his default reaction to any of his work is to belittle it. It almost feels like an easy evasion of a more penetrating self-analysis of his own work.

More interesting from Allen is when we see his process of working which is a mixture of old-fashioned and eccentric. He uses no electronic technology, and still relies on hand-written notes and old-fashioned typewriters. His method of adding in material on his typewritten notes is certainly idiosyncratic and amusing. When we see his hand-written ideas they are splashed on the page in such a random and eccentric fashion that it would be difficult for anyone but himself to transcribe them to legible form. This form of ideas feels more in the spirit of his early anarchic comedies as opposed to the usually tidy films he’s made in recent decades.

Weide has organised an array of talking heads for the doc ranging from actors who’ve worked with Allen such as Mira Sorvino, ex-wife and actress Louise Lasser and film critic Leonard Maltin. They are generally interesting and well chosen, although the predictable absence of Mia Farrow makes itself felt. Probably the most interesting comment came from film writer F. X. Feeney who says that ‘Hannah And Her Sisters’ was the film Allen’s fans were expecting after ‘Manhattan’, not ‘Stardust Memories’ which seemed to disillusion them, especially with what they took to be Allen’s criticism of his fanbase.

If there’s a weakness in this documentary (perhaps inevitable due to Allen’s participation), is that the tone towards Allen is so reverential, including from all of the talking heads,  that it borders on the gushing. Barely a mildly critical word is mentioned of Allen’s work or Allen himself during the documentary. His downturn in in quality and popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s is briefly alluded to, but seemingly only as a precursor to mention his triumphant return to form with 2005’s ‘Match Point’.

Also referenced is Allen’s ugly custody battle with Mia Farrow in the 1990s after she found out about his romantic relationship with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. But again this is treated rather superficially with the focus being on how excessive the media coverage was of it (hardly an earth-shattering insight) and how Allen managed to carry on so strongly through it. Considering Farrow’s absence, this section feels rather pointless and probably could’ve been excised from the documentary altogether.

Despite some weaknesses and a rather self-serving aspect to it, ‘Woody Allen: A Documentary’ is a fine, entertaining work. For those who know nothing about Allen, it’s an excellent starting point to learn about him and his significance. Of course those who are devoted fans of Allen won’t need a second invitation to watch it.

Rating: B

The worst type of film to see at the cinema

I have seen many films at the cinema over the years, but I don’t regard my worst experience as necessarily associated with the lowest-standard films I’ve seen there.

For example, the 2009 film ‘Love and Other Drugs’ is one of the worst films I’ve seen at the cinema in recent years – possibly ever – and was painful to sit through. But in its own way it was so insultingly bad that at least it provided a vivid demonstration in my mind of what bad modern filmmaking is.

Similarly, back in 2003 I went to see Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’ and was so repelled and repulsed by it that I haven’t bothered to watch any of his films since. But as much as I hated that film, it certainly left a vivid impression on me (something that Quentin probably would be quite satisfied by).

I think the worst film experience to have is to see a film and for it to virtually evaporate from the memory the instant you leave the cinema. In some quarters that’s promoted as an acceptable cinema experience but if that’s going to occur, why bother at all? Especially with the ever-increasing cost and effort associated with going to the cinema. Films that leave no impression at all do more to dissipate the passion of going to the cinema than films being churned out like that.

By that criteria, two films I’ve seen at the cinema that I recall (that I can’t really recall actually) stand out.

Bored one day in 2008, I decided to see the the Shia LaBeouf thriller ‘Eagle Eye’. As I recall I thought the film was an OK timewaster but it faded from memory as soon as I left the cinema and now looking back, unless I put great effort in I can remember virtually nothing about it.

Topping that though was when I went to see Tim Burton’s remake of ‘Planet of the Apes’ in 2001. Being a major fan of the original POTA (and even the first two sequels to a lesser extent), I eagerly anticipated this one and was majorly disappointed. It wasn’t terrible, but it was a waste of time and despite a “twist ending”, the film dissipated from my mind not long afterwards and now I have virtually no substantial memory of it. And considering the iconic nature of the original film, that’s even more unforgivable than making a memorably misguided remake.

Burton’s ‘Planet of the Apes’ is hardly the worst film I’ve seen at the cinema. But it is the most insignificant and irrelevant, and imo there’s nothing worse for a film to be than that

Review: The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

Somewhere within the Nicholas Stoller directed film ‘The Five-Year Engagement’  there’s a really interesting and funny examination of modern relationships waiting to burst out. Occasionally you see it with some sharp dialogue, interesting character interaction, funny scenes and pointed observations. But alas, it’s suffocated by an average script and weak direction.

The plot centres on young San Francisco couple Tom, (Jason Segel, who also co-wrote the script with Stoller) who is a sous chef, and Violet, (Emily Blunt) who is a psychology graduate. They are deeply in love and Tom’s rather clumsy marriage proposal at the beginning of the film is gleefully accepted by Violet. But their relationship begins to hit the rocks when Violet gets into a post-doctorate university program which has them move to Michigan with Tom having to take a menial cooking job which he resents. As the strain on their relationship increases Violet’s charming professor Winton (Rhys Ifans) looms on the sidelines.

Probably TFYE’s greatest strength is the likability of the central characters Tom & Violet who are both portrayed and acted sympathetically. This ensures that even during its weaker sections a level of interest is retained.

And there are bright spots in the film – an argument in bed between Tom/Violet is truthfully and interestingly done. The gradual decaying of their relationship in the Michigan and increasingly desperate attempts to keep it alive feels reasonably genuine. And a late scene where two characters carry out a major conversation while doing voice impersonations of Elmo and the Cookie Monster is amusing.

But unfortunately these strengths are outnumbered by its weaknesses. A scene where Tom chases Winton through the streets at night goes on endlessly without any payoff. A scene where two periphery characters give toasts that involve putdowns of a colleague is pointless and could’ve easily been excised from the film. A supporting character who has a penchant for wearing awful jumpers he’s knitted is mildly amusing initially, but is turned into a tiresome running gag.

More significantly, there’s a silly segment where a demoralised Tom turns into a sub-Jeremiah Johnson hunter type, even donning a very rough beard.  While it gets a couple of cheap laughs it’s impossible to believe that Violet would stay with him in this state and it undermines the attempts at truthfulness elsewhere in the film.

Also, the character of Winton is very lazily constructed. A professor who’s pretentious (yawn), arrogant and devious – it’s as if the writers wanted to create a character from the most negative clichés associated with academics (all that’s missing is for him to be smoking a pipe). It’s only due to the work of Ifans that the character has any interest whatsoever.

As an individual film, TFYE isn’t especially noteworthy. But it does gain interest in the broader context that it’s produced by Judd Apatow, a notable figure not only due to the amount of hits he’s been associated with in recent years but that his brand of comedy  has become well-known and identifiable.

I don’t consider myself a fan of the Apatow-style films (I should add I don’t really consider the Will Ferrell films Apatow produced part of this sub-genre). They have their appealing aspects such as a fresh modern style of humour and usually likable characters. But TFYE is a good demonstration of the weaker characteristics – scenes last twice the length they should, very self-conscious low-brow humour, supposedly liberated on the topic of sex but in truth conformist and conservative, etc…

Despite all that, TFYE is not a turkey by any stretch. It’s a tolerable time-waster with some interesting and endearing aspects. I think it’s marginally better than last year’s hit Apatow-produced film ‘Bridesmaids’. But it could’ve – and should’ve – been better than it is.

Rating: C+

Review: Lenny (1974)

Whenever I’ve seen a Bob Fosse directed film, I’m always amazed that his career was largely based on the stage (as performer or director). When stage directors have moved to film the tendency has been to not adapt to the avenues and openings and cinema provides and fall back on their stage background. That’s not to say the films they’re incapable of making good films but they tend to be on the stodgy and rather un-cinematic side.

But Fosse was a different story. What stands out about him as a film director is that he had a style that was completely at ease with the film format. He had an innate ability to use camera placement and editing to create sustained dramatic impact. Even when his films tended to be overwrought one was always enthralled by the technical mastery on display.

And such is the case with ‘Lenny’, his 1974 biopic of the controversial and groundbreaking stand-up comedian Lenny Bruce (played by Dustin Hoffman). On just about every level it is an exceptional film.

The film is constructed in a pseudo-documentary style, with Bruce’s mother, ex-wife and manager all interviewed in the present day (i.e. 1974) about Lenny Bruce, but with the film largely made up of a chronological depiction of Bruce’s rise and fall.

The film begins in the early 1950s where Bruce is a hack comic, doing lame jokes and impersonations. On the personal front, he woos and marries a beautiful stripper named Honey (Valerie Perrine) but their relationship falls apart due to personality weaknesses on both sides. Then Bruce transforms his act into a straight-talking, confrontational comedian exposing the hypocrisies of the day. His popularity takes off but his style sees him in a battle with the police and legal system, and there’s only going to be one winner from that.

There are many outstanding features to this film, one of them being Bruce Surtees’ black and white cinematography. In its sharpness it captures the intimate atmosphere of the nightclub scene and makes you feel like you’re there.

The performances are also excellent. While mysteriously this role has been somewhat forgotten in the context of his career, Hoffman’s performance as Bruce is amongst his best work. Indeed, he is so good that you completely forget it’s Hoffman and assume he is Bruce. A scene towards the end when Bruce is desperately begging a judge to give him a chance to plead his case is stunning in its effectiveness, thanks largely to Hoffman’s work.

But best of all is the direction of Fosse which is taut, sharp and unsentimental, without the overwrought self-indulgence that was on display in ‘All that Jazz’. Not a single minute feels wasted. A great example of his skilled technique is a backstage drug-fuelled party scene at a nightclub which – entirely through a montage of edits and judiciously-placed shots – convincingly conveys what it was like to be in such an electrified but dangerous environment filled with extreme highs and lows.

But above all else for the film to work, it has to be convincing portrait of Bruce the man, and this is done with great success. One of the secrets to this success is that the film doesn’t overtly focus on the period when Bruce was in the public eye; indeed the majority of the film is spent on his early career struggles and troubled marriage. While Bruce isn’t interviewed like his wife/mother/agent are, the film perceptively treats his freewheeling stand-up monologues as effectively his interviews because they provide such a great insight into his mindset.

This, in addition to the excellent work of Fosse and Hoffman, provides a memorable characterisation. When the police begin arresting him, initially he enjoys the notoriety and challenge of taking the legal system on. But he is unprepared psychologically and emotionally for the increased and constant persecution he receives which makes his end all the more tragic.

On its release, ‘Lenny’ was a critical triumph and received 6 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Director and Actor but won none. Despite the fact that Lenny Bruce remains a significant cultural figure today for his significance as a stand-up comedian, this film has been largely forgotten. That is unjust as this is arguably the finest work Fosse and Hoffman did during their respective careers. A film well worth seeking out.

Rating: A