Spiritual Siblings: the Emotionally Stunted Robbers

It is inevitable that when thousands of films are made that some resemble each other in more than one facet, even though they were filmed on different continents, in different languages, with different casts and in different genres. Certain types of stories or characters are told so often that they become like genres unto themselves. “Stranger comes to a small town” is an old, widely used, staple with a wide range of uses in all kinds of genres. These things become interesting – to me, at least – when even a pretty narrow form of story is told several times with very differing results.

It was unsought that over a period of three months I saw three films where the main character was a meticulous yet emotionally (perhaps even psychologically) stunted man drawn into robbery. Although I’m unsure what to call the genre or staple – if it can be called even that – the many similarities between the films make me wonder what exactly inspired them.

Catchup Quick Hits

Well, as everyone knows, I’ve had a lot going on over the last two months, and when I found myself with free time, I was either going to see movies (I’ve actually managed to see many since the move) or being lazy.  I’m determined to catch up with my reviews, but I’m so far behind that I’m better off getting them out of the way and starting with a clean slate.  So, here’s a whole bunch of titles that haven’t been reviewed elsewhere on this site (by the way, I in no way intend for this post to preempt any full reviews of any of these titles if anyone else wants to write one).

Control
Directed by Anton Corbijn. Written by Matt Greenhalgh. Released by The Weinstein Company.
Control observes the rise of Ian Curtis and his band Joy Division, until his suicide at the age of 23. What seems on the surface like standard biopic material is treated very differently by the filmmakers, keeping us so inside Curtis’s immediate world that it’s hard to know from the movie exactly when the band finds success. I say this as a good thing; it’s clear, even without knowing Corbijn’s history in the business, that the movie is made by someone who has spent a lot of time around musicians and knows them as people instead of approaching the material from a fan’s standpoint. The result is an effective portrayal of a troubled young artist, with tremendous performances by Sam Riley as Curtis and Samantha Morton as his wife Deborah. Highly recommended.

Sleuth
Directed by Kenneth Branagh. Screenplay by Harold Pinter. Released by Sony Pictures Classics.
This film, the second based on Anthony Schaffer’s play, got some harsh reviews, but the first two acts are a tremendous amount of fun. An older, wealthy gentleman, Andrew (Michael Caine), receives a visit from a younger man named Milo (Jude Law), who promptly explains that Andrew’s wife is requesting a divorce so that she can marry him. Andrew initially refuses but then offers Milo a deal, and things of course fall apart for both characters from there.

Pinter’s screenplay provides scathing dialogue, and both Caine and Law are up to the task. I’m not sure if Law has much range as an actor, but his oily charm is put to terrific use here, and of course Caine can do this kind of thing without breaking a sweat. There’s not much to the movie other than its central conceit, which doesn’t hold up over the final act anyway, but at worst its an entertaining acting exercise.

Dan in Real Life
Directed by Peter Hedges. Written by Pierce Gardner and Peter Hedges. Released by Touchstone Pictures.
I wrote when this was released that “this is one of the rare occasions that I want to see a movie primarily because of the cast.” As it turns out, that’s pretty much the reason to go. It’s about a single father of three girls (Steve Carell) falling in love with a woman (Juliette Binoche), who turns out to be the current girlfriend of his brother (Dane Cook). Carell and Binoche are, as expected, a pleasure to watch, and Cook proves once again that he’s actually not all that irritating when he isn’t being Dane Cook. Good supporting performances are turned in by John Mahoney, Dianne Wiest, and Emily Blunt. The story is fairly predictable and not terribly interesting but I ended up not caring much. It’s not movie of the year, of course, but it’s a pleasant sit.

Lars and the Real Girl
Directed by Craig Gillespie. Written by Nancy Oliver. Released by MGM Pictures.
I’ve read a few comments here and there that it’s difficult to believe that a whole town would go along with Ryan Gosling pretending that his blow-up doll girlfriend is a real woman. If this were the film’s only flaw, I’d actually be willing to let it go. My biggest problem with the movie is much more of a fatal blow – it couldn’t even convince me that Gosling’s character believed the doll was real. So what I saw wasn’t a damaged soul undergoing an unusual healing process with the help of his friends and neighbors, but a severe sociopath playing a cruel prank on his loved ones. On balance, this is probably a more interesting story anyway, but suffice it to say that it’s at odds with the tone that the filmmakers bring to the material. I don’t understand the acclaim for this one.

Lions for Lambs
Directed by Robert Redford. Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan. Released by MGM Pictures.
Not much to report here. I appreciate the call to action that Redford shoots for here, but it’s so poorly executed that it’s honestly hard to believe. The film follows three storylines: a college professor challenging the apathy of one of his students; two of his former students struggling to survive after falling from their helicopter over the mountains of Afghanistan; and a reporter interviewing a Republican senator about a new strategy being implemented in Iraq. All three are awkwardly written and they’re awkwardly intercut to boot. The main thing to take away is the spot-on casting of Cruise as a Republican senator.

Southland Tales
Written and directed by Richard Kelly. Released by Samuel Goldwyn Films.
I’m not even going to try to summarize this one; suffice to say that it revolves mostly around three characters. One, an action star with amnesia played by Dwayne Johnson (aka, The Rock), who is involved with a porn star (Sarah Michelle Gellar). Also, there are brothers played by Seann William Scott. At the time of its release last month, Jackrabbit Slim noted the divergence of critical opinion. I have to say, on this one I’m more with Dargis than Ebert. It is messy and audacious, and it is funny and feverishly inspired at times. Does it make a lick of sense? No, but at times it feels like it does, even if it doesn’t, and for awhile during the last third, I thought Kelly was really on to something. But then it all fell apart at the end, like the director’s cut of Donnie Darko did, and I left confused and frustrated. But is it worthless, as so many critics have seemed to feel? I don’t think so.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut
Directed by Ridley Scott. Screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. Released by Warner Bros. Pictures.
I had seen Blade Runner on DVD before, but I couldn’t tell you what the differences between that version and this one are. But I left this screening feeling the same way about the film that I did upon the earlier DVD viewing: “yeah, that’s nice, but what of it?” I’m still not convinced that there’s more to it than visual style. And even that falters. At times, I felt that Scott did a fne job of creating the atmosphere of 21st century Los Angeles, but then at other times not so much. The final showdown between Deckard and Batty, for example, takes place on such a generic abandoned old building set that it could have been set in the projects of 1970′s Brooklyn.

I guess on some level I appreciate the emotional detachment on the part of the filmmakers, given the subject matter, but at the same time it’s hard to me to embrace the movie fully. I respect what it does, and I won’t argue that it’s a bad film, but it’s more of a cultural touchstone than a great film.

Margot at the Wedding
Written and directed by Noah Baumbach. Released by Paramount Vantage.
Just noticed that this opened in Dallas after I left but in Chicago before I got here, so it’s not in any Opening threads. Anyway, based on this and The Squid and the Whale, I feel that Baumbach is a tremendously talented and unique filmmaker. however, this one will challenge anyone to a) sit through it, and b) like it. It’s about a tremendously unlikable character, played by Nicole Kidman, visiting her childhood home, still inhabited by her sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who is getting married to a socially awkward bumbler (Jack Black). All three leads are superb, especially Kidman, who takes a character that is completely vile without making her an unbearable burden for the audience to endure (as with, say, Téa Leoni in Spanglish).

Still, this is a movie about unpleasant people doing unpleasant things to each other (much more so than The Squid and the Whale, which is saying something). Baumbach writes and directs with keen insight and humor, but it’s still an endurance test, and I’m not sure he achieves what he intends with the ending. I recommend the picture, as long as you know what you’re in for, but it’s not completely successful.

Weekend Warrior – Quick Hits

Here are my thoughts on a few items I saw over the weekend:

Mi5 (website):  Kind of a serialized/single episode British 24. I only saw two episodes at my brother-in-law’s house (over Thanksgiving) but it seemed OK enough. Certainly the BBC production values have stepped up – it’s in HD! The two I saw dealt with anti-terrorism and the anti-immigration feelings it can bring. Timely!

Reign Over Me (website) – A very nice film about frienship & loss with an excellent performance by Sandler. He definitely has it in him to do more than he’s known for. The only drawback is he has so conditioned us to view his angry outbursts as comedy that when they happen in this film I was conflicted on how to accept it. Mike Binder did a great job on this, but the story did not need the Saffron Burrows character. Wish it could have been released during “Oscar time” but I hate those awards anyway.

Enchanted (website) – Amy Adams is fantastic (as is her singing) in the princess role. Very few surprises here and some unfortunate standard low-brow gags, but not enough to drag it down completely. The final battle is anti-climactic but up to that point everyone involved knows what kind of movie this is and plays their parts fairly well. A good return to a live-action family-friendly film from Disney.

Bulletproof Monk (website) – Another movie that somehow made it to the top of my queue. I put it in there years ago thinking there might be some good fight scenes…it’s Chow Yun Fat! Promptly forgot about it until this week when it arrived with Reign Over Me. What a combination. Anyway, not enough action to be taken seriously in that vein and not enough comedy to make you overlook the story. This movie would compare unfavorably to even Beverly Hills Ninja.

A Steven Soderbergh Retrospective, Part II

In Part I, I covered Soderbergh’s career from his debut film sex, lies, and videotape, to his critical peak during the release of Traffic. In Part II, I’ll cover the more inconsistent period that started with Ocean’s Eleven and continues to today, with the release of, uh, Ocean’s Thirteen.

A Steven Soderbergh Retrospective, Part I

Steven Soderbergh has been one of the most interesting – and certainly the most prolific – of American directors for almost 20 years. I wrote the other day that “it strikes me as odd that I’m a fan of Soderbergh even though I don’t really like most of his movies.” So I thought I’d take a look at his career, having watched Ocean’s Thirteen over the weekend.

Part I below covers the period from sex, lies, and videotape to Traffic. Part II will hopefully follow tomorrow (now available here).

Semi-Quick Hits

Into Great Silence: Obviously, this is one of the more unique movies that’s come to town, a documentary about Carthusian monks in the French Alps. The movie has no narration, no score, and not even any background information on the monks or their order. And it’s nearly three hours long, so what’s not to like.

Director Philip Gröning tries to capture the rhythms of the monks’ austere lifestyle, and at times he succeeds. One of the devices Gröning uses, probably due to necessity, is repitition: the chapel bell being rung during prayer and meeting times, shots of empty hallways, title cards with bible verses. It does have an effect that’s hard to explain. It’s boredom at first, but that gives way to something more mysterious and satisfying after awhile.

At other times, though, not so much. Gröning (also the cinematographer) weirdly favors camera angles that feel as if he were hiding and didn’t want to be seen. Maybe he actually was, but I felt from time to time that I was spying on the monks, and it’s distracting. And besides that, some moments just have a different tone and stand out awkwardly.

But, I thought it was definitely worth checking out, if only because it is so different from anything I’ve seen on film before.

Year of the Dog: Some movies I watch and just think, why did the filmmaker want to make a movie about characters he hates? Year of the Dog is one of those. It starts off harmlessly enough, as Peggy (played by Molly Shannon) loses her cherished beagle, Pencil, and goes into mourning. After awhile, though, it became apparent that writer/director Mike White really despises this character, and he puts her through a lot of crap for no real reason except to point at her and laugh. It’s cruel, in a way, and by the time she really goes crazy, I had turned completely against the film. The ending, where White pretends to actually be happy for the character he’s spent the last hour scorning with all his might, just pissed me off even more.

Fracture: Most of the reviews I’ve read for this movie focused almost exclusively on the acting. I suppose that’s a natural response when presented with a scenery-chewing competition between Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling (Gosling wins). What’s largely been left unsaid, though, is that the movie is pretty lame. The plot revolves around Hopkins’ character knowing in advance that people would do things he could not have possibly predicted, much less have counted on (I think Ebert has a glossary item about this, right?) , the big secret is really obvious (hint to screenwriters: that’s the problem when you leave only one physical possibility), and the entire storyline involving Gosling’s new job is just stupid, requiring an amount of incompetence on behalf of the Los Angeles DA’s office that is too much to believe, even from the outfit that let OJ walk.

Rentals

Been watching a few more DVDs than usual lately.

M: I keep telling myself that I’m going to start up a Netflix account one of these days, and when I do, the Fritz Lang titles will flow like a rushing river. I loved M, and I loved Metropolis when I was lucky enough to catch in during a theatrical reissue a few years ago. Originally released in 1931, it plays like it was made a good 20 years later. It’s well beyond any American movie I’ve seen from the same time period, whether in terms of direction, acting, sound … you name it. And all praise and glory be to the Criterion Collection for their wonderful DVD.

Blue Velvet: Obviously compelling, but I can completely understand why Ebert hated it. I don’t feel as strongly as he does (did?) about it, but I think it’s a little bit too cartoonish to be taken seriously and a little too serious to be taken cartoonishly, and Lynch wasn’t really able to get those ends to meet.

Amores perros: I basically feel the same way about this as I do 21 Grams and Babel: impressed but not enamored. All told, it worked better than those two, but there’s something frustrating about González Iñárritu that I can’t quite put my finger on. His characters always feel just the slightest bit prop-like, and it’s hard to feel too engaged with what happens to them.

The Devil’s Backbone: Pretty fantastic, but in a surprisingly low-key kind of way. I seem to recall it being marketed as a horror movie, and the current DVD cover makes it look like a Rob Zombie movie. Much like the very awesome Pan’s Labyrinth, however, director Guillermo del Toro regards his heroes very warmly, and finds apprehension and dread in the outside world around them, while eschewing horror movie conventions. I’d retroactively add it to the list of 2001’s best, if I had such a list in the first place.

3-Iron: Kim Ki-Duk films will also be forthcoming when I open the fabled Netflix account. I enjoyed his Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter … and Spring a few years back, but missed 3-Iron during its theatrical run in 2005. Based on a recommendation from Nick, I picked it up in the video store, and loved it so much that I didn’t even mind that a key image from the movie was spoiled on the DVD cover (and theatrical poster). Thanks, Nick.

Ten Last Movies I’ve Seen Worth Mentioning (no spoilers)

La Moustache
A man wakes up and shaves off his moustache. When asking his wife for a comment she says that, no, he’s never had a moustache. His colleagues don’t react, and his friends deny that he’s ever had one. Did he dream his moustache? And if his moustache didn’t exist, what else doesn’t exist?

There ain’t a lot of existential comedies out there, and the premise of this one was fun enough for me to look it up. Vincent Lindon as the lead turns out to be the best part about the film. Has a pretty believable wtf-expression. Trouble with the film is that towards the end it does a 180 that leaves the viewer reeling and stranded, and though perhaps aimed to provoke afterthought, is more likely to provoke annoyance.

World Trade Center
Critical as I’ve been of where the film was coming from, I tried watching this without bias. And even though the first half hour is good, good enough, the last one and a half are boring as shit. Stone seemed to be going on auto-pilot. Seriously, how ‘deep’ was this film? Entertaining? Or did it ‘move’ anyone? I’m sorry, I don’t care if that was what ‘actually’ happened, but there’s only so much “I love my wife/husband” that I can take. Best part was staff-sergeant Karnes. A real original whose story one would have liked to have seen more of (thanks Brian for linking to that story).

Silent Hill
So, yeah, I was looking forwards to this. And it’s a very pretty film… and, uh, yeah…

I’ll agree with Chris that having played the first game I understood a bit more than someone without that kind of foreknowledge might have (poor bastards), but a good film should be able to stand on it’s own, and this one doesn’t even do that. There’s some cool stuff, if like me you consider seeing a girl’s skin getting ripped off in one tug ‘cool,’ but other than that the whole thing is a mess.

I’ve seen three Christophe Gans films now (this, Crying Freeman and Brotherhood of the Wolf) and all three have in the end had the same symptoms. Amazing-looking things, very moody, but with no grip whatsoever on story, either too much or too little, gaping plotholes and characters you ultimately don’t care for.

But it’s very pretty.

Election (Hak Se Wui)
Apparently some triads in Hong Kong have democratic elections. Don’t know if this is true or not, but it’s a hell of a premise for a movie. Trouble with the film is that it doesn’t quite follow through on it. Branded as a ‘political’ gangster film, and a ‘reinvention of the HK gangster film’, the politics aren’t that much part of the picture, sadly, as much as some of the still prevalent traits of a standard HK gangster film. I wouldn’t call it ‘reinvention’ removing guns and having a grim, unheroic ending, when you’ve still got a martial arts sequence in the middle of a street and a larger part of the film is dedicated to a chase that seems totally arbitrary.

But the ending really is quite something, and the film has its compelling parts and actors. It just didn’t quite deserve those amazing raves it’s got from the HK film fan community.

Election 2 – Triad Election (Hak Se Wui Yi Wo Wai Kwai)
The first surprising thing to say about Election 2 is that you don’t have to have seen the first one to see this one. The second surprising thing to say is that it’s an amazing improvement over the first one. It’s as if Scarface was followed by Godfather 2.

This could have gone on to become just a long series of brutal confrontations/executions, but instead it goes on to become what the first one should have been. It’s a leaner (90 minutes), more twisted (shades of Abu Ghraib) and brainier film than the first, with a political message that actually hits home. Hits home in such a way that it’s quite cool that the Chinese authorities let it slip past in this day and age.

I wouldn’t say it’s perfection, but this is a very good film. Well worth looking up if you ever see it on a cinema or dvd-stand.

Crank
Been looking forward to this for quite some time, and it did not dissappoint. Haven’t had this fun watching a movie in a long time. Best beer movie of the year.

Da Vinci Code
Jesus Christ what a boring movie. After 15 minutes I just couldn’t stand it and shut it off. I’ve read the book (enjoyed it for what it was) and still found the story hard to get a grip on. To not even speak of the murky, not moody, cinematography and the just wrong casting decisions (Hanks, Bettany and Molina). For fuck’s sake, the thing was even crappily edited, which is something I usually only notice if it’s a sub-par martial arts film.Worst $750 million blockbuster of all time? You bet.

Nacho Libre
When I was a kid in Spain, I used to watch American wrestling on the tv. The commentary was in Spanish, and even though it was fun seeing people get hit, I couldn’t quite figure out if it was for real or not. Something was obviously off. They were getting hurt, but it was like sometimes they wanted to lose. But if this was a jig, why were there thousands of people cheering like it was life or death? So one day I drag my dad to watch it with me, to tell me whether it’s for real, and if not, what the deal is. He looks at it for a few minutes, and then looks at me; “Niclas, they are idiots.”

I quite liked Napoleon Dynamite. It had an oddball vibe that should have made me switch off, but didn’t. Hess doesn’t apologize for his characters being weird, nor does he try to redeem them.

Nacho Libre isn’t quite on the same level, but I did laugh at some things, and the film is sweet enough to not dismiss out of hand. By no means a very strong film, or a great comedy, it still has some funny scenes and loveable characters. If you’re into Black’s shtick, you’ll probably like it more than I did.

Half Nelson
All those tired of hearing another over-fifty film critic’s long lamentation of the passing of the 70s (“the last golden age of cinema”) and the subsequent peremptory condemnation of all American films since Raging Bull – moistily reminiscing on the spare, dusty look of The Last Picture Show – please raise your hand. I like McCabe & Mrs Miller as much as anyone, but I mean come on. Hang up, get off.

That said, seeing Half Nelson is a breath of fresh air. Seriously, no show-off acting! No quirky, comic sideline-character! No third-act monologue! I might appreciate these things done well, but seeing a film that wasn’t dependent on them to tell a good story felt revolutionary, of all things.

I remember Ryan Gosling from this shit TV show that my little sister used to watch, Breaker High, and thinking (hoping) that this fuckface would never have a career after 21. Man, was I wrong, and glad I was. The Believer (a great film about being Jewish) might have been a stroke of luck, but he really delivered here. Knowing one or two young, idealistic (some not so) teachers in troubled urban areas, his role here isn’t far-fetched, nor does he play it false. But the thing to really see here is the kid, Shareeka Epps, who is one of the very few fully believable child actors I have ever seen. If you need one reason to see the film, do it for her.

There’s no clear three act structure, no satisfying climax, and no standout scenes or bits of dialogue. But in all honesty, this film really got to me. There’s something to be said for the qualities of many of the films made in the 70s. Doesn’t mean such films ain’t made no more.

The Queen

I work summers as a guard over at the Royal Palace in Stockholm, so the question of the monarchy’s legitimacy in the modern world, while not exactly urgently on my mind, is somewhat pondered from time to time. The Queen doesn’t answer those questions, but it does deliver an interesting perspective.You can tell Peter Morgan – also writer of reality-based dramas The Deal and Frost/Nixon, both also about confrontations – has meticulously researched this as well as could be done, but in the end it’s not exactly United 93 you’re getting here.

All those things I said I loved seeing missing from Half Nelson, well, they’re here in spades. This brings with it both good and bad.

Director Stephen Frears opts for entertaining, but it’s intelligent entertainment. Considering that it’s basically a film about a family’s decision of whether to speak at a funeral or not, and that most people know the outcome, there’s a considerable danger that the whole thing could just sputter and die. That it doesn’t, and that it chugs along without braking, is a real credit to Frears. There’s some great, snappy, British dialogue, and the main characters of this piece are all fascinating people in real life (Michael Sheen as Tony Blair, especially) and seeing how they supposedly act behind the media scenes is perhaps the greatest thing about the picture.

Still, even if no thing feels unbelievable, some of the people represented feel just a bit sugarcoated. Thinking back on how they’re seen in the media, I imagine these people having a bit more balls in real life and somewhat less sympathetic motivations.But Helen Mirren, in the lead, is sure to win Best Actress. This might not be the British queen as most believe her to be, but it’s a great piece of showoff acting, and it’s the kind that usually wins Oscars.

One of the more enjoyable films I’ve seen this year, so far.

The Last 10 Movies I’ve Seen

All About My Mother: By far my favorite of the now 6 Almodóvar movies I’ve seen, and a great argument against watching his films on DVD. It’s cinematic in the best possible way, and I can’t help but feel that a lot would be lost in a home environment.

Half Nelson: A bunch of very good performances but I’m not sure how much else. As much as the filmmakers seem to want to avoid the typical “heroic inner city teacher” movie, I think they still fall into the trap. At the end of the day, they don’t really deal with the subject matter in a way that was meaningful to me.

Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles: It seems funny, but the movie that was on my mind while watching this was David Lynch’s The Straight Story. Thematically, they struck me as fairly similar.

Law of Desire: An early Almodóvar, less successful than the others I saw during the Viva Pedro! retrospective. Obviously shares themes and subject matter with Bad Education, but it’s not nearly as sharp as the later film.

Hollywoodland: I added my comments in Jackrabbit Slim’s review thread.

All the King’s Men: Not as bad as the reviews would make it seem, but still not very good. I actually didn’t have a problem with Sean Penn as much as I did with … nearly everyone else in the movie, come to think of it. Plus, it’s a really, really bad idea to have a movie revolve around someone who makes it a point to not know what’s going on.

Jesus Camp: Like with The Boys of Baraka, directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady do really great work with kids, but I would have liked to see this movie dig a little deeper than it did. One of the great strengths of Baraka was that we got to see the difference the school, and its closure, made in the lives of its students, but that’s not really the case here. The film really only scratches the surface of the role “faith” plays in these kids’ lives. A follow-up in ten years would probably be fascinating, though.

Matador: Another early Almodóvar, probably the most farcical of the ones I saw. Fun stuff, but somewhat aimless, and I don’t think the third act really works for me.

The Last King of Scotland: Very well-made and well-acted, and packing a considerable visceral impact, but the story problems are so great that it makes me think that the whole idea was fundamentally misconceived. Again, it’s not wise to build a movie around a character who is wholly ignorant of what’s going on around him.

The Departed: Mostly great, although as the end approaches things get progressively murkier, and the last shot especially damn near ruined it for me. The first two hours, though, are inarguably awesome, and Mark Wahlberg, of all people, really kills here in a supporting role.

W.C. Fields

To someone of my generation, if W.C. Fields is mentioned, one thinks of an advertising gimmick for corn chips. To someone younger, the response may be a blank stare. Unlike other comedy film giants of the early sound era, Fields is somewhat forgotten. At least his films are, perhaps his persona still looms large.

Unlike the Marx Brothers or Laurel and Hardy or certainly the Three Stooges, Fields movies didn’t play much on television. I Netflixed the features that are available on DVD: It’s a Gift, International House, You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man, My Little Chickadee and The Bank Dick. They are a mixed bag, quality-wise, but Fields strength as a performer shines through. But his image, unlike the other comedians of the period, was not warm and cuddly. The characters he played were inevitably irascible drunkards. Unlike, say, Laurel and Hardy, he did not play people you wanted to cozy up to.

In International House, a curious concoction that comes across like a Vaudeville version of Grand Hotel, complete with performances by Burns and Allen and Cab Calloway, Fields plays a force of nature, an aviator who crash lands into a Chinese hotel. He’s all id, lusting for either booze or broads, and whenever he’s on screen (he doesn’t appear until half-way through) he’s magnetic. In You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man he is a crooked circus operator, but really functions as comic relief behind the romantic story involving Edgar Bergen (!?)

My Little Chickadee is a clunker. In one of those casting hook-ups that sounds good on paper but don’t pan out, Fields is teamed with Mae West. Reports were that they did not get along (West wrote most of the script, and hated the way Fields improvised. She also deplored his drinking). The result is a soggy, unfunny dud.

His best films are probably It’s a Gift and The Bank Dick. In both of these films Fields is a hen-pecked husband who wants nothing more than a drink and to sit in the sun. It’s a Gift has more laughs, with great set-pieces involving a blind man near a table full of light bulbs and Fields trying to get some sleep on his porch. It is in this film that he comes closest to being lovable, but it does have his signature bit: When challenged by one of his children that he doesn’t love them, he cocks his fist and says, “Of course I love you!”

In the documentary as part of the Fields collection, a family friend says that he was funnier off screen than on, and that’s easy to believe, as his films, at least his features (he made several shorts) are shambling and have stretches where not much happens. Compared to the diagrammed lunacy of the Marx Brothers, Fields comes up short. However, he certainly deserves to be remembered more than just a pitchman for Fritos.

Quick Takes

Lonesome Jim: Previously reviewed here by Colin a while back, and I mostly agree with his review. I will say, though, that I didn’t understand for a moment why the Tyler character wanted to spend more than five minutes with the Affleck character. There’s a rather typical element of male fantasy at work here; no matter how big of a loser you are, there’s always a beautiful woman out there waiting to get the chance to sleep with you. So, I think it would have helped if Affleck would have been able to make his character show, in some small way, some kind of endearing quality instead of being simply a dazed idiot moron the whole time.

Game 6: A good performance by Michael Keaton, but not a whole lot else to recommend this. I felt that the tone of the screenplay was probably a lot different than the tone of the film turned out to be. There are a lot of wacky events and characters here, but director Michael Hoffman plays it straight, and the result is kind of jarring.

Brick: I really loved this, and I think it justifies its own review instead of being stuck in a Quick Takes column like this, but all of my efforts to write one have made the movie sound ridiculous. It’s a fantastic and unique film, and if you still have the chance to see it, go.

Hard Candy: Another film that I’ve been wanting to write a full review for (for different reasons than Brick), but haven’t gotten around to it. I’ll just say that it’s hard to be effectively edgy when you abandon all semblance of character halfway through, making your 14-year-old sadist about as unsettling as Chuckie in the Child’s Play series. This is a pretty stupid movie.

Friends with Money: There are a few scenes in this movie with a husband and wife screenwriting team. They read their script aloud to each other, and argue about what dialogue makes sense and what doesn’t. I kept feeling that Nicole Holofcener should have done the same, because the characters in this movie say and do a lot that, well, just don’t make no sense. Also, I’m not sure I grasped a point.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God, and Invincible: Rare DVD viewings for me, as I’ve decided to try to catch up on Werner Herzog’s films. Of the two of these, I liked Aguirre better; it’s more mysterious and chilling, plus the commentary track is awesome. But they’re both fascinating.

What I’ve Seen

[NOTE: This post was actually written by Alex Stroup.]

I’ve unexpectedly been on the road a lot the last couple weeks so I haven’t been saying much. In the vein of Brian’s Quick Takes here is what I’ve seen recently.

The Hills Have Eyes – I’m not really a fan of gore films and I have never seen the original 1977 version, but I had a couple hours to kill between meetings and this fit into the time slot so I figured I’d give it a try. It actually does a decent job of building and maintaining the tension but I still don’t really understand the appeal of a movie that seems to have goal other than filling the screen with gore.

Pollyanna (1960) - I hadn’t seen this Disney saccharine classic since I was maybe 10 years old. I remember rolling my eyes at it back then but I was surprised to find that up until the super-sweet ending it’s actually a decent family film. Watching it highlights the regrettable fact that much of “family entertainment” made these days is done ironically and I don’t know that this is so good for the kids watching it.

Inside Man – Spike Lee is a mixed bag for me. Some films are brilliant (Do the Right Thing (1989), Clockers (1995)) while others are just a mess (Jungle Fever (1991), Summer of Sam (1999)). But I am very interested in seeing what Lee will do with such an overtly commercial film. I think it was Ebert who noted that the tangents are more interesting than the substance of the film and I would have to agree with that. The heist itself is tight and only once resorts to the “Omniscient Villain” copout that I so despise. But it was also obvious and with insufficient payoff for having sat through two-hours of movie. Also, Jodie Foster’s presence in the film was pointless other than to pad the time. Overall I liked it though.

A History of Violence – This one has been sitting with me and I’m still trying to decide what I think of it. Before I’ll be able to decide for sure I need to come to terms with what I think was going on with the Maria Bello character after she learns the truth. I suspect that the other 90 minutes of the movie is merely the vehicle for delivering to us those 6 minutes of film. I enjoyed the movie while watching and am intrigued by what I’ll find in her and myself in thinking about it further.

Good Luck, and Good Night – My bachelor’s degree is in American History and while my main focus was the antebellum period from Andrew Jackson to the Civil War I also spent a lot of time on the anti-communism immediately following World War II (Russia had only recently fallen and very interesting primary source documentation was starting to come out of there). So perhaps I have too much of an understanding of the events of that time period to place as much importance on Edward R. Murrow’s McCarthian defiance. It was important but it was much more an imprimatur on an existing defiance than the movie depicts. Still very tightly made by Clooney and I love the decision to go black-and-white and use actual McCarthy footage. Also, I think the film mostly sticks to the important lesson of the period. McCarthy was actually right in his general accusations more than the left likes to admit, but that is completely irrelevant since he was wrong in his methods every time. The movie, by focusing on the latter does well.

Thank You For Smoking – I’ve read the book on which this is based and while the satire in that was biting, I felt that it simply tried to carry the joke too long (like a bad SNL skit) and began to fray by the end. I was hopeful that the more time limited nature of a film would help with this but apparently it just made it worse as I felt the joke was played out about halfway through the movie. And worse, the satire, even while it was going strong, wasn’t as sharp as in the book. I try not to review movies in comparison to the source material but in this case I’m failing and was just left disappointed by the movie.

Hair (1979) – Watched about 40 minutes of this musical before turning it off, putting it back in the mailer, and having it on its way back to Netflix 10 minutes later. It was just that bad.

Slither – I saw this one solely because my wife wanted to. And she wanted to see it solely because it stars Nathan Fillion (of Serenity and Firefly) and also because the TV commercial compared it to Tremors (1990), a movie she loves. The comparison to tremors is actually a pretty good one and if you liked that movie you have a fair chance of liking this one (even with more of a focus on the gross-out). On a scale of one to ten, where ten equals Tremors and one equals Eight Legged Freaks (2002), I’d call Slither an 8.

Quick Takes: March 10 – March 30

The Libertine: Very dull and very unpleasant, from Johnny Depp’s undisciplined performance to the very ugly cinematography to a third act that makes one wish man had never acquired the sense of sight. I’ve admired Depp for a long time, but like with a great band, part of being a fan is recognizing when someone’s lost their touch. With this and Charlie released in the last year, and two more Pirates on the way, I really have to wonder about the guy. Oh, and this is yet another nail in the Weinsteins’ coffin, too.

Winter Passing: Another movie that doesn’t quite seem to have a reason for existing, and proof positive that Will Ferrell cannot act. He’s absolutely brutal. And director Adam Rapp never figures out basic things like “mood” and “tone”, making the material seem even more sketchy than it already is (and it’s pretty sketchy).
I find Zooey Deschanel very appealing, though, so it’s not a total loss.

Find Me Guilty: I’ve got to hand it to Vin Diesel, as this is a tricky part and he actually handles it quite well. The movie itself works OK, because Sidney Lumet does know things like “mood” and “tone”. But again, when all is said and done there doesn’t seem to be much of a point. Mobster tells jokes in court for a year, and then … the trial ends, everybody slaps each other on the back, credits roll. Franky, it’s not really all that compelling of a story. Still, great, great acting in supporting roles by many, but especially Peter Dinklage, who should get an Oscar nomination next year (fat chance, though) and Raúl Esparza, as a key informant.

Unknown White Male: Deathly dull documentary about an amnesiac, directed by some schmuck who thinks he’s the next Darren Aronofsky. I’ve never seen a documentary that’s so over-directed. And, I’m sorry, but the premise is lame. A guy can’t remember anything; sucks for him, but the film doesn’t try to make anything of it, aside from some overwritten pop psychology in the prologue and epilogue about identity and what makes us unique and so on. Instead, it mostly consists of him meeting friends, while he says, I don’t remember them. He meets family, and puzzles about being unable to remember. He looks through his stuff, and says he can’t remember. You can see where this is not exciting.

Duck Season: Small, reasonably charming black-and-white Mexican film about a couple of bored teenage kids wasting an afternoon. One of the neighbor girls invites herself into the kitchen to bake a cake, and a delivery man brings them pizza but won’t leave. Hijinks obviously ensue. The film doesn’t really go anywhere, but hey, that’s life.