An ongoing thread for us GE contributors to give short reviews to films (old or new) that aren’t really worth creating an entirely new thread for… but are worth commenting on anyway.
(Archive I)
(Archive II)
An ongoing thread for us GE contributors to give short reviews to films (old or new) that aren’t really worth creating an entirely new thread for… but are worth commenting on anyway.
(Archive I)
(Archive II)
So I’ve been watching movies this morning as I write, and next up on Encore:
TEEN WOLF:
Man, I remember liking this one a lot more when I was younger and of course it’s likely the parallels between puberty and the confusion that comes with that and the ultimate wish to come out on the other end much stronger than you were before you became a ‘man’.
That being said, this has the strangest credit sequence in recent memory and isn’t really one of the stronger of the eighties ‘growing up’ movies.
Of course an eighties movie will feel dated, but this one feels especially so. It’s a great ‘high concept’ and works well enough, and Michael J. Fox is uber-likable as always.
All-in-all a nice what you might now call ‘tweener-fantasy’ that no tweener today would bother watching.
The Forgiveness of Blood (2011); Joshua Marston: I think this is the first film I’ve ever seen in Albanian, and it’s a solid, if too understated, look at the dichotomy of following rules for blood feuds in an age of mobile phones and video games. A dispute over one family using a shortcut over another family’s land starts a Hatfield-McCoy thing, which seems awfully antediluvian for today, but there it is. The young son of one of the feuders rebels against authority, and pays the price. A well-made and intelligent picture, but didn’t hit me a on a gut level.
Grade: B
Speed 2:
Very easily the most inept, poorly written script in the history of Hollywood.
I don’t doubt it’s bad, Filmman, but your use of hyperbole in every review is really funny.
I don’t know if it’s even the worst script of a Jan de Bont movie.
So as I make my way through the large library that is Xfinity Streampix, we come to: Mad Dog and Glory.
DeNiro comes off rather well in this and Bill Murray isn’t as miscast as I thought he would be. The weakest person is by far Uma Thurman, as even David Caruso has a more fleshed out and better acted character. The story is slim and the plot somewhat threadbare but I really appreciated where it went at the end and how they brought it all together. Worth it for the discussion outside the restaurant, though it was strange to see DeNiro deferring so much screen presence to Murray.
Absolutely the worst script I’ve ever seen. Just the things it ignores within the realm of the story are the worst I’ve ever seen. Bafflingly bad.
I was referring to Speed 2. Does the handbook allow me to comment this much on this thread?
I realized that and deleted by comment. So it’s a worse script than say, Plan 9 From Outer Space?
You can comment as much as you want, but the more you call something either the greatest thing you’ve ever seen or the worst, the less seriously I take you.
What did I say was the worst script before? I didn’t think I needed a lot of credibility to watch Speed 2 and think it to be the worst script I’ve ever seen put to film.
You may not have used the term “worst script” before, but your reviews are certainly on the hyperbolic side. And I guess you’ve never plunged into the world of Ed Wood, or any of the zillion other bad movies made over the hundred-year history of Hollywood.
Okay, on just a cursory glance at Plan 9 on YouTube, “Inspector Clay’s dead…murdered. And someone’s responsible” is far less inept than basing your entire movie around the fact that a cruise ship crashes into a pier and an entire town and you actually show a closeup of the footage marker for the draft of the ship and it says 52 feet and the ship traveled inland for at least 3 minutes and so you obviously ignored that those houses and that town had to be built over 52 feet of water.
Okay, you win.
What does that have to do with the script? Sounds like a directorial fuckup to me.
I don’t wanna win. Was just discussing…
Not sure what the issue here is, but uh…I’ll concede I was wrong and it’s likely just the director. For the entire movie. So the script wasn’t that bad.
You’re overcompensating for your earlier hyperbole. That was the movie where Willem Dafoe had to use leeches to keep him alive or something, right? God knows I’m not saying the script was good.
So I’ve decided to tackle ’60′s technicolor Hollywood blockbusters (or something like that), and the first on the list was:
“It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World”
What seems like a movie that, on paper at least, should be really kinda funny simply felt like a bloated carcass of a movie where everyone just talked and talked and talked and talked. Sure, there were some funny set pieces and some of the cameos, in the day, must have been genuinely shocking and appreciated (Jerry Lewis runs over Spencer Tracy’s hat!). But all-in-all, why would a movie that would be somewhat enjoyable at 90 minutes have to be 2 hours and 41 minutes long?! How was a slapstick affair like this considered ‘epic’ enough to warrant a running time in line with Amadeus?
So, while the cameos are enjoyable (to those who get them, I guess), the whole affair felt rather…drawn out.
Next up: Thunderball
It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is one of my favorites. I wish it was twice as long.
Something’s Gotta Give (2003) – Through a series of chance events, two seemingly opposite 50+ people – a record producer regularly involved with much younger women (Jack Nicholson) and a successful but repressed playwright (Diane Keaton) – become romantically involved. But the odds of them prospering as a couple seem remote.
There’s a couple of key reasons why this film works. Nancy Meyers won’t go down as one of the great directors, but her films have a slick old-fashioned professionalism which lift this up a notch . And Keaton and especially Nicholson are great fun in their central roles, backed up by a good supporting cast.
It’s no classic and the finale is contrived (as these type of films usually are), but it’s a generally pleasing film. Rating: B-
The Object of my Affection (1998) – A pregnant social worker (Jennifer Anniston) breaks up with her lover and begins to wonder whether her gay best friend (Paul Rudd) is the person to father her baby.
This has many things going for it, including an interesting subject matter and an impressive cast. But it really never comes together and I think the blame for that goes to director Nicholas Hytner. Even though he’s directed some acclaimed films in his career, his film work has largely been based on stage productions and confronted with a purely cinematic based work, he seems lost. Key scenes are poorly stage, montages are put in awkward sections of the film, the pace seems usually off, etc…
Also, when you factor in the film is somewhat superficial, you have a largely forgettable experience. Rating: C
Too Big to Fail (Curtis Hanson):
Engrossing and certainly well-made account of the 2008 financial crisis. While absorbing, not *nearly* as well-written as Margin Call or as exciting or simply as well-done…Margin Call was extremely well-made…and the ending just…ends on not the passage of TARP, but the meeting on the passage of TARP.
I’d give it a solid C for the actors present and their performances but throughout the entire movie it felt as though I was reading a book.
Along Came Polly (2004) – Ben Stiller plays (yet again) an uptight pushover (radical change of pace there) who has his wife cheat on him on the first night of their honeymoon – on the rebound who hooks up with a woman he hasn’t seen since school (Jennifer Anniston) and despite being opposites, a genuine relationship develops. But then the wife returns…
On the surface, this looks mundane stuff with many tedious conventions of 2000s Hollywood comedies – lazy Stiller typecasting, lots of bodily function gags, gags that have no internal basis in reality, etc…
But surprisingly, I had a good time with it. Mainly because of the engagingly breezy tone writer/director John Hamburg employs which makes the film easy to take even during it’s weaker spots. And it has a surprisingly good sense of comic timing, abetted by a strong supporting cast with Alec Baldwin and especially Phillip Seymour Hoffman notably amusing. Even Anniston is more amusing than usual.
Inconsequential, but a pleasant surprise. Rating: B
Pretty sure it initially was released at an over 3.5 hour length film but severely cut down to its present length – don’t know whether that extended version is available today.
Really liked Along Came Polly.
And there’s an even LONGER version of ‘…World’? Sheesh.
Attack the Block is good. If you’re a seventeen year old boy…or man.
The Ramen Girl:
Haters can hate. And call me a sap. But this was a genial, pleasant movie with really good performances, a breezy nature and at no time did I get bored with it. I think it’s likely one of Brittany Murphy’s final performances. She looked great and her journey from being a wastrel in Japan to the owner of her own Ramen shop in NYC thanks to her Sensei (played excellently by Toshiyuki Nishida) gave me a pleasant smile at the end.
Nothing earth-shattering, but a pleasant way to pass an hour and a half. Now I want to watch Tampopo.
The Last Detail:
(Hal Ashby)
How to explain early Hal Ashby? You don’t watch it, you experience it. It takes you in and makes you a part of the movie. You are not only an observer, but you experience the things the actors are experiencing.
Amazing observation on three Navy Men and the detail of two of them taking the other to prison.
Amazing performances, writing and direction.
Shampoo is next.
Speaking of Ashby, I just watched Bound For Glory, which is about Woody Guthrie. Your description could apply to it, as well.
So someone mentioned Nothing But The Truth. So I watched it.
And it was really very good. Well-written, great performances by Kate Beckinsale and , even sharper performance by Vera Farmiga, and a great performance by Matt Dillon. The weakest link was Noah Wyle. He wasn’t very good until the second half, when he wasn’t asked to express his anger as much, and could play it more understated.
“Well, there are different levels of mistakes. There’s, like, wearing white after labor day and then there’s the really big mistakes, like invading Russia in the winter.”
It’s not bad, right? Perfectly serviceable b-level drama. It was scheduled to go theatrical before the distributor went belly up.
I like Matt Dillon, but I wasn’t that enamored with his performance. I think the dopey accent threw me.
It never made it into a theater? Far more than serviceable. What a shame. Alan Alda is great. And I didn’t have an issue with Dillon. That’s funny. I thought the slight accent added to the ‘smarminess’ and they made it work in the short tracking shot when he said to turn off the tv and not make her a martyr. This is that side.
Wow…it struck me like Margin Call did. Glad at least Margin Call got into the theater.
Murderball (2005) – Not too bad MTV films documentary ostensibly about the sport of wheelchair rugby, but very little of the sport is shown when compared to the reality TV-style drama between the two “leads.” Interesting for mostly surface-level insight into the day-to-day of a quadriplegic. The last 30 seconds show one of the players actually relating a bit of strategy to another chair-bound person and I thought how interesting it would have been to know that there was more going on besides throwing the ball and ramming into other people.
Expendables 2 – This quote comes courtesy of my brother-in-law who summed it up best: “It was a like a MAD Magazine parody of an action movie.”
Fool For Love (1985) – One of the series of films based on stage plays Robert Altman made in the 1980s. This one is based on a Sam Shepard play with Shepard himself playing a lead role of a cowboy chasing after an ex-lover (Kim Basinger) at a surreal motel site. Meanwhile, a decrepit old man (Harry Dean Stanton) lingers around who has a pivotal role in proceedings.
Altman tries his best to make this cinematic but in the end this feels like something that should’ve stayed on the stage. What probably felt intense and passionate as a play feels arch and mannered here and while aspects of it are impressive, it never feels compelling or convincing. Also not helped by a fairly weak performance from Basinger.
Only for Altman fans or completists.
Rating: C
A couple of highly-regarded romantic comedies that have become iconic of their genre I got around to watching for the first time:
When Harry Met Sally (1989) – The thought that popped up into my mind after seeing this was: what happened to Rob Reiner’s directorial career? His run of films from 1984 to 1992 is generally excellent across a range of genres. And yet his work since the dire ‘North’ has been largely considered to be dreck; one only need to compare this film with the dreck that was ‘The Story of Us’.
This is an excellent film, especially as I had heightened expectations due to it’s high reputation. It starts off slowly but that helps establish the two main characters and their relationship over the years. And it gets better and funnier as the film progresses.
Apart from Nora Ephron’s excellent script, kudos should go to stars Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan who manage to successfully convey the gradual changes in their characters over the decade span this film takes.
Rating: A-
Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) – In contrast, this was a big letdown. A massive success not only financially, but critically to the stage that it got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (!!?), seeing it now it’s hard to imagine what the fuss was all about.
To be sure, there are several laughs to be had, although they’re largely in the first half. And the way a key character’s death is handled is effectively done.
But for a large part it’s pretty conventional stuff, falling back on many of the cliches you see in wedding-related films. And yes, this is yet another film where the pivotal plot event in the movie occurs when a Bride/Groom are interrupted when they’re about to say ‘I Do’.
A possibly even greater weakness is the romance between Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell’s characters isn’t that compelling. From what I read many put the blame on MacDowell’s acting skills although I didn’t really have a problem with her; the blame should largely go the smug and superficial writing.
Rating: C+
My Girl:
A sweet, affecting film of youth and loss and life and love. At no time a poor film, it is none-the-less marred by poor pacing and stilted writing. The music is great, though and the performances are all first-rate. An engaging, sad, affirming film with a great ending that deserves its place in film lore, and not only as the film after Home Alone where ***********spoilers*********** Macauley Culkin dies.
I have to admit, I thought they got together at the end and I wasn’t expecting his death at all.
If only I could have been paying attention to this movie when some unsuspecting parents took their kids to see Macauley Culkin and he dies a horrific ‘death by bee sting’. (I also have an issue with how bees are portrayed in this movie, but I don’t think anyone cares).
Weren’t they hornets or wasps? Bees don’t make nests like that, do they?
The Girl:
An HBO film about Hitchcock’s awful treatment of Tippi Hedren during the filming of Birds and Marnie.
This type of movie is one I specifically love. Think RKO-281, Me and Orson Welles, and other fictionalized accounts of behind-the-scenes, whether with films or art or plays. But this was a pretty thinly-written, shallow, poorly-drawn film. Sure, Hitch was a little strange, I mean, what brilliant people aren’t, but the things he says in this and how he’s portrayed is kinda ridiculous. Toby Jones and his performance is amazing, but the portrayal is ridiculous.
Sienna Miller is beautiful but I never felt like she looked like Hedren and her plight was again, so thinly drawn I never felt bad for her.
the only character that had depth and made us feel was Hitch’s wife, played masterfully by Imelda Staunton.
I’m not quite at the half-way mark, but it’s not very impressive thus far. It also appears to be one of the cheapest HBO films in recent memory.
So what did you think?
I honestly gave up on it for all the reasons you mentioned. I doubt I’ll finish.
Burn Hollywood Burn:
So I’m gonna slowly go through Joe Eszterhas’s oeuvre, and I started with this one, an ‘insider’s’ account of-yeah, no, it’s bad. So remarkably bad. I mean, it’s so bad, it’s badness is bad. And not a good bad. Honestly, Tiptoes was entertainingly bad. There was nothing about this movie that-yeah. Flashdance next.
At least you started with the worst thing on his resume. I’ve never been able to get five minutes into it.
Flashdance is fine. Basic Instinct is phenomenal.
BTW, have you ever read Sacred Cows (his man banging a cow script)?
“Joe, if you’re going to help a friend who gave you your first shot in the business, maybe best not to give her a script about the president of the United States having sex with a cow.”
— Eszterhas’s agent
The Phantom (1996) – Simon Wincer’s adventure franchise non-starter starring Billy Zane as a purple leotard wearing jungle hero. Despite receiving a cold shoulder from both audiences and critics, I’ve always felt there was a lot to like about the film (it’s enjoyably lighthearted; features practical, exciting action sequences; a fairly charismatic hero; gorgeous locations; a stunning Catherine Zeta Jones) despite some terrible casting in terms of the villain (a terrible Treat Williams) and iffy final set piece. It’s basically James Bond + Indiana Jones, but with spandex.
I can’t help but to think that if this film had been released a little later, after audiences became comfortable seeing grown men punching people wearing ridiculous costumes, it would have been a pretty big hit.
Tommy (1975) – Based on a landmark ‘The Who’ album, a British musical about a child who due to a childhood trauma can’t speak, see or hear. Despite this, he becomes a hero of the masses.
This is the antithesis of standard Hollywood musicals until the late 1960s – broad, vulgar, erratic, almost self-consciously wild and woolly. Not surprising as the writer/director Ken Russell was one if the most controversial figures of his day.
As it is though, this is generally pretty good entertainment. Always lively with style and flash to spare, it’s always good to look at with some good songs (although I wasn’t crazy about the overall music actually). Also helped by Ann-Margret in key role who takes her role seriously (instead of treating it as camp) plus her strong singing, is memorable.
But there’s no letup in the intensity so that (like another Russell musical I saw ‘ The Boy Friend’) it wears you down a bit by the end.
Still, worth a look. Rating: B
Anything Else:
Even bad Woody Allen is great Woody Allen. Think about that.
Particularly when long stretches of the film consist of Christina Ricci walking around in her underwear.
…and being copiously groped.
Anything Else was dreadful, definitely the worst Woody Allen film I’ve seen. Even something as mediocre as ‘From Rome With Love’ was way better than it.
Indeed, but it was great Woody Allen.
Parental Guidance (2012, just opened in cinemas) – Comedy starring Bette Midler, Billy Crystal and Marisa Tomei about a busy, uptight married couple who entrust her parents (which she has an estranged relationship with) to take of their kids for a few days. Predictably, the grandparents concept of parenting leads to friction with the kids and parents but what happens by the end is even more predictable.
There are a couple of funny moments and nice scenes but overall this is assembly-line Hollywood ‘family comedy’ at its worst with many standard features (constantly feels phony and plastic, much overacting on display obvious music constantly plays in background, houses seem absurdly oversized with a backyard the size of a golf course, etc…)
You know the film is in trouble from the opening scene when Crystal (as a baseball announcer) openly mocks someone for their appearance (and he’s the good guy in this film). That’s followed by a scene which attempts to make humour out of how out of touch he is with Faceboook/Twitter that just dies.
Midler probably makes the impression, Crystal has his moments but Tomei is pretty dire (after this and ‘Crazy, Stupid Love’ she really needs to choose better comedies). The kids are annoyingly plastic.
Rating: C-
C-? I’d love to see your ‘F’ reviews.
Ha ha, I thought exactly the same thing.
Well, in its favour it was semi-tolerable most of the way (until a cringeworthy moment at the end showing how one of the kids overcomes his speech impediment) and Crystal and especially Midler were fun to watch and it did have a handful of amusing moments. But yeah, perhaps a D+ could be more appropriate.
American Reunion:
By no means good. Not terrible, though. If you’ve followed the characters there’s a tinge of bittersweet memory, but it doesn’t last long. Dania Ramirez is smoking and you see Jason Biggs…ALL of Jason Biggs. (I was surprised at closeup penis in a mainstream movie), and Nadia even makes an appearance. Again, by no means good, enjoyable enough.
I actually like Seann William Scott, but I’m not sure I could watch another American Pie movie. Never even dug the original.
Joshua Then And Now (1985) – Canadian film that looks a writer’s life (James Woods) from his childhood in pre-WW2 to his rise in 1950s London to becoming an establishment success in 1970s Canada and his family life threatening to self-destruct.
This is an odd movie. It’s strucutred as an epic story but at no stage is it conveyed why such a structure should be based around this person, who doesn’t seem particularly significant (Woods is perhaps the wrong actor for the role) and it has relatively little interesting to say on the momentous eras the character experienced.
But, it is a very entertaining (and amusing) film, in part because of Ted Kotcheff’s very sharp and fast-paced direction. And also by several fine supporting performances, in particular from Alan Arkin as Woods’ father. An odd film, but one worth seeking out.
Rating: B
Straight Time (1978) – Dustin Hoffman plays a person who has spent virtually his whole adult life behind bars and wants to make a fresh start. But a sleazy parole officer (M. Emmett Walsh) derails those hopes and soon it’s back to a familiar life of crime.
This has the makings of a top-notch crime film but falls short of the mark. It starts off very well when it focusses on the battle between Hoffman and the parole officer, but that ends surprisingly early. When it drifts onto other areas like an unlikely romance between Hoffman and a naive office worker (Theresa Russell). Also, for all his talents Hoffman doesn’t really convince as a hardened crim.
Not bad, but badly needed a director like Sidney Lumet to make this the film it should’ve been. Rating: C+
Katy Perry: Part of Me
Still, it was better than an episode of Girls.
What in god’s name prompted you to watch that? Were you held captive by a bunch of tween girls?
Source Code – Given the reviews, I guess I would label myself as a little disappointed. But stepping back: it’s a decent, fluffy, little b-grade suspense picture.
Excluding some (very poor) visual effects and the modern cast this could have been a release from Paramount or Warner Brothers in the 90′s. Even the overly lit action and bombastic score reminds me of the films of that era, particularly something like Nick of Time or Breakdown. B-
Extraterrestre – [Nacho Vigalondo]
Huh. Not bad. Not good. Interesting premise. Thin. A piffle. Not amounting to much. Just eh. Good acting. Unreal premise. Disbelievable actions. No real dramatic arc or curve or setup. Characters believe, accept and exist within the premise simply to further the story. No tension. Comedy seems forced. No motivations. Wonder existence or reason for making. Love conquers all, I guess. But…was it real? Or was it memorex?
Still…better than Monsters. For some reason.
Man on the Moon
It took me two nights to watch this movie. A rather excellently well-made and superbly done biopic. What took so long is that I had to go back and forth between the movie and youtube to find the true occurrences of what happened for each scene in the movie. I can only say that Andy Kaufman may very well be one of the most brilliant performance artists who ever existed. Truth. Oh, and Courtney Love is hot and I still don’t like wrestling.
Philadelphia
Tom Hanks won the oscar, and deservedly so, but for me, this was Denzel Washington’s movie all the way. He had the arc, he had the transformation and he was aces in his role.
This is Demme working at a pretty high level. The ‘opera scene’ is astoundingly effective and each and every role, no matter how thin, feels imbued with the proper depth regardless of lines or screen time.
Heartbreaking ending by Demme with the song and the home movies that drag you along the floor, sobbing. (I wonder if it was really little Hanks).
That opera scene, though. Through the use of the high angle, Demme creates two observers in the room and really takes us out of the scene to ‘experience’ this moment like Washington is, and when the scene ends, the camera cranes down and pulls back quickly and reverts to Washington’s POV. Stunningly effective.
That’s My Boy
“Yup. That’s jizz.”
Gloria (1980) – A boy is orphaned after his family is wiped out by the mob, and the only person who can help him is a middle-aged, cynical woman (Gena Rowlands) who used to have mob connections, But she’s proves a surprisingly strong ally.
This reminded me of ‘Finding Forrester” in that it is made in a curiously contradictory style. The basic plot is that of a feel-good Hollywood mainstream flick in many ways (crusty older women bonds with child, outsiders fighting the odds against evil opposition, etc…) but writer/director John Cassavettes makes it in a realistic, unconventional manner (as was his noted style) with many unusual and interesting touches along the way.
It’s strange why Cassavetes would create such a conventional narrative like this, but thanks to his skill and a fine performance by Rowlands (and the kid as well) this one works as a satisfying entertainment despite its contrivances.
Rating; B
Blow Up
My first Antonioni film. (And good chance my last)
I have no idea the nature of the film, or the tone, but, it wasn’t horrible. I relished the camera placements on the car scenes and the aloof dickishness of the protagonist and a lot of the camera shots are simply amazing. (The scene in the beginning in the park is exactly what I do to get photos of people holding hands and kissing in central park). The sound design is aces and masterfully done.
However, it’s punctuated by long stretches of absolutely nothing (did they have to draw-out the ‘photo-making revelation’ scene so spectacularly long?) It’s greatly effective, but…long. There’s no real dramatic tension, and it basically seems like a movie made by a European to thumb his nose at the production code, with topless teenagers playing in a photography studio. Why wasn’t the inferred sex scene between the photographer and the girls, you know, a little more to the point? And why wasn’t his revelation more succinct? How did the ‘inferred sex scene’ lead to his revelation and why wasn’t it brought forth maybe a little more quickly?
The steps he takes with enlargements and discovery are really pretty thrilling, but dragged out to the extent they are, they become kinda ‘work-a-day’.
So I guess I don’t really like this movie. In fact, when he goes back to the studio after seeing the woman screwing, I started to actually actively dislike it. I mean, he saw the body and simply leaves it there? Okay, that’s your biug buildup? That’s what happens when your detective work does the trick? And the body’s still there? There’s no reaction to anything that happens, there’s no real dramatic tone and it just languishes in style and doesn’t say much else.
I see the influence on The Conversation, as Coppola said, but as close to perfection as The Conversation is, this is about as far from it.
And the mimes? Oh, the fucking mimes…how are the mimes not ridiculed in any of the writings on this film? Suddenly there’s fucking mimes?!
Best part of the movie? The big ‘The End’ title.
We discussed Antonioni and Blowup here.
Watched the PBS documentary on Woody Allen in it’s entirety for the first time and felt a little let-down that they skip over so much of his 80′s and 90′s output. We get really in-depth coverage of his early works, and then completely skip over things like Manhattan Murder Mystery, Radio Days, Alice, September, Another Woman, etc (while spending a lot of time on things like You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger)
Given that it’s 3+ hours long, I’m not sure why they couldn’t just expand the runtime to give equal coverage.
Compliance – True story about an 18-year-old fast food worker who is subjected to mental and physical abuse by her employer at the telephone instruction of man claiming to be a police officer. Well-made, but a ridiculously difficult sit. Grade: A
Wow…even sitting on BlowUp for a day has made me dislike it even more. I guess understanding he would likely be pretentiously gleeful over my reaction does not temper my anger at the movie.
Prince of the City:
A straight-up NYC chamber-masterpiece. (I’m afraid to say ‘NYC Crime Tone Poem’, for fear of being ridiculed).
“We’ll roll into Foley Square every morning at 8AM.”
Treat Williams does his best Serpico impression and perhaps this is where the main fault in the movie lies. Lumet tread this same ground so well in the tight, concise Al Pacino vehicle and if another director had made this slowly-paced ‘Heat’-style crime thriller, it would still be the well-received movie it is, but maybe it would hold a little higher standing in popular movie circles. Why he chose to revisit this theme with an almost three hour movie is puzzling. Many of the outbursts are Pacino-like and I wish I didn’t have to view it through the haze of ‘Lumet’ being the director. Of course they’re two different movies, in tone and structure, but the underlying idea is there. And I’m not completely certain I understand the unrepentant tone in the final moment of the final shot.
That said, however, loved every moment of this. Loved the arc of the character and though it starts to get a little ‘come on already’ near the end, this ranks pretty well up there with my favorite NYC-based movies. The end speech comparing doctors and lawyers to police is great.
(And Michael Blomberg? LOL)
Blitz
“It’s Cop-Killer vs. Killer Cop”
I love British crime dramas. They are, in fact, my favorite movie genre. So when I stumble upon one, it’s a treat. This is about a serial killer targeting cops, and guess who plays the cop involved with the case, whose surly visage adorns nearly every shot of the movie? That’s right, The Stath. Unfortunately, though, the “Muscles from the Midlands” is the weakest thing about the movie. The cinematography and direction are tight and concise and really well-done. I can’t believe there isn’t a director alive who has worked with Stath who can’t get him to deliver his lines like he isn’t a fifth-grader reading an adult novel. “The man said….he couldn’t get here…any sooner…than tomorrow.” He’s just his character Turkish in every movie since.
The writing is genre-cookie cutter, the handling of homosexuality is infantile (and can’t be that bad in the British police), the police are inept morons who need journalists and junkies who die in bathrooms to do the slightest bit of police work for them and the extent of Statham’s “Bad Cop” routine in one scene is to eat someone’s food and say ‘Sorry, was you eatin’ it?’, but Paddy Considine is in it, and at least the Stath is cool as shit.
“Are you gonna take any notes?”
“Do I look like I carry a pencil?”
FACE remains the watershed British crime drama for me, followed closely by Layer Cake. This is a middling, but worthy addition.
And an interesting note: When you cast an actor like Statham, with the history he has in movies, not even a nuclear sub with ‘silent propulsion’ could get the drop on the Stath in an underwater situation, so when a scrawny serial killer stalks him like he’s gonna ‘off’ our intrepid protagonist, it’s almost laughable when the Stath does get the drop on him. …just sayin’.
The Heavy (2010):
Another British crime drama, with some familiar British faces and some very well-known British faces. What Stephen Rea and Christopher Lee are doing in a film this terrible is the only thing I want to write about this horrible, horrible entry to the genre. Vinnie Jones is not one of those actors. I understand why he’s in this. But the others? Did they read the script? Or only their lines?
Baffling editing, no worse writing, terrible cinematography, no drama, no character development, (and a Highlander in a pear tree).
‘Drop Dead Gorgeous’ (1999) – Comedy where a documentary crew follows the trials and tribulations of a small-town beauty pageant where the usual backstabbing not only occurs, but murder.
Largely overlooked on initial release, this seemed to have a growing reputation over they years since, but I found this a disappointment.
It’s just too strident and strained in its style, with too much over-acting. It isn’t helped that the targets it goes after are pretty lazy (beauty pageants are full of phoniness and dishonesty? Gasp!).
There are a few scattered laughs and its interesting to see then up-and-coming actresses like Kirsten Dunst and Amy Adams, but this isn’t good enough to be recommended.
Rating: C
Total Recall:
Muddled, poorly written, illogical and derivative. Some of the scenes were so close to other specific movie scenes, it nearly looked as though those scenes were lifted from the other movies and placed into Total Recall. The bank scene from Bourne Identity (even the handling of the passports), the car scene from Minority Report (the shape and color of the cars and he even climbed on the hood-I mean…) and the ‘Clone march’ scene from one of those horrible Star Wars prequels and all of the action scenes followed no proper logical flow.
Raiders of the Lost Ark:
As perfect a popcorn movie as there is. Perfect casting, perfect characters, great music, better cinematography, and a perfectly-pitched economy of storytelling drama that few movies achieve.
Ruby Sparks:
Completely missed the point of what it is to create a character, and as you do, believe that character is real within yourself. Too esoteric by far (he’s conjuring a character and has clothing? That’s just pathological) and trades a great premise for a less interesting look at how to conjure and control a woman. Too bad.
The Hard Way:
Not sure how I missed this one, as it’s exactly the kind of NY movie that if I had seen it on initial release, I would watch each summer since release. Glad I stumbled onto it. Great performances, great writing and, as always, effortless direction from Badham.
There wasn’t a time I was bored, I laughed consistently and rarely has Woods (or Fox) been better. There will be subsequent repeat viewings, and I guess that’s pretty good praise.
Prometheus (I think this is my Brief Film Review 1.2 of this): Really, what a piece of shit.
So you want us to credibly follow a science fiction film, you know, suspend our disbelief enough to enjoy two hours of what should be kickass science fiction from the man himself and in the first thirty minutes of this complete snooze-fest you want us to believe that a scientist a kajillion miles from earth, spelunking in an alien cave, with all the knowledge we have of the known universe and the gas and chemical compounds that exist that this scientist would simply remove his helmet? We would have no idea if it was possible, even if it was making its own atmosphere and besides, why would someone WANT to take their helmet off knowing just outside the cave it’s toxic-no. Shit.
I gave it a shot. Again. No.
In relation to the above, here’s an idea for the sequel to Prometheus: Don’t make it!
Room 237:
Mindblowing.
Before Sunrise:
A modern independent masterpiece. I especially like the way (in this talkfest) that the most important moments of the movie have nothing to do with talking and everything to do with stolen glances and short brushes of skin and arms across shoulders and hands held tight.
Lay the Favorite:
Rebecca Hall stars as a leggy former stripper who takes a job working for a professional gambler (Bruce Willis) in Las Vegas. Catherine Zeta Jones plays Willis’ boozy wife and Vince Vaughn has a supporting role as his professional rival. Stephen Frears (The Queen, Dangerous Liaisons) directs.
The film bypassed domestic theaters (instead premiering on video in late 2012 and Netflix streaming in March) and it’s easy to see why. As the film’s lead: Rebecca Hall turns in one of the most grating, dated and inexplicable performances I’ve even seen from an established actress. She’s channeling Piper Perabo in a bad “girl power” film from 2000 but with an accent that was seemingly lifted from a Hee Haw episode in 1981. I don’t know what she was thinking or how Frears allowed her to continue to inflict her performance on her co-stars.
HOWEVER, despite Hall, the film is a fairly serviceable little time waster that doesn’t take itself seriously. The stakes, sorry, are low and everyone has a nice happy ending.
It was refreshing to see Bruce Willis actually putting in some effort into his performance. While he’s done great work in things like Moonrise Kingdom and Looper – this was probably the most energetic I’ve seen him in years.
While Hall is terrible, her attire throughout the film (shorts and low-cut tops) made her work a little more bearable.
Vince Vaughn shows up for a few scenes and does some weird schtick that isn’t interesting or amusing in any way – not sure what his intent was. It’s also interesting that his name is featured on the poster, but next to a picture of Joshua Jackson (who has some scenes as Hall’s boyfriend). Assuming it was some weird contractual thing where they couldn’t use Vaughn’s actual likeness to sell the film.
Bachelorette (2012): This is a more naked attempt to make a distaff The Hangover, with three women having improbable adventures during one night before a fourth’s wedding. Unlike The Hangover, though, nobody is threatened with immiment death.
The acting isn’t bad here, especially by Kirsten Dunst and Lizzie Caplan, but the characters are skimpy: Dunst is the Type-A, Caplan the slacker, Isla Fisher the ditz/drug abuser. It attempts to be a comedy, but there isn’t much funny here–this could have been the stuff of drama, as these people have heavy issues.
Bachelorette was the worst film I saw at the cinemas in 2012 – a laughless, obnoxious mess.
Now I want to see it.
All Good Things: an involving crime drama that goes nowhere–I did the Peggy Lee thing when it was over: “Is that all there is?” Once again Ryan Gosling mumbles his way through a role, showing little to no personality, while Kirsten Dunst shines in a thankless role.
So I finally watched American History X. Not bad. Norton is the best thing in it (and has he really not had top billing in a film since The Incredible Hulk? Is he that difficult to work with?). The direction is at times amateurish and sloppy, and the script is a little too didactic and simplistic (the character of the noble black teacher seems right out of Room 222). Worthwhile, though.
The War Zone (1999): Well, Tim Roth is a first class director.
Bleak, uncompromising, excellent acting, but damn…uncompromising. Be prepared for an hour and a half of anguish.
SAVAGES:
I could have sworn Slim did a review of this movie, but who cares.
It blows.
Did she call him ‘caviar’?
Does this count as a Haiku?
No, it’s not a haiku, which has a 5-7-5 syllable pattern.
I did review Savages, but for some reason doesn’t come up on a search of this site, despite me using Oliver Stone and Blake Lively has search terms. But here’s my review on my site:
http://gogorama.blogspot.de/2012/07/savages.html
Yeah, I searched Oliver Stone and Travolta and Savages and Review and I went and searched your author history far enough back before the movie, and I couldn’t find it.
And you were very generous to the movie, sir…very generous.
Maybe you are too harsh.