I planned to post this over a week ago, but never got around to it. Oh well...
I should preface this review by saying that Spike Lee is one of my favorite directors. I tend to like his films more than the critics do, and I'd have to say although he's been nominated only twice for an Oscar (in 1989 for Do The Right Thing's screenplay, and for the documentary 4 Little Girls) I believe he's made more truly great films than, say, Clint Eastwood, who's won five times. It saddens me to report, then, that his first war movie, Miracle at St. Anna, is definitely not his greatest work. It's far from his worst, however.
You see, Spike Lee's biggest problem has always been his tendency to lose focus of his main narrative and veer off-course. He has a strange case of what's commonly known as "first-time filmmaker" syndrome, where the director, making his first film and not sure whether he'll ever get the chance to make another, throws everything he's ever wanted to do into his first film, thus overloading it with an embarrassment of riches. This is a forgivable phenomenon with filmmakers, and it's usually a one-time deal. The problem with Spike is that he's been making films for over 20 years, and still suffers from this. This results in films that are 20-30 minutes too long, filled with great sequences, but are also a chore to sit through.
Miracle at St. Anna is no different. It contains two of the best sequences Spike has ever directed; the first is a dramatization of the massacre at St. Anna, where hundreds of women and children were slaughtered. One shot in particular, which goes on for several minutes, follows a soldier's handgun as he draws it, holds it out, and slowly trudges through the dead bodies, shooting anyone still alive after the initial machine-gun fire. It's hard to describe, but it's one of the most powerful sequences on screen this year. The other sequence follows a group of black soldiers as they attempt to buy food at a southern malt shop, are refused service, and leave in defeat. Walking to their jeep, they retrieve their guns, return inside, and demand service again - this time at gunpoint. Coming at a late point in the film, and told in flashback, it's a brilliant sequence. It's capped by a stylized ending beat, where the soldiers in question are in a group, staring at the camera, as one by one they slowly leave the frame. It's audacious in the best way - pure Spike Lee.
But for all the great things in the movie, it has quite a lot of problems. Like I said before, it meanders in the way a lot of Spike's movies do. It starts with one thing, goes to another, tries something else, and eventually gets back on track. It's frustrating, to say the least. We spend time with characters who have little, if anything, to do with the big picture, and precious little time with the things and the people who seem to matter. (SPOILER ALERT) The only soldier of the group to survive, who we see later on in the bookend segments, has probably the least amount of scenes in the WWII segments. (SPOILER OVER) There's also some strange attempts at humor in the first third of the film, and it just doesn't fly. Probably the thing that hurts the film the most is the casting of Omar Benson Miller. He's decent, but he only has a certain range, and he's trying to pull off things that he just can't do. He's playing a simpleton, but it's more like an actor's idea of what a simple man would be like. His scenes are some of the most cringeworthy of the film, although he does get better as the picture goes on.
But, you know what? It's still a good film. And it still got me in the end. I think I have a tendency to forgive Spike Lee more than most people, because I can see where he's coming from. The end of the picture is probably the most saccharine and melodramatic thing he's ever done, but I was right with it, the whole way. It's satisfying. The rest of the movie? Not so much. But even a semi-satisfying movie is better than usual these days.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Look for a new update tomorrow (Thursday) night.
But until then, I just wanted to mention that I've finally finished cataloging a list of all my DVDs, for insurance purposes (yes, all 700 of them) and the link to that list is found at the right. So for you people that know me - if you want a copy of anything, let me know.
But until then, I just wanted to mention that I've finally finished cataloging a list of all my DVDs, for insurance purposes (yes, all 700 of them) and the link to that list is found at the right. So for you people that know me - if you want a copy of anything, let me know.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
I loved this movie. It was easily one of the best times I've had at the movies this year. It's getting mixed reviews, but I think it's a case of - as cliched as it sounds - the critics truly being too old to enjoy it. This is really a film for people 25 and under. It captures a time and a place and it's going to seem foreign to anyone who hasn't experienced it. This is a movie for young people, and if that includes you, get ready. This picture doesn't talk down to you, and it doesn't go out of its way to pretend it knows you. It may sound like I'm overstating it here, but in my mind I'm right on target: This movie captures the youth of today in the way American Graffiti did in its time.Graffiti is seen today as an all-encompassing portrait of American youth in the early sixties, but in reality it focuses mostly on the "cruising" subculture of the time, and branches out from there. Nick and Norah is set among the indie music scene, and while this could have easily turned into a studio plot to target a specific audience, in the hands of the filmmakers it becomes not a gimmick, but a way to define these characters.
The world of this film is a world without adults. The night, as always, belongs to the youth. And for the youth of this film, for whom music plays such an important part in their lives, the big city is the only destination. It's hard for me to think of a movie in recent memory that has captured the excitement of the city that young people experience. A break from suburbia, if only for a few hours on a Saturday night, was the best feeling in the world. Anyone who lived within driving distance of a major city as a teenager will identify with this film.
This is not a perfect film, but there's so much in the movie that works, and it does so much right, that it's an easy movie to fall in love with. Some critics have criticized the movie for a lack of conflict, but that's one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much. It's so refreshing to see a movie that has such love and affection for its characters, and a group of filmmakers so confident in their material, that they allow their characters to live and breathe and interact and communicate, and refuse to bog that down with irrelevant plot points and unneeded character conflict. I was so dreading the ending of the picture, fearing the film would go where most relationship movies go: where the girl finds the guy in some sort of situation which prompts her to leave him, and thus he has to win her back in some way. How many times have we seen that? Thankfully, this movie's smarter than that. If that's the sort of thing the critics are talking about when lamenting about the lack of "conflict", then it seems as if they've grown accustomed to the tired formulas.
This is director Peter Sollett's second film after 2002's great Raising Victor Vargas, and it was well worth the wait. Vargas cost a mere $800,000 and was shot on Super-16mm, and even though Nick and Norah cost $9 million and was shot on 35mm, his style has remained consistent: it's a very intimate film, with lots of film grain and beautifully underlit settings. Everyone was amazingly well-cast, from leading roles to supporting players, and it goes without saying that Michael Cera and Kat Dennings are a great on-screen couple. And although most attention will probably go to its great selection of songs, one of the biggest successes of the film is the original musical score by Mark Mothersbaugh, known for his frequent collaborations with Wes Anderson. The score really holds everything together, and does a nice job of underscoring some emotional moments at the end.
So yes, without a doubt, go check this one out. If it sounds like your type of movie, or you're a fan of someone in the cast, you probably won't be disappointed. And just a quick film-geek note: this was the first film I've ever seen projected digitally, and let me say... wow. It was only a 2k projection, and it looked beautiful. No artifacting whatsoever, and this movie was shot on film and had lots of grain. Well, the days of $3,000 film prints are over. I can't wait for more theaters to get digital projection installed. Not to mention it'll be much easier (and cheaper) for independent films to be distributed. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: film is dead.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Movies You May Have Missed - #3
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
John Cassavetes' seventh film as director remains a tremendous work of art, a triumph of independent filmmaking, and one of the best films ever made.
Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk star as a mentally unstable wife and her husband, respectively. Rowlands and Falk deliver two of the most harrowing performances of all time, completely uninhibited and raw, nearly leaping off the screen in their intensiveness. At first glance, Rowlands might seem to go a little over the top, but as the film progresses further, it becomes evident just how pitch-perfect she is in the role. It remains one of the most honest depictions of mental illness ever seen on film.
The film, which runs two-and-a-half hours, really only consists of about 10 major scenes. So obviously, the reason for the length is that these are really long sequences (one noteworthy dinner scene is nearly twenty minutes). But it's anything but boring. It's obviously not for everybody, but if you're one who likes to see dialogue and character interaction in films, you'll be in heaven.
Shot in Cassavetes' trademark documentary style, the camera merely captures the action, rather than dictating where or when the action will occur. In a Cassavetes picture, the actor is the most important element; the visual element isn't exactly ignored, it's just considered less important. Misframing and out-of-focus shots are a common occurrence, but it adds to the reality of the picture. Not to say that the movie is ugly - not at all. Filmed on grainy, 1970's 35mm film stock, it has that special kind of beauty that most films of the period did.
Contrary to what most people think, Cassavetes' films were not entirely improvised, but rather were the result of the actors collaborating on the script in the pre-production phase, where the improvisations were subsequently written into the script. The end result is great, natural dialogue, where nothing feels written and everything feels real. Heartbreakingly real, at times. The following twelve-minute sequence is one of the best of the film. Mostly featuring Rowlands, this scene in particular is widely considered one of the best pieces of film acting in modern cinema.
Barely given a release in 1974, A Woman Under the Influence was financed independently by Cassavates himself, out-of-pocket, with a budget of approximately one million dollars. Once completed, it was refused by every studio. Cassavetes resorted to literally carrying the film reels under his arm, and pitching the film to individual theaters. Not until Martin Scorsese was able to get the film into the New York Film Festival was it recognized for what it was. It stands today among the best work of the '70s.
Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk star as a mentally unstable wife and her husband, respectively. Rowlands and Falk deliver two of the most harrowing performances of all time, completely uninhibited and raw, nearly leaping off the screen in their intensiveness. At first glance, Rowlands might seem to go a little over the top, but as the film progresses further, it becomes evident just how pitch-perfect she is in the role. It remains one of the most honest depictions of mental illness ever seen on film.
The film, which runs two-and-a-half hours, really only consists of about 10 major scenes. So obviously, the reason for the length is that these are really long sequences (one noteworthy dinner scene is nearly twenty minutes). But it's anything but boring. It's obviously not for everybody, but if you're one who likes to see dialogue and character interaction in films, you'll be in heaven.
Shot in Cassavetes' trademark documentary style, the camera merely captures the action, rather than dictating where or when the action will occur. In a Cassavetes picture, the actor is the most important element; the visual element isn't exactly ignored, it's just considered less important. Misframing and out-of-focus shots are a common occurrence, but it adds to the reality of the picture. Not to say that the movie is ugly - not at all. Filmed on grainy, 1970's 35mm film stock, it has that special kind of beauty that most films of the period did.
Contrary to what most people think, Cassavetes' films were not entirely improvised, but rather were the result of the actors collaborating on the script in the pre-production phase, where the improvisations were subsequently written into the script. The end result is great, natural dialogue, where nothing feels written and everything feels real. Heartbreakingly real, at times. The following twelve-minute sequence is one of the best of the film. Mostly featuring Rowlands, this scene in particular is widely considered one of the best pieces of film acting in modern cinema.
Barely given a release in 1974, A Woman Under the Influence was financed independently by Cassavates himself, out-of-pocket, with a budget of approximately one million dollars. Once completed, it was refused by every studio. Cassavetes resorted to literally carrying the film reels under his arm, and pitching the film to individual theaters. Not until Martin Scorsese was able to get the film into the New York Film Festival was it recognized for what it was. It stands today among the best work of the '70s.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Movies You May Have Missed - #2
In the Company of Men (1997)
"Let's hurt somebody..."
While we're on the subject of dark comedy, here's one of the best of the genre: Neil LaBute's 1997 debut film, In the Company of Men. It caused a storm of controversy when it was released, based solely on the plot: Two angry businessmen, fed up with their love-lives and with women in general, hatch a scheme to, well, hurt somebody. They decide to both date the same woman over six weeks, continually advancing the relationship, professing love to her - whatever it takes - and then suddenly dump her in an attempt to emotionally devestate her.
Note: the following clips contain strong language. NSFW.
LaBute's film is as bold and uncompromising as anything to ever come out of American independent cinema. Filmed for an astoundingly low $25,000, it serves as a constant reminder that compelling stories can be told on film for next-to-nothing. Although the budget matches that of Kevin Smith's Clerks, which was shot on 16mm black and white, Company was filmed entirely on 35mm color film stock, something which makes the low budget all that more amazing.
Featuring great performances by Matt Malloy and Stacy Edwards, and a star-making performance by Aaron Eckhart, In the Company of Men is one of the best films of the '90s.
While we're on the subject of dark comedy, here's one of the best of the genre: Neil LaBute's 1997 debut film, In the Company of Men. It caused a storm of controversy when it was released, based solely on the plot: Two angry businessmen, fed up with their love-lives and with women in general, hatch a scheme to, well, hurt somebody. They decide to both date the same woman over six weeks, continually advancing the relationship, professing love to her - whatever it takes - and then suddenly dump her in an attempt to emotionally devestate her.
Note: the following clips contain strong language. NSFW.
LaBute's film is as bold and uncompromising as anything to ever come out of American independent cinema. Filmed for an astoundingly low $25,000, it serves as a constant reminder that compelling stories can be told on film for next-to-nothing. Although the budget matches that of Kevin Smith's Clerks, which was shot on 16mm black and white, Company was filmed entirely on 35mm color film stock, something which makes the low budget all that more amazing.
Featuring great performances by Matt Malloy and Stacy Edwards, and a star-making performance by Aaron Eckhart, In the Company of Men is one of the best films of the '90s.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Burn After Reading
There's really not a whole lot I can say about this movie without spoiling plot details, but I'll give it a go. This is the new film from the Coen Brothers, fresh off their Oscar win for No Country for Old Men, and, quite honestly, it serves as a showcase for everything that's wrong with the Coens. It's purely an exercise in style and coolness, and while that's all fine and dandy, there wasn't anything here to keep me interested. I was constantly reminded of The Big Lebowski during this film; there's another Coen picture where the plot is ridiculously complicated, but it's really of no consequence because the movie is entirely about character and dialogue, and the plot is merely an excuse for these groups of people to be in rooms talking to each other. As far as I can tell, that's what they were trying to do here. But there's just one problem... there's no characters here. At least not memorable ones. And apart from a few clever lines and a terrifically funny ending sequence, the dialogue is nothing to write home about, either. It really feels like they were on autopilot for this one. The tone is completely solid; that's probably the best thing about the movie. It's a jet-black comedy, and if you're dialed-in to its twisted sense of humor, there's a few good laughs to be had. It wasn't a total waste of time, but I can honestly say I don't think I'll ever watch it again.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Movies You May Have Missed - #1
When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (2006)
In these movie doldrums of September and October (and again in January and February), in which very few worthwhile films are released, I thought I might bring up some films of years past which may have slipped by you, for one reason or another. I'll probably do a few of these here and there.
Today's movie was never given a theatrical release, but was instead shown on HBO, which also funded its production. As such, it didn't qualify for Academy Award nominations, but it did win three Emmys. The film in question is Spike Lee's 2006 documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, an examination of New Orleans both before and after Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting devastation.
Lee's film is nothing less than one of the best documentaries ever made, right up there with Hoop Dreams and Hearts and Minds. Each of its one hour "acts" focuses on a different aspect of New Orleans and Katrina, from the history of the city to the chaos of the storm and its aftermath. One point right up front: This movie has a four hour running time. But that shouldn't dissuade you from seeing it, because it's one of the best-edited films I've ever seen. The reason for this is the editing technique used here. There are no rules; you can switch from one topic to another, go off on a tangent, return to the first discussion, and then go on to something that was last mentioned an hour ago. You reach the end of the four hours and you're left wanting more. Even as all-encompassing and exhaustive as the material is, it's so good, and so moving, I could have easily watched another two hours of this.
Note: The clips below contain strong language and some graphic visuals. NSFW.
Spike Lee brings his distinctive style to the film, but much like his previous documentary, the amazing 4 Little Girls, the people and the topic at hand are front and center. This movie should be required viewing for anyone interested in great documentary filmmaking. It's harrowing, audacious, and powerful. A must-see.
Today's movie was never given a theatrical release, but was instead shown on HBO, which also funded its production. As such, it didn't qualify for Academy Award nominations, but it did win three Emmys. The film in question is Spike Lee's 2006 documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, an examination of New Orleans both before and after Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting devastation.
Lee's film is nothing less than one of the best documentaries ever made, right up there with Hoop Dreams and Hearts and Minds. Each of its one hour "acts" focuses on a different aspect of New Orleans and Katrina, from the history of the city to the chaos of the storm and its aftermath. One point right up front: This movie has a four hour running time. But that shouldn't dissuade you from seeing it, because it's one of the best-edited films I've ever seen. The reason for this is the editing technique used here. There are no rules; you can switch from one topic to another, go off on a tangent, return to the first discussion, and then go on to something that was last mentioned an hour ago. You reach the end of the four hours and you're left wanting more. Even as all-encompassing and exhaustive as the material is, it's so good, and so moving, I could have easily watched another two hours of this.
Note: The clips below contain strong language and some graphic visuals. NSFW.
Spike Lee brings his distinctive style to the film, but much like his previous documentary, the amazing 4 Little Girls, the people and the topic at hand are front and center. This movie should be required viewing for anyone interested in great documentary filmmaking. It's harrowing, audacious, and powerful. A must-see.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Snow Angels
This is the second 2008 film from director David Gordon Green (George Washington, All the Real Girls), released five months before Pineapple Express. This year was a great year for Green. On top of Pineapple, which was his first mainstream film and a huge success, he also released this film, which is among his best.
When this movie was released back in March, it quickly came and went, lost in the shuffle. I attempted to see it in the theater, and was unable, as it only played for five days. It opened Friday, played through Tuesday, and when another film opened on Wednesday, it was bumped out. Needless to say, it didn't do well at the box office. On a budget of $1.5 million, it grossed $400,000. Not a complete loss, and it's actually in line with what most of Green's films gross. But it's a shame this film wasn't seen by more people. It received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, but it just happened to be one of those movies that slipped through the cracks.
Tim Orr - who has shot all of Green's films - returns as DP, and continues to bring us beautiful widescreen cinematography. Green and Orr create great compositions and move the camera to great effect, and even use a new technique here for the first time in one of their films: In a few particularly dramatic sequences, the camera dollies to the left and right, slowly pushing the actors out of frame. I could see it as something that might annoy people, but I liked it quite a bit. I always like when people keep tension in the frame - something that PTA does quite a bit. It's important with scope (2.35:1) photography, and I don't think enough people make use of it.
A film about small-town people and how a little girl's disappearance affects them and the community, this is a picture that's really all about character and dialogue, things that Green knows very well. It was adapted from a book - which I've never read - so I can't say how much of the material was Green's, but it's all very good. Young love, something that is particularly hard to pull off in films, is done very well here. It's awkward and not too schmaltzy, which is the way I like to see it done.
The couple above is played by Michael Angarano (Almost Famous) and Olivia Thirlby (doing a complete 180 from her role in The Wackness). They're both great, but the movie is really about an older couple, played by Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. I liked Beckinsale quite a bit in this, and unfortunately I've never really seen her in anything substantial before - other than her small role in The Aviator - because she tends to accept roles in the sort of films that don't interest me (i.e. the Underworld films). She's very good here. But this movie really belongs to Rockwell. I've liked him ever since Matchstick Men, and along with this movie and his role in The Assassination of Jesee James by the Coward Robert Ford, he's quickly earning a reputation as one of the best actors around (I can't wait to see him in Choke). If this movie had gained a little more exposure, I would have predicted a Supporting Actor nomination for him. His character does some not-so-great things during the picture, but Rockwell is able in instill sympathy in the character. A great performance.
The movie really only has one flaw in my eyes, and it's really more of a subjective thing. In my opinion, the ending feels a little rushed. After everything that happens in the movie, the closing events seem to occur much too quickly. I would have preferred to see things drawn out a little more. Nothing substantial, but perhaps another ten minutes or so. It's a small complaint, but I guess I feel the ending could have been more powerful with a stronger buildup. Regardless, it's still a great movie - one of my favorite films of the year so far.
(It's released on DVD September 16th)
When this movie was released back in March, it quickly came and went, lost in the shuffle. I attempted to see it in the theater, and was unable, as it only played for five days. It opened Friday, played through Tuesday, and when another film opened on Wednesday, it was bumped out. Needless to say, it didn't do well at the box office. On a budget of $1.5 million, it grossed $400,000. Not a complete loss, and it's actually in line with what most of Green's films gross. But it's a shame this film wasn't seen by more people. It received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, but it just happened to be one of those movies that slipped through the cracks.
Tim Orr - who has shot all of Green's films - returns as DP, and continues to bring us beautiful widescreen cinematography. Green and Orr create great compositions and move the camera to great effect, and even use a new technique here for the first time in one of their films: In a few particularly dramatic sequences, the camera dollies to the left and right, slowly pushing the actors out of frame. I could see it as something that might annoy people, but I liked it quite a bit. I always like when people keep tension in the frame - something that PTA does quite a bit. It's important with scope (2.35:1) photography, and I don't think enough people make use of it.
A film about small-town people and how a little girl's disappearance affects them and the community, this is a picture that's really all about character and dialogue, things that Green knows very well. It was adapted from a book - which I've never read - so I can't say how much of the material was Green's, but it's all very good. Young love, something that is particularly hard to pull off in films, is done very well here. It's awkward and not too schmaltzy, which is the way I like to see it done.
The couple above is played by Michael Angarano (Almost Famous) and Olivia Thirlby (doing a complete 180 from her role in The Wackness). They're both great, but the movie is really about an older couple, played by Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. I liked Beckinsale quite a bit in this, and unfortunately I've never really seen her in anything substantial before - other than her small role in The Aviator - because she tends to accept roles in the sort of films that don't interest me (i.e. the Underworld films). She's very good here. But this movie really belongs to Rockwell. I've liked him ever since Matchstick Men, and along with this movie and his role in The Assassination of Jesee James by the Coward Robert Ford, he's quickly earning a reputation as one of the best actors around (I can't wait to see him in Choke). If this movie had gained a little more exposure, I would have predicted a Supporting Actor nomination for him. His character does some not-so-great things during the picture, but Rockwell is able in instill sympathy in the character. A great performance.
The movie really only has one flaw in my eyes, and it's really more of a subjective thing. In my opinion, the ending feels a little rushed. After everything that happens in the movie, the closing events seem to occur much too quickly. I would have preferred to see things drawn out a little more. Nothing substantial, but perhaps another ten minutes or so. It's a small complaint, but I guess I feel the ending could have been more powerful with a stronger buildup. Regardless, it's still a great movie - one of my favorite films of the year so far.
(It's released on DVD September 16th)
Friday, September 05, 2008
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
The relationship between Woody Allen and the critics (and, by extension, my opinion of his films in relation to theirs) has been a strange one lately. I have been of the opinion that Woody has slowly been returning to form ever since 2003's Anything Else, a movie that was trashed by the critics, but which I really enjoyed and I still think is vastly underrated. His next film, Melinda and Melinda, was similarly hated by the critics, and it is an admittedly flawed film, but I saw moments of brilliance in it, especially in the way Woody differentiated the comic and tragic storylines by filming with methods commonly used by himself in each respective genre (long master shots for the comedic half, coverage and close-ups for the dramatic half, etc.), which I saw as a comment on his own style. We all seemed to agree with Match Point, a brilliant film that Woody himself has called the best film he's ever done. Scoop was a disappointment, but not nearly as bad as the critics would suggest. Then there was Cassandra's Dream, a film I really liked, but once again, hardly any critics shared my view.
Now we come to Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his latest film. The critics are in love with him again. But guess what? Surprise, surprise - I didn't like it nearly as much as they did. Don't get me wrong, it is a very strong picture. It has moments that leap off the screen with near effortlessness. But I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I personally liked Cassandra's Dream better. But let's get to what I liked about it. The acting is great, of course. Everyone is singling out Penelope Cruz, but for me the real stand-out was Rebecca Hall. I'd never seen her before, but apparently she's really British and doing an American accent for the film. I thought she was marvelous. I identified with her more than any other character in the film. Whenever she was off-screen, I longed for her to return. Not an easy task in a cast that includes Javier Bardem, Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz.
The film includes some great Woody Allen dialogue, especially in an early scene in the movie, which just happens to be my favorite of the film. It's the first interaction between Bardem and the two women of the title, Vicky and Cristina (Hall and Johansson). In summary, Bardem walks up to the two of them, introduces himself, and invites them to join him for the weekend, where they will travel, stay in a hotel, and make love. In any other movie, you'd laugh him off the screen. But Allen makes the situation believable. And Bardem comes off as the biggest Smooth Operator since 007.
The story keeps unraveling, but by the half-way point, I had sort of half-checked out. At some point I just didn't care anymore. By the time Cruz shows up, the film is about the love triangle between the three people on the poster - Cruz, Johansson, and Bardem. The only person I was really interested in was Hall, and unfortunately her story began to veer toward the dreaded Frequently Charted Territory. I don't know what happened, but the charm just didn't last for me. The first half is very clever, but then it seems to go on autopilot for the rest of the picture, and the 96-minute runtime begins to feel more like two hours.
For Allen fans, it's still worth a watch for a few things: First of all, he uses another one-shot cinematographer for this one (will he ever have another Gordon Willis-like relationship with a DP again?), Spanish cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe, and he gets more experimental with his camera this time; he uses the Steadicam quite a bit in this one. There's also a narrator in this movie - quite the rarity for a Woody Allen film.
So, yeah... It's worth a look, and you might enjoy it more than I did. I liked it, but not quite as much as everybody else. As always with Woody Allen, even a mediocre Allen picture is usually an above-average film. I'm really looking forward to his next movie, Whatever Works, starring Larry David and set in New York - Woody's first film there since 2005. I'm also really excited by his choice of DP - Harris Savides (Elephant, Zodiac). Should be an interesting movie...
Now we come to Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his latest film. The critics are in love with him again. But guess what? Surprise, surprise - I didn't like it nearly as much as they did. Don't get me wrong, it is a very strong picture. It has moments that leap off the screen with near effortlessness. But I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I personally liked Cassandra's Dream better. But let's get to what I liked about it. The acting is great, of course. Everyone is singling out Penelope Cruz, but for me the real stand-out was Rebecca Hall. I'd never seen her before, but apparently she's really British and doing an American accent for the film. I thought she was marvelous. I identified with her more than any other character in the film. Whenever she was off-screen, I longed for her to return. Not an easy task in a cast that includes Javier Bardem, Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz.
The film includes some great Woody Allen dialogue, especially in an early scene in the movie, which just happens to be my favorite of the film. It's the first interaction between Bardem and the two women of the title, Vicky and Cristina (Hall and Johansson). In summary, Bardem walks up to the two of them, introduces himself, and invites them to join him for the weekend, where they will travel, stay in a hotel, and make love. In any other movie, you'd laugh him off the screen. But Allen makes the situation believable. And Bardem comes off as the biggest Smooth Operator since 007.
The story keeps unraveling, but by the half-way point, I had sort of half-checked out. At some point I just didn't care anymore. By the time Cruz shows up, the film is about the love triangle between the three people on the poster - Cruz, Johansson, and Bardem. The only person I was really interested in was Hall, and unfortunately her story began to veer toward the dreaded Frequently Charted Territory. I don't know what happened, but the charm just didn't last for me. The first half is very clever, but then it seems to go on autopilot for the rest of the picture, and the 96-minute runtime begins to feel more like two hours.
For Allen fans, it's still worth a watch for a few things: First of all, he uses another one-shot cinematographer for this one (will he ever have another Gordon Willis-like relationship with a DP again?), Spanish cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe, and he gets more experimental with his camera this time; he uses the Steadicam quite a bit in this one. There's also a narrator in this movie - quite the rarity for a Woody Allen film.
So, yeah... It's worth a look, and you might enjoy it more than I did. I liked it, but not quite as much as everybody else. As always with Woody Allen, even a mediocre Allen picture is usually an above-average film. I'm really looking forward to his next movie, Whatever Works, starring Larry David and set in New York - Woody's first film there since 2005. I'm also really excited by his choice of DP - Harris Savides (Elephant, Zodiac). Should be an interesting movie...
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
RE: Zodiac
Some people might remember my ramblings last year about how I truly thought film was dead, and that HD video had finally caught up in terms of quality and ultimately the possibilities of low light-photography.
Well, I was just listening to David Fincher's commentary on Zodiac, when I came across a scene late in the movie in which Fincher explains that the entire scene was lit with three 40-watt light bulbs! Anyone who has shot on film knows how insane that is. That has heightened my appreciation of the photography of this film that much more.
Screenshots of the scene in question below
(click on each to view full size):
Well, I was just listening to David Fincher's commentary on Zodiac, when I came across a scene late in the movie in which Fincher explains that the entire scene was lit with three 40-watt light bulbs! Anyone who has shot on film knows how insane that is. That has heightened my appreciation of the photography of this film that much more.
Screenshots of the scene in question below
(click on each to view full size):
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Promotion
This movie was in limited release in June of this year, opening in no more than 81 screens and grossing a measly $400,000. That would be a normal pedigree for an independent feature with unknowns, but look at the cast: John C. Reilly (Boogie Nights), Seann William Scott (American Pie), Jenna Fischer (TV's The Office)... And it was written and directed by Steve Conrad, whose previous film work includes writing The Weather Man and The Pursuit of Happyness. With a look at the kind of talent involved, and seeing how it failed in release, one can only think the worst: this must be a terrible movie. On the contrary: this is actually much better than it may seem.
Now look, I'm not saying this is a great movie, or even among the best of this year. But I enjoyed it. How much you like this movie will probably depend on how dialed-in to the film's brand of humor you are. This is not, and I repeat - not - in the vein of any recent Will Ferrell-esque comedies, despite the presence of John C. Reilly (which, while we're on the subject - I've always been a fan of his, and it's great to see him with some success, but he's been in some really bad movies lately). The writing of Steve Conrad (who's also making his directorial debut here) firmly places this movie in the realm of "middle-aged man growing up" pictures. So, yes, it's funny. But there's also a little more to offer here than that. There aren't any huge statements here, but there's some cracks at the supermarket business at a corporate level - something I found extremely funny.
This video features strong language. So, obviously, it's NSFW.
Seann William Scott has always been something of an acquired taste for some people. Some love him, some hate him. I could always take him or leave him, but I liked him here. I found him sympathetic and likable. The tone and inflection of his character's speech might seem a bit forced and unrealistic at times, but mostly I bought it.
In all honesty, there's not a whole lot to the characters here. There's just enough back story for the main characters - to provide motivation for their actions - and everyone else basically gets short shrift. But keeping in mind the movie's short 85 minute runtime, this isn't a huge problem. The movie starts off quick, and the light and poppy score drives it right along to the end.
This is worth a watch. I'm not sure if I'd ever watch it again, but it was a pleasant enough way to spend 90 minutes. I'm sort of surprised that this movie was buried at its time of release - especially with that great cast - but don't be scared off by its short time in theaters. It's an undiscovered gem. Not quite a diamond, but at least a gem. Or a shiny rock of some sort.
(It's released on DVD this Tuesday.)
Now look, I'm not saying this is a great movie, or even among the best of this year. But I enjoyed it. How much you like this movie will probably depend on how dialed-in to the film's brand of humor you are. This is not, and I repeat - not - in the vein of any recent Will Ferrell-esque comedies, despite the presence of John C. Reilly (which, while we're on the subject - I've always been a fan of his, and it's great to see him with some success, but he's been in some really bad movies lately). The writing of Steve Conrad (who's also making his directorial debut here) firmly places this movie in the realm of "middle-aged man growing up" pictures. So, yes, it's funny. But there's also a little more to offer here than that. There aren't any huge statements here, but there's some cracks at the supermarket business at a corporate level - something I found extremely funny.
This video features strong language. So, obviously, it's NSFW.
Seann William Scott has always been something of an acquired taste for some people. Some love him, some hate him. I could always take him or leave him, but I liked him here. I found him sympathetic and likable. The tone and inflection of his character's speech might seem a bit forced and unrealistic at times, but mostly I bought it.
In all honesty, there's not a whole lot to the characters here. There's just enough back story for the main characters - to provide motivation for their actions - and everyone else basically gets short shrift. But keeping in mind the movie's short 85 minute runtime, this isn't a huge problem. The movie starts off quick, and the light and poppy score drives it right along to the end.
This is worth a watch. I'm not sure if I'd ever watch it again, but it was a pleasant enough way to spend 90 minutes. I'm sort of surprised that this movie was buried at its time of release - especially with that great cast - but don't be scared off by its short time in theaters. It's an undiscovered gem. Not quite a diamond, but at least a gem. Or a shiny rock of some sort.
(It's released on DVD this Tuesday.)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Pineapple Express,
and some other random thoughts
Pineapple Express
This was one of my most-anticipated films of the year: Seth Rogen and James Franco in an action/comedy/stoner movie directed by David Gordon Green? How could you go wrong? Well, I'm happy to report that this movie succeeds in most of what it tries to do, and even when it doesn't, it's still pretty damn fun to watch.
When I heard about this movie around the time of the video release of Knocked Up, I was really excited. The premise sounded great, the idea of seeing Freaks and Geeks co-stars Rogen and Franco together again was awesome, and the wonderfully inspired choice of David Gordon Green (All the Real Girls, George Washington) as director all added up to a must-see for me. With the wait finally over, I sat down last week in a packed movie theater to watch the film. It was the day after opening day, the last show of the night, and it was nearly sold out. About 90% of the crowd was under 25, and the unmistakable stench of marijuana filled the theater, no doubt from the many, many people who must have smoked just before the show. With Rolling Stone having proclaimed Pineapple Express "the best stoner movie ever" days before, you really couldn't have expected much else. Why am I bringing this up? Well, first of all, I will tell you straight up, there is a lot of pot-related stuff in this movie. The plot revolves around it, the characters are frequently toking up, and the title itself is a reference to a particular strain of marijuana. Thankfully, the movie doesn't fall into the trap that most "stoner" movies fall into: You don't have to be stoned to enjoy it.
While most of the credit is likely to go to writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, I have a sneaking suspicion that biggest reason the film succeeds is the direction of David Gordon Green. Green has previously been known for independently-produced dramas (my favorite of which is the aforementioned All the Real Girls) and it truly was a stroke of genius to hire him for this movie. The script is funny, but it could have easily veered wildly out of control in the hands of a lesser director. Similar to the choice of hiring indie director Greg Mottola for Superbad, Pineapple benefits greatly from the attention to detail that most Hollywood directors lack. Of all the recent Judd Apatow-produced comedies of late, this film had the highest possibility of going terribly wrong due to the introduction of black comedy into the mix. Indeed, the comedy in this film is often more akin to Tarantino than to Apatow (a character, shot seven or eight times, passes out from loss of blood, and realizes he "should probably go to the hospital"). Under the strong direction of Green, however, the film veers from comedy to drama to action set pieces, and the tonal changes are usually flawless.
The film is not without its problems. It's a little overlong, and some dialogue scenes early on in the film probably could've been trimmed, but that's just nitpicking. It's a pretty satisfying film, and a good time overall.
Random thoughts
I just wanted to mention a few trailers and whatnot that appeared before the movie, that I thought would be worthwhile to mention.
First of all, there's the great Scorsese "please silence your cell phones" spot that's been in circulation at the theaters for the past few months. Anybody who hasn't seen it, check it out below. It is f-ing hilarious. Still makes me laugh every time.
Then there's this great ad for the upcoming "Stand Up 2 Cancer" telethon that will air simultaneously on ABC, NBC, and CBS. After a little research, I found that it was directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac). It really is quite beautiful and moving.
And finally, the trailer for the upcoming film Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, directed by Peter Sollett (his first film since 2002's great Raising Victor Vargas). This looks good.
This was one of my most-anticipated films of the year: Seth Rogen and James Franco in an action/comedy/stoner movie directed by David Gordon Green? How could you go wrong? Well, I'm happy to report that this movie succeeds in most of what it tries to do, and even when it doesn't, it's still pretty damn fun to watch.
When I heard about this movie around the time of the video release of Knocked Up, I was really excited. The premise sounded great, the idea of seeing Freaks and Geeks co-stars Rogen and Franco together again was awesome, and the wonderfully inspired choice of David Gordon Green (All the Real Girls, George Washington) as director all added up to a must-see for me. With the wait finally over, I sat down last week in a packed movie theater to watch the film. It was the day after opening day, the last show of the night, and it was nearly sold out. About 90% of the crowd was under 25, and the unmistakable stench of marijuana filled the theater, no doubt from the many, many people who must have smoked just before the show. With Rolling Stone having proclaimed Pineapple Express "the best stoner movie ever" days before, you really couldn't have expected much else. Why am I bringing this up? Well, first of all, I will tell you straight up, there is a lot of pot-related stuff in this movie. The plot revolves around it, the characters are frequently toking up, and the title itself is a reference to a particular strain of marijuana. Thankfully, the movie doesn't fall into the trap that most "stoner" movies fall into: You don't have to be stoned to enjoy it.
While most of the credit is likely to go to writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, I have a sneaking suspicion that biggest reason the film succeeds is the direction of David Gordon Green. Green has previously been known for independently-produced dramas (my favorite of which is the aforementioned All the Real Girls) and it truly was a stroke of genius to hire him for this movie. The script is funny, but it could have easily veered wildly out of control in the hands of a lesser director. Similar to the choice of hiring indie director Greg Mottola for Superbad, Pineapple benefits greatly from the attention to detail that most Hollywood directors lack. Of all the recent Judd Apatow-produced comedies of late, this film had the highest possibility of going terribly wrong due to the introduction of black comedy into the mix. Indeed, the comedy in this film is often more akin to Tarantino than to Apatow (a character, shot seven or eight times, passes out from loss of blood, and realizes he "should probably go to the hospital"). Under the strong direction of Green, however, the film veers from comedy to drama to action set pieces, and the tonal changes are usually flawless.
The film is not without its problems. It's a little overlong, and some dialogue scenes early on in the film probably could've been trimmed, but that's just nitpicking. It's a pretty satisfying film, and a good time overall.
Random thoughts
I just wanted to mention a few trailers and whatnot that appeared before the movie, that I thought would be worthwhile to mention.
First of all, there's the great Scorsese "please silence your cell phones" spot that's been in circulation at the theaters for the past few months. Anybody who hasn't seen it, check it out below. It is f-ing hilarious. Still makes me laugh every time.
Then there's this great ad for the upcoming "Stand Up 2 Cancer" telethon that will air simultaneously on ABC, NBC, and CBS. After a little research, I found that it was directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac). It really is quite beautiful and moving.
And finally, the trailer for the upcoming film Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, directed by Peter Sollett (his first film since 2002's great Raising Victor Vargas). This looks good.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Sunday, August 03, 2008
My new short film:
Dr. Sbaitso
HD version to come soon (since it takes me forever to upload it).
Visit Matt Caracappa's page (whose article was the inspiration for this short) at X-Entertainment.com
Dr. Sbaitso (SD version) from Andrew on Vimeo.
Visit Matt Caracappa's page (whose article was the inspiration for this short) at X-Entertainment.com
Dr. Sbaitso (SD version) from Andrew on Vimeo.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Wackness and Smart People
A couple of indie films today:
First we have The Wackness, the winner of the Dramatic Audience Award at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. I have to admit, at first I was a little apprehensive going into this movie. The premise sounded good but I hated the first trailer I saw - coming in at a short 90 seconds, this first preview had played up the young cast and the hip hop soundtrack and downplayed the storyline. Luckily, the movie itself was much better.
Totally deserving of its Audience Award win, The Wackness isn't a perfect coming-of-age picture, nor does it want to be. It is completely content with hanging out and telling its story, presenting its characters, and just being who it is. That kind of confidence is reassuring, and goes a long way towards an audience enjoying a movie.
It's a small film, with basically only three main roles to speak of. Each of them is cast to perfection. Josh Peck (a revelation in 2004's Mean Creek) plays Luke, a pot-dealing 18-year-old rap enthusiast, living in 1994 New York City, pondering his existence after graduating high school. His mentor is his therapist, Dr. Squires (amazingly rendered by Ben Kingsley). He's a successful psychologist, but he's also an immature drug addict whose marriage is failing. Things get complicated when Luke falls for Squires' daughter, Stephanie (Juno's Olivia Thirlby). Other people show up in supporting roles, including the great Jane Adams (Happiness) as one of Luke's pot-buyers.
There's so much about this movie that could have gone horribly wrong. The vintage 90's rap music could feel overly campy, almost veering towards novelty, but the careful choice of music and the discussion of it by characters - in context with their lives - makes it work. The whole teenage pot dealer thing has been done before, but this movie puts a nice little spin on it: it's almost like an afterthought. Although this activity is used as a plot device to put things in motion, it's not the central driving force in the film. There's no big moral drug choice for the kid to make at the end of the film, and there's no violent acts or consequences that result from his selling of pot. In fact, the guy who sells it to him (effectively his boss) is one of his closest confidants. It's refreshing, and allows us to pay attention to what really matters in the film: the relationships, whether they be parent and child, husband and wife, or the man focus of the piece, the budding romance between Luke and Stephanie.
This particular aspect of the film is handled quite well, particularly the sex scenes between the two young actors. Everything is given the right amount of awkwardness, eagerness and melancholy, and it's one of the most affecting aspects of the film.
Okay, enough rambling. This is a good film. If it was received a little bit better (it was given highly mixed reviews, although they mostly aired on the positive side), I might've predicted an Oscar nomination for Ben Kingsley. His role has that great mix of vitality and compassion that the Academy loves. Josh Peck is great in the lead, though, and holds the whole thing together. After Mean Creek, I knew this kid was going places. He might not get a lot of attention for this, but I'm sure his breakthrough role isn't far off. This is a memorable movie, and although it sort of fizzles out in its last fifteen minutes, it redeems itself with a great ending. Highly recommended.
Smart People is another independent film with mixed reviews, but in this case I think the critics were right on the money. It has a great opening, which quickly and neatly establishes a tone for the picture, but it's all sort of downhill after that. The movie's dialogue does a good job of maintaining that tone, but someone along the way didn't think so. There is way too much music in this movie. Don't get me wrong, I love music in film, when it's done right. But I have a big problem with snippets of different songs being used as background for what seemed like every other dialogue scene. In one five-minute section of the film I counted no less than four different songs. It reminds me of what the WB network does with its teen-oriented shows; they throw music in at every possible moment because they are deathly afraid that people will get bored. Twenty seconds of a quiet conversation is an eternity in their eyes. The movie never gets a chance to breathe, which is unfortunate, because there is some great dialogue in there between the many, many songs. I have no idea whether this was the director or the studio's choice, but, quite frankly, it bugged the hell out of me.
The cast is great, anyway: Dennis Quaid, Thomas Haden Church, Ellen Page, and Ashton Holmes (A History of Violence). Even Sarah Jessica Parker, who I personally can't stand, is decent in this. Everyone's well-cast, especially Thomas Haden Church as the irresponsible brother. It's worth a watch, but don't worry about going out of your way to see it.
First we have The Wackness, the winner of the Dramatic Audience Award at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. I have to admit, at first I was a little apprehensive going into this movie. The premise sounded good but I hated the first trailer I saw - coming in at a short 90 seconds, this first preview had played up the young cast and the hip hop soundtrack and downplayed the storyline. Luckily, the movie itself was much better.
Totally deserving of its Audience Award win, The Wackness isn't a perfect coming-of-age picture, nor does it want to be. It is completely content with hanging out and telling its story, presenting its characters, and just being who it is. That kind of confidence is reassuring, and goes a long way towards an audience enjoying a movie.
It's a small film, with basically only three main roles to speak of. Each of them is cast to perfection. Josh Peck (a revelation in 2004's Mean Creek) plays Luke, a pot-dealing 18-year-old rap enthusiast, living in 1994 New York City, pondering his existence after graduating high school. His mentor is his therapist, Dr. Squires (amazingly rendered by Ben Kingsley). He's a successful psychologist, but he's also an immature drug addict whose marriage is failing. Things get complicated when Luke falls for Squires' daughter, Stephanie (Juno's Olivia Thirlby). Other people show up in supporting roles, including the great Jane Adams (Happiness) as one of Luke's pot-buyers.
There's so much about this movie that could have gone horribly wrong. The vintage 90's rap music could feel overly campy, almost veering towards novelty, but the careful choice of music and the discussion of it by characters - in context with their lives - makes it work. The whole teenage pot dealer thing has been done before, but this movie puts a nice little spin on it: it's almost like an afterthought. Although this activity is used as a plot device to put things in motion, it's not the central driving force in the film. There's no big moral drug choice for the kid to make at the end of the film, and there's no violent acts or consequences that result from his selling of pot. In fact, the guy who sells it to him (effectively his boss) is one of his closest confidants. It's refreshing, and allows us to pay attention to what really matters in the film: the relationships, whether they be parent and child, husband and wife, or the man focus of the piece, the budding romance between Luke and Stephanie.
This particular aspect of the film is handled quite well, particularly the sex scenes between the two young actors. Everything is given the right amount of awkwardness, eagerness and melancholy, and it's one of the most affecting aspects of the film.
Okay, enough rambling. This is a good film. If it was received a little bit better (it was given highly mixed reviews, although they mostly aired on the positive side), I might've predicted an Oscar nomination for Ben Kingsley. His role has that great mix of vitality and compassion that the Academy loves. Josh Peck is great in the lead, though, and holds the whole thing together. After Mean Creek, I knew this kid was going places. He might not get a lot of attention for this, but I'm sure his breakthrough role isn't far off. This is a memorable movie, and although it sort of fizzles out in its last fifteen minutes, it redeems itself with a great ending. Highly recommended.
Smart People is another independent film with mixed reviews, but in this case I think the critics were right on the money. It has a great opening, which quickly and neatly establishes a tone for the picture, but it's all sort of downhill after that. The movie's dialogue does a good job of maintaining that tone, but someone along the way didn't think so. There is way too much music in this movie. Don't get me wrong, I love music in film, when it's done right. But I have a big problem with snippets of different songs being used as background for what seemed like every other dialogue scene. In one five-minute section of the film I counted no less than four different songs. It reminds me of what the WB network does with its teen-oriented shows; they throw music in at every possible moment because they are deathly afraid that people will get bored. Twenty seconds of a quiet conversation is an eternity in their eyes. The movie never gets a chance to breathe, which is unfortunate, because there is some great dialogue in there between the many, many songs. I have no idea whether this was the director or the studio's choice, but, quite frankly, it bugged the hell out of me.
The cast is great, anyway: Dennis Quaid, Thomas Haden Church, Ellen Page, and Ashton Holmes (A History of Violence). Even Sarah Jessica Parker, who I personally can't stand, is decent in this. Everyone's well-cast, especially Thomas Haden Church as the irresponsible brother. It's worth a watch, but don't worry about going out of your way to see it.
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Dark Knight
Yes, that's right. I just got back from a midnight show - it's 3 AM, and I'm sure I'll spend another hour awake writing this thing, because I feel compelled to gush about this movie, as much and as often as possible.
I feel so strongly about this picture that I will say this right out front: if this movie wasn't a "Batman" film, it would be a Best Picture nominee. It is simply the best American crime film since Heat. Unfortunately, I think the whole "Batman" thing may prevent people from taking this movie seriously. This is a serious work, with ruminations on good and evil, the organized chaos of society, and the nature of heroes, and why we need them.
More than anything, this is an epic crime film. I return to Heat once again, Michael Mann's masterpiece. This movie has an obvious debt to that picture, but breaks its own ground and finds its own voice. It has a crackling immediacy that gives everything enormous weight and importance, and visually, it looks more like a gritty crime film than anything else. Being rooted in such reality gives the film its power. It was a brave and wonderful choice, and one of the big reasons for the film's success.
Much has been made of Heath Ledger's performance, and I have to admit, it was the main reason I chose to see the film (along with the stellar reviews it has gotten). The verdict? It is simply breathtaking. It's everything you've heard it is, and so much more. He steals every scene he's in, and he's probably the best villain ever put on screen. As for his Oscar chances, well, if Anthony Hopkins can win an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs, there's no reason why Ledger shouldn't win for this. Even Javier Bardem's win last year for No Country For Old Men pales in comparison to this performance. If he isn't nominated and doesn't win, it will be one of the biggest mistakes the Academy has ever made.
And while we're on the subject of awards, I must point out this fact: this is the best-directed film so far this year, and I doubt I'll see one that tops this. Christopher Nolan deserves at least a nomination for Best Director. Every single thing is done right. Not a false note. I have to admit, I've been disappointed with Nolan in the past. I loved Memento of course, but after 2002's Insomnia (a watered-down American remake of the original film) and 2006's The Prestige, I lost hope in Nolan. Even Batman Begins I wasn't satisfied with. I thought it had some problems at the script stage that were never solved. Well, he's back. All the promise that I saw in Memento has finally come to fruition, and it is a great thing.
The rest of the production is great, with the best editing I've seen all year. The film is long, and it feels long, but it feels right. It's a big story, and it deserves its running time. Like I mentioned before, Heath Ledger steals the show, but the masterful editing keeps all the narrative threads on an equal playing field. Sometimes, if someone is giving an amazing performance, all of their time off-screen is simply spent waiting for them to return. This is definitely not the case here. Ledger might be the main attraction, but there's plenty more here to see.
Well, I suppose I'll leave it at that. Put aside all expectations. This is one of the best films of the year. It's not perfect, but it's just about as close to perfect as a movie can be. This is a work of art, and it deserves to be seen. It drew me in more than any other movie so far this year, and it was an exhilarating experience.
There are some movies that restore your faith in the power of film, but this was more than that. It got me excited about the filmmaking process again, and made we want to go out and shoot more. I think I will. In the meantime, I'm considering going to Boston to see this in an IMAX theater. I've heard there's no better way to see it. And with a movie this good, I owe it to myself to try.
I feel so strongly about this picture that I will say this right out front: if this movie wasn't a "Batman" film, it would be a Best Picture nominee. It is simply the best American crime film since Heat. Unfortunately, I think the whole "Batman" thing may prevent people from taking this movie seriously. This is a serious work, with ruminations on good and evil, the organized chaos of society, and the nature of heroes, and why we need them.
More than anything, this is an epic crime film. I return to Heat once again, Michael Mann's masterpiece. This movie has an obvious debt to that picture, but breaks its own ground and finds its own voice. It has a crackling immediacy that gives everything enormous weight and importance, and visually, it looks more like a gritty crime film than anything else. Being rooted in such reality gives the film its power. It was a brave and wonderful choice, and one of the big reasons for the film's success.
Much has been made of Heath Ledger's performance, and I have to admit, it was the main reason I chose to see the film (along with the stellar reviews it has gotten). The verdict? It is simply breathtaking. It's everything you've heard it is, and so much more. He steals every scene he's in, and he's probably the best villain ever put on screen. As for his Oscar chances, well, if Anthony Hopkins can win an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs, there's no reason why Ledger shouldn't win for this. Even Javier Bardem's win last year for No Country For Old Men pales in comparison to this performance. If he isn't nominated and doesn't win, it will be one of the biggest mistakes the Academy has ever made.
And while we're on the subject of awards, I must point out this fact: this is the best-directed film so far this year, and I doubt I'll see one that tops this. Christopher Nolan deserves at least a nomination for Best Director. Every single thing is done right. Not a false note. I have to admit, I've been disappointed with Nolan in the past. I loved Memento of course, but after 2002's Insomnia (a watered-down American remake of the original film) and 2006's The Prestige, I lost hope in Nolan. Even Batman Begins I wasn't satisfied with. I thought it had some problems at the script stage that were never solved. Well, he's back. All the promise that I saw in Memento has finally come to fruition, and it is a great thing.
The rest of the production is great, with the best editing I've seen all year. The film is long, and it feels long, but it feels right. It's a big story, and it deserves its running time. Like I mentioned before, Heath Ledger steals the show, but the masterful editing keeps all the narrative threads on an equal playing field. Sometimes, if someone is giving an amazing performance, all of their time off-screen is simply spent waiting for them to return. This is definitely not the case here. Ledger might be the main attraction, but there's plenty more here to see.
Well, I suppose I'll leave it at that. Put aside all expectations. This is one of the best films of the year. It's not perfect, but it's just about as close to perfect as a movie can be. This is a work of art, and it deserves to be seen. It drew me in more than any other movie so far this year, and it was an exhilarating experience.
There are some movies that restore your faith in the power of film, but this was more than that. It got me excited about the filmmaking process again, and made we want to go out and shoot more. I think I will. In the meantime, I'm considering going to Boston to see this in an IMAX theater. I've heard there's no better way to see it. And with a movie this good, I owe it to myself to try.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Charles H. Joffe
1929-2008
(Woody Allen's long-time manager and producing partner - he has produced all of Woody's 42 films)
1929-2008
(Woody Allen's long-time manager and producing partner - he has produced all of Woody's 42 films)
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
