Tag: film

Metropolis

~ Mark

Metropolis. Amazing. I was pumped-up to see this latest restoration and it did not disappoint. Fritz Lang went big with this one. So good. So many themes. Solid, archetypal characters (tycoon/forbidding father, sketchy henchman, mad scientist, romantic hero, maiden/whore/messiah, trusty sidekick, etc.) all with their own clear relationships to each other. A pretty amazing soundtrack (with cameos of the Dies Irae and La Marseillaise). Many of the sets would still look incredible today. It’s old enough to bring out some unintended laughter here and there, but I thought it was pretty gripping most of the way.

Vertigo

~ Mark

Vertigo. The first hour was really fun, there’s emotional anguish in the conclusion that I wasn’t expecting from Hitchcock, and several twists along the way that I totally didn’t see coming. James Stewart rules. The soundtrack was very good and the audio in general–engines, footsteps, city life–seemed really, really sharp. I’d rank it among the better Hitchcock films I’ve seen, but I think I’d put it in third place behind Rear Window and To Catch a Thief.

Suddenly, Last Summer

~ Mark

Suddenly, Last Summer. Good movie. Its roots are in the Tennessee Williams play, so it’s very, very, very mono- and dialogue-heavy. You could probably just listen to this one and get a lot out of it (and so maybe not the best use of the medium?). The cast is why you watch it, though. Katharine Hepburn owns the first half-hour. Elizabeth Taylor owns the last. Montgomery Clift is the stable (and somehow not boring) guy in the middle who gently keeps the story moving forward.

Doctor Zhivago

~ Mark

Doctor Zhivago. Beautifully set, shot, and acted, but know that this is pure soap opera. That said, after a little warm-up, I was rapt for the first two hours. The last hour is weaker. Just set your skeptic filters low and let yourself get swept away. It’s a great cast of imperfect people. Our hero, Omar Sharif, is a little annoying. The reliable Rod Steiger is a perfect asshole. Julie Christie is tough, and in her role as Lara is maybe the most attractive modestly-dressed character I’ve seen on film. Frumpy Russian winterwear never looked so good. Perfect lighting helps. Anyway, Ebert calls it “an example of superb old-style craftsmanship at the service of a soppy romantic vision, and although its portentous historical drama evaporates once you return to the fresh air, watching it can be seductive”. I would watch it again.

Bird

~ Mark

Bird. A pretty good Eastwood-directed biopic about Charlie Parker, though I’m not sure it’s that interesting for people who lack at least a mild enthusiasm for jazz. This is not a three-act story of redemption a la Ray or Walk the Line. This one seems more of a collage, cutting back and forth. It’s a blur, short of detail, but heavy on mood, aided in that most of the movie’s shots are so dark, murky, noir-ish. Parker–alcoholic, junkie–doesn’t seem a raging, violent, destructive artist, but one more burdened and resigned. I’ve got a new appreciation for Forest Whitaker now that I’ve seen him in a leading role. Makes me curious about The Last King of Scotland. Here’s a nice bit from Ebert’s review:

Two of the subtler themes running through much of Eastwood’s work – and especially the 14 films he has directed – are a love of music, and a fascination with characters who are lonely, heroic drifters. There is a connection between the Parker of “Bird” and the alcoholic guitar player in “Honkytonk Man.” They are both men who use music as a way of insisting they are alive and can feel joy, in the face of the daily depression and dread they draw around themselves.

La Baie des Anges (Bay of Angels)

~ Mark

La Baie des Anges (Bay of Angels). A man, new to the casino world, falls in love with an older, compulsive-gambling veteran. A simple story well-told. I have no idea if he’s seen it or not, but I think some of Woody Allen’s DNA comes from this strand. Also, given the up and down nature of gambler’s luck, you can’t help but wonder if the ending would be different if the credits rolled a little later. Such is love. Recommended!

Humpday

~ Mark

Humpday. I thought this was a really great movie. One on level it’s a sort of male bonding tale with a tone that is somewhere between the melancholy, awkward (and excellent) Old Joy and the goofy, chummy I Love You, Man. There’s bro love and macho one-upsmanship and adventurousness there, to be sure. But one thing that it shows–the wholly improvised dialogue probably helps here–is the halting, roundabout way that caring people make space for each other and test new emotional waters. A refreshing reminder of how surprisingly thoughtful people can be. Alycia Delmore is especially good.

And on a whole different level it’s about the call of art and the challenge of performance. “We’re doing this because it scares us more than anything else.” Also, I have a new crush on writer/director/producer Lynn Shelton. Worth seeing.

Unforgiven

~ Mark

Unforgiven. This is a very, very good movie. There’s so much psychological fodder here: regret, revenge, greed, vanity. Beautifully shot and edited. A killer starring cast and a deep bench of side characters that round out the town life. My favorite part is the subtext with the biographer W.W. Beauchamp and his parasitic/symbiotic relationship with the narcissistic, murderous men in the film. He’s the everyman, fascinated and terrified of the violence, jotting down every detail while pissing his pants. Eastwood dedicated the movie to Don and Sergio.

Raging Bull

~ Mark

Raging Bull. I expected that boxing would be much more central to this film, but it’s more of a story of jealousy and self-loathing punctuated with fights professional and domestic. Maybe the coolest thing is the use of slow-motion every now and then to emphasize a particular moment or emotional state. Maybe the most annoying thing is Italian-American tough guy/gangster talk – which maybe I’ve just been saturated with before. I wasn’t blown away with this movie – but, then again, I’m really curious how I’d feel if I saw it a second time. Make of that what you will.

Inception

~ Mark

Inception. This is a good movie. Worth seeing? Sure. Superlative? No. Interesting ideas and there’s enough ambiguity to puzzle over ‘til the End of Days. Five Ways of Looking at Inception is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

The trouble was that I didn’t care much. My first reaction was “Inception: all muscle and nerves, no heart. Interesting but probably at least 48 minutes too long.” It kinda reminded me of the situation where a writer has an awesome essay and then later writes a book on the same topic. This movie was a book where an essay (i.e. short film) might have been a tighter, more engaging experience.

Other assorted observations:

  • I think the dark, corporate angle is legit. The idea of executive-level extraction-resistance training is a nice scifi hypothetical.
  • I liked the idea of different levels of dreams operating at different time-speeds. Pretty cool.
  • Lots of explanatory dialogue…
  • Mediocre score.
  • I’d like to see more movies where not everyone is wealthy and skilled.
  • I’d like to see action movies with fewer hordes of incompetent gunmen.
  • Ski chase. Dead wife reappearing. Zero-gravity fights. Old man dying in a minimalist room. I don’t think this is a bad thing, btw.