Films I Watched - March, 2006
Submitted by lbangs on Sun, 03/05/2006 - 02:31
Tags:
- 3/25 - V for Vendetta - Is this pure propaganda? No. It is agitpop, sure, but it is art, and it is glorious. Extending a middle finger to demagogues who use language such as terrorism to steal rights from citizens and to inflame hatred against anybody they dislike, even if they are about are as much terrorists as George Washington and his army were, James McTeigue and the Wachowski brothers know how to start a fire. Instead of a simple blast of opinion, this film bothers to build characters and to construct an archetypal plot while, yes, capturing some naked political viewpoints. Even I do not agree with every view presented – I still think anarchy simply leads to tragedy and eventually more tyranny – but as an aesthetic experience, this is incredibly thrilling, moving, and incendiary; the visual flair, emotional impact, and stirring warnings rock. It is easy to see why conservatives are crying. This is threatening stuff. Does that worry you? Stay away. If that sounds remotely exciting, you should see it now. ****
- 3/24 - Last Man Standing - Walter Hill gets no respect, I tell you, and this film is unlikely to remedy this situation. Yes, he can direct action sequences, and he can bring particular characters to life, but if he cannot put together a better climax for his decent if low-budget films, you might as well rent 48 Hrs. again. **
- 3/19 - Andrei Rublev Every time I watch this film, it steals more of my respect. Currently, it now is a wild contender for my vote of best film ever made. The second half especially is some of the most powerful, emotionally riveting stuff ever shot. Citizen Kane, Amateur, or Andrei Rublev? Who cares? See all three, the holy trinity of the cinematic universe. ****
- 3/18 - Vertigo - We all hate eating crow, backtracking on formerly firm declarations. As a result, perhaps I will make a half-hearted claim that finally watching the restored version of this film at last reveals what its respected cult loves. The atmosphere now intensifies in the second half instead of dissipating, and when Judy steps forward in her dead look-alike’s outfit, she is as hazed and shimmering as a ghost. Stewart’s mad descent now appears to bring the cinematography along for the ride, and the film at last impresses me. It is still over-rated, and I prefer many of Hitchcock’s films to this, but as of today, I have to shut up about its acclaim; it is a very good film. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some pie to work on…*** 1/2
- 3/18 - Tremors - The cinematic roadway is littered with flawed films that struggle to capture the glory of classic horror films while also poking fun at the genre. Usually, the lame humor deflates the tension from the thrills. This is the one that nailed it. The director and the cast are well aware of how silly the idea of an underground burrowing monster is, but they play the situation with conviction. As a result, the laughs from the silly setup roll while the film actually stretches some suspense and manages one of the truly satisfying surprising endings. Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward disappear into the two leads, a feat that is loads more difficult than it looks, Michael Gross and Reba McEntire (!) step out of types to give flesh and blood to the psycho survivalists whose greatest fear and perhaps dream comes true. The effects are fantastic examples of pre-CGI lo-fi thrills, and the directing is perfectly measured and paced (a fact destroyed on all television airings of seen of this film, all time-compressed (read: sped up) and butchered). In the end, this film is an unexpected wonder, a fine tribute to old monster films, a very funny spoof of the same, and an exciting resurrection of a long-dead style. ****
- 3/16 -Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid - Peckinpah directed another masterpiece, and MGM butchered it for release. Luckily, the DVD captures the original vision for this revisionist Western, a film that glorified and destroyed the mythic Old West in 1973 as well as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance did over ten years earlier. Now restored to its original glory, this film is less a rollercoaster ride of bloody revenge as it is a study of two old friends now on opposite sides of a shaky law that may well just be a cover for the interests of the wealthy. Neither side is particularly heroic, even if the incredibly charismatic Kris Kristofferson (looking oddly a bit like Jim Morrison) and the riveting James Coburn never allow the title characters to become anything less than utterly fascinating. Supporting actors from classic cowboy films appear as old outlaws turned lawmen, while musicians known for working outside the system (such as Kristofferson and Bob Dylan) appear as unreformed outlaws, so Peckinpah may not have been simply retelling history in this work. Certain scenes here stand among the greatest the genre ever produced, often sparked by incredible dialogue by Rudolph Wurlitzer; listen to Pat Garrett tell off the lackey the moneymen and the government hires to keep tabs on him. By and large, critics give this film little notice, but they are fools; this is one of the best Westerns ever filmed, especially for a post-sixties production; we should be thrilled this DVD rescues the film from the horrible chop job of the studio. ****
- 3/12 - In The Mood For Love - We expect so little from yet another rewrite of Brief Encounter, especially when the original still shines as brightly as it does. This one, however, is directed by the greatest director of this decade, Wong Kar-Wai, so the restrained passion becomes an opium hallucination with an unworldly intensity. Unlike the confused clash they generate in Hidden, here the directing and the screenplay merge like Bergman heroines until they can no longer be separated. The music barely heard haunts, and the rain falling in slow motion catches every stray emotion and gathers it into one neon puddle. The 2000s are Wong Kar-Wai’s decade; other directors merely borrow smidgens of attention from it. ****
- 3/11 - Hidden (A/K/A Caché) – Michael Haneke is full of crap. He is too talented to dismiss, so where does that leave us? With Caché, apparently, one of cinema’s most intriguing examples of His directing is stellar; his measured, moody pace heightens the suspense and the paranoia at the speed of melting ice while not quite losing the packed theater I was in. A few scenes are incredibly startling and affecting. No, we cannot gripe about Haneke’s direction, but what about his screenplay? It is a maddening mess. First, we have to accept that characters are being secretly videotaped and then sent copies of the intrusive surveillance, but we also have to accept that nobody ever tries to find the cameras despite having access to the areas where they obviously had to be set up. Characters take some silly risks, and then, of course, we haveSpoiler: Highlight to viewcoitus interruptus.***Spoiler: Highlight to viewthe ending that is not an ending. The director implies you are dense if you wish this mystery to make some attempt at resolution. I’ll outright claim he is lazy and misguided. The impressive truth is that this is still an interesting drama despite the deflated ending. The depressing truth is that it might have been a masterpiece if Haneke had bothered to refine the script and to tack a third act or even an attempt at an ending. As it is, we have a very good drama with tendencies toward first-year film school experimentation that adds an buffoonish immatureness to a movie that could been a contender.
- 3/5 - Transamerica - Duncan Tucker’s debut film is frustrating but ultimately redeemed. In many respects, especially in the opening half hour, this is a standard road trip of a film, complete with improbable plot demands and plenty of forced humor. It is the relationship of pre-op transsexual Bree with a son fathered years ago, though, that provides some true and unexpected emotional grist in this mill. While some scenes fall flat and too many of the jokes seem swiped from second-grade sitcoms, the drama carries the day, even if one still wishes the film could live up to its finest moments. ***
- 3/5 - Memoirs of a Geisha - Let us pity poor Rob Marshall. Without a genius like Fosse to rip off, he has no clue what to do. He mistakes a lame narration as insightful and moving, plenty of scenes shot through interesting yet out of focus items in the foreground as artful direction, the ornate for the beautiful, and a Hollywood clichéfest of a script as a good story about Japan. He should go back to the stage where his spectacles can pass as intelligent entertainment, as this, his latest film, is a horrid, long, boring snoozer. Ironically, in one scene, a character asks about how to entertain Americans. The answer seems to be with trash. Funny, Rob, Americans did not exactly swallow this steaming pile of garbage, did they? * 1/2
- 3/5 - Hustle & Flow - Despite conjuring up credible atmosphere for a hustler-made-good-as-rapper film, the screenplay here falters, not quite knowing what to do with itself once it clears the frankly uninspired rise of our hero pimp. The actors, especially the riveting Terrence Howard (who earned that Oscar nomination) and the unfairly ignored Taryn Manning, do oodles to elevate what would have been a poor film without them, and Craig Brewer’s direction makes up for what his screenplay lacks. It still does not quite move this movie into the territory of a triumph, but it does lift it to a respectable state. ** 1/2
Author Comments:
I'm rating the films on a zero to four star basis. ** 1/2 is average.
I think your problem with "Cache" is that you're assuming it's a thriller.
No. The film does, however, play at being a mystery...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
It is a thriller - for a while, anyway. And then Haneke says, "Ha ha, just kidding. Anyone who thought that was a thriller is stupid. I was only using all the elements of a thriller to make a movie that isn't a thriller."
I still think the new dvd version of PG+BtK only half saves the film... in fact I think most of what Paul Seydor did to this film with his turner and hooch/tin cup editing background was a few steps back from the '88 turner version(which the dvd totally half-assed quality-wise, they couldn't even handle getting 2 hours of listenable sound quality on the disc)... anyway, great review, unbelievably amazing and underrated film, shitty attempt at a dvd release... let's put it this way, I've done a lot research on the subject(what peckinpah was shooting and what the studio was chucking) and Paul Seydor completely missed the boat on the new edit(he did nail the little things, i'll give him that)(maybe I'll make a list out of it)... couple that with the rushed manner in which they slapped together the '88 turner version onto dvd and apparently never tested the quality and sadly my bootleg dvdr of the '88 turner version on laserdisc is still the closest I have to a watchable version of this great travesty.
Catch my comments on Jim's front page post. In summary, I have not seen that second disc version; I thought the second disc was simply a typical extras disc!
If it beats the version I watched, it is a tremendous film indeed...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Wow, Vertigo...
I guess all those extra chances you give movies pays off once in awhile!
I'm going to e-mail jgandcag.
I think I considered for about five seconds whether I should even mention my viewing, but hey, I love pie, so folks can throw to their delight! :)
Yes, that's why I always try to give acclaimed films a second, third, or (in this case) twentieth try, especially when restoration gets involved... It was my gain.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Ah, I tried Andrei Rublev last week, and turned it off after an hour or so. :(
Ya win some, ya lose some...
You should certainly try it again some time, perhaps after much sleep and several visits to the loo. It is worth it...
...although I know many may not feel that way by the time the final credits roll. It certainly is not everyone's cup of sake.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Ah, yes...
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.
Please don't tell me you were so disappointed my the V for Vendetta reception that you hung up your reviewin' gloves!
Or did you really not see any movies in April?
Oh, I'll probably get around to reviewing films here again. Life got busy, and I got lazy and perhaps a little disappointed.
We'll see if I can find the energy to start a May list soon!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Well, at least you have the "until it hits DVD" grace period before I disappoint you too.
(actually, I have high hopes)
You make a very good point about the characters in Cache never looking for the cameras--I wondered about that myself. And who else had access to the Algerian man's apartment.
But, about the ending. I need to rewatch the credit sequence at the end, but doesn't a darker man (possibly North African) walk up to the surly pubescent son as he leaves school? Is there an implication that the son knows more? That he may be partly behind everything?
Johnny Waco
The character the son meets at the end is the son of the Algerian man.
On an interview on the DVD, the director admits that the mystery is not meant to have a solution - that the device of the videotape is arbitrary and meant simply to begin the actions observed in the film.
I can appreciate that to a small degree, but again, it still strikes me as a bit lazy, especially since many (better, I'd argue) writers could capture the same observations without resorting to such an unexplained device.
At least part of the suspense of the film is generated not solely because of the characters, but also because of the device. I don't think viewers are simply being stupid Americans to feel cheated when the curtain was thrown back and a little man was working the keys on the typewriter.
Wow, I should delete that last sentence and rewrite it. But I'm not gonna... :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
(PS - In light of all this, I suspect the sons meeting is meant to be an ironic comment on the different relations between people of the two different races for people of different ages, or maybe just a creepy touch.)