tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65821742479752120982024-03-13T07:20:17.971-07:00The Best Movies You've Never Heard OfAn exploration of lesser known films.Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-3703065262700854272010-02-22T09:34:00.000-08:002010-02-22T09:53:10.952-08:00U-Turn (1997)<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/S4LEbo-APtI/AAAAAAAAAG0/0LGo98Yg05c/s1600-h/uturn.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 303px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441127278949973714" border="0" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/S4LEbo-APtI/AAAAAAAAAG0/0LGo98Yg05c/s400/uturn.jpg" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Oliver Stone has made a career out of dramatizing real events and almost never stops just to tell a story. Even <em>Any Given Sunday</em> and <em>Wall Street</em> are meant to expose our cultural institutions. I really enjoy his presidential trilogy (<em>JFK, Nixon, W.</em>), whereas his Vietnam trilogy is a bit hit or miss, with <em>Platoon</em>, a bona fide masterpiece and Best Picture winner, leaving nowhere to go but down in subsequent efforts <em>Born on the 4th of July</em> (it reeks of apple pie and cheese and I find it nearly impossible to watch Tom Cruise in anything but <em>Magnolia</em> these days) and <em>Heaven and Earth </em>(which I remember being painfully dull in my first and only viewing some ten years ago). It's the odd man out films in his oeuvre that I find easiest to love but they also are easy to overlook in context of the other more outspoken cinematic history lessons he's known for delivering. These are the rare character driven films that are just there to tell a solid story without the polarizing impact and creative limitations of the biopic genre. Two such films are 1987's <em>Talk Radio</em> (which I hope to get to some other day) and 1997's <em>U-Turn</em>.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>U-Turn</em> was Stone's next film after the brilliant (and as they say "highly controversial") films <em>Natural Born Killers</em> and <em>Nixon</em>. <em>U-Turn</em>, on a certain level, feels like a film he made to further explore the new visual techniques he had been developing in those two prior films, a sort of thinking man's MTV editing style full of odd angles, filters, saturated colors, varied levels of film grain, etc. You get slightly different performance takes sometimes, or a quick cut to some sort of archival footage, or in this case, the captivating splendor of the Arizona landscape. There were hints of it in <em>JFK</em> and <em>The Doors</em>, <em>Natural Born Killers</em> of course blasted the lid right off and <em>Nixon</em> was an excellent hybrid of his more traditional and wild visions. This style, in the hands of a master, is a magnificent, immersive sensory experience. Stone is a smart collaborator as well, in this case employing the legendary Ennio Morricone (who I'm familiar with mostly for his work on several Brian DePalma films, most famously <em>The Untouchables</em>). The film also boasts one of the most outstanding ensemble casts ever outside of a Robert Altman film.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">“You think bad, and bad is what you’ll get” says Darrell (an amazing turn from a virtually unrecognizable Billy Bob Thornton) to our protagonist Bobby (an especially spot on performance from Mr. Sean Penn). At some point in my third or fourth viewing of the film, those words stood out to me as truly being the central theme of the film. Self-fulfilling prophecy is the game our “hero” is playing and while it’s easy to look at his experiences as a series of bad luck encounters (which on a certain level they are), a keen eye will detect something else going on here, a tale of karmic debts. Sean Penn plays likeable pricks with a singular flair. He's got a true gift for antagonizing people (even when playing someone sympathetic like his Oscar winning turn as Harvey Milk). Here he plays a former tennis pro who is on the run due to a gambling debt which, as we soon learn, has already cost him two fingers and is quickly claiming whatever's left of his ethics and integrity as he spirals out of control down the drain of bad karma and worse luck. This piece would grow ten times longer if I discussed all the actors and actresses and what films of theirs I like, but let me quickly entice you with the following names; Nick Nolte, Powers Boothe, Joaquin Phoenix, Jennifer Lopez, Jon Voight, Claire Danes and especially the aforementioned Billy Bob Thornton. It's a rough crew of shysters to be sure.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">We get a glimpse of how uniquely doomed our hero is within the first 5 minutes when he not only crosses, but actually runs over a black cat and subsequently has his car instantaneously fail him mere seconds after he angrily shouts "fuck you" to a passing cop. There's a school of thought that encourages people to envision their goals and make their dreams come true through the power of positive thinking. The suggestion in this film (going back to that bit of free advice from Darrell the auto mechanic) seems to be that acting the opposite ("thinking bad") can cause the world around you to sling as much mud your way as humanly possible. Penn's character seems to egg on his fate and bring about his own disasters through his prevailing hostility, deception and overall bad manners. As he sits in his damaged car, Bobby quite literally finds himself at a fork in the road, the closest town is the ironically named Superior, Arizona, an off the grid type desert (and deserted) town where Darrell is the first resident we have the displeasure of meeting. I really can't say enough good things about Thornton's hilarious and slightly arch performance (and as an added bonus, fan's of musical group WEEN will recognize the sounds of "Piss Up a Rope" from their country album and have an instant feel for the kind of swarthy but playful mischief we have in store). Penn's prized 1964 1/2 Mustang Convertible has blown a radiator hose...and it will take a while to be ready. Not wanting to spend a moment longer in the company of Darrell, Penn walks into the thriving metropolis of downtown Superior.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Arriving in town, the film takes one of its few missteps as we have our first encounter with the blind prophet, a tired cliché not improved upon by Jon Voight's hammy Native American impersonation. Someone really needs to tell him that cheap accents and an unusual hairpiece do not in and of themselves count as acting (a lesson I would much more kindly suggest to Nicolas Cage as well). Still, the dialogue given to the character and the lessons he espouses are solid enough and Voight's mishandling of the performance does little to detract from the film as a whole. It is an intricately woven tapestry of a particular brand of small town life. The kind of swept under the rug dustbowl communities that feel entirely alien, populated by characters both immediately familiar and simultaneously, highly exaggerated and surreal. There's a kind of live wire manic energy coursing through the film, a constant forward momentum. Our "hero" is plunging headlong into the abyss of his own soul.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Fortunately (in 1997 at least) he has Jennifer Lopez to keep him occupied. She has never again approached being as interesting, sexy and dangerous as she is here in the guise of femme fatale Grace, a well written role with shades of <em>Chinatown</em>'s Evelyn Mulwray. She's the young wife of town real estate mogul Nick Nolte (in full on grizzly bear mode here, aggressively chewing the scenery). She's also the object of lust for everyone who meets her it seems, from the town Sherriff (Powers Boothe) to, of course, Penn himself. If her later work in a slew of B-movies and nauseating pop tunes failed to convince you, there is a reason J. Lo's a star. I mean, I love <em>Money Train</em> as much as the next man but I've never been sold on her acting prowess. I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that it's the director bringing out the best in a performer like when Martin Scorsese guided Sharon Stone to her one and only brilliant turn as Ginger in <em>Casino</em>.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">What I suppose you'd call the main plot begins after Nolte's angry husband bursts in on his wife Grace about to quickly advance from a stranger to a lover with Penn's drifter. After being punched in the face, Penn storms off back toward town but is promptly picked up by his assailant, Nolte, who makes an unsavory proposition. Would Bobby be willing to kill Grace in exchange for the princely sum of $50,000? While she may have pissed him off a bit with all the hot and cold behavior and mind games, Bobby doesn't need the money per se. He's got that and much more in his backpack. Money that's supposed to pay off the gangsters that cut off his fingers, money he quickly loses as Superior, Arizona's town grocery store is robbed at gunpoint, fate intervening and ultimately leaving a pile of bloody shredded money lying on the floor. So, now that he's desperate and has gangsters in hot pursuit can he dig deep enough into his damaged soul to find the murderer that Nolte spotted right away? Or, if Bobby can weasel around just short of murdering people, as double cross after double cross comes down, can he walk away with the money, the girl and his life? Or any combination of the 3 for that matter?<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I've mentioned a surprise or two already but have stopped short of getting near the final act of this film or the many wonderful moments that occur along the way (Joaquin Phoenix as Tobey N. Tucker/TNT is, in these 5 minutes, doing the best work of his career as far as I’m concerned). So go see it will ya? It's a truly rare piece of cinema and one in a short list of films that manages to be a solid, entertaining genre picture on one level and a powerful, spiritual, brain tickler on the other. Grade: A- (knocked down a peg for giving Jon Voight's irritating character 3 or 4 times the screen time of "TNT" who I could frankly watch an entire movie about).</span> </div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-49693551060755419382010-01-11T06:52:00.000-08:002010-01-11T07:47:46.105-08:00The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/S0tHxQQNfiI/AAAAAAAAAGs/UvNWacjIT0g/s1600-h/talented_mr_ripley_ver3.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 271px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 400px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425509087600016930" border="0" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/S0tHxQQNfiI/AAAAAAAAAGs/UvNWacjIT0g/s400/talented_mr_ripley_ver3.jpg" /></a> <div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:14;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="font-size:130%;">So, I'm going to go ahead and sign off on Matt Damon being the real deal. I suppose this is a fairly common opinion anymore, mostly in the years since Jason Bourne came to the silver screen. By all accounts he's a nice guy in real life and he's slowly built up a resume that showcases a true lack of vanity and a depth of emotional and physical range that I believe will have him entertaining audiences for years to come. I've seen him be hilarious in the slightly underrated comedy <em>Stuck On You</em> (which I must note also features an amusing turn from the incredibly underrated Greg Kinnear). I've seen him in his star making turn as the sensitive genius Will Hunting (and his subsequent fight to prove it's success wasn't a fluke...something Ben Affleck is still on trial for in the court of public opinion). I saw him, along with chuckling cohorts Clooney and Pitt, having significantly more fun than the audience in the <em>Oceans</em> films (although the chemistry between this crew is undeniable). I'm not necessarily proud to admit it, but I even remember him from the Brendan Fraser melodrama <em>School Ties</em>. The list goes on to include the universally beloved <em>Bourne Trilogy</em>, <em>Courage Under Fire</em>, little cameos in Kevin Smith films (a larger role in <em>Dogma</em> after he was a marquee name of course), <em>Private Ryan</em>, <em>Rounders</em>, <em>The Rainmaker</em>, <em>Syriana</em> and his recent, outstanding turn in <em>The Departed</em>. My favorite Damon performance of all, the one that keeps getting richer and richer every time, is that of Tom Ripley in 1999's <em>The Talented Mr. Ripley</em> (or as the credits show, <em>The Mysterious Yearning Secretive Sad Lonely Troubled Confused Loving Musical Gifted Intelligent Beautiful Tender Sensitive Haunted Passionate Talented Mr. Ripley</em>, which would have been a better title if it was the least bit practical). <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>The Talented Mr. Ripley</em> was not at all embraced by audiences when it came out. Damon was hot off of <em>Good Will Hunting</em>'s recent box office and Academy Awards success. <em>Saving Private Ryan</em> was a hit but he was only a small (but crucial) part of it's success, <em>Rounders</em> I remember seeing and enjoying and feel like it had a decent critical reception but only lukewarm box office receipts. The late Anthony Minghella was following up his Best Picture and Best Director wins for The English Patient as well. There was every reason in the world for people to flock to see this masterpiece. I suppose it was just one of those typical pop culture moments where people seemed anxious to knock a rising star off his pedestal. Much like my prior featured film <em>The Beach</em>, this is an example of a serious actor trying to shed his pretty boy image as quickly as possible. In Damon's case, he chose to play a closeted homosexual serial killer and all around sociopath and in both cases, it seems their teenage girl fan base was not pleased. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="font-size:130%;">As I mentioned in terms of Damon's performance, <em>Ripley</em> the film also gets richer and reveals more and more detail every time I watch it. It's one of those rare films where seeing it the second, third and fourth time, with the knowledge you now have of the character, reveals the numerous wonderful details threaded through Damon's brilliant performance. It reminds me of how much more exciting Kevin Spacey's performance is with each subsequent viewing of <em>The Usual Suspects</em>. We meet Tom Ripley as he is impersonating a piano player (the fact that he's impersonating someone else is a blink and you'll miss it kind of revelation that hints at a pattern in Ripley's life before the events of the film). He strikes up a conversation with Herbert Greenleaf (one of my favorite character actor's, Mr. James Rebhorn who I believe I mentioned in my <em>Cat's Eye</em> write-up from his appearance in the James Woods section and who you may remember as the "actor" Sean Penn's character kidnaps and uses to get into the secret headquarters in <em>The Game</em> or as Dr. Larry, DeNiro's friend in <em>Meet The Parents</em> who first appears in the breakfast scene when Stiller wakes up late). Greenleaf ends up hiring Tom for an unusual assignment. He wants him to go to Italy and convince his free spirited, jazz loving son Dickie to come back home. Ripley starts studying up on jazz records and makes his way overseas where he "runs into Dickie" on a beach and claims to know him from Yale. Dickie, as played by Jude Law is an incredibly magnetic, dynamic and charming young man. You can see why people are so drawn to his charisma, his good looks and his talent. Yet he too has his demons including being perhaps too careless with the fragile hearts of the many who depend on him for love and fulfillment. Jude Law has been on my radar ever since this dynamic performance and I've enjoyed him in <em>Existenz</em>, <em>I Heart Huckabee's</em>, <em>The Aviator</em> and another future blog entry <em>Road To Perdition</em>. I've heard nothing but great things about his work as Watson in the new <em>Sherlock Holmes</em> film as well. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="font-size:130%;">The other main character in this love triangle (or perhaps quintangle when all is said and done) is Dickie's girlfriend Marge, who is inhabited by an especially wonderful and compelling Gwyneth Paltrow. Anthony Minghella must have enjoyed my prior blog entry <em>Hard Eight</em> as Paltrow is one of 3 performers, along with Philip Baker Hall and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who appear in both films. As long as we're gushing here, I will add that this is one of my favorite Philip Seymour Hoffman performances as well. As Dickie's fellow spoiled, millionaire, globe trotting 1950's playboy friend Freddy Miles, he shreds the scenery with his razor sharp shots at Tom, who he immediately sees right through and despises. Tom, you see, while failing Dickie's father, manages to insert himself very quickly into Dickie's life as a sort of live-in man servant and "best friend". But, as Marge explains to Tom later in the film, Dickie can make you feel like the center of the universe, like the sun is shining just for you and then leave you freezing in the cold when he takes that sunshine away. Much like DeNiro's Rupert Pupkin character in Scorsese's criminally underrated <em>King of Comedy</em> (a guaranteed future blog entry), Ripley genuinely loves and admires Dickie and desperately wants that respect and admiration in return, while simultaneously feeling entitled to have the things Dickie has and to be embraced by people the way Dickie is (and to occasionally prance around in Dickie's clothes and slippers when no one's looking). However, you can also see, in both Pupkin and Ripley, a sort of deep hatred of these men they have placed up on a pedestal (and both ultimately resort to violent acts as well). <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="font-size:130%;">The film really gets moving as a tension fueled nightmare as Dickie starts seeing cracks in the surface of this new relationship and unleashes verbal abuses on an increasingly clingy and pathetic Tom who, in the film's most gut wrenching sequence, violently murders Dickie, spends the night cuddling with the dead body and then goes on to begin impersonating Dickie around town. An act which helps him evade the law, helps him live the life he always wanted and helps him deal with the grief of losing his object of obsession by acting (and in a way believing) as if he is still alive. As I mentioned in my <em>Blood Simple</em> piece, I love getting swept up in the nerve jangling ride of a character's tangled web of lies. I feel feelings of pity and sympathy for Ripley at times and, just as often, I feel disgusted, absolutely revolted by his sick desperation and annoying third wheel persona. Watching Damon switch between the weak, emotionally crippled Tom and the suave, in charge Dickie Greenleaf is truly impressive. His face and body seeming to inflate or shrink as he flips the switch between the two. I don't want to spoil how the events unfold except to say that the film will haunt you with it's simultaneously bleak and deeply heartfelt emotional power. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="font-size:130%;">So, we have a <em>Single White Female</em> style obsession thriller, a <em>Crime and Punishment</em> style, guilt ridden cat and mouse with the investigating officers and an <em>American Psycho</em> style high society serial killer all rolled up into one. Take the sneaky and charming double agent Damon played in <em>The Departed</em> and subtract the Jason Bourne badass and you've got Tom Ripley (<em>American Psycho</em>'s Patrick Bateman minus <em>Wall Street</em>'s Gordon Gecko also feels like a good equation). In all seriousness though, there's just so much to love about this film. The 1950's Italy setting is lively and vibrant and the costumes and sets allow you to step into a fully realized environment. My friend Aaron made a comment that it's one of those movie's that he gets sucked into anytime he catches a little bit on TV. I feel the same, it pulls you in and doesn't let up throughout a tightly orchestrated series of twists and turns. You know a film has to be good when it takes me this long to even mention the supporting work from Cate Blanchett, one of my top 2 or 3 favorite actresses of all time. She's sensitive and desperate and in love with the Dickie Greenlead version of Tom. I was also pleasantly surprised to realize that the sweet, tragic character of Peter Smith-Kingsley was portrayed by none other than Jack Davenport who I spent several hours with during the short-lived <em>Wonder Years</em> meets <em>Boogie Nights</em> TV drama <em>Swingtown</em> (a show I'd never seen before my previous viewings of <em>Ripley</em>). <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';font-size:130%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="font-size:130%;">So, if you, like me have caught enough Matt Damon roles to decide that he's the real deal, you would be doing yourself a true disservice to not have this film in your collection (or at the very least at the top of your Netflix que). I give The Talented Mr. Ripley an A+!<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-1857207801164461392009-12-14T06:12:00.000-08:002009-12-15T13:39:55.053-08:00Brazil (1985)<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SyZaOSGv76I/AAAAAAAAAGc/qteVl7yty5A/s1600-h/Brazil.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415114803384414114" style="WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 290px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SyZaOSGv76I/AAAAAAAAAGc/qteVl7yty5A/s400/Brazil.jpg" border="0" /></a> <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SyZaOs9Y15I/AAAAAAAAAGk/kOMsdynzFTM/s1600-h/brazil48.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415114810592909202" style="WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 261px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SyZaOs9Y15I/AAAAAAAAAGk/kOMsdynzFTM/s400/brazil48.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div><br /><div><div><div><div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Is it coincidence or fate that Terry Gilliam's brilliant, tragicomic, anti-utopian vision of the future was filmed in the iconic year of 1984? Gilliam's film, like Orwell's book before it, is a nightmare fairy tale, decades ahead of its time, about the epic struggle of the dreamer in the modern cookie-cutter age. It's a search for love and humanity in a world of paperwork, office drones and the utter sameness of it all. Terry Gilliam has amassed an amazing body of work (<em>Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas, 12 Monkey's, The Fisher King</em> and the recent outstanding and misunderstood <em>Tideland</em> amongst others). I don't hesitate for a moment to call <em>Brazil </em>my favorite of them all, and I'm sure it would be in the top 5 somewhere if I ever made an all time favorites list.<br /></span></div><div><br /></div></div><div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So, where we once had "Big Brother" and the Ministry of Truth, we have The Ministry of Information. Where we once had Winston Smith, we have Sam Lowry. Where we once had Julia we have Jill. The similarities between the novel 1984 and the film <em>Brazil</em> don't end there, but I won't spoil the plot twists of either magnificent work. <em>Brazil</em>, with the gift of hindsight, can also be seen as the story of Terry Gilliam's film career. He's an insanely creative and talented visual artist and storyteller (a dreamer if you will) cursed by his opposing forces. He’s cursed by his own stubborn belligerence, the inevitable soulless corporate suit or two and forces of nature so god-like and personal that you can't blame him for laughing maniacally at the cosmic irony of it all. And thank god that's his reaction! A ratio of 90% humor to 10% despair within our hearts is something many of us can only aspire to. He was, of course, most recently impacted by the tragic demise of his leading man Heath Ledger while filming the upcoming <em>Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus</em>, there's the well documented failures to make his Don Quixote film (as chronicled in the amazing documentary <em>Lost in La Mancha</em>), the disastrous trials and tribulations surrounding <em>Baron Munchausen</em> and of course "The Battle of Brazil" (this is the name of the feature length documentary on the Criterion version of the film which details the epic battle Gilliam fought, and thankfully won, against Universal who tried to remove him from the project and release a more happy upbeat version of the film with about 45-50 minutes cut out of it...I've seen this version and it's <em>Brazil</em> minus the balls).<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></div></div><div><div><br />Back to the film though, a series of short sequences open the film and introduce the future world in question. We open on a display window populated with "modern" television screens and reflections of neon which block the view of the golden Christmas tree's stuffed in the corners. We are watching a commercial from Central Services for fancy new air ducts for the home (a visual motif throughout the film, symbolic of the endless consumer quest for things we don't really need). An explosion violently shatters the facade and the neon title card for <em>Brazil</em> illuminates the screen. One of the TV's is still broadcasting, a talk program that is being watched simultaneously by a man in his office. A buzzing fly upsets the man and we watch as he comically navigates the claustrophobic office trying to swat the insect. He successfully squashes the little pest who falls into a machine. The machine is spitting out arrest warrants (as we soon find out) and this simple, ever so human error causes a typo wherein a warrant is created for Archibald Buttle instead of Archibald Tuttle. This seemingly insignificant moment comes and goes in about 60 seconds, but its consequences are severe and immediate.<br /></div></span><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />We watch as an idyllic family evening at the Buttle household is shattered by a dozen or so machine gun carrying police officers in full swat gear who come smashing through the doors, the ceiling and the windows and stuff the unfortunate Mr. Buttle into a creepy burlap sack. As a pompous official of some sort calmly and impersonally explains, Buttle "has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries". The official has the shell shocked wife sign a receipt for her husband and keeps the carbon copy as "my receipt for your receipt." This scene also introduces Jill, who lives above the Buttle's and watches the terrifying events unfolding through the freshly created hole in her floor/the Buttle's ceiling. Jill insists that a mistake has been made and there's a nice bit of irony here as two Department of Works employees (there to promptly fix the hole) laugh and reply that "we don't make mistakes" as the replacement piece they brought goes crashing down into the apartment below (measured incorrectly it seems) and they can only shake their heads and say "typical".<br /></span></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I mentioned my love of complex tracking shots in my <em>Rules of Attraction</em> piece. The two back to back shots that introduce our hero's office are not as long as the one's I discussed previously, but they are incredibly busy with people moving in and out of the shot from all directions, like so many worker bees. We meet Sam's boss, Mr Kurtzman (the always delightful Ian Holm who modern audiences will recognize most as Bilbo Baggins from the <em>Lord of the Rings</em> series, or the prior generation may remember him as Ash, the evil robot of the first <em>Alien</em> film). Kurtzman has a problem with his computer and needs his best man to fix it. His repeated shouts for the absent Sam Lowry finally bring us to our protagonist, who has overslept (Sam is played by the splendid Jonathan Pryce, who has livened the proceedings of a great many films, from <em>Glengary Glenross</em> to the <em>Pirates of the Caribbean</em> trilogy where he played Keira Knightley's father). More specifically, we first meet his idealized dream self, who soars through blue skies in a shiny metal suit with wings, both beautiful and splendidly cheap and homemade looking (I've seen the term "retro-futuristic" thrown around to describe the look of the sets and costumes). He hears the sound of a woman's voice calling his name in the distance and flies toward the beckoning call. He briefly kisses his angelic dream girl, gracefully weaving in and out of the fluffy white clouds, before a dreadful alarm noise rouses him back to the world of mechanical and personal failures he has grown accustomed to. This is, you see, a future where nothing works properly (while proudly insisting that it does).<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />As Sam arrives at the office we see a statue in the lobby the closely resembles his winged dream self. It is all too clear that, as he passes this each day, he dreams of taking flight beyond the confines of a dullard's existence, away from the all too common assembly line feeling of the grown-up world. I love all the Ministry of Information advertisements that show up here and throughout the film. They feel like the kind of creepy, satirical messages that we would see some 5 years later when Rowdy Roddy Piper puts the glasses on in John Carpenter's <em>They Live</em> (a guaranteed future blog entry). "Be Safe, Be Suspicious" they proclaim, "Suspicion Breeds Confidence" and "Information is the Road To Prosperity".<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />Jill is arriving at the office at the same time as Sam, being endlessly spun from one department to the next while trying to file a false arrest report on behalf of her neighbors, the Buttle's (anyone who's ever visited the BMV or a city courthouse will relate). We also meet Sam's old friend Jack (fellow <em>Monty Python</em> alum Michael Palin, who adds a wonderful bit of warmth that turns into a deeply sinister edge of malice as the film progresses) who chides Sam for not moving up through the ranks at the speed he should (a theme endlessly repeated by his mother and the owner of the company throughout the film). Sam briefly see's Jill's face on one of the numerous security monitors and recognizes it as the face of his dream woman. He looks around but she's already gone...<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />The Buttle's are the crisis of the day for Kurtzman as well, it seems. He is terrified to his core of making a mistake or attaching his name to any sort of official document in a world where paperwork is King (and he should be...VERY afraid). You see the Buttle/Tuttle discrepancy has shown up and we learn a few scenes later that Mr. Buttle has already been killed. Kurtzman takes the heat off himself by dispatching Sam to issue a refund check to Mrs. Buttle (the system's cold way of apologizing for the mistaken arrest and subsequent torture and death of the Buttle patriarch). It's an ugly terrifying regime that fancies itself a utopia, full of dazzling technological distractions and outright lies. This society has managed to use the language of corporate double speak as a replacement for the principles of the constitution, let alone basic human decency and morality. As much as Sam instinctually rails against this system, it is still all he knows in many respects and accordingly, he is surprised by Mrs. Buttle's lack of gratitude (she shouts "what have you done with his body" at him until he runs away). Sam spots Jill again and chases after her but is again, too late.<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />The movie from here starts merging the dream world and real world stories with increasing frequency. The obstacles, within the concrete jungle which has sprouted up in Sam's increasingly dark dream world, echo the real and metaphorical walls that are closing in around him in reality. There's a shocking revelation when Sam unmasks his dream foe and sees himself inside. Like Luke Skywalker in the Dark Side cave, Sam is battling his own lesser impulses as much as he is fighting the very real outside threats.<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />We also meet Public Enemy #1, Archibald "Harry" Tuttle, who, it turns out, is nothing more than a renegade heating engineer (a wonderfully wacky turn by a mustached Robert De Niro, you'll barely recognize him!). Tuttle is so bothered by the endless forms and bureaucracy of Central Services that he lives like Jason Bourne just to be able to practice his trade. As he's quickly and efficiently fixing a mechanical problem at Sam's house, a knock on the door brings us to the incompetent government counterpoints Dowser (I don't recognize this actor) and Spoor (Bob Hoskins in a brief but memorable cameo) who are responding to the original service call and are only stopped from entering Sam's apartment by his quick thinking request for a 27B-6 form (the mere mention of which causes a small seizure in Dowser who obviously has the same paperwork issues as Tuttle, without the courage to break out of the cage). I don't want to spoil the way this sub-plot plays itself out, but it leads to what may be the only real victory over "the man" in the whole film.<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />Sam finally accepts a promotion at work so that he can have the increased security clearance needed to find out who his dream girl really is. This leads him through a series of misadventures until he finds himself partnered with a very confused, hostile and reluctant Jill as a pair of fugitives on the run. Gilliam manipulates us brilliantly as we allow ourselves to be swept up in the adventure and the hopes and dreams of our hero's futile quest. A component in this manipulation is the highly effective musical cues which are just variations on the famous Ary Barroso song "Brazil" (which is itself used briefly at the beginning of the film and once while Sam is in his car driving to the Buttle's). The same catchy melody works as a love scene, ominous looming score, action music, etc. Lyrically, the song echo's the sentiment of our lead, a dreamer longing for escape to a better place. This song has resonated within my own mind for years as has Tuttle's simple eloquent mantra that "we're all in it together". Sam sadly doesn't realize quickly enough that he's fighting the business suit wearing equivalent of <em>Star Trek</em>'s chilling villain's "The Borg". Will Sam and Jill's blossoming love indeed conquer all? Will good triumph over evil? "Resistance is futile" my friends...or is it??<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />The film is consistently hilarious though as well. Terry Gilliam deeply understands the dry humor and wordplay games of the Brit's (as I alluded to earlier, he is an alum of <em>Monty Python</em>) but is himself an American, with the birth rite of fear and paranoia that comes with it. The impact of this story comes with the realization that the over the top, surreal, exaggerated society we're being shown is a shockingly poignant reflection of our own. There are a couple small details in an early restaurant scene that I particularly enjoy. The first is the waiter's use of numbers for items on the menu. He walks to each patron and whispers conspiratorially that "today Madame, I suggest the #1", while advising the next that "between you and I Monsieur the #11 is especially fresh". I don't know for sure, but I don't think they were doing this in real restaurants back in 1984 but it's the norm in 2009. The waiter even gets furious with Sam when he refuses to use the number instead of the actual name of the meal he wants. I clearly recall a surreal "life imitates art" moment at a Wendy's drive thru where my request for the Big Bacon Classic combo was met with a long silence and eventual reply of "Do you mean the #4 sir?". Oh yes, I apologize you fucking robot, I meant the #4, I know you're absolutely lost without knowing which button to push. The same restaurant scene, when interrupted by yet another explosion, jumps to a soot covered orchestra who collect themselves and continue playing as burn victims and first responders run around in a panic. Whether Gilliam intended this specific reference or not, the moment makes me think of the famous story about the musicians on the Titanic who graciously played on while the ship sank. That moment is kind of touching in the Titanic story but in this context it makes me laugh and think "I guess the upper crust always reacts the same to crisis and tragedy...by pretending it doesn't exist".<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />You see, George Orwell felt this kind of trouble brewing in our society back in the 1940's, Gilliam felt it still in the 80's and 25 years later it's all continued to come true. It stings to see a world where government misinformation has us fearing our friends and neighbors as potential terrorists. It stings to see humanity stamped out by lust for status. It stings to see leadership that would kill and torture just to bury a mistake, rather than admit a mistake had been made. While I still feel a sense of optimism in the age of Obama, it's too early to say whether we've stopped the cultural degeneracy or if we've merely given ourselves a better actor to sell it to us. My own inner winged dreamer hopes it's the former, but it's disturbing that this was such a real and present issue for Terry Gilliam when I was barely born into this world and so vividly true of our country and culture some 27 years later. It's troubling that these thoughts, feelings, disappointments and fears are not unique to one time and place. They are, it would seem, ingrained in the way society has developed, ingrained in how people choose to relate to each other and the tragic impulse, within the majority, to follow society's unwritten handbook on how to live.<br /></span></div><div></div><div></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><div><br />What it also tells me is that the rebellious spirit that cries against the dying of the light is still with us and always will be! Here we are days away from 2010 and the dreamer has refused to die, I see it reflected in artists like Gilliam, David Lynch, David Cronenberg, Wes Anderson, the Coen Brothers, musically with the Mars Volta or Tool or the many faces of Mike Patton. There are artists and regular Joe's worldwide, clinging to the dream. It makes me think of the dreadful cliché of what "kids these days" are like and how much better it always seems to have been "when I was growing up". One could argue that the world has gotten more dangerous perhaps and the creeps have more tools at their disposal, but the bugs have always been under the lush green lawn, the tree has always oozed sap and every town has a Lincoln Street. But we'll save that story for another day...<br /><br />Grade: A++</span></div></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-39655778814534340952009-12-05T16:40:00.000-08:002009-12-07T07:28:58.643-08:00The Rules of Attraction (2002)<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SxsAJcLd8MI/AAAAAAAAAFc/G6iYEHFUMz8/s1600-h/rules_of_attraction_ver2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5411919539398897858" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 270px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SxsAJcLd8MI/AAAAAAAAAFc/G6iYEHFUMz8/s400/rules_of_attraction_ver2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Somebody needs to cut Roger Avary a fat check to write and direct his next feature film. While he has not succesfully made as many films, he's right along side Terry Gilliam and David Lynch, specifically in the "filmakers who desperately need (and deserve) a wealthy sponsor" category. I also feel he's every bit as talented and has as singular a voice as his generational contemporaries David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky.He has thus far had only two theatrically released films as an auteur (he has written or co-written scripts for <em>Silent Hill</em> and <em>Beowulf</em> but obviously hasn't earned enough to finance his own new film). The first was 1994's <em>Killing Zoe</em>, which came about between <em>Reservoir Dogs</em> and <em>Pulp Fiction</em> when Tarantino's long time producer Lawrence Bender had access to a cheap bank location and asked his friend Avary if he had a script they could use to film something fast and cheap. Roger took a script he had been writing about his travels throughout Europe (he drew upon these experiences again for the amazing "Victor" section of <em>Rules of Attraction</em> which has also been shown as a stand alone short film called "Glitterati") and incorporated a bank robbery in Paris. The resulting film was very well received on the festival circuit (including the Prix Tres Special award at Cannes the exact same year <em>Pulp Fiction</em> won the Palm d'Oor). I will stop this from becoming even longer by saving an in depth look at <em>Killing Zoe</em> for another day but it is an outstanding and thoroughly bizarre heist film.</span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So yeah, I got hip to Roger Avary some 14 years ago through his work with Tarantino. They were old friends from Tarantino's video store clerk days and partnered up on several scripts (including the Tarantino scripted/Tony Scott directed <em>True Romance</em> and Tarantino scripted/Oliver Stone directed <em>Natural Born Killers</em> which both featured key re-writes from Avery). Ultimately, a script Avery was writing for a full length feature film, along with several unused scenes he had written for the <em>True Romance</em> script became a large chunk of <em>Pulp Fiction</em> (The Gold Watch section in particular and some key moments like the "divine intervention" scenes that had bullets miraculously missing Jules and Vincent and the accidental shooting of Marvin) for which he shared 1994's Best Original Screenplay Academy Award with QT. After <em>Killing Zoe</em>, it would not be until 2002 that he would get to helm another passion project, an adaptation of his artistic "soul mate" Brett Easton Ellis' novel, "The Rules of Attraction". I had read and loved the book years earlier. Ellis, the author of <em>Less Than Zero, The Informers</em> and most famously <em>American Psycho</em> (all made into movies with varying degrees of success) takes an extremely nihilistic view of the world and somehow manages to infuse it with enough sincere heart and longing to get through to good natured but damaged souls like you and me. </span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Rules of Attraction</em> is a very emotionally complex film. On the surface though, it's a dark comedy, it is a college sex film of sorts and it is full of self centered, entitled, rich white kids with problems. In short, not an easy topic to make a weighty film from. Avery tackles the material though with verbal flair, extreme visual cleverness and absolutely brilliant soundtrack choices. None of the characters here are entirely sympathetic. Sweet and sincere Paul Denton is arguably the most human of the bunch. Paul (as played by Ian Somerhalder who many of you will recognize as the deceased Boone character from the early seasons of <em>LOST</em>) along with Sean Bateman (an excellent demented turn from James Van Der Beek, obviously desperate to shed his teen idol image and be taken seriously) and Lauren (Shannyn Sossamon), a dark beauty who has been tragically underused in dreck like <em>One Missed Call</em> and <em>40 Days and 40 Nights</em>) form the central character trifecta that gives the film it's momentum. </span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We meet Lauren first, at the first of several crucial party scenes (including one in the middle of the film which features what appears to be an exact replica of the burning Wicker Man from the 70's film of the same name, itself a wonderfully demented, funny and wholly original take on the battle of the sexes). <em>Rules of Attraction</em> is bookended by this winter season "End of the World" party. The movie puts you off within the first 5 minutes as we watch this sad young lady emerging from a passed out drunken stupor and realizing that she's being filmed by a semi-acquaintance while being sodomized by a complete stranger, neither of whom realize she's losing her carefully guarded virginity. The gentleman pumping away pukes on her back (classy!) before the film starts literally rolling backwards, rewinding the story along with it. Avery's camera moves, in the first of many complex and brilliant tracking shots, down the hallway and down the stairs to introduce us to the demonic looking Sean (Van Der Beek) who swigs from a bottle of Jack Daniels and scans the crowd like a vulture looking for the evenings plaything. Bateman is established immediately as an emotionally vacant young man and a compulsive liar (it's no coincidence as we learn in a few subtle moments that he's the brother of Patrick Bateman, the inhuman sadist and Huey Lewis superfan from Ellis's <em>American Psycho</em>). We finally circle back (through another time warp reverse sequence) to Paul, who is in love with Sean. We then rewind much further, over several months and seasons, to the beginning of the school year. </span></div><br /><div></div><div></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">In addition to the numerous examples of deliberate emotional manipulation and callous abuse that these characters inflict on each other, there are also many cases of mistaken identity and misunderstood "signals". The crucial one involves the sending of perfume laden love letters that Sean Bateman receives daily and which inspire him, for the first time it seems, to seek out a loving relationship instead of the debaucherous excesses that have numbed him to the point where sex is not even physically enjoyable anymore. These characters, for all their faults, truly put their hearts on the line with devastating results. As painful as the painful moments are though, this film has light and love and humor throughout as well. It is a brilliant satire (big surprise from the writer of <em>American Psycho</em> who again uses the decadent 1980's as the backdrop with which he weaves his yarn) and I also feel like there are probably some deeper themes that I haven't quite wrapped my head around yet. This film affects me very strongly on an emotional level of course but I feel like intellectually, there may be things going on that I haven't picked up on and interpreted as the filmaker and writer intended. That's okay though, great art, in my experience is subjective to the viewer. Everything is meaningless and yet so stuffed with passion. Everyone is cynical and yet wear their hearts on their sleeves. </span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I want to make special mention of a moment where cinematic technique and dynamic interpersonal chemistry meet. I've long admired the complicated tracking shots of Orson Welles (Touch of Evil), Martin Scorsese (<em>Goodfellas</em> famous Copa Cabana entrance amongst others), Robert Altman (the Welles referencing opening minutes of <em>The Player</em>) and of course Brian DePalma (who loves tracking shots almost as much as the split screen including the amazing sequence in <em>Raising Cain</em> where we follow two police detectives out of an office, down a hall, into an elevator, ouf the elevator, down a series of halls and into a morgue). The one in <em>Rules of Attraction</em> is easily my favorite of any of them. It starts as a split screen sequence that follows Van Der Beek and Sossaman in two seperate tracking shots as they get moving early on a Saturday morning, each navigating the beautiful sun drenched campus, Sossaman even stops to smoke a joint with her lecherous professor (an excellent cameo from Eric Stoltz who partnered with Avery as the lead in <em>Killing Zoe</em> and memorably played the heroin dealer in <em>Pulp Fiction</em>, a sequence Tarantino reportedly wrote for Stoltz based on his heroin fueled sequences in <em>Zoe</em>). We hear Sossamon tell her roomate that she's going to class but we don't know where Van Der Beek's headed, until each character suddenly appears in the others split screen in close up. We watch both faces as they meet cute, flirt and put butterflies in your stomach with the prospect of sweet young love. The camera pulls back and pivots until the shots join together as one and we observe them, in profile staring at each other. I mentioned a moment like this in my <em>Sydney/Hard Eight</em> write-up and mentioned in that same piece how well Paul Thomas Anderson had captured that falling in love magic in Punch Drunk Love; this is one of those moments as well. It's a bright ray of sunshine in a tragic story and the technically stunning aspects of it are dwarfed by the potency of its emotional impact. Ripe with visual metaphor, these two lonely souls connect...for a moment anyway.<br /></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Eric Stoltz' Irish professor is just one part of the eccentric tapestry of character actors who are familiar to us; Thomas Ian Nichols from <em>American Pie</em>, Clifton Collins Jr. (a bit over the top here as a wild eyed drug dealer seemingly inserted for comic relief, he has done great work in films like <em>Capote </em>where he played the vulnerable and psychotic Perry Smith and delightfully obnoxious work in a little B-movie classic from my high school days called <em>The Stoned Age</em>), we get Faye Dunaway as Paul's mom and Swoosie Kurtz (<em>Citizen Ruth</em> and <em>Cruel Intentions</em> among many others) as Mrs. Jared, the mother of young Richard, who has a brief energetic, George Michael and booze fueled tryst with Paul. We even get an almost unrecognizeable Fred Savage, strung out in a pair of boxer shorts, shooting drugs into his toes and playing the clarinet while a lit cigarette sticks out of his belly button. <em>The Wonder Years</em> indeed Mr. Savage! </span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I don't reaelly want to give away the plot twists in the movie but I can tell you that it is far from formulaic. Like <em>The Shape of Things</em>, I feel like this film missed it's audience because of it's marketing strategy. It was sold in 30 second TV spots as a college movie comedy (I was VERY distrubed to actually find it recently listed in the "Top 25 college comedies of all time") with the hearthrob from <em>Dawson's Creek</em> and young starlets Kate Bosworth and Jesica Biel. So, the people who did go to see it were probably horrified at the raw nerve vulnerability and pain at it's core or just didn't get it or are so much like these characters that they somehow viewed this film as a college comedy on par with <em>Old School</em> or <em>PCU</em>. I will also tell you that I can never hear the already tragic "I Can't Live (If Living Is Without You)" song without thinking about the saddest moment in the movie (in almost any movie for that matter). </span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Things don't end well for anyone involved except for you the viewer, who, if you can stomach the movie, will walk away profoundly impacted by what you've just seen. Again, I can't stress enough how much I love this film and think it's an absolute masterpiece but I'd also be irresponsible to not tell you that it packs a punch. Much like Arronofsky's magnificent <em>Requiem for a Dream</em> or my previous spotlight film <em>Elephant</em>, <em>The Rules of Attraction</em> will cut through the fog and break your heart because of how effectively the elements of performance, music, writing and directing gel together. <em>Rules of Attraction</em> gets an A+ from me and I hope that the coming decade yields at least one more new vision from the tragically underutilized genius Roger Avary. </span></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-46566407666648007122009-12-03T14:24:00.001-08:002009-12-03T14:34:49.912-08:00Cat's Eye (1985)<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Sxg6xAOAfII/AAAAAAAAAFU/HkpK-ivz13c/s1600-h/catseye.jpg"><span style="font-size:130%;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5411139565832404098" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 206px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Sxg6xAOAfII/AAAAAAAAAFU/HkpK-ivz13c/s320/catseye.jpg" border="0" /></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">Stephen King is a writer I really enjoy, arguably more for his novels than his screenplays. I’ve read only a handful but I find his style very engaging and he really knows how to keep the pages turning. I’m quite certain he’s had more film adaptations of his work than any other writer in history (with the possible exception of Shakespeare). The films are, in my experience, extremely hit or miss. <em>The Shining</em> and <em>Carrie</em> are my two favorite’s (although King apparently was so dissatisfied with that hack Stanley Kubrick’s take on his book that he decided to remake it with Steven Weber from <em>Wings</em> in the Nicholson role…needless to say it was the wrong call). <em>Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye</em> is one of a few anthology films he’s been involved in. It was his second one after the splendid original <em>Creepshow</em> film (which had the legendary George A Romero behind the camera instead of <em>Cat’s Eye</em>’s Lewis Teague who’s biggest claim to fame was another King adaptation, <em>Cujo</em>) and he later went on to write <em>Creepshow 2</em> and apparently is at work on a <em>Creepshow 4</em> as we speak. I believe it was his "Night Shift" short story collection that featured the first two of the 3 episodes in <em>Cat’s Eye</em> and the third he wrote especially for the young Drew Barrymore who he had just met through her work on 1984’s <em>Firestarter</em> (another King story if you weren’t aware). I’m actually reading one of his short story compilations at home right now that features <em>The Langoliers</em> (AWFUL movie, but I’m enjoying the story so far), <em>Secret Window</em> (GREAT movie, haven’t seen how the story compares yet) and two others (<em>Sun Dog</em> and <em>The Library Policeman</em>) that, as far as I know remain un-filmed. </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The basic premise here in <em>Cat's Eye</em> is that these three stories are all connected by a stray cat which often plays a crucial role within the story itself and also serves to transition from one to the next. The stories are also similar in terms of a solid blend of comedy and horror elements (true of most of King’s work in my opinion). </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The most compelling reason to see <em>Cat’s Eye</em> is the first of its three chapters, "Quitters Inc." We have James Woods in all his sleazy, smirking glory as a loving husband and father who goes to meet with a special smoking cessation company to try to kick the habit. He meets with a “doctor” named Vinny Donatti (the delightful Alan King who I mostly know from his dramatic turn in <em>Casino</em> but who apparently was also a famous comic once upon a time). Donatti explains that he has the ultimate program to stop smoking for good. He explains that he will have his people watching all the time, in his car, in his home, at his job, EVERYWHERE and that if they catch him, they will kidnap and torture his wife with progressing levels of punishment (cutting off fingers, electrocution, etc.) and that if that fails to work, his daughter will be next. There’s a very funny moment where he meets with another couple who “successfully” completed the program and we see the wife’s bandaged hand to demonstrate that Dr. Donatti is serious about it. I love this story first and foremost because I have had an ongoing battle with cigarette addiction for over 10 years now and I can relate. While they were too cheap to pay for the real song, I also love the ironic use of the Police classic “Every Breath You Take” during a hallucination sequence at the party (which prominently features memorable character actor James Rebhorn who has stood out in <em>The Game, Meet The Parents</em> and many others). I also want to mention how funny James Woods is throughout the piece, taking his energetic bundle of nerves persona a little over the top as he fights his cravings and tries to hide from Donatti’s spies and enforcers. </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Each of the stories is roughly 30 minutes long. The second portion, “The Ledge” maintains the bizarre comedic thriller tone of the first and centers on a tennis pro, in love with a married woman, who gets caught by the rich, powerful husband of the woman he’s been snogging on the sly. The basic set up is that the husband is a degenerate gambler/mobster type who has decided to handle his wife’s indiscretions by presenting a wager to the young stud; if he can walk around the ledge of a building without falling off he can have “the girl, the watch and everything” (a sly comment which functions within the story but is also aimed at the actor playing the tennis pro…but we’ll get back to that). Both the leads in this section are actors that had very memorable roles in other movies, but really haven’t been in much else. Granted, I recently noticed that Kenneth McMillan (who plays the bad guy husband) has a small role in <em>Amadeus</em> but I have seen him 50+ times since I was a kid as the dreaded Baron Vladimir Harkonnen in <em>Dune</em> (a film that is a bona fide classic in the Pritchard household and will definitely get a spotlight treatment here in the blog one of these days). Robert Hays (who appears as the tennis pro in question) most people would recognize immediately as Captain Ted Striker from the <em>Airplane</em> films. While it’s a bit jarring to watch Hays play a serious role (much Like Leslie Nielsen’s chilling turn in the aforementioned <em>Creepshow</em>) and this one is certainly the most genuinely creepy and suspenseful of the three, it’s still a breezy and enjoyable 30 minute short. </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">These first two sections are, as I mentioned earlier, originally short stories from King and as much as I love them both, I could see how the basic conflicts of each (overcoming addiction and overcoming fear) would be well suited to the internal dialogue that fiction writing lets breathe in a way that films can’t. It is ironic then that the one part written expressly for the film is my least favorite of the three. Don’t get me wrong, “The General” is a good closer for the film and isn’t at all bad. But if I saw the first two out of context, I’d still want to revisit them over and over, “The General” I just sort of sit through because I’m already there. The cat takes a more prominent role in this one as he is adopted by precocious youngster Drew Barrymore and her family. What the family doesn’t realize is that they already have someone (or something) living in their house, a vicious creature who lives in the walls and looks like a hybrid between a Keebler Elf and the Jigsaw mask from the <em>Saw</em> films. While he is a sharp dresser and has an even sharper little knife, the real danger comes when he stands on your chest and steals your breath!! Fortunately, the cat (lovingly named “The General” by Barrymore’s little girl) is there to save the child from peril. The parents, who are already reluctant to let the cat sleep in their daughter’s room, find the messy aftermath of the first cat/troll battle and decide to banish The General to the outdoors. Will the cat be able to save the little girl in time? Will we get to hear that cheesy cover band version of “Every Breath You Take” again?? The answer to both, of course, is yes. The song’s ironic repetition of “I’ll be watching you” in context with the cigarette Gestapo tactics was clever and for this portion I suppose the “Every Breath You Take” lines are used to playfully acknowledge the breath stealing mischief. I don’t remember if they managed to work this song into the middle portion but it seems to follow that darn cat everywhere! </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">In terms of the balance between humor and horror, I want to be clear that while there are definitely very funny parts, this is not a gore filled horror film by any means, each sequence feels more like a <em>Twilight Zone</em> episode (high concept and suspenseful) while being infinitely better than that dreadful <em>Twilight Zone: The Movie</em> anthology (and without accidentally decapitating any of the child or adult actors like John Landis did…note to Hollywood: if you’re going to plow ahead and still release a movie that cost two children and a movie star their lives, it should not be a total turd, in fact it really ought to be exceptionally good…hey get back here <em>The Crow</em>, this applies to you too… and don’t think you’re getting away unscathed <em>Vampire In Brooklyn</em>!!). I just wanted to point out that this movie has some extra bits of fun for Stephen King fans and one little inside joke for all the Robert Hays fans out there. James Woods, during his sequence is shown watching the David Cronenberg film version of King’s book <em>The Dead Zone</em> (another future blog film) and says “Who writes this crap?”, the cat at one point has an encounter with a St. Bernard as a shout out to <em>Cujo</em>, the cat nearly gets squashed by a red Plymouth Fury (nodding to <em>Christine</em>) and the mom in Drew Barrymore’s section is shown reading King’s “Pet Semetary”. The last little bit of obscure trivia is that line I mentioned from “The Ledge” about “the girl, the watch and everything” which is the name of a successful TV movie that starred Robert Hays back in 1980 (still fresh in King’s mind I suppose while writing this in 1984). </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">So, yeah this movie won’t change your life or anything but I suspect you will really enjoy it and hopefully it’s something that you’re not familiar with that can spice up your Friday night instead of renting that latest Apatow movie. Grade: B</span>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-14046167580276350772009-11-27T09:15:00.000-08:002009-11-30T06:42:14.596-08:00Ed Wood (1994)<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SxAZrI7TaxI/AAAAAAAAAFM/Pa2JVMSk6QQ/s1600/EdWood1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5408851381393255186" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 325px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SxAZrI7TaxI/AAAAAAAAAFM/Pa2JVMSk6QQ/s400/EdWood1.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Ed Wood</em> is, by far, my favorite of the seven films Tim Burton has made with his go-to leading man Johnny Depp. It also happens to be my favorite Tim Burton movie period. For that matter, this may very well be my favorite Depp performance (I'd have to really think about that one though as he's consistently memorable in all of his work, regardles of the strengths of the films themselves). Ed Wood, as some of you may know, is famously lauded as the worst director of all time. His film, <em>Plan 9 From Outer Space</em>, has likewise been named the worst movie ever made. The Ed Wood biopic, however, is far more than just a celebration of schlock (although it is that too).</span><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Ed Wood, with his big false teeth and pencil thin moustache, looks like a younger, more energetic John Waters. And like Waters did many years later, Ed Wood has a unique gift in drawing in various "freaks" to his life and assembling them into a rag-tag army of sorts, prepared to go to the ends of the earth in the shared pursuit of "the dream". The dream, in this case (as with Waters), is making over the top B movies. The main difference between Ed Wood and John Waters is the self-awareness. John Waters is a pop-culture and high society skewering satirist while Ed Wood was 110% sincere and believed he was making a masterpiece every time the camera rolled. We see this from the first time we meet Depp's incarnation of the man while he's standing backstage at an amateur play he's put on. Wood's big, childlike eyes grow wider with each passing moment as he silently mouths the dialogue being performed on stage, giddy like a child at witnessing his project come to life. We also see the first signs of his nearly unshakeable optimism in the face of failure when, the next morning, he gets his first (dreadful) review and reacts by pointing out that "it wasn't all bad" since the critic commented on how realistic the costumes looked. A few scenes later he subtley incorporates this slight bit of positivite feedback while meeting with a film producer, bragging about his recent hit play that was "praised for it's realism". The film he's agressively pursuing is based on a recent news story about a man who went under the knife for a sex change operation. Wood, when asked why he's the perfect choice for this material barely skips a beat, nor does his smile waver when he cheerfully replis that "I like wearing womens clothes". He's not homsexual, he explains, just that he's always felt very comfortable in them. He later shares this same information to his disgusted girlfriend Dolores (the dreadful Sarah Jessica Parker who I can tolerate here since she's not playing someone you're supposed to like...and because I get to smirk during the aforementioned play review scene when she gasps while reading and asks "Do I really have a face that looks like a horse"...yes you do SJP, yes you do). After explaining that he first acquired a taste for cross-dressing in his youth, raised by a mother who always wanted a girl and would dress him up as one, he goes on to share that while wearing women's underwear during his time in the army "I wasn't afraid of being killed in combat, but I was terrified of being wounded and having the doctors and the men find out my terrible secret".</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Many other colorful characters populate <em>Ed Wood</em>. An easy favorite being Bunny Breckenridge as played by Bill Murray (in one of his first dramatic departures from the wise-ass Ghostbuster persona we all know and love). Every scene Murray's in, as a sad sweet woman, trapped in a man's body, adds a lot of heart and frequent comic relief (Murray can't help but be funny even when he's not in classic Murray mode). Ed Wood is loyal to his friends and loyal to his cast and crew that transition with him from amateur plays to amateur cinema (including Max Casella who I immediately recognized from his work as best friend Vinnie on <em>Doogie Howser</em> many years ago). We also have the always brilliant Jeffrey Jones (who you all know as Principal Ed Rooney from <em>Ferris Bueller</em> but who also worked with Burton previously on <em>Beetlejuice</em> and has done excellent dramatic work in the HBO series <em>Deadwood</em> and in Milos Forman's films <em>Valmont</em> and <em>Amadeus</em> as well), here performing as "The Amazing Criswell", an amateur physcic who was apparently famous at the time for going on TV to make bizarre predictions about the future. We also get the universally beloved cleavage and mediocre acting skills of Ms. Lisa Marie (the future Ex-Mrs. Tim Burton would go on to work with him again in <em>Mars Attacks,</em> <em>Sleepy Hollow</em> and lastly <em>Planet of the Apes</em>, where Burton traded up for his current wife, the incredibly talented Helena Bonham Carter who has taken over as his muse ever since, in <em>Big Fish, The Corpse Bride, Willy Wonka</em> and his upcoming <em>Alice In Wonderland)</em>. Lisa Marie plays Vampira, an old B-movie TV host who I assumed was an earlier version of Elvira, who I remember in vivid curvy detail from when I was an adolescent boy and who, we learn from the closing credits, was later sued unsuccesfully by Vampira for stealing her act. </span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The most important relationship in the movie, though, is between Eddie and beloved movie star Bela Lugosi (an Oscar winning turn from Martin Landau). We meet Lugosi for the first time as Eddie does, walking past a store window and seeing him lying inside a casket. Lugosi is not dead, as it turns out (just browsing). But he does seem to be heading there in a hurry, even telling Wood "I'm planning on dying soon". Lugosi is grateful to have a companion around who worships him and tells him he's made a difference in his life and they become fast friends. Eddie does of course "use him" to try to add value to his movie projects but it's clear that he loves him dearly too. There's a great moment where, before Lugosi's first day on the set of what will become <em>Bride of The Monster</em>, Wood gathers the cast and crew around him, and while whispering into a directors megaphone (funny enough in it's own right), tells them not to make Lugosi feel uncomfortable on the set by asking for autographs, being overzealous, etc. As he's emphasizing the point that they should just treat him like a regular guy, Bela walks in and Depp practically skips over to him with a childish little yelp of "Bela!". Another of my favorite moments between these two is earlier on when Wood sits at Lugosi's house watching <em>Dracula</em> with its star beside him. Lugosi, moved as I am by Vampira's sleek silhouette (she's hosting the showing) attempts to hypnotize her right through the TV screen to fall in love with him. Lugosi is completely sincere as he uses a smooth, transfixing hand gesture and a powerful stare to work his magic. Wood, sitting next to him, grins from ear to ear and tries to double this gesture, only to be told that "you must be double jointed...and you must be Hungarian" to pull it off. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Lugosi, tragically, is not without his demons. The most glaring example being his addiction to morphine "with a demorral chaser". We see devestating track marks in his arm when the make-up artist is working on him before shooting a scene and "Eddie" (as Lugosi affectionately calls him) gets woken up in the middle of the night more than once to come to his rescue. Lugosi though, like everyone Edward D. Wood Jr. meets, is caught up in Wood's passion and zest for life and for the magic of cinema. You can't really blame him (or any of the misfit army) either. As I watched Depp in this movie recently, I struggled to think of any of the 20+ characters I've seen him portray that reminded me of this one...and I absolutely could not find one! Ed Wood is as far removed from Captain Jack Sparrow as Sparrow is from Donnie Brasco and Brasco is from his work as John Dillinger in this year's underrated <em>Public Enemies</em>. It's amazing to me that such a striking, handsome face (I recently saw him on the cover for this years People Magazine "Sexiest Man Alive" issue for what must be at least the 3rd or 4th time) can be employed with such vastly different results time and time again. If you're not there already, I'd strongly encourage you all to look up Depp's filmography on IMDB and jump on the well populated bandwagon. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The film's look is quite striking as well. Intentional use of black and white in modern film is virtually unheard of (the so-so film noir experiment <em>The Good Shepard</em>, another Depp vehicle, Jim Jarmusch's <em>Dead Man</em> and the magnificent and tragically little known Coen Brothers film <em>The Man Who Wasn't There</em> are the few that come to mind). In this case, it is employed not just for the wonderful shadows, fog and ambience it creates, but also to evoke a type of moviegoing experience (50's B-Movie schlock spectaculars like <em>The Incredible Shrinking Man</em> and many others, too numerous to name). Much like the long forgotten John Goodman film <em>Matinee</em>, this is a love letter to that time and place. Accordingly, this feels like the most heartfelt and personal movie Tim Burton has ever made (although I suspect he'd tell you his colorful daddy issue extravaganza <em>Big Fish</em> would take that prize). While I feel Burton is very talented and has a visual sensibility that has become an unmistakeable signature over his 20 odd year career, I think most of his movies are hit or miss. More specifically, very few of them have stood the test of time for me. <em>Edward Scissorhands</em>, <em>Sleepy Hollow</em> and many others have been solid filmgoing experiences for me but for some reason, most of them lose some of their splendor in the 5th or 6th viewing. Some, like the aforementioned <em>Mars Attacks</em> and his <em>Willy Wonka</em> remake are just plain BAD (and not in a good, Ed Wood production kind of way). My point is that it's interesting to see Burton, so well known for his striking visuals and lush color palletes, to be so seemingly subdued in a black and white landscape. However, not only does he make the film tremendously interesting visually but in terms of its themes and character dynamics, it's wholly consistent with his body of work. Burton makes movies about loners/outcasts/weirdos and the people who love them. From Pee-Wee Herman to <em>Edward Scissorhands</em>, to <em>Batman</em>, to <em>Sweeney Todd</em>, even his <em>Planet of the Apes</em> remake, one could argue, is all about a man alone in a society that doesn't want him. Show me a Tim Burton movie and I will show you a unique, isolated man as its protagonist. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I absolutely adore this film <em>Ed Wood</em>. I never even got to the introduction of the love of his life, Kathy, as embodied by the magnificent Patricia Arquette (she of the blessedly untouched snaggle tooth, a fitting beauty mark for one of my favorite actresses). Put her characters from <em>Lost Highway</em>, <em>True Romance</em> and <em>Ed Wood</em> together in a blender and you have created the most sexy, complicated and loving woman to ever grace the silver screen as far as I'm concerned (granted, she's maybe a tad evil in <em>Lost Highway</em> but I'd let that freight train run me over anytime). It's also noteworthy that this screenplay was written by Larry Karaszewski & Scott Alexander, a sort of biopic power duo who also gave us scripts for <em>The People vs Larry Flynt</em> and the Andy Kaufman story, <em>Man on the Moon</em>. </span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">There are so many moments in <em>Ed Wood</em> beyond the one's I have mentioned that melt my heart, make me laugh and inspire me to bring bottomless passion and drive to my own life. This film is a great companion to my original "Mission Statement" blog in a way. It's all about putting yourself out there, giving it your best shot and knowing in your heart that if you love what you're creating, with every fiber of your being, that's all that matters! I do have to admit that I feel the pacing slows down significantly for the last 15 minutes or so and I often find myself looking at my watch in this part. It's for a fairly obvious reason though (a turning point that I won't spoil here) and in terms of plot, the rest of the story is still essential to the movie and the ending is very satisfying. Grade: A+</span></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-37532957683149661562009-11-24T07:14:00.000-08:002009-11-24T12:16:11.046-08:00The Beach (2000)<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Swv8Y_Q2NHI/AAAAAAAAAE8/OkrviKrWEso/s1600/beach.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5407693283817567346" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 271px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Swv8Y_Q2NHI/AAAAAAAAAE8/OkrviKrWEso/s400/beach.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;">Danny Boyle's 4th film, <em>The Beach</em>, is far from perfect. For whatever flaws it has though, it's still a film I return to time and again and look forward to watching. I suppose, right off the bat, that the scenario of a young single guy traveling the world has its appeal. Much in the same way that I’m drawn to the swinging international intrigue of the James Bond franchise. Exotic locations, exotic women, these are great elements to a successful film! This of course was in Leo’s “awkward phase” as I like to call it. He hadn’t yet turned into the man who delivered such a solid, grown-up performance in <em>The Departed</em>, nor was he the lanky kid who got punched in the face by DeNiro in <em>This Boy’s Life</em> or giddily climbed water towers in <em>What’s Eating Gilbert Grape</em>. He was always a hard working actor though and this is no exception. <em>The Beach</em> ultimately makes some interesting points about the dark side of our constant pursuit of "the experience" and that, more than anything, is the lifeblood that keeps me coming back for more.<br /></span><div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />The timing of this film is noteworthy as well. Dicaprio at the time was the biggest movie star on the planet, basking in the wave of <em>Titanic</em> mania. Danny Boyle, who had made a huge splash with his 2nd film, <em>Trainspotting</em>, was reeling from the commercial failure of his 3rd effort, <em>A Life Less Ordinary</em> (another flawed diamond in the rough that we'll tackle another day). For the first time, Boyle left behind his leading man, Ewan McGregor, in favor of as close to a sure thing as anyone thought possible...LEO! It is also important to mention that the novel, <em>The Beach</em>, was written by Alex Garland and while John Hodge (writer of Boyle's first 3 films) did create the script for <em>The Beach</em>, Garland has been the wordsmith behind most of Boyle's subsequent work. It was a turning point in the lives of these key players and it was doomed to be more than a bit uneven for all these reasons. Leo wanted to be challenged as an actor and not be just another pretty face (something he hasn't physically been able to pull off while looking far too young, in my opinion, until the aforementioned <em>The Departed</em>). Danny Boyle, for all his willingness to make a crowd pleaser (as proven by last years Best Picture win for <em>Slumdog Millionaire</em>), picked material that has too many tonal changes, subtle social commentaries and way too much story for a 105 minute running time. So, you end up with a group of people all working with great passion on what ends up feeling like several movies in one.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The first quarter of the film introduces our protagonist, Richard (Dicaprio). He's the kind of post-collegiate, intrepid traveler who always gives me mixed feelings of admiration (for the free spirit quality) and irritation (with the naivety of youth, which as a 26 year old father of two already seems like a distant memory). He’s chasing “the experience” over in Thailand. We see him riding around town experiencing the extremes of local culture, drinking snake blood and opening himself up to whatever new sights, smells and sounds he can find. At his hotel he meets the other key players in this saga, a young french couple, Francoise and Etienne, and Richard's crazy neighbor Daffy (the brilliant Robert Carlyle, who, as Begbie helped make Boyle’s <em>Trainspotting </em>such a success and who does the best work of any performer in this film). One night, Daffy shares a joint with Richard through an opening near the ceiling that connects their rooms and proceeds to tell him about a secret beach, a paradise virtually untouched by the hands of man. He gives enough of an enticing teaser to capture our attention right along with Richard’s but leaves things on a more ominous note after the next day finds Daffy blowing his brains out and leaving a map behind for Richard. Fortunately, in a twist reminiscent of <em>American Werewolf In London,</em> when I was sad to see Griffin Dunne leave so early, this is not the last we'll see of Daffy.<br /></span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Richard recruits the french couple to join him in finding this secret beach and they set off together, battling sharks and drug runners en route. What they find, as we enter the second phase of the film, is an island commune led by the icy Sal (as played by the extremely icy Tilda Swinton, who besides her lighthearted and warm Oscar acceptance speech has always struck me as some kind of monster because of how effective she is playing them in films like <em>Burn After Reading, Michael Clayton, Vanilla Sky</em> and of course this film, <em>The Beach</em>). They listen to terrible techno music (can the music business please rescind their offer to Moby??) and “live off the land” and it’s all just terribly beatific. Cracks in the surface begin slowly as Richard decides to disrupt the balance by stealing Francoise away from her well liked french boyfriend. We also call back to the first section of the movie as a new group of American Interlopers start getting a little too close to discovering the secret location and Richard starts spending more and more time isolated in the woods and going deeper into his own head.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Note to self: Anytime during a movie that you see the protagonists taking a happy go lucky group shot, you can count on seeing that photo still framed at the end of the movie as a reminder of how great it was once upon a time (<em>The Untouchables</em> and <em>Boogie Nights</em> immediately come to mind but I’m sure anyone reading this can think of several others). This movie tragically falls into that awful cliché and shortly after the dreaded “good times” photo things <em>really</em> start to unravel. Richard breaks up yet another couple’s relationship and before this can be resolved, one of the secondary beach bum characters is bitten by a shark and we are meant to start asking some serious moral and ethical questions as the group decides that it’s better to let him die slowly and painfully than to risk their precious hideaway being discovered if they take him to the mainland for proper treatment. Etienne is the one voice of reason and decides to care for the dying, gangrenous man. Elsewhere, Richard, off in the woods in exile, learns to fight off the most dangerous enemy he’s ever faced as a young, entitled American tourist…BOREDOM!!<br /></span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">There are some very subtle and clever nods to iconic war movies like <em>The Deer Hunter</em> and <em>Apocalypse Now</em> and some hilarious moments where we see Richard’s P.O.V as he literally transforms his world into a video game within his mind. It’s very easy to be confused and or bored at this point in the film if you haven’t been paying attention to the tongue-in-cheek approach that’s just barely disguised under the surface of the whole proceeding. What they don’t spell out for you, the viewer, and what millions of teenage Dicaprio fans never expected back in the year 2000 is that you’re not supposed to like this guy Richard. Which is a bit tricky since, as stated in the start of this piece, most people tend to admire or at least understand that sort of nomadic chasing of new experiences. The point that I think they’re making here is to not lose sight of your humanity in the process. I think also that it is taking shots at the well earned clichés of American culture and American tourists whose fanny pack loving ways have been the bane of the international community for decades. So we laugh because it’s funny and we laugh because it’s true and we cringe just a little bit at how true it is of us as individuals.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">It is with that bit of guilt in mind that I acknowledge that I’ve never read the book for this and probably won’t. Between a full time job, writing music, performing music and acting as band manager for two groups, spending time with my family and trying to maintain my cinematic obsessions throughout, reading anything more substantial than Entertainment Weekly and the occasional Stephen King book is a luxury I don't have. So, I’m one of "them" too, in a way (but for less selfish reasons if I may be so bold). </span><span style="font-size:130%;">I find it entirely plausible and relatable that Richard turns his jungle isolation into his own interior Vietnam action film. I don’t play videogames but can identify with the short attention span and constant overstimulation that has become the hallmark of my generation. Being aware of it and being able to laugh at it on screen doesn’t change my own implicit guilt. It does make me return to <em>The Beach</em> though, more often than a great many other (and arguably better) films that I’ve seen. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span> </div><div> </div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The voice over narration (which I assume is straight from the book) is brilliant and inspired writing throughout. Danny Boyle is always a dazzling filmmaker and this film is no exception, the plot and setting are unique, the plot twists are many and the way the story is told visually is quite striking and clever. On the other hand, Danny Boyle’s love of cheesy techno turns my stomach at times (seriously...Moby...that's quite enough out of you), the acting is consistently mediocre (except for Robert Carlyle’s little cameo as previously mentioned) and that conflict I mentioned between admiring these efforts in communal living to wanting to slap their smug and selfish young faces is unpleasant at times. Danny Boyle and Leo have gone on to prove that they have real staying power and I think are just beginning to hit their creative peaks. </span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So, maybe this film isn’t truly “the best movie you’ve never seen”. I’m just saying that its reputation is much worse than the product. <em>The Beach</em> has been unfairly panned as a bad film and it’s not that. It’s a memorable and ambitious failure with some great ideas and is worth at least a rental to see for yourself. Grade: B-</span> </div></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-5764732094012062262009-11-23T13:45:00.000-08:002009-11-23T14:00:09.053-08:00Two Girls and a Guy (1997)<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SwsFxjheDqI/AAAAAAAAAEs/N7MGaWebWhU/s1600/tgaagbrart.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5407422126495764130" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 255px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SwsFxjheDqI/AAAAAAAAAEs/N7MGaWebWhU/s320/tgaagbrart.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Two Girls & a Guy</em> has a lot more to offer than the titillating name suggests, while still managing to be stimulating for all those reasons too (although it's NC-17 rating says MUCH more about our repressive culture than it does about the film, which is not graphic in the least). Filmmaker James Toback has built an impressive resume of raw, talky pictures (often with extensive improvised scenes) and the occasional documentary (including the recently released <em>Tyson</em> documentary which is excellent). Here we have a mere 3 characters (well there are technically 6 but the brief interactions with passerby on the street in the beginning don't count, although the scene is still very funny). </span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">We meet Carla (Heather Graham, still severely lacking in dramatic range of any kind here but incredibly sexy as usual and certainly keeping pace with her two co-stars) and Lou (Natasha Gregson Wagner, who is cute as a button both here and in the only other film I've seen her in <em>Lost Highway</em>, in both cases as a kick-around girlfriend in the shadow of the bombshell blonde) as they are standing outside a NY apartment building, trying to stay warm while waiting for their respective friends to arrive. They get to talking and it quickly becomes clear that they are in fact both waiting for the same person, Blake (Robert Downey Jr in what may very well be my favorite performance of his ever, right along with Wayne Gale in <em>Natural Born Killers</em>). Blake, you see, has been playing junior bigamist with these two young women and the chickens have indeed come home to roost. They smash a window and break into his apartment while hatching a scheme to wait for him in secret and confront him for his mischief. From a plot standpoint we needn't go much further, they do indeed confront him (first one...then the other, appearing out of nowhere). The beauty, as usual, is in the details. More specifically, Downey here has created one of the most memorably charming cads to ever grace the silver screen. He backpedals like an Olympic athlete trying to come up with lies on top of lies while still coming out looking clean and not ruining his chances with either girl. There are hints of deep psychological wounds in Downey who has weird traumatic issues with his sick mother (showing a tender side) while being so callous and emotionally blasé toward these two women, both of whom he also claims to love.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">You see, the central conceit that he’s running with is that while he lied to them both that they were the only one, he was 100% honest in terms of telling them both that he loved them. The lengths he goes to re-gain the upper hand (including briefly faking his own death) are incredible and the web of lies ensnares you, the viewer, as well. You can't help but root for him in all his sleazy glory. That's because Robert Downey Jr is a very likeable and charismatic guy and I think this role is perhaps much closer to the real Downey than anything else he's been involved in. This is a guy who has a well documented history of self destructive behavior. Bouncing in and out of jail and rehab and famously telling a judge “It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of the gunmetal". Blake the character (also an actor/performer) is extremely manipulative and wields his looks and talent like a weapon. Traits that it's easy to assume the real Downey used during his ascent in Hollywood where he was struggling to be a functional drug addict. </span></div><br /><div><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">To the extent that actors reveal their true selves to us through their work, you can see how Downey would be an easy guy to love. He just seems to light up the room when he's in it and a guy like that can easily find himself surrounded by enablers who want to get a piece of that golden talent at the expense of his health, or those who love him and fear for his well being but are easily swayed by the veneer he presents that everything is okay. Toback, as I started to explain before, is not much of a stickler for scripts. Much like the improv comedies of Christopher Guest, or Larry David's <em>Curb Your Enthusiasm</em>, Toback often comes to his cast with character arcs and scene outlines and lets them fill in the blanks. This then adds an almost voyeuristic quality to <em>Two Girls and a Guy</em> since we know about Downey's sordid past of extreme drug abuse, prison time, alienation of his friends and family and nearly destroying his career in the process (remember that before <em>Iron Man</em> was the biggest movie of the summer of 2008, Downey was considered an extremely risky choice to lead any Hollywood film, let alone a franchise). In moments of self reflection where he's looking in the mirror and distorting his face into horrifying masks acknowledging his own puppet like masquerade, I feel like we are glimpsing into the man's soul as he quietly performs mea culpa on the set of this movie.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Even though it's not based on a play, that's how Toback stages the film in many respects. As I mentioned in the prior piece on <em>The Shape of Things</em>, a movie that can be this engaging and memorable while taking place in a single day, in a single location, is an impressive feat and one that I particularly enjoy and admire. Even the use of music in the film is simple yet perfect for the material. With a few minor exceptions, the main melody that is repeated is Downey himself performing Jackie Wilson’s classic "You Don't Know Me" (a lyrically brilliant choice). It's got a tragicomic vibe to it here and you can see that Downey knows it too. Toback had worked with Downey before in his closest thing to a hit, 1987’s <em>The Pick Up Artist</em> with Molly Ringwald, I did rent this once but it was ages ago and I don't really remember it. My point is that he clearly saw the same thing I did when I first saw <em>Chaplin</em> back in 1992; That Robert Downey Jr. is an easy guy to root for (both on screen and with his personal trials and tribulations). He’s one of those captivating actors whose mere presence in a scene brings a dynamic energy to the proceedings. I think that this and <em>Natural Born Killers</em> may end up being the best work he ever did. I know this is kind of a nasty or selfish thing to say but I often feel that sobriety in artists, while a welcome alternative to overdose I suppose, does seem to dull the edge a bit (Trent Reznor anyone??) and while I'm very happy to see him back on the A-list, I don't know that we'll ever see him do better work (although his supporting role in Zodiac gave me real hope that he could). Having said that, Downey going through the motions in a movie is 1,000,000% more interesting than Robert Pattinson faking humility and sparkling in the sun.<br /></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">It's also a smart little relationship movie. Challenging the ideas of monogamy, the definition of love and simultaneously damning and applauding the behavior of its leads. The women also end up being much more 3 dimensional than just "women scorned". It quickly turns from them being a team out to teach him a lesson to them subtly vying for his attention and affection and turning it into a contest to see which “lucky lady” gets to keep being the girlfriend. More importantly they are the driving force behind some of the nicer messages of the film, such as the fact that loyalty, trust and even forgiveness will always be the true hallmark of a successful relationship. It’s a good one to watch with a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse or a group of friends and talk about it afterwards (if you’re into that sort of thing). And, of course, for those of you who have recently re-discovered Downey (or discovered him for the first time) and for those, like me, who have never forgotten the mark left by his many excellent performances, you will find much to love in this little character study. Grade: B+<br /><br /></span></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-79063427967306437482009-11-18T07:50:00.000-08:002009-11-18T08:28:39.886-08:00Serial Mom (1994)<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SwQaoey4XgI/AAAAAAAAAEk/1RTLcR2k_q0/s1600/serialmom.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5405474735515000322" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 241px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SwQaoey4XgI/AAAAAAAAAEk/1RTLcR2k_q0/s320/serialmom.bmp" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> <em>Serial Mom</em> is my favorite of the later period, more accessible John Waters films. I’ve seen the films that made him famous, including the infamous <em>Pink Flamingos</em> and I found them largely repulsive. I don’t have a burning desire to see live chickens used for sex acts or the fabulous Ms. Divine eating freshly evacuated dog droppings. I do, however, have a soft spot for Kathleen Turner as the world’s cheeriest serial killer, and I’d like to tell you why. </span><div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Beverly Sutphin (Kathleen Turner) is a perfect wife and mother to a perfect little family. She whistles while she works (well, enthusiastically sings Barry Manilow’s “Daybreak” to be more specific), doesn’t allow gum chewing in her house (an oft repeated and hilarious facet of the character), prepares tasty and magnificently displayed meals…and kills anyone who gets in her way! We meet her and the family at breakfast one morning. Husband Eugene is a local dentist (Sam Waterston who many of you know as D.A Jack McCoy over the past 15 years on <em>Law & Order</em>…I’ve never seen that show so I just know him from this), boy crazy daughter Misty (Waters regular Ricki Lake back before she went and got skinny and forgot her B-movie roots) and gore obsessed son Chip (<em>Scream/Scooby Doo</em>’s Matthew Lillard in only his second feature film, his annoying on-screen persona only partially developed). They bicker cutely as mom stalks and kills a housefly and we get the first glimpse that this woman is perhaps a tad unhinged. Breakfast is interrupted by a pair of policeman who, we learn, are investigating a series of harassing phone calls and threatening notes their neighbor Dottie Hinkle has been receiving. The good Dr. and Mrs. Sutphin are shocked to be shown a letter, put together in that cut up ransom note style with the words “I’ll get you pussy face”. Beverly proudly declares that she has never even spoke “the p word” let alone written it down. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Soon after the police leave though, we, the viewers, delight in witnessing her making an obscene phone call to neighbor Dottie. We delight in her delight really as she giggles and squeals like a little girl between loudly calling her neighbor a cocksucker. Minutes later Beverly, in her car, cheerfully waves to her neighbor Dottie and we get a quick flashback to the situation that stirred this abuse. Beverly, like a respectable driver, pulls past her parking spot in order to parallel park but as she’s backing in, Dottie Hinkle quickly zooms in and takes it. We see Beverly stare with hatred as Dottie walks past her and into the store without so much as a glance or an apology. This reminds me of a moment in the film <em>Fried Green Tomatoes</em> where a pair of young girls in a flashy car cut off Kathy Bates for a parking spot and taunt her as they walk away, saying “Face it lady, we’re younger and we’re faster”. She reacts by repeatedly smashing the girl’s vehicle with her own ending with an empowering yell “I’m older and I have more insurance”. I remember my mom cracking up at this but I was only 9 or 10 and didn’t really get it. As an adult of course, minor flashes of road rage are a part of the daily grind. That’s part of the vicarious fun of <em>Serial Mom</em> if you can open yourself up to it. We don’t harass and threaten our neighbors when they take our parking spots, we don’t kill our kids teachers when they criticize at parent teacher conferences, we certainly don’t beat old ladies to death with slabs of meat for not rewinding video tapes. But that part of us that wants to, even for just a split second, can’t help but smile when Beverly does the dirty work for us (another great example of this is the "tailgating scene" from <em>Lost Highway</em> which I will most assuredly get to another day). </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The other thing I’d like to point out is how ahead of its time <em>Serial Mom</em> was in terms of its social satire. As Beverly is discovered for her mischief, she becomes a national celebrity. While it came out in 1994, Waters wrote it in 1992. This was before the Lorena Bobbit case (and at least 3 subsequent made for TV versions), before the O.J case, etc. Waters, in making this film, truly had his finger on the pulse of our culture right on the cusp of some disturbing changes in media and celebrity. Unfortunately, as <em>Serial Mom</em> is not very well known it does not get the recognition it deserves in this area. Waters clearly delights at poking fun at our celebrity-obsessed culture, our fascination with horrible criminals and the false veneer of the perfect American family. He does this so perfectly because he’s guilty of it too (well maybe not the perfect American family part). In a fast paced and consistently hilarious 90 minutes of film, he tackles these concepts with razor sharp insight and wit.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I’ve maybe said a bit too much about the events in the film, but fear not as the true joy is the tour de force performance from Kathleen Turner. My words cannot do justice to how uniquely hilarious and frightening this character is. I can rattle off so many little details that I cherish, the aforementioned gum chewing incidents, her little scrapbooks on Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy, her response when asked by her family if she’s a serial killer (“oh honey, the only “serial” I know anything about is Rice Krispies”), the brilliant use of “Tomorrow” from “Annie” to create a sense of dread and tension (while still being very funny), the obscene phone calls to Dottie (which again, I can’t begin to do justice to on paper). I truly could go on and on. I’m pretty sure my wife would list this in her top 5 (maybe top 2 or 3) favorite movies I’ve ever introduced her to. So take my word for it, you can thank me later…</span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Grade: A</span></div></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-12690874297068208212009-11-16T11:41:00.000-08:002009-11-17T05:18:47.821-08:00Hard Eight (1996) A.K.A Sydney<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SwGtwmAIZRI/AAAAAAAAAEU/JiXID7b6hsI/s1600/Hard+Eight.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404792078167729426" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 220px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SwGtwmAIZRI/AAAAAAAAAEU/JiXID7b6hsI/s320/Hard+Eight.gif" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;">"Hard Eight", while not flawless, is a very enjoyable first effort from wunderkind director Paul Thomas Anderson. The leads are two very gifted actors who have subsequently become part of his stable (John C Reilly and Philip Baker Hall) and we’re also treated to a pair of solid turns from well known stars Gwyneth Paltrow and Samuel L. Jackson. His gift for dialogue and character driven work is immediately present here and blankets this Vegas hard luck story with real weight and gravitas.<br /><br /><br />We meet John (the incredibly versatile John C. Reilly, who can’t avoid being funny but is in drama mode for this one) as he sits outside a diner, flat broke and despondent. Sydney (veteran character actor Philip Baker Hall) invites him to enjoy a cigarette and a cup of coffee with him. John has a bit of an attitude and is skeptical of Sydney’s charity but also reveals himself to be a very sweet, naïve young man. Sydney picks up on this quality as well and he takes this young man under his wing. Together they drive back to Vegas (where John had lost everything trying to get 6,000 dollars for his mother’s funeral) to teach him how to make a living as a small time gambler. Many of you will recognize Philip Baker Hall from his deadpan, brilliant turn as “Mr. Bookman” the library cop from Seinfeld. His face and delivery are very memorable and it’s a rare treat to see him in a lead role here as a master gambler with a very strict (but somewhat precarious and contradictory) code of ethics. The first lesson (on how to manipulate your rate card into high roller status with a free room) is more clever and fun to watch over 5-10 minutes than anything you’ll find in duds like last year’s blackjack film “21”. This movie has more of that “old Vegas” quality; musty hotel rooms, cheap suits and drinks on the rocks. More in line with films like William H. Macy’s “The Cooler” (another future blog entry I’m sure) than the Vegas you see in “The Hangover”. In “Hard Eight”, what happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas, it haunts you and draws weathered lines on your face.<br /><br /><br />So, we fast forward some 3 years later to see that John has developed his skills through Sydney’s tutelage and has acquired a shady new friend Jimmy (another early to mid-90’s firecracker performance from Samuel L. Jackson back when he still had something to prove). We also meet the eternally sad looking Gwyneth Paltrow’s cocktail waitress/prostitute character Clementine. I don’t know if Vegas movies inspired the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold mythos or if the legalization in that area just tends to draw a lot of them but this is definitely an area of the movie that feels formulaic and cheap to me. Yes, these are the type of “chicken or the egg” questions that obsessive film viewers like me must ponder. Fortunately, Anderson proved in every subsequent film he’s made that he has an excellent knack for writing strong female roles (with the exception of There Will Be Blood of course which did not have any significant female roles at all). This time though, it is indeed a woman who is both their undoing and in some ways their savior.<br /><br /><br />Hard Eight is told in a series of long conversation scenes and in this “3 years later” sequence we discover that Sydney has great respect and consideration for the well being of the ladies bringing him his drinks (certainly Clementine in particular), we learn that Clementine thinks John is cute, we learn that John and Sydney have really developed that father/son type bond (there are lots of great, subtle moments along those lines after this scene as well including the fact that they drive the exact same car) and we learn that Sydney does not like Jimmy. These interpersonal dynamics will shape the rest of the film after Sydney takes it upon himself to play match-maker to these two lost souls (even as he discovers just how damaged Paltrow’s Clementine really is).<br /><br /><br />There is an electrifying little moment when Sydney comes into John’s hotel room to find things playing out exactly as he hoped. He observes Clementine and John sitting in bed, like two kids at a sleep over, bright eyed and bushy tailed young lovers. I had a sense of the palpable chemistry between these two; you could literally feel the energy and connection between the characters. While I’d like to attribute this to the two actors, it also reminded me of moments in another Anderson film, Punch Drunk Love, which is probably the most effective and powerful filmic representation of falling in love I’ve ever seen and I’ve become convinced that Anderson has some magic insight into how to stage these scenes and have that effect. I really can’t put my finger on it and maybe it’s just my deeply rooted hopeless romantic tendencies recognizing a kindred spirit but there really is something unique about Anderson’s ability to capture the great intangible CHEMISTRY between people. </span><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div></div><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">I don’t want to spoil the rest, but unfortunately, this beatific dynamic is very quickly shattered by an incident that will profoundly affect all 4 main characters and reveal a few new insights into Sydney’s back story. Which brings me to my two closing points. One is that the joy of this film is sensing the history of these characters without ever having it spelled out for you. That’s not an easy thing to pull off without a lot of heavy handed exposition inserted into conversation. Even with the things we ultimately come to learn about Sydney, I felt like I knew and liked the man within the first 5 minutes of meeting him at that diner and I liked having the opportunity, throughout the film, to invent his history in my own mind. That’s what makes a great character actor great. Hall’s face is his greatest tool but also the way he carries himself and his unique vocal cadence. The quality that made his appearance in that Seinfeld episode so hilarious is what works so well for him in dramatic parts, his sincerity.<br /><br /><br />The other notable element at work here is the brief cameo from Philip Seymour Hoffman as “Young Craps Player”. His mullet alone is worth the price of admission! Seriously though, it’s a short, snarky and memorable appearance from one of our greatest living actors and the start of a great partnership between Hoffman and writer/director Anderson that gave us Scotty J in his next film “Boogie Nights”, the caring hospice nurse Phil Parma in “Magnolia” and another memorable and hilarious cameo in the aforementioned “Punch Drunk Love” (again, the only film Hoffman is not in is “There Will Be Blood”).<br /><br /><br />So, you can see “Hard Eight” to see the budding artistry of Paul Thomas Anderson in the first of his 5 exceptional contributions to modern film. You can see it to appreciate how heartbreaking and tender John C. Reilly could be before the wretched Apatow mafia recruited him for their mischief (I’m kidding a little bit of course, he’s still great and I thought “Walk Hard” was very fun and liked his work in the otherwise lackluster “Step Brothers” and “Talladega Nights” as well). You can see it to watch Philip Baker Hall have a rare moment in the spotlight. You can enjoy watching the intense, fire-in-the-belly Samuel L. Jackson in a role more reminiscent of his frightening and dangerous performance in “Jungle Fever” (arguably his best work EVER) than the winking, ironic shadow of his former self we tend to see in his recent efforts (“Snakes on a Plane” or “1408”…or “Jumper”…or any of the movies where he’s just going through the motions). You can watch Gwyneth Paltrow be reliably pretty and sad and you can witness the mighty Phillip Seymour Hoffman throwing dice with gusto.<br /><br /><br />This is not my favorite Anderson film, it’s not my favorite performance from any of the actors. It’s not a masterpiece and it’s not going to change your life. Saying that this is not my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson movie, though, is like saying that New York Super Fudge Chunk is not my favorite pint of Ben & Jerry’s (meaning it’s still delicious and will do in a pinch). Same thing with the cast, they all do great work here and it’s an excellent ensemble! I also have to wonder how the film may have turned out if he had already been established as a brilliant and trusted auteur. The creative control issues Anderson had with this film have been well documented (he turned in a 2 ½ hour cut, they told him to cut it, he refused, they fired him and cut it without him and changed the name from “Sydney” to “Hard Eight”, it was accepted to Cannes on the condition that Anderson be given final cut, Anderson turned in a 100 minute cut but has largely disowned the film as not being true to what he wanted). You don’t need all that baggage though. Just watch and enjoy a low-key slice of life from some of our greatest cinematic treasures! Grade: B </span></p>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-63520527922829015242009-11-13T11:54:00.000-08:002009-11-13T12:28:23.490-08:00The Shape Of Things (2003)<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Sv2953ORokI/AAAAAAAAAD4/dyT1RW8TCSE/s1600-h/TheShapeOfThings2003912_f.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5403683929688482370" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 226px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Sv2953ORokI/AAAAAAAAAD4/dyT1RW8TCSE/s320/TheShapeOfThings2003912_f.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">As I was trying to put this piece together I realized that it’s a hard film to suggest to people. Not in terms of its quality at all, just that it’s designed to be discussed after you’ve seen the complete picture. I figure that’s a big part of why so few people have heard of it or seen it. Its star, Paul Rudd, has been around and doing great work for a long time before his ties to the Apatow comedy mafia thrust him into the limelight again as a “rising star” (nearly 15 years after his breakout performance in “Clueless”). Prior to this recent career resurgence though he did his fair share of slumming in half-assed romantic comedies. So it’s easy to see why someone seeing the cover on the movie shelf, him with a dopey look next to a slinky and seductive looking Rachel Weisz (who is mostly known for her work in The Mummy films rather than her many prestige projects like The Fountain or her Oscar winning turn in The Constant Gardener) would think that this was a retread of Rudd’s lesser works (I shudder to even mention his time on screen with Jennifer Aniston in “The Object of My Affection”). While I do think it’s fair to say that he’s primarily a comedic actor (and a damn good one), Rudd has solid dramatic chops that are showcased here in Neil LaBute’s brilliant film adaptation of his own play “The Shape of Things”. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /></div><div><div><div><div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I was fortunate to have read about and caught LaBute’s debut film “In The Company of Men” many years ago. It was a funny, stunning and cruel story of seduction, manipulation and betrayal and was also the debut of an actor many of us have come to cherish in the years since, Aaron Eckhart (who has gone on to star in or have a cameo in nearly all of LaBute’s films). Sexual politics and damaged relationships seem to be his muse and while that’s not everyone’s favorite way to spend a Saturday night at the multiplex or in front of the tube, his films challenge you and provoke thought and conversation in a way that has grown increasingly rare in the cinema. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">So, we meet a heavyset museum security guard and college student named Adam (Rudd) as he first encounters fellow student Evelyn (Weisz) who’s stepped over a rope barrier to take a picture of a statue during the end of his shift. She is immediately challenging and antagonistic toward him but in a way that’s clearly playful and intriguing to Adam. She explains that she wants to deface the statue because it’s “false art”. She points out a shoddy leaf that was added after the fact to cover up the statue’s “member” for being too life-like. There’s a palpable romantic/sexual tension between the two as we see the “opposites attract” theory in action. She’s an anarchist free spirit artsy type while he’s a rule follower (shit, he’s a rule enforcer as a security guard right?). He gets the nerve to ask her out for a date and you can see that for him he’s just incredibly grateful for the attention and we get the sense that for her, he’s someone she see’s great potential in and can push to come out of his shell. Let’s not forget though, this is not a romantic comedy! </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">We go on to meet the other two main characters in this story, Adam’s best friend Phil and Phil’s fiancée Jenny when Adam takes Evelyn over to their place to show off his new lady love. Evelyn causes an immediate rift between Adam and Phil as the conversation turns argumentative (over the same statue vandalism issue that set the story in motion) and she delivers a verbal lashing that takes Phil down several pegs and ends with her storming out (and insisting that Adam come with). You get a real sense of the shared history that Phil, Jenny and Adam have. It’s not just the interesting tidbits we learn about Adam’s past (painfully shy, couldn’t get a girl, etc.), it’s also just an ease and comfort in how they relate to each other. This, as I later learned, is no accident. </span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />Fred Weller and Gretchen Mol (who play Phil and Jenny), along with Weisz and Rudd all are reprising their roles from the play which ran for several months in England back in 2001. As a general rule, I absolutely LOVE plays that are turned into films! Take a film like Glengarry Glenross (and many other David Mamet films). You have a movie with basically two sets (the office and the restaurant) and only 6 or 7 speaking parts and somehow it’s one of the most intense and engaging films I’ve ever seen. Just from talking! When the themes are so universal and powerful and the writing and performances are that strong, it knocks special effects on their ass every time! “The Shape of Things” is unique though in that these four actors had inhabited these roles on stage for months in front of an audience before transitioning to the movie (with very little break between). What a rare luxury to get to work on the physical aspects, the timing, all the subtleties and little character quirks that most actors complain only start to reveal themselves by the time they are wrapping up production. From what I understand, rehearsal time is very rare anymore for films, let alone 4 months putting it all out there for a crowd! I didn’t know all this going into the film but it was a “eureka” type moment to find out as it helped me understand (in part) why these characters seemed so uniquely real and lived-in. </span></p><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Back to the story though, as Adam and Evelyn’s relationship grows she makes more and more suggestions on how he can improve himself, from throwing away his outdated (but favorite) jacket, to getting contacts instead of glasses, he loses weight, gets a new haircut, etc. He is all too eager to go along with it, much to the dismay of his long time friends Jenny and Phil. The question that I was faced with at this stage in the film was whether the perceived benefits of these changes (a relationship with an attractive woman, genuine improvements to one’s appearance and confidence, etc.) were acceptable in the face of them being guided by external rather than internal forces. Insecurity I suppose is an internal force and motivator in an unhealthy way but my point is that change should come from within or what is it really? I think it also raises an interesting question in terms of how you can claim to be in love with someone while trying to change everything about them (the implication being that the person they are is not good enough). There’s also an interesting conflict between Phil and Adam in terms of Phil always being the cooler, smoother ladies man type (including “stealing” Jenny from Adam in a way) and not liking the changes to the dynamic they had as friends. I don’t know what the term is for a love triangle between 4 people. A love square perhaps? Should it be a love quadrangle? In any case, this film has got a great one! </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">So, I do realize that what I’m describing here is not that compelling necessarily in terms of seeing the film. That’s because I want you to go in to it, as I did, without knowing the big picture of what’s going on. The surface level plot I’ve described is not what makes the film special obviously and the only other thing I want to say on the subject is that this film will reward repeat viewings (it absolutely insists that you watch it at least twice). It is worth noting by the way that the two main characters names are Adam and Evelyn (not a far cry from Adam and Eve right?) and that they first meet in front of a statue that's meant to represent god (not in an abstract way, they say in the movie that the statue is supposed to be god). I haven’t really figured out the connection yet but I don’t think for a second that it’s coincidence. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I think Neil LaBute is an exceptionally good writer and playwright. He’s one of those artists that trade off doing one film for money and one for himself. He has definitely made some solid but slightly hollow fare like the recent “Lakeview Terrace” or his remake of “The Wicker Man” (which everyone seems to hate but I enjoyed very much). The Shape of Things and Nurse Betty are probably my two favorites because they’re sort of in the middle, they function better as entertainment than his first two very harsh films (the aforementioned “In The Company of Men” and “Your Friends & Neighbors” both of which will probably end up on this blog one day) while still remaining true to his social themes and interests. Plus, Rachel Weisz is pretty much the greatest thing since sliced bread (she’s up there with Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore and Carla Gugino in my own personal Talented Beauties Hall of Fame). So go see it, and then we can have the more fun discussion of what you thought about it after the fact! Grade: A+</span>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-4066099170026688992009-11-12T08:46:00.000-08:002009-11-12T09:00:03.405-08:00Election (1999)<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svw-zTWks1I/AAAAAAAAADI/wv1RuOTwdUw/s1600-h/Election.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5403262704026956626" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 226px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svw-zTWks1I/AAAAAAAAADI/wv1RuOTwdUw/s320/Election.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">You know Tracy Flick already! If you’ve seen Reese Witherspoon’s flawless portrayal of the ultimate high school go-getter than you of course have that specific frame of reference but what I mean is that you will immediately recognize the archetype from your own high school days and cringe and laugh with equal measure during this outstanding second feature from writer/director Alexander Payne. </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">This is my second favorite of Payne’s films actually (#1 belongs to his debut Citizen Ruth which I will get to another day) but definitely the one I’ve watched the most and it holds up very well after multiple viewings. Ironically, as I look at his filmography I realize that I’ve liked each of his movies slightly less than the one before it (in order Citizen Ruth, Election, About Schmidt and Sideways) but that’s a little unfair as they are all very good movies. Election though is the one for the masses and for me belongs right up there with Big Lebowski and Best In Show in the “comedies I can always watch” category. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">First, we have great casting here. Matthew Broderick is the perfect, ironic choice to play the beloved high school history/government teacher. Our collective association with him as the wild and super-cool Ferris Bueller brings an extra level of pleasure (and sympathy) to seeing him older, washed up and increasingly desperate and bitter as a middle aged man. My one complaint is that his accent sounds like he borrowed it from one of the characters in Fargo and while it is true of the region, it at times sounds a little awkward coming out of his mouth. Next we have Chris Klein who is a terrible actor and a total meathead…which makes him PERFECT for this role as the sweet “popular” jock who Broderick goads into running against the “sure thing” student council President Tracy Flick (his “Paul Metzler: You Betzler” campaign slogan is one of my MANY favorite moments in this film). The showstopper of course is the aforementioned Reese Witherspoon (an actress I really don’t care for in general) who either was this person in school (which wouldn’t surprise me given her achievements at such a young age) or just understands the character to the nth degree. There’s a bizarre musical cue that I can best describe as a harmonized choir of Tarzan like yelling that happens every time Tracy feels threatened and goes into competitive mode and her physical performance is just staggering. There are real nuances to the performance that let you see the manipulative gears turning in her head. Her extreme drive and ambition is motivated by insecurity and fear of failure (true of most people really) and you feel it in every word and gesture. The supporting players are excellent as well. I particularly like Broderick’s swarthy teacher friend who’s banished for having an affair with Tracy and the serious as a heart attack high school principle who just seems endlessly disappointed with the behavior of student and faculty alike. </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Basically, Broderick is stuck in a rut in his life and the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back is Tracy Flick. He sees reflected in her his own failed ambitions and dreams as well as a glimpse of the type of future winner Tracy can and will become and decides that he needs to shut her down once and for all during the tempestuous senior year Student Body Presidential elections. This film (like Christopher Guests brilliant mockumentaries) manages to elevate an insignificant small town event into an epic battle worthy of ancient Rome! This is definitely dark humor though. These are desperate and very sad people in many respects (again…much like Christopher Guest’s human menagerie) and Broderick in particular makes an absolute mess out of his career and his marriage before it’s all over. The big difference to me is that Christopher Guest seems to genuinely love the characters in his films and their struggles whereas I feel Alexander Payne is a bit more condescending and poking fun at them (consistent in all of his films really) and a little bit too elitist perhaps. My point is that while this film is very funny and does well in mining small town life for comedy, it is not a heartwarming picture by any stretch. Also, don’t be put off by the fact that MTV’s movie division financed this or that it’s a high school movie. This has a well earned R rating and while it could be enjoyed by teenagers, it’s adults who will best pick up on its sharp social/political satire and who may have had enough professional and personal detours in their own life to relate to (and get some vicarious thrills from) Broderick trying to take the teacher’s pet down a peg or two. </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Again, I will go out on a limb and say that this film has a great many quotable lines, memorable comedic moments and rewards repeat viewings at a Lebowski-like level for me (with out the brilliantly intricate Coen Brothers plot of course). It’s got twice as much subtle humor as overt and is well worth the price of admission. Grade: A-</span></div></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-14148591124091244072009-11-11T08:08:00.000-08:002009-11-11T12:08:04.719-08:00Elephant (2003)<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svrh6iQhboI/AAAAAAAAABw/gruxW0iTUUQ/s1600-h/elephant.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402879098729098882" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 278px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svrh6iQhboI/AAAAAAAAABw/gruxW0iTUUQ/s400/elephant.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Gus Van Sant is an interesting filmmaker for sure. He can make fairly accessible “Hollywood” type films that still retain his signature (“To Die For”, “Milk”, “Good Will Hunting”) but in recent years has been going pretty far out on a limb in and making these slow moving visual poems that are definitely not designed for the masses. Some of these work better than others. His film “Gerry” I found to be painfully dull (and I LOVE slow pacing), I also couldn’t sign-off on his Kurt Cobain film “Last Days” (although I do think about it a lot and it has a lot of powerful moments while not adding up to a cohesive whole in my opinion). “Paranoid Park” I absolutely loved (and will hopefully get to discuss in greater detail in a future blog) but the one that marked me the deepest was “Elephant”. </span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">There’s not much to discuss in terms of plot detail. This is basically a “day in the life” at an average high school that ends with violence and tragedy. We get introduced to a series of characters through sequences that cleverly establish a timeline of where they are physically in the building in relation to each other as well as the various archetypes they are meant to represent. It is a bit of a cliché for high school movies to have “the jocks”, “the burnouts”, “the quiet kids”, etc. That idea has been beaten to death ever since “The Breakfast Club”. But those clichés exist for a reason and are absolutely rooted in reality. By casting real kids, who use their real names and largely improvise all the dialogue we are sucked in to this fly on the wall perspective of the raw emotional state that is adolescence. None of them feel like caricatures. You may roll your eyes listening to a group of teenage girls giggle about a cute boy walking by, but, in the way it’s shot and through the use of improvised dialogue, it (for once) doesn’t feel like an adult trying to write dialogue for teenagers (don’t get me started on the realism of the teenage dialogue in films like “American Beauty” for example). Van Sant uses a lot of very slow tracking shots throughout the film and this does wonders for creating the sort of languid, everyday feel I’m describing. </span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">This is all part of what I call the “slow burn” in regards to pacing and mood. A great many films from “Eraserhead” to “There Will Be Blood” take their time getting where they're going and I just love it when it works! It hypnotizes you and helps put you into the world the filmmakers are trying to create. I think the reason for the slowness in Elephant was to bring out the normalcy of the day and the characters. The fact that there was nothing special or particularly eventful happening just permeated the picture with a sense of dread for me (I recently noticed Van Sant employ this technique brilliantly with Dan White's long walk from the mayor's office to Harvey's during the climax of “Milk”). </span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I recall reading that the title of this film is a reference to the “elephant in the room”, an obvious truth that no one wants to discuss. “Elephant”, along with the aforementioned “Gerry” and “Last Days” is Van Sant’s “death trilogy” and this film centers on the idea of death at the hands of a stranger. It is easily the creepiest and most emotionally draining of the bunch. Something about the calm within the killers is just incredibly upsetting. Even the camera work at times suggests the perspective of a first-person shooter video game, and while I’m not going anywhere near the censorship train, I still feel like it is logical to assume that prolonged exposure to violent imagery, whether in films or in the more vicarious realm of video games, numbs us as individuals and as a society and teenagers have never and will never have the perspective to know that high school is not the end all be all of life on this planet. I remember in the “Bowling For Columbine” documentary when Matt Stone and Trey Parker (of South Park) made a simple statement that stuck with me. Basically, they were shaking their heads at how Dylan and Eric (the Columbine shooters) were seniors in high school just weeks away from graduating and how if they would have just hung in there for a little bit they would have realized (as we all do eventually) that the petty bullshit and drama of high school means nothing in the real world. You can reinvent yourself and make your life anything you want it to be and to quote my father from a memorable exchange he had with my sister when she was upset over being picked on for her gymnastics skills long ago, “No one in the real world will ever care if you can do a forward roll”. So, at risk of oversimplifying the themes of the film, I think that the Elephant in the room is the emotional vulnerability of these kids and the inappropriate outlets (or sometimes lack of outlets) they have. There is of course also an element of tragedy (going back to the “death at the hands of a stranger” theme) as we get a sense of the loneliness, hopefulness, ambition and love within these varied characters, only to see it all disappear with the sound of gunshots. This is the cinematic equivalent of a gut-punch! </span></div><div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The slow burn is a powerful technique, especially when it ends in frenzy (true of Elephant, Eraserhead and There Will Be Blood). It makes the climax more scary and powerful to me if you've taken a long route to get there. Some folks, even passionate film buffs, really only like to be "entertained" by movies and that's their prerogative. Elephant is not for those people... Grade: A-</span></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-71946086345291175402009-11-10T08:00:00.000-08:002009-11-11T12:07:35.039-08:00Blood Simple (1984)<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SvmP2-MqKAI/AAAAAAAAABI/Cu6BvzLnEFA/s1600-h/blood_simple.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402507402579421186" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 311px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/SvmP2-MqKAI/AAAAAAAAABI/Cu6BvzLnEFA/s400/blood_simple.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">QUICK NOTE: I wrote this back in July as I was first starting to get motivated on this movie website/blog idea so there are outdated references to "Burn After Reading" as the latest Coen Bros film. This is no longer accurate as their 1 movie a year plan has recently given us "A Serious Man" which I haven't seen yet.</span> </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">--------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The title "Blood Simple" references the state of mind some enter in the aftermath of a murder. I think it aptly fits this very dark "Comedy of Errors" type scenario. A film populated with miscreants making one "simple", bad decision after another, with misdirected violence playing out before our eyes. You can only shake your head and wish the characters could see the big picture. Alas, you the viewer are the sole recipient of the complete, delicious puzzle.<br /></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">“Blood Simple” is the first film from the now legendary Coen Brothers, Joel and Ethan. It immediately establishes the brothers’ dominance over 21st Century Film Noir. They understand and utilize the classic archetypes of the femme fatale, the jealous husband, the private eye, etc. The simple, haunting piano melody that weaves through the film I'd put in my top five most effective movie themes and sets the tone perfectly. The Coen’s signature though (and the twist that they add to the proceedings) is that classic mix of brilliance and buffoonery, double crosses and dumb luck, fate and mischief. These elements are firmly in place here and have defined their subsequent efforts up to and including their latest, "Burn After Reading." </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">On a lean budget of 1.5 million and the shoulders of some great A to B list talent like Frances McDormand (Fargo, Burn After Reading) who many of you know became Mrs. Joel Coen the year after this was released, the memorable character actor M. Emmet Walsh (The Jerk), John Getz (The Fly) and, of course, Dan Hedaya an excellent supporting actor who has shown up in films as wide ranging as Clueless and Mulholland Drive, and one of my wife's more unusual and troubling celebrity crushes! The Coen’s flagship film is, indeed, one of lasting impact (so much so that I recently read about a foreign language remake from established filmmaker Zhang Yimou, which is highly unusual as it’s typically Hollywood ripping off superior foreign language films). </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Like their recent triumph "No Country For Old Men", our story unfolds in the barren landscapes of Texas (with the occasional Everytown, USA suburb thrown in). Like a great many of The Coen's films, it's about plans gone awry. Abbie (McDormand) is a woman ready to leave her husband but not prepared to do it alone. We meet her just after she's asked the bartender, Ray (Getz) from her husband’s establishment to take her home one stormy night. They establish that Getz is a decent enough fellow with his reluctance to sleep with another man's wife (particularly his boss's I suppose) but he admits "I've always liked you" and his scruples are short lived as they are soon engaged in the classic "roll in the hay". This situation is made more complicated by her husband (Hedaya) who doesn't seem at all prepared to let his lady go free. There's a great exchange between Hedaya and Getz fairly early on that is not only wrought with tension but manages to reference Getz's "I'm no marriage counselor" quips from the opening scene and foreshadows the moment near the climax where Abbie says "I ain't done nothing funny", loading it with suspicion after Getz's brain has gone "Blood Simple"). </span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We meet Walsh’s unnamed Private Detective/Hitman/Scumbag For Hire character in all his yellow suited cheapness in Hedaya’s office the next day as he confirms, with photographs he took the night before, that his wife is sleeping with the help. Hedaya lets his eyebrows do the heavy lifting in an excellent restrained performance of slow burn intimidation that constantly hints at the violence and menace that unquestionably contributed to his wife's running for the hills. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">This scenario is a crime of passion just waiting to happen on somebody’s part. You can certainly see that Hedaya might have a murder in him but with so many double and triple crosses, you're not quite sure he’ll ever get the chance. Abbie's not truly a Femme Fatale either (or is she?) as she ultimately never gives us any good reason to doubt her insincerity. It's similar to their latest collaboration in "Burn After Reading" from the standpoint that she ends up prompting all these men to jump through elaborate hoops and destroy each other so that she can have her way (but does so in such a naive way that for all the wrath she unleashes, you still kind of root for her and absolve her for the inadvertent nightmare world she creates for those around her). Who among them is truly prepared to get their hands dirty?? The answer ultimately...is all of them...under the right circumstances...just like you and me! :) </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I spoke with my father recently about two films that were both really effective in simulating what it feels like to watch your lies bury you in a hot mess (the two in question were Before The Devil Knows Your Dead and Notes On A Scandal by the way). I'd add Blood Simple to this sub-genre and imagine I could think of a few others if I put my mind to it. Let's call it the "People In Deep Shit” section or "Just Keeps Getting Worse" is perhaps a better title. These are tales of adultery, crime, violence and other various forms of deception and ruthlessness. It's like waking from a dream where you're facing incarceration or just know that you've done something very bad...and that "they" will get you...and punish you for it. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I want to add that the DVD release featuring commentary from "Kenneth Loring of Forever Young Films" is probably the most delightful and unusual bonus feature I've ever encountered. I must research the origins of this either improvised or brilliantly scripted performance. It is a track full of petty jealousies toward fake people we've never heard of, imaginary "deleted scenes" (the one involving the hitman's lighter being a precious family heirloom from his childhood in Bulgaria comes to mind) and a slew of nonsense "film facts" such as the dog being "actually animatronic" or how the opening scene in the car had to be shot in reverse including having the actors hang upside down while delivering the dialog backwards. Needless to say, it was a hilariously bizarre bonus feature on an otherwise bare-bones disc but I will keep my fingers crossed that they keep this on whatever future Blu-Ray release I'm sure is coming (and hopefully some new "traditional" bonus features as well). </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So, if you’re like me and enjoy seeing the progression of your favorite filmmakers, go check out Blood Simple and see how the Coen Brothers knocked it out of the park right from the get-go! Grade: A+</span></div><br /><div></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-33730195298825096542009-11-10T06:01:00.000-08:002009-11-11T12:06:13.846-08:00An American Werewolf In London (1981)<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svl4TEsD6WI/AAAAAAAAAAM/HrLJoTN-S7Q/s1600-h/Werewolf.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402481497079015778" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 208px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svl4TEsD6WI/AAAAAAAAAAM/HrLJoTN-S7Q/s320/Werewolf.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><a href="http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=987&position=1"></a><span style="font-size:130%;">My oh my! Where have you been all my life! I have vivid memories of watching my old VHS copy of “The Making of Thriller” when I was a kid and seeing clips in there of John Landis’ film “An American Werewolf In London”. Somehow, even with a solid appreciation for Landis and an enthusiasm for top notch horror films, I never had seen ANY of this 1981 masterpiece.<br /><br />So, we have a classic setup here with two college kids (played by David Naughton and the woefully underused Griffin Dunne) who we meet as they’re hitchhiking across the rural English countryside. I call this a classic setup because it’s become one over the years. Horror movies typically follow a tried and true formula wherein we spend just enough time with a group of eager youngsters to learn who has an unrequited crush on who, who has unresolved daddy issues, etc. Just in time to spend the rest of the film watching them be brutally murdered one by one. The thing is, from this basic setup to the deft blending of genuine horror and hearty, well earned belly laughs, this film is an obvious template that countless amateur (and probably a few professional) filmmakers have tried to emulate. But John Landis knows how to write funny dialogue and shoot a funny scene. He has also been blessed with a real gift for suspense and was smart enough to surround himself with the incredible make-up artist Rick Baker who’s monster effect work (particularly the still stunning transformation scene) really helps this movie hold up beautifully nearly 30 years after its release. *<br /><br />So, yeah, basically we have a pair of cynical, charming young Americans who wander into a local bar full of ominous werewolf décor and other various subtle hints that they are a long way from home. The locals give them the boot with some warnings about staying on the main road and in doing so essentially throw them to the wolves (or the singular wolf in this case…a fate I probably deserve for that pun). It broke my heart to see Griffin Dunne mangled and killed within the first 10-15 minutes, but this is where the real fun begins. David (the actor David Naughton also plays a character named David, usually a bad sign in terms of the actors prowess and may explain why I’ve never seen this guy in ANYTHING else) wakes up in the hospital and finds himself experiencing a series of bizarre, hallucinatory dreams and visions. There are monstrous Nazi’s massacring his family, a silly naked frolic through the woods that ends with him eating a deer (which I believe may have influenced a similar scene in the 90’s Nicholson film “Wolf” or at least reminded me very much of it) and finally, the first of several visits from beyond the grave by Griffin Dunne’s character Jack (quite a relief as I love this guy from Scorsese’s After Hours and, as I mentioned, was quite dismayed when he was killed off so quickly).<br /><br />Jack explains that it was a werewolf that attacked them and that his soul, and the souls of all the werewolf victims, are trapped in limbo unless David kills himself (or dies in general) in order to sever the bloodline. Jack has fallen in love with his nurse though (and she with him) and he is quite reluctant to off himself based on this “hallucination” he’s had. I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen it but let’s just say that chaos ensues!<br /><br />Landis cleverly uses multiple “moon” themed classics throughout the film such as “Moondance” for a love scene, “Bad Moon Rising” works in contrast to its upbeat feel to create a sense of dread and there are several versions of “Blue Moon” sprinkled in as garnish throughout. The chemistry between David and the nurse is natural, relaxed and charming (much like the early banter between Jack and David that quickly endears you to those characters). The scenes of the werewolf on the prowl always maintain the films impressive tone of 50% brilliant comedy and 50% suspenseful horror. There’s a generous amount of crude humor, nudity and gore and the pacing is marvelous! I truly can’t say enough good things about the film. I’m so sad that it took me so long to discover this film as it surely would have been the kind of movie I took around to friends houses in high school to introduce them to at sleepovers and party’s. Alas, I will look forward to owning it on BluRay soon and count on this here movie blog to be the modern equivalent of bringing it over for a sleepover! GO WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! Grade: A+<br /><br />* Just wanted to make a quick note that Rick Baker's back to back work on this film and David Cronenberg's Videodrome are probably the most innovative and stunning make-up effects I've ever seen. While modern special effects can be very cool in the right hands, it's very inspiring to see what simple creativity and ingenuity could do back when everything you saw had to be accomplished "in the frame". Please tip your cap to Mr. Baker if you ever see him!</span></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-63534394477341106382009-11-09T12:32:00.000-08:002009-11-11T12:05:49.938-08:00New York Stories (1989)<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svl5IR_KKfI/AAAAAAAAAAU/WyS7yvG_HEg/s1600-h/NewYorkStories.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402482411181844978" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 222px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svl5IR_KKfI/AAAAAAAAAAU/WyS7yvG_HEg/s320/NewYorkStories.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">New York Stories is the earliest example of these directors anthology films that I can think of. They are a rare treat when they pop up from time to time. This one features 3 well known writer-directors who have used the iconic New York City as the backdrop for the majority of their films (not especially true in the case of Coppola but we'll get back to that).The first section (and the best one in my opinion) is Martin Scorsese's "Life Lessons". This is a short about a painter (Nick Nolte) and the intense artist/muse relationship he has with his live-in assistant played by Rosanna Arquette. As the piece begins, Nolte is shown to be a well established artist whose inspiration has seemingly dried up. He tells his agent that he has no work to show him for his upcoming gallery show before excusing himself to go pick up his assistant from the airport (telling his agent something about how he doesn't understand why she can't just take a cab). Within seconds of her getting off the plane, she explains that she's trying to leave him and we get the first glimpses that the Nolte character is delusional, controlling, manipulative and quite narcissistic. You get the sense that she was once spell bound by this semi-famous, established older artist taking her under his wing with his repeated mantra about “free room and board and priceless life lessons” which largely seem to equate to sex with this paint spattered grizzly adams and listening to polite non-committal critiques of her artwork (he’s scared to tell her he doesn’t like her work because he doesn’t want her to leave). He does convince her to stay but she tells him “no more sex” and that, alas, is the trouble in paradise. His primal instincts, coupled with the psychological babying he seems to need put him into quite a disastrous state of being in terms of his inter-personal abilities, yet, as they often do, also propel him full force back into his work, channeling the emotional extremes into his art. This short story inherently leaves it to you the viewer to put together much of the history of these characters and you get the sense by the end that this is an ongoing pattern for Nolte that he knows he needs in order to get the creative juices flowing and be able to breathe life into canvas. You can see how this overbearing man would suck the life out of these young women but during an interesting moment where Arquette stands, unnoticed, observing Nolte at work, you can also see how he does sort of keep up his end of the bargain in terms of exposing them to this art world, the people within it and the unique temperaments therein. It’s an unhealthy bit of symbiotic on-screen “love” that hits close to home for me in terms of the way life experiences are channeled into an artists’ work. It is also worth noting that Steve Buscemi has a memorable cameo as a sleazy “performance artist” who continually destroys Arquettes self-esteem. I couldn’t help but think of Quentin Tarantino watching this motor mouthed, energetic and wiry young man and either writing the part of Mr. Pink (Reservoir Dogs) for him or very quickly understanding how tailor made he was for the role.<br /><br />Next up we have the Coppola film. Now, Coppola does seem to have a strong understanding of New York and did spend much of his life there. His most famous work, The Godfather Trilogy is very tied to NYC (I believe his film The Conversation was shot there too…but I can’t remember for sure). Coppola though ultimately has no consistency in his body of work (except perhaps the theme of family) and similarly, his entry into this anthology called “Life Without Zoe” is entirely skippable in my opinion and by far the weak link of the three. It’s about a little rich girl who lives in a hotel while her famous flautist father and wealthy mother are out concentrating on their own lives. I understand that New York has it’s “high society” element to it and that they may look at this overprivledged, cutesy little girl and find something charming and relatable and interesting in the story…but I, for one, find it painfully dull and don’t want to write about it any longer except to say that I hated it when I was 13 and first saw the movie and that 13 years later when I watched it again…it still left me utterly void of enthusiasm.<br /><br />So let’s move on to Woody Allen’s “Oedipus Wrecks” which is a short, sweet delightful little film that plays like the very best Woody comedies. I’ve been on a big Woody Allen kick for a while now since falling in love with Match Point (which at first glance seemed inconsistent with what I knew of his work) and wanting to dig deeper into his catalog (to ultimately understand that Match Point is very much in line with his themes and characters…just with less overt humor). So, Woody plays a successful lawyer (did I mention he’s neurotic…did I have to??) engaged to Mia Farrow, a gentile with 3 children from a previous marriage. We learn from Woody’s visits with his psychiatrist (as well as an awkwardly funny dinner scene) that his mother is incredibly overbearing (even for a Jewish mother…which I don’t personally have much experience in but feel like I understand from the movies) and does not want her son to “rush in” to this marriage. During a family outing to a magic show (which featured a few genuine “laugh out loud” moments for me…a standard that is very rare, even for things I find very funny) the mother is chosen to participate in a trick and disappears. Just as Woody’s character finds his life improving in all kinds of unexpected ways without her smothering influence, she suddenly appears, floating in the skies of New York, to badger and embarrass her little boy once again. What a hilarious, extreme neurotic idea this is in the first place! As usual, Woody sneaks in some real psychological curiosity into the proceedings as he finds himself falling in love with a woman very much like his mother (and mother of course approves and agrees to come out of the sky). The sharp viewer will figure out that this is where the story’s heading about 10 minutes before Woody does, but that doesn’t at all cheapen the bemused expression of disheartened understanding and acceptance that we’re left with as HE realizes it.<br /><br />So, overall you have a great set of bookends with an absolute turd in the middle. For any Scorsese or Woody Allen fans though, these shorts can stand side by side with each director’s best work. So, while I’d give Life Lessons and Oedipus Wrecks an A+ each, Life Without Zoe is a big old F and the film as a complete work then gets a generous B- from me.</span></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6582174247975212098.post-40810333469158319552009-11-09T10:17:00.000-08:002009-11-11T12:05:23.734-08:00Mission Statement...<span style="font-size:180%;"></span><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svl5q-A9IRI/AAAAAAAAAAc/vFTnPA3snTc/s1600-h/ElMariachi.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402483007116091666" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 213px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J-SP6zmYkDM/Svl5q-A9IRI/AAAAAAAAAAc/vFTnPA3snTc/s320/ElMariachi.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I've got a lot of ambitious ideas kicking around for the ultimate movie website. I've found that the more I look at the big picture of the online world I'd like to create using my passion for film, the more intimidating it becomes and the further it falls on my priority list (only so many hours in the day after all). I try to be a man of action though and had a pair of conversations with my parents today that provided a suitable kick in the pants for me to do SOMETHING!<br /><br />One of the things I talked about with my dad was the huge inspiration that a small portion of the Spy Kids 2 commentary track with director Robert Rodriguez has had on me. The advice was specific to making movies but I've found it to be universally good advice for dreamers of all sorts. The gist of it was that Rodriguez talked about how so many people dream about making a movie and they think about the new life they'd have and the great artists they'd get to work with and all the cool movie ideas they could develop, etc. But no one ever talks about the PROCESS of making movies and how much fun that is! His point was that the joy should largely be in the MAKING of art. The act of creating SOMETHING...regardless of it's success or failure. I immediately applied this to my outlook on writing and performing music. For years I had stayed off the Cleveland stages with my music because for this reason or that reason it "wasn’t ready". Rodriguez made me realize that to go out there and give it your best and risk failure was the REAL pursuit of the dream. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing right? The best dreams in the world that are never acted upon mean NOTHING! So, in keeping with my goal to be a man of action and a man who chases dreams I am today launching this movie blog “The Best Movies You’ve Never Heard Of”.<br /><br />True to the above sage advice, I am holding in my fears of failure. I'd still like to provide a short disclaimer of sorts: I am not an expert in ALL films, I'm 26 and I've only seen what I've seen and haven't really ventured much further before the 1960's besides some obvious classics. My tastes tend to veer off the beaten path but not into the dark corridors of truly obscure films, I’m more in the hidden gems business you could say. When I like an artist I like to dig deep into their body of work and those are typically the types of films I’ll be touching on, more obscure works that almost always have some connection to the more mainstream cinema you ARE familiar with. I have a highly analytical mind but find that if I try to analyze things too much it can get kind of boring and if I just write stream of consciousness (as I plan on doing to get started) it sometimes doesn’t go deep enough in conveying a films greatness. These are the sort of thoughts that plague me and convince me that it’s better that I don’t even start this movie blog as I have nothing to add that anyone will be interested in reading anyway. Then I think, there’s a reason that everyone who knows me comes to me for movie advice and calls me for movie trivia and trusts me to steer them in the right direction…I care very deeply for films and I have done my homework and I do have good taste and I do feel like I have my finger on the pulse of our popular culture. So hopefully, you’ll enjoy my writing; hopefully you’ll participate through comments and keep an ongoing dialogue going. What I hope most of all though is that you are inspired to check out some of these films for the first time and that I might introduce you to a future favorite that you may not have found otherwise. It’s a lot of responsibility but I think I’m up for the task! At least I plan on diving in feet first, coming out on stage and risking failure! It is my dream to be considered a credible source for film criticism and interpretation. I hope you will send people my way if you find my advice to be sound and trustworthy for your film going needs!</span></div>Brian Pritchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06864956523339578054noreply@blogger.com2