Very interesting article I found on my 'Net travels: Why The Dark Knight Sucks. Can't say I disagree with too much of this, although I did enjoy the movie.
(On the other hand, TDK is no longer the #1 movie on the IMDB Top 250. I would be lying if I said that news didn't please me.)
Also, an interesting article by Karl Hungus warning against myopic, selective cinematic nostalgia. This is an interesting topic, and one I might want to deal with myself one day.
I've had a pretty shitty week, personally. Watched Jaws and Zulu since Sunday, had some technological difficulties, watched some Olympics and am trying to organize a response to Russia's rampant aggression. Oh well, school starts in about a week.
I will hopefully get Zulu Dawn via Netflix in the near-future. Since I've heard it to be extremely anti-war, especially in comparison to the original, it will be interesting to compare and contrast it to the original. Do I sense a possible topic for a future featured article?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Dark Knight
Another celebrity loss: Isaac Hayes died at age 65.
Today I finally got around to watching the uber-hyped The Dark Knight, a film which has been hyped to the moon for a variety of reasons, so much that it is currently Number One on the IMDB's Top 250. So, after weeks of being annoyed by mountains of IMDB threads about it, what did i think?
Well, I thought it was a pretty darn entertaining film, actually. It bites off a bit more than it can chew - a bit too much is covered in too little time, and after the Joker's escape from jail, the movie loses a lot of its interest by becoming repetitive and drawn out. (To be fair, it seems as a general rule that no one knows when to end an action movie these days.) But up until that point, it's a very well-made, entertaining film. The cinematography is nice, the moral issues raised by the movie are quite interesting (how can you fight crime by the rules, when the criminals don't play by the rules?), the characters are for the most part well-drawn and interesting. Most of the flaws are of form, rather than content - if that makes the least bit of sense.
Christian Bale is a very good Batman, and Maggie Gyllenhaal is adequate as his ex-girlfriend. Heath Ledger, who for obvious reasons has received virtually all of the acting hype, is pretty good, relishing his opportunity to play one of the nastiest villains in recent memory - although I wouldn't rate it as the amazing, Earth-shattering turn it's listed as by most critics. The two great supporting cast members are Gary Oldman, who gives us a layered and conflicted Commissioner Gordon, and Aaron Eckhart, who gives a fine performance as the naive Elliot Ness-like crusader who becomes a vengeful killer. The only real question is, why they decided to (apparently) kill him off in his first movie?
So, that's my take. Greatest film of all time? No. Very good for what it was, though. It gets an 8/10, which might be a mite generous, but what the hell, I enjoyed it.
I also watched Jaws 3 today, but I hope you don't expect me to say anything about that... I'll be working on my Pirates article, should be done by the end of the day tomorrow.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Pirates of the Caribbean: An Appreciation and Criticism
This past week, I engaged myself in a re-watching of three of the most popular adventure films of recent years: Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. What started out as a goofy-sounding movie based on a theme park ride turned into one of the biggest pop culture phenomenons of the new millenium. And two of the films, at least, are damned good movies, blockbuster entertainment at its best. They are movies of excrutiating complexity, with many themes, messages, and subplots crammed into their near-three-hour running times.
The Curse of the Black Pearl hit theaters in July 2003. It wasn't expected to be a whole lot worth mentioning, just a dumb summer flick based on a dubious premise, in spite of a cast featuring stalwarts Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush and Jonathan Pryce, and up-and-coming stars Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. But then something happened, and it became a huge hit. How did this come about?
This is a rather easy question to address: Pearl is a relatively simple film, all around. Not that it doesn't contain its share of themes or ideas, but for the most part it's a grand old adventure film (albeit with a supernatural twist), relatively formulaic (in a good way), featuring a well-structured story, interesting characters, and lots of great scenes of action and spectacle. We have a plethora of enjoyably archetypical characters: the straight-laced romantic hero Will Turner (wooden plank Orlando Bloom), feisty heroine Elizabeth Swann (pre-bitchy Keira Knightley), nasty villain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), stuffy English naval officer Norrington (Jack Davenport), Elizabeth's doting Father (Jonathan Pryce), and of course, Jack Sparrow (Depp). There are lots of great action scenes (including two of the best sword-fights outside of an Errol Flynn or Douglas Fairbanks film), nice visuals (particularly Elizabeth's first encounter with the zombified pirate crew), a stirring, instantly classic score by Klaus Bladet, a sharp, witty script by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio (who actually had time to develop this project, unlike the sequels) and a nice, typically happy ending. The film's a mite overlong but all things considered, it's a forgivable sin.
Perhaps the biggest asset of Black Pearl is Johnny Depp. He gives us a wonderfully eccentric creation in Jack Sparrow, one of the great film characters of this century so far. Looking like Keith Richards with eyeliner and dirty dreadlocks, mincing like a drunken drag queen, acting like a more fey version of Eli Wallach's great Tuco from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, spouting off a never-ending succession of (largely ad-libbed) quips and non-sequiters, Depp easily steals every scene he's in, and our nice but wooden leads don't stand the slightest chance. He's a charming rogue, an extremely unscrupulous schemer who always finds the most convoluted and improbable ways of getting out of trouble. A question frequently asked in these films is: "Do you think he plans it all out, or just makes it up as he goes along?" Trying to decipher Jack's motivations and unwind his tangled machinations is ridiculously fun. The rest of the cast is adequate-to-good - Geoffrey Rush in particular makes a fabulous, teeth-gnashing yet sympathetic villain, and Jack Davenport is quite good, as his portrayal of the complex Norrington throughout these films will remain truly refreshing and enjoyable - but this film, at least, is Depp's show from beginning to end. Only sporadically in the sequels would Jack reach such a glorious level of irreverent entertainment; this is the original, and by far the best.
So, we have everything sweetly tied up at the end. Jack has his ship back, Elizabeth and Will are together, and Norrington and Swann seem reconciled to that fact. The End. Unfortunately for Will, Elizabeth, Jack, and the rest, Curse of the Black Pearl was a huge success, so they couldn't be left off in a state of never-ending fictional bliss.
The two Pirates sequels are quite interesting in their own way, with their own flaws and rewards, and seemingly in a completely different universe than their simple-minded predecessor. While Dead Man's Chest is a pretty lousy movie barring a few good scenes and admittedly neat visual effects, At World's End is an intriguing film, a sprawling bit of excess that manages to entertain and fascinate even while inspiring a huge degree of incredulity. The latter two movies contain loads of sub-plots, side characters, which simultaneously help and harm the films in question. The phrase which leaps to mind is glorious mess - or, at least it's glorious in the case of one of them.
Dead Man's Chest is a failure for a variety of reasons. Despite a brilliant opening ten minutes, with Elizabeth and Will's wedding interrupted by the arrival of the evil Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) and his henchmen (in the midst of a swirling rain storm), and Jack's intro shooting a crow through a coffin lid, the movie never quite decides on what it wants to be. It is by far the darkest of the Pirates films, with Lord Beckett's omnipresent henchmen consolidating power (for nefarious purposes of imperialism and - gasp! - capitalistic enterprise) and more pertinently, the lengthy scenes of Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and the fishy, undead crew of the Flying Dutchman (well, they would be dark and scary if they didn't look so ridiculous). Too much time is spent setting up the plot, with Macguffins and backstory that are either discarded or contradicted later on. Other than Norrington - interestingly reincarnated as a drunken wastrel, his career in tatters after his unsuccessful pursuit of Jack - our heroes from the original story are pretty much ciphers. Even Jack barely gets to do any scheming, and he ends being a rather lifeless and unfunny cipher, rather than the interestingly complex, cunning rogue of the previous film (and what the hell is with his flirtation with Elizabeth?). The action scenes are mostly lame, degenerating to the Looney Tunes level - the whole ridiculous, excrutiatingly long (and mostly pointless) scene on the cannibal island, and the three-way swordfight on the spinning water wheel. There's no fun to be had here, only dizzying exposition and aggravating incredulity. In the end, the only level on which Dead Man's Chest works is as a set-up for the finale.
At World's End, on the other hand, is a refreshing return to form. Although a mite overlong - the inexplicably surreal Davy Jones' locker scenes, with the multiple Jacks and thousands of rock crabs, are just as long, boring and stupid as the cannibal scenes in Chest - and schizophrenic in tone, with an excrutiatingly convoluted story and fifty-six different subplots that don't always tie together or get resolved satisfactorily (the whole bit with the pirate council comes to very little, and Chow Yun-Fat's much-hyped part is a glorified cameo), it manages to succeed on the level of pure entertainment, which is where it most counts. It starts off with a really dark and nasty opening - Beckett has gone Liberal Caricature of George Bush and is executing thousands of people without trial, including ugly little kids - a very amusing juxtaposition with the Disney logo with When You Wish Upon a Star playing. The rest of the film doesn't live up to that tone, but if there are too many gags with monkeys and midgets, and too much going on, and poor use of supporting characters, and too many implausible and occasionally unsatisfying moments, they're swept under the rug for a lights-out, no-holds-barred super-giant wowser battle scene that is one of the most visually stunning and intense sequences you'll ever see in a PG-13 Disney film (wait, that's a much more back-handed complement than I'd intended). And, here's something - Captain Jack is back to being entertaining.
If nothing else, the two Pirates sequels are complex to a fault, and they worth discussing in some detail. They carry a number of intriguing themes and ideas, even if all of them aren't satisfactorily dealt with, and I shall indulge my inner film student with a half-baked analysis from here-on. There are many aspects of these films we could analyze, but realizing this article is already half the length of War and Peace, I'll restrain myself to a handful of issues, ennumerated below...
One of the most interesting themes of the film is that of Man vs. Nature. All wrapped up in the mythological implications of Davy Jones, Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) and their ilk, most critics seem too eager to connect Jones to the old seafaring legends and stories rather than say what they actually stand for. Jones lost his humanity through his relationship with Tia Dalma, mutating into a laughable CGI monster with a caricature Scottish brogue, and now his heart is literally out of his body. His crew, trapped between the two worlds, sails the seas with impunity, unleashing the vicious Kraken whenever they see fit to kill a few people for jollies. When Jones arrogantly proclaims "I AM the sea!" he may not be speaking the literal truth, but he is certainly a force of nature far beyond the control of man. Dalma is the sea goddess Calypso, and is an even more overt representation of Nature. Beckett may gain control of the Dutchman ("The immaterial has become immaterial"), and the Bretheren Court might control Calypso (or at least the terms of her release), but both learn the hard way that all this achieves is inviting punishment and revenge. Man can try and control Nature, but failure is inevitable - and doing so only incurs its wrath.Less discussed by reviewers than Jones is Lord Beckett, brilliantly portrayed by Tom Hollander, who represents a number of interesting themes. At first, he appears to be a fairly typical bad guy - arrogant, calculating, British - but as the film(s) progress, he develops into an interesting symbol, if not character. On a basic level, Beckett functions as a physical manifestation of imperialism (represented by the huge world map painted on the wall of Beckett's office, and later a Chaplin-esque globe in his ship's cabin) and capitalism - a huge company, under the guise of patriotism and progress, expanding its monopoly around the globe with callous regard for human life, only concerned with profit and personal gain. (Hmm... nope, no political message there.) More interestingly, he is also a dark analogue to Jack Sparrow - their shared past and different paths afterwards point to this, and their meeting in At World's End shows them to be, effectively, mirror images of one another. Both men are skillful at manipulating others, in order to save their own skin and advance their means. But the chummy, scraggly, witty and cunning Jack represents freedom, an idea completely antithetical to the clean-cut, cold, and conniving Beckett, who represents imperialism and macroeconomics. Why critics don't seem to pay much attention to Beckett (and the wonderful David Schofield as his glowering "clerk" Mercer) is beyond me, but I guess they were too distracted by Squidface Nighy and his briny crew. Critics.
Therein lies the central conflict of the films: freedom. Jack makes a point of this fact in the original: "A ship represents freedom." In spite of the best efforts of Norrington, in Pearl the Caribbean was still pretty much a wild, raucous place where one could be a pirate and have lots of fun plundering, looting, and otherwise being a criminal. The likes of Beckett, however, want none of it: power and control are paramount, along with a rigidly structured society. Jones has forfeited his own freedom, allowing himself to be controlled by whomever owns his heart. Jack has to make this choice, too, being forced to confront the ultimate question: Is it worth living forever? And how free would one really be, in that instance?
This is all interesting on a thematic level. Unfortunately, some rather clunky attempts are made, in End at least, to connect this with our global situation and the dummy currently residing in the White House. Elizabeth's embarrassing Braveheart-esque speech in End spells this out, treating piracy like an unfairly maligned liberal movement rather than a bunch of cut-throats (a dubious proposition, to be sure). To be fair, though, the Bretheren Court does come across as a slightly more violent version of the UN, with lots of pointless bickering and argument among selfish world leaders that leads nowhere...
But really, reading political subtext into this is rather foolish, even if Elliot and Rossio (both active Screenwriters Guild members) frame the issue in this way; the theme ressonates on a much more basic level. The ultimate dream of a pirate, at least according to these films, is not to plunder and rob and amass a fortune, but to be able to sail the seas, unfettered and alive, forever. This has been the appeal of piracy in fiction, from Treasure Island to Captain Blood to, well, these films: the dreams of being able to live outside of the constraints of society and do your own thing, heedless to rules and laws and the like. Elizabeth is our representative on the spot (at least in Pearl): eager to burst free of the controlling, stuffy society she inhabits, and to experience the world of unmitigated freedom and enjoyability. And she gets to live her fantasy (and ours), getting kidnapped by pirates, managing to escape at fight them off, and being rescued by her Prince Charming in the process. This what not only these movies, but films period, are, in their purest sense - being able to live a fantasy, in a much more direct sense than one could with novels or story-telling.
So, yeah, there is some actually depth and content to these films. But mostly, they are (or should be) for fun. That's why Curse of the Black Pearl is the best, and why At World's End is infinitely better than Dead Man's Chest. As armchair film critics, themes and ideas might appeal to us. But as pop-corn munching theater-goers, we want action, adventure, likeable heroes, hissable villains, cool special effects, a satisfactory climax, and a few good jokes along the way. Adding plots of Dickensian complexity to our fun swashbuckling adventure isn't something that most viewers appreciate, and it doesn't really help the movies that much, save for the purpose of articles like this. Quite frankly, it smacks of self-indulgence as much as anything else. The effort to make these films deeper than something like Die Hard is admirable, but how seriously can you take a movie with zombie pirates and squid-faced sailors anyway?
No, Pirates of the Caribbean are top-notch fantasy films, not political screeds or classic novels. As such, they're pretty darn entertaining. But sometimes less is more, and in this case, Curse of the Black Pearl definitely trumps Dead Man's Chest and At World's End.
RIP Bernie Mac
Yet another celebrity has left us - comedian-actor Bernie Mac died at the age of 50 today.
This has been an unusually grim year: Brad Renfro, Heath Ledger, Paul Scofield, Richard Widmark, Mel Ferrer - and that's just a partial list (see also the "Curse of the Dark Knight" - I'm hoping Michael Caine isn't going to be affected anytime soon!). All that, and stories about Patrick Swayze, Christina Appelgate and Paul Newman suffering from various cancers. Oy.
Watched A Clockwork Orange the other day, which I enjoyed (and it was too over-the-top to be really disturbing), and finished my Pirates of the Caribbean week. Will probably write an appreciation/criticism of the Pirates films, but I'm not 100% sure if it will be an analysis or an essay - whichever one's easier, I imagine.
This has been an unusually grim year: Brad Renfro, Heath Ledger, Paul Scofield, Richard Widmark, Mel Ferrer - and that's just a partial list (see also the "Curse of the Dark Knight" - I'm hoping Michael Caine isn't going to be affected anytime soon!). All that, and stories about Patrick Swayze, Christina Appelgate and Paul Newman suffering from various cancers. Oy.
Watched A Clockwork Orange the other day, which I enjoyed (and it was too over-the-top to be really disturbing), and finished my Pirates of the Caribbean week. Will probably write an appreciation/criticism of the Pirates films, but I'm not 100% sure if it will be an analysis or an essay - whichever one's easier, I imagine.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Wednesday
Been a couple days, due to lack of things to write about. At least, of interest to me.
Morgan Freeman got into a car wreck a few days ago, which, after what happened to Heath Ledger (R.I.P.) and Christian Bale, doesn't bode well for Gary Oldman and Michael Caine. I'd be wary of being cast in any future Batman installments, from now on...
An interesting article here showing why August is the absolute doldrums for movie-goers. Not that I disagree - certainly the pathetically meager offerings so far this month are only supporting the article. I'm curious about one thing, though - is "Space Cow" really Space Cowboys, or am I missing something else altogether?
I watched The Sea Hawk with Erroll Flynn yesterday. You can read my comments in the updated "Tudor Mania" post below. Pretty good, but the TCM print was absolutely awful.
I'm continuing my Pirates marathon with Dead Man's Chest today. I have found that film to be rather bad in my first two viewings, but I think I'll give it another stab for old times sake. At least there's Jack Davenport and Tom Hollander to hold my interest, if not enough of either. Who needs Orlando Bloom or (God help us) Keira Knightley anyway? Certainly, no one needs the ugly, stupid, ridiculous fish people. But that's another article.
Morgan Freeman got into a car wreck a few days ago, which, after what happened to Heath Ledger (R.I.P.) and Christian Bale, doesn't bode well for Gary Oldman and Michael Caine. I'd be wary of being cast in any future Batman installments, from now on...
An interesting article here showing why August is the absolute doldrums for movie-goers. Not that I disagree - certainly the pathetically meager offerings so far this month are only supporting the article. I'm curious about one thing, though - is "Space Cow" really Space Cowboys, or am I missing something else altogether?
I watched The Sea Hawk with Erroll Flynn yesterday. You can read my comments in the updated "Tudor Mania" post below. Pretty good, but the TCM print was absolutely awful.
I'm continuing my Pirates marathon with Dead Man's Chest today. I have found that film to be rather bad in my first two viewings, but I think I'll give it another stab for old times sake. At least there's Jack Davenport and Tom Hollander to hold my interest, if not enough of either. Who needs Orlando Bloom or (God help us) Keira Knightley anyway? Certainly, no one needs the ugly, stupid, ridiculous fish people. But that's another article.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Sunday Post/Week in Review
Nothing cinematic to report for now, except a few links:
- Barbara2001 pointed me to this great profile of Peter O'Toole from a few years ago.
- Impossibly long (and appropriately hilarious) reviews of two of the worst movies of all time, The Trial of Billy Jack and Billy Jack Goes to Washington - films so bad that I may, myself, desire to write a screed on my hatred of them.
Lots of playing Sonic the Hedgehog games this weekend - now there's a good time. I still maintain Sonic and Knuckles is by far the best. And Sid Meier's Gettysburg!, of which I have a buggy copy which causes the game to freeze at inopportune moments...
Anyway: As of right now, I am enlisting potential collaborators from around the 'Net to join our enterprise, so within the next week or two we may become larger or more diverse (since I know there's only so much of me you can take). It's merely a possibility though, not a promise.
In the mean-time, so you have something to read: Originally posted on IMDB, here is a brief overview of the films. It was, for me, a rather disappointing week.
Leprechaun 2 - 0/10 - Ugh. It was slightly "better" (in terms of enjoyability) than the first one, but it was still nowhere near the brilliantly camptastic Leprechaun in the Hood. It did have some really funny scenes, though, including the Leprechaun's drinking contest (with a bar full of midgets cheering him on) and the Leprechaun's custom Go-Kart.
The Eagle Has Landed - 7/10 - Based on a novel by Jack Higgins, unread by me, it's a pretty typical WWII commando movie centering around a Nazi plot to kidnap Churchill with a platoon of elite paratroops. It's an intriguing premise with a great cast - Michael Caine, Donald Sutherland, Robert Duvall, Donald Pleasance, Jenny Agutter, Anthony Quayle, Treat Williams - but it doesn't quite live up to its potential. After some interesting scene-setting/character establishment, the movie sets itself up as a suspenseful thriller, but about eighty minutes in turns into a dumb, predictable shoot-'em-up action flick, albeit a well-made one. The cast is adequate: Michael Caine has some nice early scenes, but most of his performance seems tossed off; Donald Sutherland has fun in spite of a laughable Irish accent; Jenny Agutter is bland and unmemorable; Robert Duvall is excellent as the increasingly obsessed intelligence officer in charge of the plan; Donald Pleasance and Anthony Quayle are good in small roles as real-life Nazi big-wigs; Larry Hagman's scenes as the obnoxious, over-the-top American Colonel are ridiculously bad, and not even funny in the least. A great ending helps, but it could have been a great film instead of a modestly diverting one.
Syriana - 5/10 - Utter *beep* This movie is pretentious in every possible meaning of the word: long, convoluted, dull, and full of hackneyed political statements presenting themselves as "thoughtful" and "profound". It presents nothing new, or even very interesting or insightful, about the oil business, the CIA, or terrorism, taking feverishly paranoid, far-left viewpoints all of the above, and does a poor job of tying its various plot lines together (I still have no idea what the hell was going on with the Jeremy Wright-centered plot about corporate corruption). Its worst sin, however, is that it's confusing, convoluted, and boring. I'm more than happy to sit through a film with differing political viewpoints than mine, if it's good. When there's little of entertainment value to compensate, such childish ranting masquerading as profundity tends to piss me off. Direction was competent and the excellent cast is pretty good (I really liked Alexander Siddig and Christopher Plummer in particular), but that's not enough in and of itself to make a good movie.
Gosford Park - 6/10 - This one was a much bigger disappointment than any of the above. I looked at the director, the cast list and the premise and I thought I was in for a rollicking good time. Boy, was I wrong. As a murder mystery, it isn't bad, although it seems Mr. Altman was trying to make some sort of social satire of the British caste system (rather unoriginal, I dare say). If so, I'd say he failed, because there was virtually no humor in the film - I could probably count on both hands the number of times I laughed or smiled. I'd argue that there were simply too many cast members, played by too many "name" actors, and the effect ends up like many of the old war/Biblical epics with casts of thousands being put to waste. Getting x-number of big name actors engaging in lengthy, aimless conversations and letting the camera role does not make good cinema, in and of itself. There were some great performances - a handsome and suave Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander getting lots of rather mean (but funny) height jokes, the always-lovely Kristin Scott Thomas, Michael Gambon as the cranky, randy patriarch, and Stephen Fry, whose brief cameo provides the film with most of its laughs and energy - but most of the fine cast is wasted in roles that could have been played by any number of actors equally well. And God help me if I don't find Bob Balaban excrutiatingly annoying. This was the one film I watched this week that I was genuinely disappointed by.
The Train - 9/10 - Finally! This movie lived up to its reputation and then some; one of the most stylish, effective and gritty war films. Although the plot is a mite ludicrous (albeit, much stranger things have happened during wartime in real life), the movie remaisn rooted in reality throughout; pretty much everyone who helps Burt Lancaster and Co. in their mission gets shot for their trouble, and Lancaster's heroics are on a decidedly modest and believable scale. It has interesting things to say about the cost and meaning of war (why sacrifice lives for art?) and ties its trainload of paintings into the abstract cause of patriotism wonderfully. Great set pieces, including the air raid, the train wreck and the final confrontation. Lancaster is brilliant, with an unusually understatement (and admirably athletic) performance, and Paul Scofield gives a wonderful turn as the evil, obsessed Colonel Von Waldheim; his final speech in his showdown with Lancaster is striking, and even moving in its own way. A brilliant film, and pretty close to a masterpiece. If nothing else, it's the one good film I watched this week...
In the works is an article on The Train, although I'm not entirely sure what form it will take.
I plan to watch A Clockwork Orange this week, as well as a marathon on the Pirates of the Caribbean films, which may or may not result in an article on said topic.
- Barbara2001 pointed me to this great profile of Peter O'Toole from a few years ago.
- Impossibly long (and appropriately hilarious) reviews of two of the worst movies of all time, The Trial of Billy Jack and Billy Jack Goes to Washington - films so bad that I may, myself, desire to write a screed on my hatred of them.
Lots of playing Sonic the Hedgehog games this weekend - now there's a good time. I still maintain Sonic and Knuckles is by far the best. And Sid Meier's Gettysburg!, of which I have a buggy copy which causes the game to freeze at inopportune moments...
Anyway: As of right now, I am enlisting potential collaborators from around the 'Net to join our enterprise, so within the next week or two we may become larger or more diverse (since I know there's only so much of me you can take). It's merely a possibility though, not a promise.
In the mean-time, so you have something to read: Originally posted on IMDB, here is a brief overview of the films. It was, for me, a rather disappointing week.
Leprechaun 2 - 0/10 - Ugh. It was slightly "better" (in terms of enjoyability) than the first one, but it was still nowhere near the brilliantly camptastic Leprechaun in the Hood. It did have some really funny scenes, though, including the Leprechaun's drinking contest (with a bar full of midgets cheering him on) and the Leprechaun's custom Go-Kart.
The Eagle Has Landed - 7/10 - Based on a novel by Jack Higgins, unread by me, it's a pretty typical WWII commando movie centering around a Nazi plot to kidnap Churchill with a platoon of elite paratroops. It's an intriguing premise with a great cast - Michael Caine, Donald Sutherland, Robert Duvall, Donald Pleasance, Jenny Agutter, Anthony Quayle, Treat Williams - but it doesn't quite live up to its potential. After some interesting scene-setting/character establishment, the movie sets itself up as a suspenseful thriller, but about eighty minutes in turns into a dumb, predictable shoot-'em-up action flick, albeit a well-made one. The cast is adequate: Michael Caine has some nice early scenes, but most of his performance seems tossed off; Donald Sutherland has fun in spite of a laughable Irish accent; Jenny Agutter is bland and unmemorable; Robert Duvall is excellent as the increasingly obsessed intelligence officer in charge of the plan; Donald Pleasance and Anthony Quayle are good in small roles as real-life Nazi big-wigs; Larry Hagman's scenes as the obnoxious, over-the-top American Colonel are ridiculously bad, and not even funny in the least. A great ending helps, but it could have been a great film instead of a modestly diverting one.
Syriana - 5/10 - Utter *beep* This movie is pretentious in every possible meaning of the word: long, convoluted, dull, and full of hackneyed political statements presenting themselves as "thoughtful" and "profound". It presents nothing new, or even very interesting or insightful, about the oil business, the CIA, or terrorism, taking feverishly paranoid, far-left viewpoints all of the above, and does a poor job of tying its various plot lines together (I still have no idea what the hell was going on with the Jeremy Wright-centered plot about corporate corruption). Its worst sin, however, is that it's confusing, convoluted, and boring. I'm more than happy to sit through a film with differing political viewpoints than mine, if it's good. When there's little of entertainment value to compensate, such childish ranting masquerading as profundity tends to piss me off. Direction was competent and the excellent cast is pretty good (I really liked Alexander Siddig and Christopher Plummer in particular), but that's not enough in and of itself to make a good movie.
Gosford Park - 6/10 - This one was a much bigger disappointment than any of the above. I looked at the director, the cast list and the premise and I thought I was in for a rollicking good time. Boy, was I wrong. As a murder mystery, it isn't bad, although it seems Mr. Altman was trying to make some sort of social satire of the British caste system (rather unoriginal, I dare say). If so, I'd say he failed, because there was virtually no humor in the film - I could probably count on both hands the number of times I laughed or smiled. I'd argue that there were simply too many cast members, played by too many "name" actors, and the effect ends up like many of the old war/Biblical epics with casts of thousands being put to waste. Getting x-number of big name actors engaging in lengthy, aimless conversations and letting the camera role does not make good cinema, in and of itself. There were some great performances - a handsome and suave Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander getting lots of rather mean (but funny) height jokes, the always-lovely Kristin Scott Thomas, Michael Gambon as the cranky, randy patriarch, and Stephen Fry, whose brief cameo provides the film with most of its laughs and energy - but most of the fine cast is wasted in roles that could have been played by any number of actors equally well. And God help me if I don't find Bob Balaban excrutiatingly annoying. This was the one film I watched this week that I was genuinely disappointed by.
The Train - 9/10 - Finally! This movie lived up to its reputation and then some; one of the most stylish, effective and gritty war films. Although the plot is a mite ludicrous (albeit, much stranger things have happened during wartime in real life), the movie remaisn rooted in reality throughout; pretty much everyone who helps Burt Lancaster and Co. in their mission gets shot for their trouble, and Lancaster's heroics are on a decidedly modest and believable scale. It has interesting things to say about the cost and meaning of war (why sacrifice lives for art?) and ties its trainload of paintings into the abstract cause of patriotism wonderfully. Great set pieces, including the air raid, the train wreck and the final confrontation. Lancaster is brilliant, with an unusually understatement (and admirably athletic) performance, and Paul Scofield gives a wonderful turn as the evil, obsessed Colonel Von Waldheim; his final speech in his showdown with Lancaster is striking, and even moving in its own way. A brilliant film, and pretty close to a masterpiece. If nothing else, it's the one good film I watched this week...
In the works is an article on The Train, although I'm not entirely sure what form it will take.
I plan to watch A Clockwork Orange this week, as well as a marathon on the Pirates of the Caribbean films, which may or may not result in an article on said topic.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Happy Birthday Peter O'Toole!
"If God could do the things we do, then He'd be a happy man!"First of all: I watched John Frankenheimer's The Train yesterday. Brilliant, wonderfully dark war film with Burt Lancaster and the late, great Paul Scofield. I want to say more on it than that, but that will have to wait for another day. After a week of bad/disappointing movies, it was certainly a welcome addition to my film-watching CV.
Anyway, today is the birthday of the greatest actor in the history of the planet Earth - Lawrence of Arabia himself, Peter O'Toole! (How appropriate is it that I wrote a long-winded, ambulatory and pompous article on Lawrence of Arabia yesterday?)
For your enjoyment, since I'm too tired/lazy to write a profile, are some nice video clips of Mr. O'Toole at work. Enjoy!
Lawrence of Arabia:
Becket:
The Night of the Generals:
Lord Jim:
How to Steal a Million:
The Lion in Winter:
The Stunt Man:
My Favorite Year:
Troy:
Venus:
Ratatouille:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)