The Third Man

The Third Man is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Unlike the initial over- admiration that eventually turns into general acceptance of a job well done that seems to plague my movie critiques, I foresee a long love affair with The Third Man. Style out the wazoo. Those camera angles. That lighting. Orson Welles underplaying it for a change. One of the best endings ever. I think it's all there, preserved for those of us waiting to see an old film that truly stands the test of time. The cinematography alone makes the film one of the best cinema has to offer.

*****

Grindhouse

Grindhouse is a blast. It's entertainment without substance. Don't let anyone tell you different. But it is fun...a lot of fun.

Death Proof has been the film of this double feature to receive most of the accolades, but I must say I enjoyed Planet Terror more. It embraced its unique ridiculousness and the ridiculousness of its genre, having fun with corny dialogue, fluff love stories, and blood and guts galore. I should say that I could stomach the gore in Planet Terror because, unlike 28 Weeks Later, it was over-the-top, unbelievable, almost cartoonish. Disgusting, yes, to say the least, but never beyond a level of obvious zany-gore. Bubbling faces make me squirm, but, oddly, they also make me laugh.

Death Proof's ending was the best of the two and really saved that film for me. I really laughed my face off. But the dialogue blandness of the film never was very fun for me. I love Tarantino. I love his dialogue. I could listen to his characters talk about foot massages and European fast food for a long time, but there is no real cleverness in the words Death Proof's characters share for the majority of the film. It's just...talking. And for a double feature that definitely seems to want to entertain, that's not good. Still, the actresses are capable, even when they say nothing. Rosario Dawson should be the star of a new Tarantino flick...one where she, you know, gets to say or do something worthwhile. The car chases are good.

I saw the whole thing for a buck at the local dollar theater and it was a steal. The package was presented with a fun bit of retro cool, though the fake trailers before and in between the two features weren't very good.

Side Note: Kurt Russell cannot act. Even when he is expected to act badly, as he must have been in Death Proof, he still fails to hit any sort of skill note. He's tone deaf when it comes to talent. (Still, Tombstone Kurt Russell is better than any other Russell).

Grindhouse: ***
Death Proof: **1/2
Planer Terror: ***

The Omen (2006)

Well, I recommend this movie almost soley because it scared me. It can actually be quite corny at times.

Julia Stiles is terrible in the film whenever she speaks (so when her jaw is wired shut, she's swell). Liev Schreiber delivers a solid performance. I'll admit the kid playing Damien scared me, but I can't really praise his one-note performance. The kid merely hangs out looking silently creepy (with some occasional freak outs). The director really doesn't show much skill in guiding his cast. Unless he wanted simple performances from everyone but ole Liev.

Most of the scares are built on religious reality, so atheists need not shiver from anticipation. I, however, felt chills in my bones for most of the second half of this movie.

Unintentional laughs - a beheading, Mia Farrow crazy (jumping on backs and swinging things at cars)

***

Alien Resurrection

Alien Resurrection, thou hast failed. Oh, boy, thou really hast failed. This movie is ridiculous – how does Ripley show off her new found hyrid abilities? Through a round of tough gal basketball tricks of course. Not just basketball, but basketball on a court on a spaceship...in the future...with Ron Perlman...who's a space pirate. Tah-dah! Thou stinks.

I had some hope for the movie even though I had heard it was bad. Joss Whedon wrote it. I liked both Buffy and Firefly. I certainly love his work on the Astonishing X-Men comic title. But his script sucks. Or maybe the acting sucks. Methinks both suck. Immensely.

Perlman fails to be a believable human being once again. I hadn't noticed how awkward Winona Ryder can be at times, but that is on display during her performance in Alien Resurrection. I like her, but I'm starting to think she isn't the strong talent I once thought she was. More charisma than talent, perhaps. Weaver is laughable the whole time, the tough woman shtick is old and tired in Alien Resurrection, mostly because the dialogue is so bad. But Weaver doesn't exactly rise above her lines either.

It was the least exciting “exciting” movie I have seen in a long time. It did succeed at being really gross, though. Way to go, lackluster movie. All the crunching, slimy, exhaling wheezing made me cringe as usual when watching an Alien movie. But the thrill was gone. In its place was a mistake of a movie masquerading as entertainment. “Boo!” I say, sir. “Boo!”

*1/2

Edward Scissorhands

Hurray for Tim Burton! He did it! He won me over once and for all. The director has failed me several times – the laughable Planet of the Apes remake, Big Fish (gets worse every new time I see it, though still recommended for casual fun), etc.. Then I saw Ed Wood last December. That was a thrilling movie. I had a great feeling after watching that movie. I had the same great feeling as the credits after Edward Scissorhands began to run.

Edward Scissorhands was such a treat after having just watched Alien Resurrection. The lift in spirits was so big because they had been so low. Scissorhands is a sweet, melancholy “fable” (as Winona Ryder said in the featurette on the DVD). It captures the feeling of teenage angst in someone who appears impossible to relate to. The outsider mentality is ever present. Besides the theme of being not only the new kid, but also the weird kid, the film lightly skewers suburbia with its fake people and air of goodness.

The movie is funny, too. Hijinks ensue. Well-written hijinks minus the familiar The O.C. plink, plink, plunk of the keyboard.

I couldn't really have predicted what would have happened just by the premise and DVD cover. The film takes a interesting approach to fantasy, placing its eerie hero within the confines of the pristine suburb of Nameless Town. What follows sticks closely to what could have been a great Hughes' teen comedy of the 80's, but infuses it with wonder and pathos (though you gotta love the pathos of Hughes' best films). In fact, frequent Hughes' favorite Anthony Michael Hall appears as a high school jerk.

The performances are mostly all noteworthy. I was surprised to see how much Johnny Depp could do with so little dialogue. The performance never really breaks for air. He lives in the pale skin and makes it real for the audience. Big props should be given to Alan Arkin and Dianne Wiest for their portrayals of genuinely pleasant suburban parents. I loved all the advice and lessons Arkin tried to hand out to Edward. Funny stuff. Listening to him treat Edward as a son was funny to watch. Needless to say, there was no family resemblance. Zing!

Winona Ryder mostly rescued herself from my wrath after her deplorable performance in Alien Resurrection. Again, I was aware of her awkwardness as an actress, but I like the woman. She did solid work in Scissorhands, playing the John Hughesesque popular dream girl with more depth than her pretty face seems to suggest.

The music by Danny Elfman was much appreciated as well. An eerie loveliness, much a kin to Eward Scissorhands himself, was communicated through the score. I loved the ahhhh's of the choir.

Bravo for the ending. Sweetly sad. Much loved.

****

The Maltese Falcon

The Maltese Falcon was a really fun movie to watch. The dialogue is quick and sharp, full of phrasings not used in everyday life, but ever present in the noir genre. The Maltese Falcon screams noir, but does so in a calm, cool manner. I am not personally one who subscribes to the Bogart is a god form of a parasocial relationship. He's always been a relic of the classic era that I have distanced from myself over recent years. But he is good, no, very good, in The Maltese Falcon. I never thought of the man as being capable of cool, but he is so cool that sheep count him (yo, Mamet).

The Femme Fatale, the gun heavy, and the mysterious man behind it all (in this case, “The Fat Man”) are all present. Twists and turns abound. Loyalties change as quickly as the words shoot out of Bogart's mouth. Truth be told, the film shows some age. It fits perfectly with the genre and the time of its release, but the slow pacing and long revelatory speeches don't generally happen or work well in modern films. Indeed, attention spans must have been longer 60 odd years ago. That having been said, I was interested in this film the whole way through, though the final payoff was not as big as I had anticipated or hoped for.

Side note: it was fun to see all the references Brick (2005) had made to The Maltese Falcon. There are several homages in Rian Johnson's film. The long-short-long-short horn signal was the same as a knocking signal in The Maltese Falcon. A conversation with the Principal in Brick held the same spirit as a conversation with the D.A. In The Maltese Falcon. There were others as well.

So, The Maltese Falcon was fun. I loved the script's crackling dialogue and Bogart's performance. I wish the payoff had been better. But it still gets a big recommendation from me. That's saying a lot because I don't usually tout the merits of older films. So, take heart, readers.

***1/2

Reign Over Me

Well, it's pretty good. It falters after a court scene.

Sandler doesn't really receive much love (financially) from his usually supportive fans, but he has some real chops (please, please, please check out Punch Drunk Love). He uses a little kid voice in Reign Over Me, which can be annoying, especially in a emotional scene at a therapist's office. But his interactions with the other lead, Don Cheadle, are good. The two play well off each other. Cheadle doesn't have the showy role, that's left to Sandler. But I appreciate Cheadle's performance more because it's more nuanced, less of a one step dance.

The film had me in its corner most of the way through, but lost me in that court room scene. All the contrivances that could be included were included. The scenes that followed mostly rang false, but the positive experience I had prior to that turning point still earns a recommendation from me.

One of the things I really loved about the movie (prior to the court scene) was how everybody wanted to fix Sandler's troubled character. He had an obvious problem that needed addressing, but the film really nailed how difficult it can be for a person to change (then it blows it after the court scene). The frustration and concern of loved ones felt real.

Damn that court scene.

*** (I struggle with this rating because it's better than 28 Weeks Later, but worse than Barcelona, but I'm not going to go as far as to give it a **3/4 rating. That's a bit picky.)

Metropolitan, Barcelona (aka Whit Stillman is neat)

Metropolitan (written and directed by Whit Stillman)

I caught Metropolitan with one of my professors, then watched Barcelona immediately after. First, Metropolitan. Swell movie. It was right up my alley - talky characters with little to do. In truth, the characters rarely did anything other than sit around in nice duds and talk each other's ears off. And they did so with such sharp dialogue. An example: "Playing strip poker with an exhibitionist somehow takes the challenge away."

I liked that Stillman let little events, seemingly minute occurences of tiny revelations during the many conversations, shape the characters and move the plot (although Metropolitan is most certainly not a plot-driven film) toward its conclusion.

Midway through the film, my professor said he actually only liked one of the characters, although he had affection for many of them. This was well said, I think, because most of the characters are self-centered snobs. However, I had a different reaction to them. I loved 'em. I was charmed by their flaws, especially Christopher Eigeman's Nick (discover him, I beg you). It was such a fun mix of stuck up oblivious (though they thought themselves to be very knowledgeable) youngins.

Again, the dialogue is sharp. The acting, not always so much. The film was independently made and many of the performers have not gone on to successful careers. In fact, some have not acted since. So, the acting can be rough at times. But the charm and charisma of the film is always there.



Barcelona (Stillman's handywork again)

This film was made after Metropolitan. Much of Stillman's skill is still present. The film is more polished. The overall level of acting is improved. Eigeman is again present and plays a similar character to Nick from Metropolitan (much to my delight). Taylor Nichols (Charlie in Metropolitan) returns as well. The two play cousins and the film centers on their interactions. The dialogue is still sharp and in abundance. An example: "You are far weirder than someone merely into S&M. At least they have a tradition. We have some idea what S&M is about. There's movies and books about it. But so far as I know, there is nothing to explain the way you are."

Rather than focusing on little occurances like Metropolitan did, Barcelona slowly builds an atmosphere of tension between the natives and Eigeman and Nichols' two Americans abroad. It leads to a major climax - a major event that changed the feeling of the film. It was then that I faltered in my enjoyment of the film. The sharp dialogue was still present. But the not so subtle (not at all) immediate rise in the stakes was too jarring for me. I thought I had figured Stillman out - less if more. But he used a serious event to change the mood of the film and it really caught me off guard. The film did return to its earlier tone, but I found it difficult to return to the high level of enjoyment.

Barcelona: ***
Metropolitan: ****

More Eigeman films: Mr. Jealousy, Kicking and Screaming (identical characters, still great)

28 Weeks Later...

28 Weeks Later forgot everything that made its predecessor so special and exciting. I say "exciting" in reference to its innovations and creativity. The second copies the style of the first, but moves into more gore, less character (while there are many more actors than the first), and big set pieces. The writing feels very clunky at times. The conversational tone of the first is left behind for military speak and odd interaction between the two children and anyone they come in contact with. A reoccurring infected (zombie) got under my skin in a very bothersome way. On the plus side: there are some chilling scenes. A journey through a dark subway station littered with dead and only a first person view of night vision for the audience built great suspense and genuine scares. A chase in the beginning (seen in the trailer) where Robert Carlyle races away from a horde of very fast, snarling, slobbering infected is thrilling. But that may be the biggest problem I had with the film: other than these two excellent suspenseful and scary scenes, the film fell into the “Bump in the Silence” scares. Quiet followed by jarring music and movement or sound was prevalent. The slowly building and well designed chilling atmosphere of the first film is all but missing from its sequel.

Side note: It is unfair for me to make this complaint, but I must for my own benefit. The characters…oh, the characters…well, what’s the big deal about the two kids, heck, the soldiers, the dad, the mom? Don’t get me wrong; I was rooting for them. Rather than investing myself in characters and genuinely caring about them as I had in the superior 28 Days Later, I was only rooting for the heroes in 28 Weeks Later because they were children, alive, human, and in trouble. I never got to know the characters at all. Any attempt to make the characters accessible was shoddy and primarily failed. I can easily chalk the lack of character development up to the constraints of the plot. Conversations about home and the horror of it all can’t really happen when you’re running for your life the entire (well, most of it) movie. But I missed it, the character development.

Side note 2: The gore was a problem for me as well. I realize this is just a personal reaction to the film element. Others may have watched the first and thought, “WTF, man! Where’s the guts, the blood? More! More!” Indeed, the genre currently demands buckets. However, one of the things that helped the first film work so well for me was the simplicity of the “action/horror” scenes – intense, but not over the top. In 28 Weeks Later, the gore is featured, stressed, put front and center in the “action/horror” scenes. The peak of the gore was a helicopter scene that one of my friends loved, but made me cringe from the ridiculous, indulgent nature of the end result. “Really?” I asked myself. “They really just did that?” In that way, I think the filmmakers achieved one of their goals. But I could have used some more atmosphere – like the subway scene – and less gore.

A repeat viewing made do wonders for my reaction to the film with new lowered expectations (they were very, very high).

**1/2

Good movies I saw...

Mad Hot Ballroom ***1/2 (a charming crowd-pleaser)
Leila *** (probably my favorite first-seen actual foreign film from World Cinema
class)
Talk to Her ***
Zodiac (2nd Viewing)****1/2
The Sweet Hereafter ***1/2
Letters from Iwo Jima ****
Breach ***
The Lookout *** (amazing performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Matthew Goode of Match Point fame)
Flags of Our Fathers ***

Bad movies I saw:
Rocky Balboa - **1/2 (still better than I thought it was going to be)
Smokin' Aces - **

Review to come once school ends...