Tension

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Here it is, the final movie for Noir Month. Are you feeling wistful yet?

Notable Talent: I wouldn't have heard of a single one of these motherfuckers, if it weren't for the fact that Audrey Totter was in The Set Up.

Detective Story: It opens up with a homicide detective talking right into the camera, but then it pulls a Side Street style fake out and he's not the main character. But he does feature prominantly in the film. So yeah, you know what, fuck it, this is a detective movie. In fact, I'm going to retroactively state that any of these noir movies I watched that featured a detective in any fashion are detective stories. This was an awesome category for me to chose; the best, really. I'm awesome.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Yeeeeeah, buddy, we got another weird one. It was on the same disc as Where Danger Lives, and I can see why because they'd make a good double feature. This is about a meek loser whose wife leaves him for another man. He loses it and decides to craft a new, cooler personality for himself and begins to lead two lives under two different names, with the plan that his new personality will kill his wife and her new lover. He breaks into their place in the middle of the night and confronts the man, but realizes he's happier without his wife and doesn't really want to kill them. Except then her lover turns up dead any way, and all clues point to the main character as the killer. And then more complications ensue as the wife becomes involved with the investigating detective. I can barely make sense of any of this, it's great.

Moral Ambiguity: All over the place. The main character plots to murder his wife, but we are made to sympathize with him. The homicide detective becomes involved with the wife and plans to run away with her, which seems like questionable behavior for someone in his profession, but then it turns out that he was just manipulating her so that he could prove that she's the killer. And it's presented at the end like it was a good thing, but I'm pretty sure that's just as sleazy as if he actually ran off with her.

Sweet-ass, Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Good looking for what I assume was a low budget movie, broadly done in a lot of places, but that adds to the fun.

Overall Quality: For the first half or so I was convinced this was going to be a klassik. But then it's broadly stylized weirdness calms down a bit and it settles in to a more typical murder mystery type thing. I liked it overall, but I'm convinced it had potential to be the Commando of it's time... seemingly corny and bad but actually just really fun.

Ultimately it falls on the lower end of the list, but I have a lot of affection for certain parts of it:

1) The Set Up

2) Act of Violence

3) Crime Wave

4) Night and the City

5) The Big Steal

6) The Wrong Man

7) Where Danger Lives

8) Illegal

9) Angel Face

10) Shoot the Piano Player

11) Gun Crazy

12) Tension

13) Mystery Street

14) Side Street

15) Decoy

16) They Live By Night

All in all, I think the results of noir month were mixed. I guess 16 movies ain't bad, but I feel like I could have buckled down and watched more. Then again, I also feel like spending time with my girlfriend.

I basically watched the set I bought, plus a weird, eclectic mix of others, and perhaps it would have been smarter to try to seek out some more famous ones. I mean, I guess I've seen a lot of the obvious ones, but a couple of these were sorta blind choices, and I could have done more research.

And of course that detective category was a bad idea. I guess that shows my ignorance of the genre that I assumed I'd be watching a bunch of Phillip Marlowe type stories. I don't think there was a private eye in any of these movies, or if there was they didn't play much of a role.

Did I learn anything? Not really, and I didn't do much comparison or any broad analysis, but I did see a lot of decent movies, and that's cool with me. We'll save the detailed dissections for another day.

Dillinger

Monday, September 29, 2008

Like Blood Simple, this is not a Noir Month selection, but still fits well. Dillinger is a favorite movie of Shenan's, and I was intrigued mainly for one reason: Warren fucking Oates plays Dillinger.

I thought it was going to be a Bonnie and Clyde knock-off, but it turns out to have more of a badass, tough guy, hyper-violent style to it that I wasn't expecting. In fact, I'm kind of shocked that Shenan likes this movie, as she tends to not like action movies, and this is one of the most boisterously violent action films I've ever seen. She probably likes the talking scenes more so than the shooting scenes, I guess.

It was a little slow in places, and there are a few too many montages of still photos set to old-timey music, but the action scenes and the performances are strong enough to make it worth checking out.

Where Danger Lives

Monday, September 29, 2008

This is my third and final Robert Mitchum movie for noir month, after The Big Steal and Angel Face:

Notable Talent: Beyond Mitchum, Claude Rains has a small role. Faith Domergue is the female lead, but all I know about her is that the blonde girl from Lars and the Real Girl played her in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator.

Detective Story: I guess this is sort of a road/crime movie, lovers on the lam, maybe? Except it's a really weird one. Hard to say what it is exactly, except that it has some distinct noir elements.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Hoo-boy. Where to begin. Where Danger Lives edges out Decoy for strangest Noir Month entry. Mitchum plays an E.R. doctor who falls for a strange, suicidal woman in the hospital, played by Domergue, who seems to be under the thumb of her overbearing father. Only, maybe things aren't exactly what they seem to be... I won't say too much, but Mithcum and Domergue end up on the run together, and Mitchum spends 75% of the movie with a serious concussion that impairs his ability to think clearly. Further complications ensue.

Moral Ambiguity: Well, I think the Mitchum character wants to do the right thing, but then the shit hits the fan and he gets a concussion and things go all wrong. Domergue convinces him to go on the run, but it becomes clear pretty soon that she's not entirely on the level and is manipulating him. She plays an interesting spin on the femme fatale: a mentally ill femme fatale. Seriously, this bitch is crazy. It's pretty clear who's good and bad here, and the fun is in watching Domergue manipulate the injured, confused Mitchum.

Sweet-ass, Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Well, it ain't exactly Gregg Toland quality filming, but the weirdness and psychological aspects of the movie allow them to play up all the cockeyed shadows and shit. A weird look for a weird movie.

Overall Quality: This is not my favorite Noir Month selection by a long shot, but it may be the one I'm most likely to randomly pop on some time when I'm bored. Back when I watched Decoy, I commented that it wasn't a very good movie, but it was made kinda fun by it's oddness and desire to entertain. Well, Where Danger Lives is like that, only it's also a decent movie. The arc of the story could be pretty run of the mill, but the treatment of it is so offbeat that it stands out as one of the more fun movies I've watched this month.

Only one more movie left after this one:

1) The Set Up
2) Act of Violence
3) Crime Wave
4) Night and the City
5) The Big Steal
6) The Wrong Man
7) Where Danger Lives
8) Illegal
9) Angel Face
10) Shoot the Piano Player
11) Gun Crazy
12) Mystery Street
13) Side Street
14) Decoy
15) They Live By Night

Side Street

Monday, September 29, 2008

Okay, this is the next one in my set, and it marks a reunion I was not particularly looking forward to...

Notable Talent: ... namely, that of Farley Granger and Cathy O'Donnell, stars of They Live By Night. I've watched 13 movies so far for Noir Month, and that was the only one I didn't at all like. On the upside, the director this time is Anthony Mann, who did the pretty good western Man From Laramie and otherwise has a strong reputation. Oh, and that lady with the shrill voice in Singing in the Rain has a small role here and steals the 2 or 3 scenes she's in.

Detective Story: It opens with some voiceover narration from a police detective... hallelujah! It seemed like I was finally getting a detective movie. But then it turns out that the detective is only a small side character. This is more of a crime movie. I should have named this category "subgenre."

Twisty, Turny Plot: Yeah, I would say the story is one of the strongest features of Side Street. It takes some amusing turns here and there, keeps you guessing. It's not really a mystery, but it's not straightforward either.

Moral Ambiguity: An acceptable amount. Farley Granger is a poor mail man who gives in to temptation and steals what he thinks is a small amount of money... but turns out to be $30,000 that belongs, unbeknownst to Granger, to some rather unsavory individuals. Oops. So Granger's not exactly a saint, but he feels guilty and tries to to return the money. Somehow, that only makes things worse, and Granger has to make a mad dash to save himself and his family. So maybe it's a little Old Testament, with the hero paying greatly for a small infraction.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Pretty good looking movie, and Mann does a good job of making New York look huge and threatening. Also some good stuff in darkened hallways and smoky nightclubs.

Overall Quality: I was a little distracted while watching this, and my expectations were pretty low after They Live By Night, so I feel like I didn't give this one as much focus as I should have. But it was a great improvement over the last Granger/O'Connell film, I thought it was a reasonably entertaining crime movie. Granger still seems like a pussy, but this time it's perfect because his character is supposed to be just a regular guy. The story is interesting enough, there's a pretty good car chase and some memorably cold-blooded moments of violence. But it's also maybe a little too pat in the end, meanders in places, and I still don't care much for O'Donnell as an actress. Okay, not great, maybe worth another shot some day.

Definitely beats the shit out of They Live By Night, though:

1) The Set Up
2) Act of Violence
3) Crime Wave
4) Night and the City
5) The Big Steal
6) The Wrong Man
7) Illegal
8) Angel Face
9) Shoot the Piano Player
10) Gun Crazy
11) Mystery Street
12) Side Street
13) Decoy
14) They Live By Night

Blood Simple

Sunday, September 28, 2008

SPOILERS FOR SEVERAL COEN BROS MOVIES

This isn't a noir month entry, but it fits in nicely. I hadn't seen the Coen Bros' debut in a long time, probably not since high school. And I think I have to re-evaluate my opinion of it from being really damn good to it being really damn great.

One thing about the Coens: they haven't really changed or matured much as artists since they began. That's not a criticism, it's just that they debuted as great filmmakers, and little has changed since then. Blood Simple feels exactly in step with the rest of their films, the only noticable difference being the budget. It has the clever dialogue, the dark humor, the bleak/cynical worldview, the visual style, the skill with creating tension, the absurdly over-complicated plot. And it's all done every bit as well as they do it today.

I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing the Coens are not particularly religious guys. I mean, O Brother Where Art Thou? does have kind of a spiritual message, but look at the rest of their films. It seems like a pretty godless universe. They can be unbelievably cruel to their characters, and fairness has no place. Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, No Country For Old Men and Burn After Reading all essentially tell the same story. There is a complicated plot, and each player only understands a small part of it. And because everyone has a limited perspective, they are inclined towards actions that damn themselves and everyone else around them, even if they themselves are innocent. In their thrillers, this means a lot of unneccesary death.

It's right there from the beginning of their career, perfectly apparent in Blood Simple, where several people die because they've misunderstood the motivations of other characters. In fact, one character thinks they've killed one person, when they've actually killed another, who they didn't even realize existed. The final shots, a dying man's POV of the bottom of a sink, have a chilly almost nihilism to them: What a stupid, stupid way to die. Is this all a human life adds up to?

It's the same with Chad in Burn After Reading or any of Chigurh's victims in No Country For Old Men. One minute you're minding your busniess, and the next minute your dead, and for no good reason. And there might not be much more to life than that.

Run, Fat Boy, Run

Sunday, September 28, 2008

We didn't plan it this way, but we had a Simon Pegg double feature on Sunday. This one didn't exactly look like a great movie, but the pedigree was interesting enough to get my attention: screenplay by Michael Ian Black, with rewrites by Pegg, directed by a debuting David Schwimmer. Kinda weird.

But what's weirder is that, given this started as a Michael Ian Black script, how not weird this movie is. Instead, it becomes a testament to the greatness of Simon Pegg, who though sheer force of his charm turns an amusing if by the numbers and skippable comedy into a thoroughly watchable and funny experience. It's nothing great, but worth a look if you don't have anything better to do.

The Wrong Man

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Okay, I thought I'd get a little clever here and check out a movie by a certain master of suspense, whose films sometimes seem rather noirish despite the fact that he not often associated with the genre.

Notable Talent: And that master is, of course, Alfred Hitchcock. When doing a little research for noir month, I saw this film listed as more recognizably noir than many of his other films. And I thought that it was kind of interesting that his films share a lot in common with film noir, yet never seem to be discussed as such. Maybe there are nuances I don't understand, or maybe it's just because Hitch is in a class of his own. This also stars Henry Fonda, which really makes me wonder why this isn't a better known film. I'm a Hitchcock fan, and I was barely aware of this one's existence.

Detective Story: There are some detectives! Woo. But it's not a detective story. Boo. Henry Fonda is mistaken for a criminal, and the law wreaks havoc on his life as a result.

Twisty, Turny Plot: What surprised me here is that this isn't as much of a thriller as other Hitchcock movies. It's more of a tense, slightly nightmarish drama about the persecution this guy goes through. Of course, there's the famous story about Hitchcock's childhood, where his dad apparently had him locked up in a cell overnight for no other reason other than to convince him to always be a good boy. He hadn't done anything wrong. And so, if you can believe that story, that's why this wrongfully accused motif exists in many of Hitchcock's films. This is like the purest expression of that: the movie takes you through, step by step, this man's persecution and experiences with the criminal justice system. No chases, no action, this is not a sexy movie. More like Hitchcock's worst nightmare.

Moral Ambiguity: Surprisingly, I'm not sensing any here. Fonda is a good man run through the ringer by an uncaring system. There's no guilt here, in fact the very point is that he's being punished without being guilty. Hitchcock usually implicates his heroes in crime more than this... think Jimmy Stewart spying on his neighbors in Rear Window.

Sweety-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: You can always count on Hitch in this category, the man was a master stylist. He turns nearly every location into a dark, gloomy kind of hell. Especially memorable are the jail sequences, where he goes overboard on the style to make you feel trapped in a confined space. He also has the camera fly through a peep hole and even through a solid door at one point, sort of like this is a proto-Panic Room or something.

Overall Quality: This is far from an all-time great, but it's still a pretty solid drama/paranoid thriller. I am surprised it's not better known, maybe it's not as good as Vertigo, but I think it lends itself just as strongly to auteur theory analysis. And Henry Fonda is good here, I'm not too too too familiar with his work, but he comes off as very natural and surprisingly modern for a film from this time period. His work here makes an interesting companion to his work in Twelve Angry Men... there's a similar message, but seen from a different perspective.

Not one of Hitch's masterpieces, but that's okay because his "average" is better than most directors' "best":

1) The Set Up
2) Act of Violence
3) Crime Wave
4) Night and the City
5) The Big Steal
6) The Wrong Man
7) Illegal
8) Angel Face
9) Shoot the Piano Player
10) Gun Crazy
11) Mystery Street
12) Decoy
13) They Live By Night

Hot Fuzz

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Shenan had just started this when I got up this morning. And as always, once I start watching this one, it's really hard to stop.

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay

Saturday, September 27, 2008

I've officially confirmed that this is better than the original. Probably worth owning, too.

Angel Face

Saturday, September 27, 2008

I Netflixed this one because I wanted to work some more Robert Mitchum into Noir Month. And I should have one more with him to watch after this.

Notable Talent: Well, Mitchum was the main draw here, but I also got this one because of director Otto Preminger, who did two movies I've watched for my K2K.

Detective Story: There's maybe a bit of a mystery going on here, at least for a little while. Mitchum begins working for a rich family and tensions seem to be building under the surface. Is the daughter trying to knock off the mother? But the movie keeps changing style and direction as it goes along. It's a mystery, then a melodrama, then a crime movie, then a courtroom drama, then more melodrama.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Like I said, it keeps changing around on you, hard to tell where it's going. Throws a curveball or two at you, and then has an ending that I would venture to guess was pretty shocking to audiences in the 1950's.

Moral Ambiguity: To the degree that there's no clear good guy in this story. Mitchum is the protagonist, but he's kind of an asshole and makes some iffy choices. The rich family is pretty fucked up, and later in the movie a manipulative lawyer features prominently in the story.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Preminger certainly knows how to shoot a movie, in what I believe is considered the deep focus style. Not reallly set in urban environments, in fact most of it is at a mansion, and they don't reallly go overboard on the shadows and all that. But it still looks pretty good.

Overall Quality: Slow going at first and a little too talky, but it gets increasingly entertaining as it goes along, with a particularly memorable ending. Mitchum is great as always, and ultimately I would say this is a good one but nothing special.

1) The Set Up

2) Act of Violence

3) Crime Wave

4) Night and the City

5) The Big Steal

6) Illegal

7) Angel Face

8) Shoot the Piano Player

9) Gun Crazy

10) Mystery Street

11) Decoy

12) They Live By Night

Smiley Face

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Anna Faris, to me, is an immensely funny and likable actress who mostly shows up in crap. I keep waiting for her to finally show up in a good comedy, instead of making a lot of bad comedies more watchable. And so far, Smiley Face is the closest we've gotten to a strong Anna Faris vehicle. But it's still problematic.

I thought after Mysterious Skin, Gregg Araki was going to be doing more serious, mature work, but here he is back to his old, silly, slipshod tricks. This much more akin to The Doom Generation and Nowhere, albiet much less violent. And like those movies, it's kinda fun but also very hit and miss. It's a stoner movie, and it does have a lot of fun trying to depict the mindset of it's stoned lead, especially the paranoia. But too many scenes drag and don't seem to have much of a point (which may actually be part of the point, I guess). A lot of it depends on Faris's charms, which are considerable, but not always enough. I laughed enough to enjoy this one, but it feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity.

They Live By Night

Friday, September 26, 2008

Here now is the seventh movie in the set I had purchased.

Notable Talent: The main character is Farley Granger, who I know from Hitchcock's Rope and Strangers on a Train. The director did Rebel Without a Cause, which I've never seen, and In a Lonely Place, which I have seen.

Detective Story: Yet again, nope. It's about a homeless man who finds a strange pair of glasses that allow him to see that aliens have taken over... no, wait, that's not right. This is a young lovers on the lam story, although I guess there are cops on their trail. Sigh.

Twisty Turny Plot: Pretty straightforward. Two lovers on the run, cops are after them, typical complications, yadda yadda. The only thing that I found interesting was that this was based on a book, Thieves Like Us, which was also later made in to a movie by Robert Altman. So it was interesting to compare th two in my head, or at least it would have been if Altman's film was clearer in my head.

Moral Ambiguity: No. This movie labors so hard to make the lead characters seem completely innocent it's silly. Like the audience is a bunch of fucking babies and we can't stand the thought of a movie about criminals, we have been told a tale about the most uncriminal-like criminals in the world.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: I recall some nice night time scenes and whatnot, but nothing special. A lot of it takes place in the countryside, which I don't think is as interesting of an environment as urban cityscapes are in b&w.

Overall Quality: If you can't tell this is the first Noir Month entry that I flat out didn't like. It's just not a good movie. Farley Granger was good in those Hitchcock movies at playing weak willed men dominated by overbearing sociopath's, and here he's just too much of a fancypants sissy boy to ever seem like a criminal. I mean, I know his character is supposed to be all illogically innocent or some shit, but this guy was supposed to has spent time in prison and yet doesn't have a hardened bone in his body. The story meanders it's way through a predictable series of events, and you just don't give a shit about the whiny, bland lead characters. I did like the guy with the fucked up eye though. He was cool.

1) The Set Up

2) Act of Violence

3) Crime Wave

4) Night and the City

5) The Big Steal

6) Illegal

7) Shoot the Piano Player

8) Gun Crazy

9) Mystery Street

10) Decoy

11) They Live By Night

Snow Angels

Friday, September 26, 2008

I guess this David Gordon Green detour was unavoidable. Why deny myself the experience, right? The K2K is winding down, about 2 months left, and I feel like I'm going to have missed out on a lot of the movies and directors and subgenres and whatnot that I meant to see. Especially since I'm declaring October Horror Movie Month. But no bother.

This is another great one. You can chalk up another excellent performance for the great Sam Rockwell, and memorable small role for Nicky Katt. I've never cared much for Kate Beckinsale, but even she is quite good here.

The Set Up

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

I think I saw this in Patrick's DVD collection, and heard it was a good one. So here we go:

Notable Talent: Director Robert Wise is famous for movies like The Sound of Music and West Side Story, but I'll always love him for The Curse of the Cat People. Seriously, it's a wonderful movie. I wasn't familiar with actor Robert Ryan before noir month, but he was in my (excellent) first selection, Act of Violence. After these two, I may need to seek out more of his movies.

Detective Story: This is a crime story, but only kinda. It's about an aging boxer, desperate for one last shot, whose managers take money from some shady characters for him to throw the fight. Only he doesn't realize this. And in a neat touch, the movie seems to take place in real time.

Twisty, Turny Plot: This one is very character driven, with everything hinging on what the boxer is going to do, especially once he finds out what's going on. Everything plays out with a kind of cruel kind of logic or inevitability.

Moral Ambiguity: I'm not sure if this counts, but the central dilemma definitely makes the audience feel conflicted. You want to boxer to stand up for himself, to win the fight, but on the other hand, you realize that things probably won't turn out so well if he does so. 

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: One of the best looking noirs I've watched this month. We get all the smoky bars and shadowy back alleys one could hop for. And the boxing arena looks incredible.

Overall Quality: My favorite noir month entry so far. This is a short but engrossing and exciting story, strongly character driven, that feels both tragic and yet strangely satisfying. 

1) The Set Up

2) Act of Violence

3) Crime Wave

4) Night and the City

5) The Big Steal

6) Illegal

7) Shoot the Piano Player

8) Gun Crazy

9) Mystery Street

10) Decoy

Control

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

What I liked about Control was that it was sort of the anti rock and roll biopic. I mean, it's got all the elements: the music, the humble beginnings, success, the drugs, the groupies, the failed marriages, and so on. But I don't think I've seen another movie approach this material so morosely, or so inwardly. Which is perfect, because this movie isn't really about music, it's about depression.

I didn't know much about Joy Division going into this one, outside of some familiarity with "Love Will Tear Us Apart," and after seeing it I'm still not sure I know much. It's told from the POV of the singer, Ian Curtis, who killed himself at age 23, and he's just so sullen and inward that all the usual drama, all the big moments that make up this kind of movie, barely register as a blip. We don't get much sense of how successful they became during his life, only that Curtis becomes increasingly upset by it. It's not a surprise in a movie like this that his life falls apart, I mean obviously knowing what happened to him it's all inevitable, but he doesn't even much seem to enjoy the spoils, short lived as they are. The Doors spends a lot of time on the wild times before it gets to the bad times. Hell, even Scarface was allowed to superficially enjoy his power for a while.

What I'm getting at is that there is usually a sense of fun to these kinds of movies that Control admirably lacks. Because if you're really miserable enough to kill yourself, this rock star shit couldn't have been that great to begin with.

Tenebre

Monday, September 22, 2008

Firstly, kudos to me for watching 3 movies on a week night. That's a rare feat for me lately.

Next off, seems the current trend is that my appreciation for an Argento movie goes up when I see it for a second time. And I love Argento as it is. I liked Tenebre the first time I saw it, now I think it rocks even more.

I think the key is, there's something about Argento's movies where the flaws seem less severe with time. You learn to forgive them or ignore them during subsequent viewings. Hell, sometimes the supposed "flaws" make the movie better... a lot of the plot holes and weird storytelling make his movies seem more nightmarish. I would say this fits into that category. And I also appreciated this time around how suspenseful Tenebre is. Argento's movies are normally strange, fascinating, stylish, entertaining, awesome, but not often scary. This is no classic, mind you, but there are a handful of sequences that pretty deftly increase the tension. It's not white-knuckle suspenseful, but it's at least perk-you-up-in-your-seat suspenseful.

The Big Steal

Monday, September 22, 2008

Up now for Noir Month, we have what was probably my most eagerly anticipated selection, and when I tell you the "notable talent" you'll see why:

Notable Talent: First and foremost, this movie is a reteaming of the excellent Out of the Past's lead actors Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer. So right there, that's something to be excited about. In recent years, I've really come to bow down at the altar of Mitchum, who seems to be one of the most effortlessly captivating actors ever. Whatever that elusive "it" quality is, he has "it" in spades. Then, to top things off, the director is Don Siegal, tough-guy movie director extraordinaire, famous for such films as Dirty Harry (and a few other Clint Eastwood films), Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Charley Varrick (okay maybe that last one isn't so famous, but I'm fond of it.) Mitchum + Siegal = something I will watch.

Detective Story: Kinda, yeah, definitely more so than most the other movies I've watched so far. (Why oh why did I think so many of these were going to be detective movies?) There's a sorta detective guy chasing after Mitchum through most of the movie, so that's kind of detective like. I guess.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Complicated, but more in an upbeat, caper-y sort of way. This is probably the most overtly fun of all the noir I've watched this month so far. In fact, I'd say it's practically a comedy, which seems un-noir-like. This is more of a high-spirited, comic thriller, not as dark as the other movies on the list. I guess you could argue that it doesn't really fit in the noir genre, but it's close enough that I'm counting it. Anyways, everyone has complicated motivations, and there's a pretty big twist near the end, and it's all part of the fun.

Moral Ambiguity: Well, this is not some dark, brooding examination of mankind's capacity for evil. Still, there is some fun to be had with the motivations of the characters... it's not not clear right away who's on the level and who isn't. We're clear on who the protagonists are, but for a while we aren't sure if their motives are pure. Which is part of the fun, although it it plays things safe by having all the protagonists turn out to be good and the antagonists turn out to be bad.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: One of my big regrets with noir month is that not enough of the movies have been in the expressionist tradition in terms of the lighting. This movie looks fine and is well made, with particularly strong action given the era, but damn it I want more elongated shadows stretching across the walls and shit. There's probably a little of that here, but since it's an upbeat movie there's none of that dark, nightmarish quality that I dig in noir.

Overall Quality: Fast paced and good fun. Sure, maybe I would have prefered something more hardboiled, but I can't deny good entertainment when I see it. This one kept a smile on my face throughout. And if nothing else, it provided me with the almost Herzog-ian image of Robert Mitchum, in a rumpled suit, running through a herd of goats, trying deperately to lead them out of their pen and into the street.

Probably the most fun I've had so far for Noir Month:

1) Act of Violence
2) Crime Wave
3) Night and the City
4) The Big Steal
5) Illegal
6) Shoot the Piano Player
7) Gun Crazy
8) Mystery Street
9) Decoy

Illegal

Monday, September 22, 2008

Okay, after an unintended break of a week and a half, I'm back to that film noir set I bought. If nothing else, I plan on watching all 10 from the set by the end of Noir Month.

Notable Talent: Oh, only, Edward G. fucking Robinson, that's all. I can't profess a great knowledge of his acting career, but I can say that he's rocked in every single movie I've seen him in. You youngsters might recognize him as the inspiration for the voice of Chief Clancy Wiggum. Also, apparently DeForest Kelly from Star Trek was somewhere in here but I couldn't tell you who he was.

Detective Story: Not really, although it's heavily focused on the law. I'm not really sure what to classify this one as. It's about a successful prosecutor who sends an innocent man to the electric chair. He feels so guilty that he quits his job, and becomes a defense attorney. I've read some blurbs or reviews about this one that says it's not really a noir... I'm not sure I agree. It's not noir in the strictest sense, but it's a sort of cockeyed, darkly humorous half-crime film with some noir-ish themes.

Twisty, Turny Plot: It's not a straight mystery, but it definitely twists and turns as it goes, with some big reveals. A lot of the story is driven by Robinson's character, and we're never quite sure what he's planning, what he's up to next...

Moral Ambiguity: ...which brings me to this. For a long while, it's not really clear if Robinson is a good guy or not. Once he becomes a defense attorney, he states defending some unsavory people, and begins to manipulate everyone in order to secure as much money as he can for himself. He seems like a pretty shady asshole, but then we realize that all the people he's screwing over are bad, and in a weird way he seems to be dishing out justice to the bad guys. It's less like he's gone bad, and more like he's executing or enacting his own new found sense of morality. Word.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Even though we meet some gangster types, this one takes place more in office and courtrooms, not so much on the mean streets. I didn't feel like this one popped out visually.

Overall Quality: Pretty solid. This is not a great movie by any means, but it's entertaining, and Edward G. Robinson is a lot of fun. The description made this movie sound more gruff, so I was surprised to see how much of this movie was played for laughs. Like I mentioned before, I saw it argued that this movie isn't really noir, and I'm betting it's the occasionally playful tone that throws people off. Still, it's got a moral ambiguity about it, deals with crime, has a little bit of action, and what's turning out to be the prototypical noir ending: the only way the hero can redeem himself is to sacrifice himself.

No great shakes, but this was more entertaining and satisfying that several other films so far:

1) Act of Violence
2) Crime Wave
3) Night and the City
4) Illegal
5) Shoot the Piano Player
6) Gun Crazy
7) Mystery Street
8) Decoy

Gun Crazy

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Let's get to it.

Notable Talent: I knew the main character looked familiar, and it turns out that he was one of the killers in Hitchcock's Rope. He's a good looking guy, and pretty good in these two movies, but it doesn't look like his career amounted to too much, and he died fairly young. Other than that, I am unfamiliar with the filmmakers.

Detective Story: No sir, this here would be a crime story. In fact, it's of the beloved "young lovers on the lam" subgenre of crime films, so it's sort of like an earlier version of Bonnie and Clyde. Or it's like Wild at Heart without the head crushing, voodoo murdering and Wizard of Oz references.

Twisty, Turny Plot: No, I would say this one more relies on headlong energy. Everything proceeds about how you'd expect.

Moral Ambiguity: Well, we have a boyfriend and girlfriend bankrobbing team as our heroes. The guy just loves guns and wants to impress the girl, and doesn't really want to do any wrong. The girl is more of a hard case, prone to losing her shit and killing people who get in her way. He loves her, but it's unclear at times how much she feels for him... is she in love, or is she just manipulating him? Definitely some femme fatale elements here, in fact another name for this one is apparently Deadly is the Female. That's an okay noir title, but Gun Crazy I think is a better fit for this story.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Not as overt or expressionistic as I like, but definitely shot with a lot of style. There's a pretty good looking opening in the pouring rain, on a dark street, which always looks great in b&w. There's also a notably cool bank heist sequence, done in one long shot, from the inside of the car. You never see what happens in the bank, but you see their arrival and getaway. Kind of a neat, show-offy way of doing a low bugdet crime flick.

Overall Quality: Feels a bit like the one that got away, to use a saying that I tend to overuse. It's got a great opening, setting up a short of heightened reality about this kid who just loooooooooves guns, wants nothing more than to shoot them all day, and can make all sorts of ridiculous trick shots. One day he meets a woman of equal skill, and they run off together to start a life of crime. I was expecting it to be a little more over the top, maybe they do all sorts of crazy trick shooting while robbing banks like shooting open the registers, or shooting the guns out of cops' hands or something. Instead, after the first 20 or 30 minutes it settles into a well made but run of the mill Bonnie and Clyde story. I mean, I dunno, maybe this would have felt more fresh at the time, but now it feels like something that's been done, and been done better.

So this is a reasonably entertaining movie that could have been something a lot more. Good, but had potential for greatness:

1) Act of Violence

2) Crime Wave

3) Night and the City

4) Shoot the Piano Player

5) Gun Crazy

6) Mystery Street

7) Decoy

Angel Heart

Saturday, September 20, 2008

I'm not counting this for noir month, but it is weirdly fitting. Sort of at the intersection of film noir and horror. Not a great movie, but fun enough, with a strong performance by Mickey Rourke (back when he was still good looking).

I'm not exactly a big Alan Parker fan, he's kind of the poor man's Oliver Stone. Extremely over-the-top, but not always in a compelling way, and his movies I've seen that deal with more serious issue are actually kind of offensive. I like him a lot more when he sticks to weird, silly shit like this, where his full frontal assault style can be fun.

The Dead Pool

Monday, September 15, 2008

Finally getting around to the last of the Dirty Harry movies, and I must give congratulations: there wasn't a bad movie in the series. That said, this one isn't nearly as good as Magnum Force.

It's fun, but a little corny in places, and maybe the most flawed in it's message out of the whole series. It seems to want to make some sort of statement about violence in the media, and so one of the major characters is a director of violent horror movies... strikes me as a little hypocritical or at least weak willed of this movie. I mean, if you're going to address violence in the media, and you yourself are an unreasonably violent action film, then shouldn't you make the character an action movie director? Just a thought.

There is an action scene, a car chase, where Harry is being chased by a tiny toy car rigged with explosives. The bad guy controls the toy car while driving around in his real car, which seems to me to be an impossible feat. Seeing Harry jump a curb in his car, only to be followed closely by a tiny car doing the same thing is a site to behold, both incredibly stupid looking and a perfect satire of action scenes. It's either the worst idea ever for a car chase, or the funniest.

Shoot the Piano Player

Monday, September 15, 2008

Clever boy I am, I thought I would kill two birds with one stone. I've got noir month going on, and I've been meaning to watch some Truffaut for my K2K, so here we go: Truffaut's oddball, French new wave tribute to the American crime films of the 40's and 50's.

Notable Talent: Well, like I said, Francois Truffaut, darling of the French new wave, director of such arthouse klassiks as The 400 Blows, Jules and Jim, Day For Night. I was not familiar with anyone in the cast.

Detective Story: No, but there is a bit of mystery to the plot. Ultimately, I would call this one a crime story, but with a distinctly Truffaut-ian spin on the material. Yeah, there's a classic noir/crime plot going on, but set in that kind of laid back French-movie world where people will also take time to sit back and have animated discussions on why women are magic to them.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Yeah, I'd say so. Beyond the sort of mystery in the plot, there is an extended flashback in the middle that complicated the structure of the film.

Moral Ambiguity: I don't recall it being too pronounced, but the hero is both kind of a dick and kind of likable, and maybe straddles the line between good guy and criminal.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Sort of the off the cuff, French new wave version of it, I guess.

Overall Quality: I'm not going into much detail here, and I'm sorry. I watched this one a week ago and haven't had a chance to blog because I've been out of town. My memory of it isn't too fresh. And the reason is... it was just an okay movie. Not bad, even kinda good, but probably my least favorite Truffaut film I've ever seen. It's a fairly interesting, sort of relaxed take on the crime drama that I actually think is hurt by some weird stylistic touches and broad comedy. It's a hodge podge of ideas, I'm sure it was exciting to make, but the result is a mixed bag.

Maybe not the most fun movie on the list, but still noticeably the work of a talented artist:

1) Act of Violence

2) Crime Wave

3) Night and the City

4) Shoot the Piano Player

5) Mystery Street

6) Decoy

Burn After Reading

Sunday, September 14, 2008

For maybe the first 40 minutes or so, I thought this was going to be another Intolerable Cruelty or Ladykillers, where it's funny and entertaining, but in a who gives a shit kind of way that seems beneath the talent of the Coen Bros. But as it goes along, the movie really builds a comic momentum and a weird kind of intensity. It's not one of their best films, but it's a worthwhile one.

Although critics of the Coens are going to have a field day. I would say that this one is guilty of all the things the Coens are usually accused of: condescention and cruelty towards characters, smugness, nihilism, all that. I tend to disagree with those criticisms, and I'm not even sure they are always a bad thing, but there's no doubt that it's all on display here.

The thing that will really throw some people is, after No Country for Old Men, how frivilous this movie feels. It's frivilous to the point of nihilism. Few movies seem so willing to point out their own pointlessness. There's not even really a "plot," just a lot of confused characters who believe something bigger is going on, when there isn't. The movie graphically, shockingly kills off one of the only remotely likable characters in the movie, then dismisses their death with a couple of offhand jokes. At the end, a couple of mid-level intellegence agents, themselves barely peripheral to the story, discuss the plot and determine that they don't understand what happened or why, that it meant nothing, and it should never happen again.

Hell, the very title of this suggests that it's not something you should dwell on.

Still, even if this is just an exercise in dark humor and ironic style, the Coen's are really fucking good at it, and I can give it a enthusiastic recommendation. It's not a great movie, but it will tide me over until they next time they do make a great one.

Night and the City

Saturday, September 13, 2008

I'm a little worried that Noir Month is turning out to be a bit of a wash. I haven't really watched as many so far as I've meant to, in part because I feel like it alienates my girlfriend. And I'm going to be out of town for a few days now and won't have a chance to watch any. Doesn't seem like I'm gonna end up seeing many. Oh well, here's out next selection, and the first one that's not part of the box set I purchased.

Notable Talent: Well, the reason I checked this one out is because of the director, Jules Dassin. He did the pretty incredible crime film Riffifi, and I had heard this one might even be better. Also, the star is Richard Widmark, who I very much enjoyed in Pickup on South Street, and is pretty good here too. And Gene Tierney is famous, though I don't think I ever saw her in anything before.

Detective Story: No, not at all, and I once again regret making this one of my categories. This is a crime story, at least in part. It's about a small time hustler (not in the prostitute sense) who tries to con and bluff his way into a major business venture. However, one of the people he's crossed has it in for him, and sets the wheels in motion for his downfall.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Somewhat dense, for sure. It's one of those crime movie plots that I'm fond of, where it's complicated but also very character driven. Everybody has a different motive, and their actions set the plot in motion, rather than an arbitrary plot dictating their behavior.

Moral Ambiguity: The main character lies, cheats, steals, and even becomes violent towards women, all to achieve his dreams of success. He's a proper bastard, and yet strangely comes across as a complex, conflicted, and maybe at times sympathetic character. The ending is a doozy, powerful, bleak, and classic noir, where he performs a possibly redemptive act of self sacrifice... but it doesn't make him any less dead.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: It came as no surprise to me, but this is a great looking movie. It's got all the dark, seedy back alleys and dingy apartments and smoky clubs you could hope for in this kind of thing. Makes you wish they'd still occasionally shoot crime movies in black and white.

Overall Quality: I'm conflicted here. I think I went in with my hopes a little too high, or maybe I was expecting something different, but this took a while to get going for me, wasn't as heavy on the action as I was expecting, and only really slowly built it's way into becoming a crime movie. Still, it had a lot of interesting character work, great cinematography, and the more I think about it, the more I appreciate it. It sticks with you, especially the cold-blooded ending.

Hard to say where this ranks. I suspect that it may objectively be the best noir I've watched so far, but I also must admit that it was touch and go for the first half while I was watching.  It's stuck with me more than the other movies, and that's saying something, but didn't entertain me as much as some of the others. I'm sticking it in the 3rd spot, although I suspect my appreciation of it will grow if I ever see it again.

1) Act of Violence

2) Crime Wave

3) Night and the City

4) Mystery Street

5) Decoy

Quick Change

Saturday, September 13, 2008

This is a somewhat forgotten Bill Murray comedy with a sterling reputation, and I can see why. It's a pretty funny, pretty solid, somewhat goofy crime comedy that's elevated a bit by the strength of Murray's performance, as well as Jason Robards'.

It starts out with a bank heist, and I wonder if the guy who wrote Inside Man had seen this one, because the theives in Quick Change pull a somewhat similar, if much less complicated ruse.

Decoy

Thursday, September 11, 2008

4th movie watched for noir month, and I'm still working on my set. Some Netflixes should show up this weekend, so there should be more variety soon:

Detective Story: I should probably have labeled this category more broadly, because I just meant to describe the subgenre, and I guess I was expecting more of these to be detective movies for some reason. Oh well, too late now, I'm George Bushing this one, stay the course. This is not a detective story, although there is a detective character in a small role. This is a crime story, albiet a pretty ridiculous one.

Twisty, Turny Plot: A little bit, although mostly it's just absurd. I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way. It's about a femme fatale who steals the corpse of her recently executed (via gas chamber) boyfriend, and revives him with some weird, rare chemical that is apparently the antidote to the gas they use in the gas chamber. Not to save his life, but to find out where he stashed some loot. Sounds pretty silly, but they kind of treat the material with a straight face. Kind of.

Moral Ambiguity: Well, this is one of those crime movies where pretty much everybody is completely rotten. And since you're reveling in their bad behavior, you actively want them to do the wrong thing because it's more fun. You're rooting for all these people to screw each other over and kill each other off to get the money.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Yes, this is not the best looking or best made noir I've watched for Noir Month, but it might have been the most overtly stylized. I was particularly fond of the POV shot from a guy dying in the gas chamber, and the weird, misty swamp that the characters end up in near the end. It's not the work of a master, but I do appreciate all the effort.

Overall Quality: Decent, I liked it, but it was probably my least favorite noir so far. ("Noir so far"?! That rhymes!). It had the weakest script and spotty acting in places. It's all told in a dying person's flashback for no discernable reason, except maybe to be like Double Indemnity or something. The twist ending isn't much of a shock. Still though, the plot is so silly, and the movie keeps throwing in weird details that I couldn't help but like it. It's desire to entertain is genuine, and I appreciated it's weirdness.

Like I said though, enjoyable but my least favorite so far:

1. Act of Violence
2. Crime Wave (had I thought of it, I would have watched this in a double feature with Sam Raimi's early, Coen Brothers penned comedy Crimewave. Oh well.)
3. Mystery Street
4. Decoy

Crime Wave

Wednesday, September 10, 2008


3rd one in the set. I hope to soon watch one from Netflix.

Notable Talent: The great Sterling Hayden plays one of the lead roles, and although it took me half the movie to figure it out, a young Charles Bronson plays one of the bad guys. Also, the director apparently did the Vincent Price House of Wax, which I was thinking I had seen but then I realized I was thinking of The Pit and the Pendulum, which was directed by Roger Corman. And in case I'm being confusing here: Crime Wave was not directed by Roger Corman, it was directed by the guy who did House of Wax which I haven't seen.


Detective Story: Sterling Hayden is a homicide detective in this one, but it's not a mystery, it's a hardboiled crime story. And although Hayden gets top billing, I'd say he shares equal screen time with one or two of the other characters. So, sorta.


Twisty, Turny Plot: Not labyrinthine, and not a mystery, but you're not always sure where it's going. There's also a fake-out at the end that's a little predictable, but also incredibly satisfying.


Moral Ambiguity: I would say so, yes. The story is about a former criminal, now going straight, who is visited by some old associates after a robbery goes bad. He doesn't want anything to do with helping them, but they insinuate themselves into his life and threaten to kill his wife unless he helps. Meanwhile, Sterling Hayden, who had busted the guy years ago, suspects the guy of helping the thugs out and begins harassing him, unconvinced that the guy has gone straight. So we have a former criminal who's sympathetic but has to help the bad guys, and a cop who's kind of an asshole but is also doing what he thinks is right. So, good stuff, although I was also surprised that this one had a happy ending, with both characters redeeming themselves.


Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: If I had to guess, I would guess that this was a low budget movie. Still, it looks pretty good, and the camera work was pretty stylish. It's not as overtly artsy in the lighting and whatnot, but finds the right gritty feel for the material.


Overall Quality: I wasn't surprised to see that James Ellroy recorded an audio commentary for the DVD, because this seems like it would be a big influence. It has the same gritty, tough guy sorta vibe to it, with several significant characters circling around each other in different subplots until they all collide at the end. This is a taut, entertaining crime movie with pretty good dialogue and some memorable tough guy performances. I enjoyed it a lot.


This one was a lot like the kind of crime novels I like to read, and had the kind of story that I'm predisposed to like. Still, I thought Act of Violence was a little more nuanced, with more fleshed out characters and some sweet cinematography, so that one stays in the stop spot.


1. Act of Violence
2. Crime Wave
3. Mystery Sreet

42 Up

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Okay, my last couple posts on this series basically work for this one.

One original comment: this entry has what might be considered a major plot twist. It turns out in this one that two of the subject end up making friends because of their involvement in the series. One, who has been homeless for many years and seems to be mentally ill, is helped out by another, and given a place to live while he gets back on his feet. I've considered this film series a noble use of the medium, and I suppose that is debatable. But at the very least, it has had a very literal positive impact on the life of at least one subject, where he maybe would not have been able to find this kind of help otherwise. That's pretty awesome.

The Godfather Part 3

Monday, September 8, 2008

Back with the final Godfather Monday, and I'm proud to announce that I have now seen the entire trilogy, which I believe officially makes me the last person on Earth to do so. Hurrah.

And I gotta say, it seemed to me that this one has a bad reputation, but I thought it was actually pretty okay. If nothing else, it's a solid crime movie. Yes, it was the worst of the three, but still contains some strong performances and some quality filmmaking. In fact, I would say that Michael's character comes off as more nuanced than in the previous films. Sure, Pacino has a few "hu-ah!" kinda moments, but he also is allowed to show more emotion, actually expressing guilt over his past actions, and yearning for redemption. Michael seemed a little one-note sometimes in the first two movies, here I think his misguided but genuine attempt at self-improvement makes his character more interesting.


The other thing I appreciated is that the story was more along the lines of the original film, with constant forward motion, suspense, action. There are a lot of memorable set-pieces, and the movie seems to keep building and building. Like I said in my last post, part 2 is the best all-around, but I thought it would have been an even better movie if it was done in this style.


I think the reason for this one's reputation isn't that it's a bad movie, but that it's flaws are way more evident than in the other films. Obviously, there's Sofia Coppola's much maligned performance, we don't even need to go there. Worse is the borderline incomprehensible plot that ties into some weird Catholic church conspiracy theory that would probably have seemed pretty ludicrous if I had managed to follow it at all. Maybe I didn't pay close enough attention, but it struck me that you would need to take notes if you wanted to decipher this plot.

I would also guess that people don't dig the ending of this one. Not the big climactic shootout, which was a little melodramatic, but the final scene. Coppola shows a montage of the women Michael has loved and lost in his life, and then, rather audaciously, cuts to years ahead, where Michael is an old man. After sitting a few moments, he slumps over in his chair and dies. The end. No fireworks, he's just an old man, all alone, who keels over in his chair. I have to say, I loved this ending, and in it's own weird way it was the perfect way to warp up the trilogy. You're anticipating the whole time that Michael might die in this one, but you're expecting something a lot more dramatic than this. Instead, after this complex and over-the-top story, we are shown a very honest moment.




On a whole, I think this worked better as a trilogy than it did as individual films. Parts 1 and 3 offered a more satisfying, entertaining crime fiction type of film, while part 2 provided a more nuanced story and history. The cumulative effect here is pretty good, you get your ice cream and you get your vegetables, but no one movie was a homerun for me. Which is why, ultimately (and here's where I'm going to sound like an insufferable contrarian) if we're talking all-time great mob movies, I would argue that Goodfellas and Once Upon a Time in America are the superior films. Both tell powerful, nuanced stories while also knowing how to deliver the entertainment that you're looking for in this genre. And what I mean is, they know how to do these things at the same time, instead of being more compartmentalized like they are here.


In fact, the superficial similarities between The Godfather Part 2 and Once Upon a Time in America are pretty numerous. They are both epic-lengthed mob flicks starring Robert De Niro, that jump back in forth through time, in part telling the story of how a mob boss comes into power in early 1900's New York. This probably warrants closer examination, but I'm not the guy to do it.


Anyways, I liked these movies.

Mystery Street

Monday, September 9, 2008

Okay, here we are with our 2nd entry in my Noir Month series, which also happens to be the 2nd movie in the noir box set I recently purchased. I'm sure that's just a coicidence.

Notable Talent (i.e. people I'm familiar with): The director is John Sturges, who is most famous for The Great Escape, but also did some other notable tough guy films. Ricardo Montalban is the star, though I've never seen him in anything except the Spy Kids pictures. He has a likable screen presence and it's cool seeing a minority in the lead role of an older film, so he gets my approval.

Detective Story: Yes indeed, though not of the private persuasion. This is a police procedural, about a homicide detective investigating the murder of a pregnant prostitute.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Well, they hide the killer's face at first, but then unmistakenly suggest his identity early in the film. It's more so about how the police get on his trail, and as I said before this is very much a procedural, not too dense of a msytery. The one amusing twist is that the detective works with some forensic specialist-types from Harvard, of whom he is initially skeptical but soon proves his mettle. These days, with all the millions of detective shows and never ending CSI spinoffs, we take all this crap for granted, so it's kind of charming to see a movie that thinks this forensic science stuff is all new and strange.

Moral Ambiguity: Well, the good guys are clearly good and the bad guy clearly bad, and we aren't meant to sympathize with any criminals or anything. In fact, overall I'd say this one wasn't notably noir-y, more just a straight forward cop movie. One interesting touch in this department is that for a while, the main character aggressively investigates a man that he believes may be guilty, but we the audience know is not. He's a bit tactless or at least a little inconsiderate during the investigation, and ends up causing the innocent man and his wife a lot of undue stress, and even maybe harasses them a little. The detective is otherwise a likable character, so it's a neat detail, perhaps implying that his asshole-ish behavior is just part of the job.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: This is a well made, well shot movie, but again, it's not overtly noir in it's style. The streets aren't shadowy enough, the clubs aren't smokey enough, too much happens in the daytime or in well lit spaces.

Overall Quality: This is an all-around solid cop movie, nothing great, but consistantly entertaining, with a likable lead performance and one or two memorable supporting turns. It's well paced and the action is well staged. I have no real complaints except that it's not really film noir, or at least not much of one.

Okay, ranking what I've watched so far this month:

1. Act of Violence
2. Mystery Street

Mystery Street was a reasonably entertaining cop film, but I found Act of Violence to be a far more compelling and complex experience.

Okay, not much of a list yet, but we'll get there. I hope.

High Fidelity

Sunday, September 7, 2008

John Cusack is fucking great. I just wanted to put that out there.

My Own Private Idaho

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Gus Van Sant is probably one of my favorite filmmakers, and this might be my favorite of his. Hard to say, he has a lot of movies I love for very different reasons. Maybe this isn't his best, but it's the one that most stirs up something inside me... I find something profound and moving about this film, but it's not quite describable. Some of it is in the fragileness and honesty of River Phoenix's performance... if Gus Van Sant's films are almost always about outsiders, then Phoenix is the most realized, most poignant one. Some of it is the visual aesthetic and tone of the film... quirky yet beautiful, show-offy yet soulful. Van Sant sort of did that "goofy, quirky characters with depressing lives" thing before it became more popular.

Mostly I think it's the sense of longing at the center of the film. Anybody who has ever felt like an outsider in their life can relate to that feeling of needing acceptance, if not by the society that you're in, then by someone that you care about. This is one of my favorite tales of unrequited love. Phoenix's character spends the whole movie trying to get the love of two people, his friend Scott and his long lost mother. He succeeds at neither, but there's is a tiny sliver of hope still at the end of the movie... or at least, it's not definitively a sad ending.

Animal Crackers

Saturday, September 6, 2008

This is, I think, the earliest of the Marx Brothers films I've seen. Although I still liked it, it was definitely one of my least favorite. The problem is, for some reason, the movie thinks we'll give a shit about a bunch of scenes and subplots involving characters who aren't the Marx Brothers. My ass. Do they really think I give two squirts of piss about the plot? Fuck the plot, just get to the comedy.

Bubba Ho-Tep

Saturday, September 6, 2008

We were stuck in because of the rain on Saturday, so Shenan and I watched a bunch of movies. Only I didn't really end up paying attention to some of them, so I'm not going to count them. Sorry, The Ruins and Alien. Oh well.

Hadn't watched this in a few years. An aging Elvis and black JFK fight a white-trash egyptian mummy at an old folk's home. It's exactly as awesome as it sounds.

Nashville

Saturday, September 6, 2008

I went through a period during my senior year of college and into the summer thereafter where I watched a shitload of Robert Altman movies. I mean, the dude made so many it's unbelievable, and for a while maybe I fancied I'd try to see them all. One of the great things about Altman is that, throughout his career, he had a fairly consistent style and POV, which really lends itself to an auteur theory analysis, and it's fun to watch him attempt different genres. Most of his movies are pretty good, and even some of the not so good ones are usually interesting. So it's easy for me to see now why I was plowing through his movies so ferociously.

Problem is, something I've learned about his films is that they tend to improve vastly upon repeat viewings. So instead of watching his movies by the truckload, I probably should have been re-watching the ones I found most interesting.

I've noted before that Altman was a favorite director of mine who nonetheless didn't have a movie that I would call "great." It was more his career as a whole that means the most to me. The cumulative effect. But now, having seen Nashville twice, I concede that it's a great movie. It's a pretty strong argument that I need to go back and watch some of the ones I've already seen, maybe once I stop posting regularly.

I'm still not sure I understand the political message of this film, if there is one, but it's clear to me now what a powerful study of human behavior it is. It's unspoken message, and really the message of most of Altman's movies, is that you can never imagine just how complex everyone is. Follow someone around long enough, and you'll see them at their best, at their worst, you'll see them be a hero, an asshole, a hypocrite, a best friend. You don't get that as much the first time you see it, because it's hard to keep track of all the characters and all the subplots and all the little details.

Like I said, I see now that this is a great movie, once you explore it, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to feel the same way when I go back and check some of his other movies out again. 3 Women was always my favorite, so I'm particularly excited to see it again.

Vanishing Point

Friday, September 5, 2008

If this wasn't the damnedest movie. A dude has to drop off a car in San Francisco, bets a friend he can make it in a day and a half, takes a bunch of speed and drives across a few states while the cops chase him. It's basically one continuous car chase, interrupted by various strange encounters with passersby. And even though there's constant car chasing, a lot of the movie has this laid back, ambling feel to it, and then some weird existential message (or something) at its core. It's sort of like Two Lane Blacktop, but even more spare and strange, and maybe more mysterious. I'm not sure what exactly to make of this one, but I did quite enjoy it.

Strangers With Candy

Friday, September 5, 2008

Weird how much I like this movie considering I never much cared for the TV show. Perhaps this means I should go back and give the show another shot. Or maybe not. Maybe it just means that this material needs a R rating for it to work.

Sling Blade

Friday, September 5, 2008

I remember this one making pretty big waves when it came out, what with all Oscar buzz type stuff. At the time I really wanted to see it, but for whatever reason never did, and now here we are like 12 years later.

What has happened to Billy Bob Thornton? He's not a only a talented actor with a considerable range, but also a skilled writer and director. Clearly he's a multitalented guy, but now he doesn't seem to do anything anymore except play Bad Santa over and over again. And don't get me wrong, he was great in Bad Santa and it's an amazingly funny movie, but it seems like it ruined his career. Now he just plays bitter assholes in dark comedies.

He hasn't directed a movie since the (quite good) All the Pretty Horses, and hasn't played a unique, interesting character in who knows how long... is it too much to ask that he writes another role for himself?

Semi-Pro

Thursday, September 4, 2008

I'll cop to pretty much being a member of the Cult of Ferrell. I enjoy him enough that I'm willing to watch his movies even when they look terrible, like Blades of Glory or this one.

Turns out though, unlike Blades of Glory, this one was actually okay. Far from his best, definitely inconsistant and too reliant on elements he's already used before to greater effect (70's fashions, sports theme, playing a loudmouth yet lovable idiot), but still passably good.

Also, I can't remember the last time I saw a sports comedy that contained such a small, inconsequential amount of game-time scenes.

Act of Violence

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

I picked up a Film Noir box set last weekend with a gift certificate I got for my birthday. That's 10 movies to go through, so I decided, what the fuck, let's make September "Noir Month" in my K2K and I will kommit to watching all 10 plus a few other random ones I'll bump up my Netflix queue.

Maybe we'll try some sort of format for these posts, sorta analyzing some noir elements:

Notable Talent (i.e. people I'm familiar with): Director Fred Zinneman (who also did Day of the Jackal and A Man For All Seasons), Van Heflin (who I'm becoming a fan of), Janet Leigh, Mary Astor (only like 7 or 8 years after The Maltese Falcon but looking 20 years older).

Detective Story: Nope, not really a mystery story, although there are some secrets under the surface.

Twisty, Turny Plot: Pretty straight forward, but with one good twist in the middle.

Moral Ambiguity: Oh, lords yes. In fact, this is probably the film's strongest point. We have this nice guy, war hero, a pillar of his community being stalked by a seemingly insane old army buddy, who is trying to kill him. Only it turns out that the nutcase might have a pretty good reason for wanting revenge, and the hero may not be as heroic as we think. We're frequently unsure of where our sympathies should lie, as one fellow is a killer and the other is a coward. At the end, they both are given a chance at redemption, and maybe they get it, but in a particularly bleak manner. Also, the main character ends up hanging out with a hooker for half the movie, although he never actually cheats on his wife. The hooker herself is an ambiguous character, it's never quite clear if she's trying to help him, or trying to get money from him. Maybe both.

Sweet-ass Shadowy Black and White Cinematography: Indeed. Not the most stylish noir I've seen, but we're treated to plenty of great shots of smoky nightclubs, empty streets at night, trains plowing through the dark. It opens with a fucking awesome shot of a shadowy figure stalking down the street with the buildings all lit up behind him.

Overall Quality: Pretty good. Not an all time genre favorite (that would be The Maltese Falcon, by the way), but possibly a minor classic. It's dark and suspenseful , well shot and has a lot of good character work. Maybe it sidetracks a bit too much in the middle, and maybe it overstates its themes, but not enough to really gripe about. The ending was a little too pat for me, but I also have to give it credit for avoiding a happy ending.

So then I think I'll try to rank all the noir I watch the month, because hey what's more fun than racing movies like horses? Nothing. This is the first one I've watching this month, so it's #1 by default right now.

Sons of the Desert

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

I've seen some Laurel and Hardy movies before, but when I saw this was on TCM a few weeks back I figure it would still be worth doing one for the K2K. I give old comedy a lot of shit, but I do actually like some it, just not in large helpings. Sons of the Desert is funny, I always thought these guys had a goofy charm, and they've always been good for a lot of smiles and a few good laughs. The comedy isn't as inspired or unique as the Marx Brothers, but although it's fairly low class stuff it made me laugh a lot more than a supposed great comedy like Kind Hearts and Coronets. Maybe I'm just not cultured, but I much prefer the spirited, zanier old comedies than I do the subtle, classy ones.

Lars and the Real Girl

Monday, September 1, 2008

I was really averse to seeing this when it came it. It received strong reviews and had a good cast, but it seemed to me to be an indie quirkfest (a genre I'm not too keen on) with a particularly unpleasant plot. I mean, the concept didn't seem all that funny to me; more creepy and sad. Then I heard the film was only kind of a comedy, and really more serious and dramatic, and I could not imagine that working at all. I mean, it's about a guy who goes around believing that a sex doll is a real person that he's in love with. It's like some depressing real-life version of Mannequin.


Turns out I was wrong on all counts. This is a pretty wonderful movie, funny in a low key way, very charming and even quite touching at the end. I'm not sure how they did it, but I think at least a good helping of the credit goes to Ryan Gosling. I think he's one of the best actors around these days, but I had trouble imagining him as a lovable sad-sack. He seemed more the confident type to me, but it so happens that he's perfect in the role, and his ability to to project innocence and a kind of hidden charm go a long way to making you care about a potentially weird character.

On the hand, it's about Lars' delusion and why he might feel that way, but perhaps more importantly it's about the way his family and friends, and eventually the community at large, accomodate his because they all care about him. They never make the mistake of trying to turn the doll in to a character, we never sees Lars' delusion for ourselves, but we care about his feelings for her, and about everyone elses' feelings for him. I was pretty shocked to find myself genuinely moved by the end, but there you have it: I had this movie pegged completely wrong.

The Godfather, Part 2

Monday, September 1, 2008

In some ways, it's like my list of squabbles about The Godfather were magically sent back in time to Coppola while he was making the sequel. The women are still not as fleshed out as the men, and don't get much screen time, but it seemed like they had more to do here. Maybe they don't have much impact on the plot, but at least here Kaye's actions seem to have an impact on Michael. That's something.

It's even longer than the first movie, but there's no subplot like the Sicilian diversion in the first movie that felt like it didn't build to anything. Here everything seems to have a clear purpose.

And I think Michael's arc is far more compelling and appropriately modulated. I complained that in the original, the arc was supposed to be him going from a normal guy to an amoral crime boss, except that they seemed to skip the transition. One minute he wanted nothing to do with the family business, the next minute he's killing people. Here, Michael is already corrupted, and it's more about seeing exactly how low he will sink. And he actually seems conflicted in places, like maybe it's all starting to wear on him.

So it's kind of odd then that this movie lacks the entertainment factor that the first film had. I mean, if there is one thing I can see for the first movie, it's that it's incredibly watchable, and moves from one entertaining sequence to the next. There's Lucio Brazzi's murder, Don Vito's attempted murder, Michael trying to move his father into another hospital room, the assassination in the restaurant, Sonny beating up his brother in law, the big montages of assassinations at the end, and tons others. Constant sequences of action and suspense.

This one (in part because a lot of the corrections I mentioned) is more introspective and has less forward momentum. There are a couple excellent set-pieces (especially young Vito's murder of a local mafioso), but they are few and far between. Mostly it's long sequences of dialogue, as the characters weave a very intricate plot full of double-crosses and hidden agendas.

All in all, this was the better of the two films, because it had a greater depth of emotion and delved much further in fleshing out this world and these characters. But I can't help but think I would have full-on loved it if it had married these improvements with the more "action"-packed style of the first film. I mean, if it was a trade-off, then they made the right call. But I suspect that Coppola was just trying to make a more serious film this go-round, and not as much of a crowd-pleaser.

I'm actually looking forward to watching the much maligned final chapter next week. I'm thinking since I liked these first two but was not completely fucking enamoured with them like the rest of the planet, I won't be holding it up to unreasonable expectations and I will be satisfied if it's just an okay movie.

Saw III

Sunday, August 31, 2008

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm excited for Saw V in October. I've seen each one theatrically so far, and I hope to never break that trend. If this new one follows in the footsteps of the sequels, they should hopefully up the crazy-levels yet again. There's nothing scary or what have you about the sequels, but there's a ludicrousness to them that is unrivaled in the world of horror movie series.

Part 5 is set to have a new director, after Darren Bousman did 2 through 4. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'm hoping at least he'll try to closely copy Bousman's absurdly over-stylized manner, although I'm worried that he won't be as good at over-directing. But who knows, maybe he'll match him, or even bring a new, unique brand of crazy to the series.

I noticed this time watching part 3 that there a lot of well-staged, intricate camera shots that are ruined by the hyperactive editing. They'll cut from a shot too fast, or they will suddenly for no reason speed the shot up and accompany it with a "whoooosh!" sound, as if the camera is actually making noise. (Or at least, I think there's a "whooooosh!" but it could just be that the shot leaves the impression of a "wooooooosh!") I'm not complaining. When I say that the editing ruins it, I mean that it ruins it so bad that it becomes great. I can't ever remember seeing a horror series so often try to bring attention to its own style. All the silly transitions and flash cuts and speed changes are part of the story, instead of being the means to some sort of effect. With, say, the Nightmare On Elm Street movies, you were there to see the gore and the special effects. With Saw, you're there to see the gore and all the stupid editing tricks.

The Right Stuff

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Fantastic, epic-lengthed film about the space program. It tells a long, intricate story in a very personable, very engrossing, and surprisingly very funny way. It's that special kind of movie that's complex and involved, yet also something of a crowd pleaser.

Mainstream entertainment at its finest, is what I'm saying. Which is funny, I don't normally think of 3 hour and 15 minute movies as being entirely mainstream, but it would be hard to imagine most people not enjoying this. Of course, people did love that LOTR shit, so maybe I'm being unfair in suggesting that mass audiences don't like long movies, and maybe this isn't as much of an exception. A lot of summer event type movies go well past the 2 hour mark. Maybe it's that audiences don't like long movies that aren't filled with action or special effects. Would anyone have wanted to see Titanic if that fucking boat didn't sink? What about The Aviator? It was more of a serious prestige picture and was pretty long. But it did have plane crashes and shit. Or is it just the DiCaprio factor? Or is it just my own misperception that people tend to have a problem with longer movies?

This is one of those posts where I don't come to any conclusion.