Sunday, April 13, 2008
I had queued this a while back, and decided to bump it up to the top after Jules Dassin's recent passing. His Rififi is a stellar crime movie from the 50's with one of the best heists I've seen in a movie. It's really dark and badass, especially for an older flick. Topkapi is a heist film too, but it couldn't be more different... it's a weird, sometimes trippy comic caper with a lot of weird flourishes.
I'll be honest, my interest wavered from time to time. Still, I liked it; there's some entertaining visual flair, and the great Peter Ustinov adds a lot of the film, and the heist itself is pretty sweet. Not as good as it could be, and certainly much worse than Rififi, but still fun enough to make a good distraction.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Street Kings
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Despite the bad reviews it was getting, I was still excited for Street Kings. I mean, look at the talent behind this one: we have an original story by crime fiction master James Ellroy (whose superb The Big Nowhere I recently read and loved), and it was directed and re-written by the writer of Training Day and Dark Blue, both of which are above average police procedurals. Then in the cast we have the awesome Forest Whittaker, charismatic up-and-comer Chris Evans, best man alive Hugh Laurie, small roles for Common and The Game, Jay Mohr not in a comedic role, and, most importantly, America's Most Underrated Actor Keanu Reeves in the lead role. I mean, come on, that's a pretty good combo.
Yeah, yeah, I know a lot of you don't think much of Keanu, and I wouldn't call him a great actor myself. But I would call him a good one, with a lot of good movies under his belt, and I think his low-key style of underplaying works well for the kind of cold, direct, stoic badass he plays here.
Anyway, fuck everyone else because I did like this flick quite a bit. I suppose I am sort of predisposed to this kind of crime drama/corrupt police procedural movie. The same way other folks have some intrinsic love of westerns and something stirs in side of them... that's how I feel seeing a couple of sleazy, tough-guy cops rolling up on some gang members in East L.A.
Now, there are problems, don't get me wrong. It's far from perfect. There's one part that got a big, unintentional laugh from the audience I saw it with, and that always hurts the overall product. The ending isn't very satisfying, and although I like its cynicism, it's a little too much to take.
Surprisingly, though, the worst part of the movie is Forest Whittaker. Now, I think Whittaker is normally a great actor; his work in Ghost Dog reaches the pinnacle of film acting as far as I'm concerned. But here, he starts out amusingly broad before overacting so hard that he actually becomes uncomfortable to watch and ruins some of the climactic scenes of the movie. I mean, damn, didn't anybody think to tell him to tone it down a little? (Maybe they were encouraging him to go bigger?) After Street Kings and Vantage Point, Whittaker is not having a good year.
So fine, it's not perfect, but what it does right it does great, especially if you're into this kind of macho, violent, corrupt LAPD type of story. The characters are well drawn (for tough guy stereotypes) and pull the requisite badass antics. The plot is entertainingly convoluted, there's some pretty snappy dialogue, and a handful of top notch, genuinely exciting action scenes. I especially dig the shootout in a very tiny apartment, and the fight Keanu has while he's handcuffed. That's good shit, and further proof of my theory that we are entering a new action movie renaissance. Oh, and even though it's an urban action movie, Ayer doesn't go overboard on the MTV editing, which should be a given but is becoming something of a special feat these days.
I found so much of this movie to be fun, badass, compelling and well-done that it's probably just a case of my own personal biases. Or that's what everyone else would say. But you're all assholes. I'm right, you're wrong, this is a pretty good movie.
Despite the bad reviews it was getting, I was still excited for Street Kings. I mean, look at the talent behind this one: we have an original story by crime fiction master James Ellroy (whose superb The Big Nowhere I recently read and loved), and it was directed and re-written by the writer of Training Day and Dark Blue, both of which are above average police procedurals. Then in the cast we have the awesome Forest Whittaker, charismatic up-and-comer Chris Evans, best man alive Hugh Laurie, small roles for Common and The Game, Jay Mohr not in a comedic role, and, most importantly, America's Most Underrated Actor Keanu Reeves in the lead role. I mean, come on, that's a pretty good combo.
Yeah, yeah, I know a lot of you don't think much of Keanu, and I wouldn't call him a great actor myself. But I would call him a good one, with a lot of good movies under his belt, and I think his low-key style of underplaying works well for the kind of cold, direct, stoic badass he plays here.
Anyway, fuck everyone else because I did like this flick quite a bit. I suppose I am sort of predisposed to this kind of crime drama/corrupt police procedural movie. The same way other folks have some intrinsic love of westerns and something stirs in side of them... that's how I feel seeing a couple of sleazy, tough-guy cops rolling up on some gang members in East L.A.
Now, there are problems, don't get me wrong. It's far from perfect. There's one part that got a big, unintentional laugh from the audience I saw it with, and that always hurts the overall product. The ending isn't very satisfying, and although I like its cynicism, it's a little too much to take.
Surprisingly, though, the worst part of the movie is Forest Whittaker. Now, I think Whittaker is normally a great actor; his work in Ghost Dog reaches the pinnacle of film acting as far as I'm concerned. But here, he starts out amusingly broad before overacting so hard that he actually becomes uncomfortable to watch and ruins some of the climactic scenes of the movie. I mean, damn, didn't anybody think to tell him to tone it down a little? (Maybe they were encouraging him to go bigger?) After Street Kings and Vantage Point, Whittaker is not having a good year.
So fine, it's not perfect, but what it does right it does great, especially if you're into this kind of macho, violent, corrupt LAPD type of story. The characters are well drawn (for tough guy stereotypes) and pull the requisite badass antics. The plot is entertainingly convoluted, there's some pretty snappy dialogue, and a handful of top notch, genuinely exciting action scenes. I especially dig the shootout in a very tiny apartment, and the fight Keanu has while he's handcuffed. That's good shit, and further proof of my theory that we are entering a new action movie renaissance. Oh, and even though it's an urban action movie, Ayer doesn't go overboard on the MTV editing, which should be a given but is becoming something of a special feat these days.
I found so much of this movie to be fun, badass, compelling and well-done that it's probably just a case of my own personal biases. Or that's what everyone else would say. But you're all assholes. I'm right, you're wrong, this is a pretty good movie.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Doomsday
Thursday, April 10, 2008
It's like someone specifically tailored this movie just so I'd buy a ticket. It's just a big knock-off of Escape From New York with a dollop of Mad Max thrown in for good measure.
Is it as good as those films? No. Is it a lot of fun? Yes. Does it manage to recapture any of the magic of those other films? Sometimes, but not enough to make it a classic. Does it add anything unique to the mix? Enough so that the movie doesn't feel stale or boring.
The director, Neil Marshall, has never been shy about borrowing heavily from other sources, although I never expected him to do anything this brazen. I mean, he practically lifts whole scenes from the movies of John Carpenter and George Miller. Hell, he even steals the font Carpenter uses on all his movies, and throws in an 80's-style electronic score to boot.
There's not an action scene as good as the best stuff from The Road Warrior, or a character as great as Snake Plisken, but I still had a big grin plastered on my face for most of the movie. It's just an exuberant work of nerdy fanboy nostalgia, a sloppy but eager blowjob to some movies that Marshall clearly loves, but done well. And I love those movies too, and I'm happy to share in his nostalgia.
It's like someone specifically tailored this movie just so I'd buy a ticket. It's just a big knock-off of Escape From New York with a dollop of Mad Max thrown in for good measure.
Is it as good as those films? No. Is it a lot of fun? Yes. Does it manage to recapture any of the magic of those other films? Sometimes, but not enough to make it a classic. Does it add anything unique to the mix? Enough so that the movie doesn't feel stale or boring.
The director, Neil Marshall, has never been shy about borrowing heavily from other sources, although I never expected him to do anything this brazen. I mean, he practically lifts whole scenes from the movies of John Carpenter and George Miller. Hell, he even steals the font Carpenter uses on all his movies, and throws in an 80's-style electronic score to boot.
There's not an action scene as good as the best stuff from The Road Warrior, or a character as great as Snake Plisken, but I still had a big grin plastered on my face for most of the movie. It's just an exuberant work of nerdy fanboy nostalgia, a sloppy but eager blowjob to some movies that Marshall clearly loves, but done well. And I love those movies too, and I'm happy to share in his nostalgia.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Long Riders
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Once again employing my Christ-like, divine, unconditional gift of forgiveness and redemption, I decided to give Walter Hill another shot with his early 80s western, The Long Riders. Diligent readers may recall that I greatly enjoyed The Warriors, but didn't care much for 48 Hrs.
My appreciation for The Warriors grew once I noticed the subtle Sergio Leone vibe it has going through it... namely, really long, complex setups with sudden, unexpected payoffs that don't last very long, but are great and afterwards you realize that the setups are most of the fun any way.
So, I figured this one, being a western, would have a Leone-ness to it. Actually, if anything, it's got a Sam Peckinpah vibe, with lots of slow motion shots of people getting blown to bits. Only it's a little crazier and more over-the-top than any of the Peckinpah I've seen.
It's a highly fictionalized telling of the James-Younger gang story, and Hill makes an interesting choice in casting real life brothers for all the related characters in the movie. So we have the Carradines, the Keaches, the Quaids and the Guests. It makes for some weird casting choices for a western. I mean, I can totally buy David Carradine as the Carradine to call in when you need a badass outlaw, but Robert and Keith? One's a nerd and one's a hippie. And yet, somehow it kinda works.
This isn't a great piece of writing, and considering the great cast the movie doesn't do much with the characters. But damn if this movie wasn't entertaining as hell. I was having a pretty good time throughout, but then the final action scene came along and completely blew my cock right out of my pants and into the toilet. And then flushed the toilet. It's gotta be one of the best action scenes I've ever seen in a western. And it's fucking crazy as hell. I mean, Leone and Peckinpah did some looney-toons shit in their movies, but I don't think they ever had a horse chase where the guys ride their horses right through a big glass window, like in a car chase or something. And it's not every day where you see a guy get shot in the cheek and the bullet goes through his mouth and out the other cheek.
So, OK, good job Walter Hill. Looks like I'll be checking out more of your stuff after all.
Once again employing my Christ-like, divine, unconditional gift of forgiveness and redemption, I decided to give Walter Hill another shot with his early 80s western, The Long Riders. Diligent readers may recall that I greatly enjoyed The Warriors, but didn't care much for 48 Hrs.
My appreciation for The Warriors grew once I noticed the subtle Sergio Leone vibe it has going through it... namely, really long, complex setups with sudden, unexpected payoffs that don't last very long, but are great and afterwards you realize that the setups are most of the fun any way.
So, I figured this one, being a western, would have a Leone-ness to it. Actually, if anything, it's got a Sam Peckinpah vibe, with lots of slow motion shots of people getting blown to bits. Only it's a little crazier and more over-the-top than any of the Peckinpah I've seen.
It's a highly fictionalized telling of the James-Younger gang story, and Hill makes an interesting choice in casting real life brothers for all the related characters in the movie. So we have the Carradines, the Keaches, the Quaids and the Guests. It makes for some weird casting choices for a western. I mean, I can totally buy David Carradine as the Carradine to call in when you need a badass outlaw, but Robert and Keith? One's a nerd and one's a hippie. And yet, somehow it kinda works.
This isn't a great piece of writing, and considering the great cast the movie doesn't do much with the characters. But damn if this movie wasn't entertaining as hell. I was having a pretty good time throughout, but then the final action scene came along and completely blew my cock right out of my pants and into the toilet. And then flushed the toilet. It's gotta be one of the best action scenes I've ever seen in a western. And it's fucking crazy as hell. I mean, Leone and Peckinpah did some looney-toons shit in their movies, but I don't think they ever had a horse chase where the guys ride their horses right through a big glass window, like in a car chase or something. And it's not every day where you see a guy get shot in the cheek and the bullet goes through his mouth and out the other cheek.
So, OK, good job Walter Hill. Looks like I'll be checking out more of your stuff after all.
Raise the Red Lantern
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
It's hard out here for a concubine. You're always fighting for attention, engaging in an underhanded battle with the other mistresses, you live in a big empty castle, and if you fool around they hang you. Not a good time.
This was a compelling, good looking period piece that was (unbeknownst to me when I watched it) directed by the same fellow that did Hero and House of Flying Daggers. There's no kung-fu in this one, though. Shame. I gave it 4 out of 5 on Netflix, but I think some kung-fu might have pushed it to a 5.
One thing that really surprised me here is that they make the main character out to be a horrible, selfish bitch. And I guess she becomes somewhat more sympathetic as the story progresses, but she doesn't really seem to learn anything or become a better person, and she does a lot of awful things. It's an interesting choice that I appreciated, although it does perhaps lessen the emotional impact of the movie, because you don't quite care about her as much as the movie would like you to.
Actually, with a better ending, this probably would have gotten my 5th star. But I think it goes on a beat or two too long, and it really doesn't earn it's final, left-field payoff. There's a perfectly suitable ending maybe 10 minutes earlier, but it keeps going and I think diminishes the overall impact of the film. But it's still a very good one.
It's hard out here for a concubine. You're always fighting for attention, engaging in an underhanded battle with the other mistresses, you live in a big empty castle, and if you fool around they hang you. Not a good time.
This was a compelling, good looking period piece that was (unbeknownst to me when I watched it) directed by the same fellow that did Hero and House of Flying Daggers. There's no kung-fu in this one, though. Shame. I gave it 4 out of 5 on Netflix, but I think some kung-fu might have pushed it to a 5.
One thing that really surprised me here is that they make the main character out to be a horrible, selfish bitch. And I guess she becomes somewhat more sympathetic as the story progresses, but she doesn't really seem to learn anything or become a better person, and she does a lot of awful things. It's an interesting choice that I appreciated, although it does perhaps lessen the emotional impact of the movie, because you don't quite care about her as much as the movie would like you to.
Actually, with a better ending, this probably would have gotten my 5th star. But I think it goes on a beat or two too long, and it really doesn't earn it's final, left-field payoff. There's a perfectly suitable ending maybe 10 minutes earlier, but it keeps going and I think diminishes the overall impact of the film. But it's still a very good one.
Monday, April 7, 2008
In the Mood for Love
Monday, April 7, 2008
Wong Kar-Wai is a name that keeps popping up in best 10 lists from pretentious movie snobs such as myself, so I figured it was about time I gave him a shot.
I liked this one, didn't love it, not sure if I'd rush out to see another one of his movies, but it's good. It's about two neighbors, a man and a woman, who find out that their spouses are having an affair with each other. They form a friendship, and slowly fall in love, but refuse to act on their feelings because they don't want to be like their spouses, wonder what the neighbors would think, etc etc. So there's an Age of Innocence thing going on, and watching it you admire the characters for trying to take the high road, but figure that in the end it only makes them more miserable. It's very well shot, and well acted, and all that, but I didn't make me feel much or really engage my emotions. My appreciation of it was entirely intellectual or technical, which in a movie like this leaves you feeling a little empty at the end.
Wong Kar-Wai is a name that keeps popping up in best 10 lists from pretentious movie snobs such as myself, so I figured it was about time I gave him a shot.
I liked this one, didn't love it, not sure if I'd rush out to see another one of his movies, but it's good. It's about two neighbors, a man and a woman, who find out that their spouses are having an affair with each other. They form a friendship, and slowly fall in love, but refuse to act on their feelings because they don't want to be like their spouses, wonder what the neighbors would think, etc etc. So there's an Age of Innocence thing going on, and watching it you admire the characters for trying to take the high road, but figure that in the end it only makes them more miserable. It's very well shot, and well acted, and all that, but I didn't make me feel much or really engage my emotions. My appreciation of it was entirely intellectual or technical, which in a movie like this leaves you feeling a little empty at the end.
Bad Day at Black Rock
Sunday, April 6, 2008
I realized the other day that I'm not too familiar with Spencer Tracy, so I should work something of his into my K2K. And I figured what better movie to watch than one where he plays a one-armed karate master.
Directed by John Sturges, the fellow who did The Great Escape and The Magnificent Seven, it's a fairly enjoyable tough guy movie with a handful of strong action sequences, which are pretty badass for a 50's movie. Even at only 82 minutes, the plot seems stretched thin and can't really sustain the whole movie, but it's still entertaining, and aided by a good supporting cast including Lee Marvin.
And it's very satisfying to see a one-armed Spencer Tracy beat up Ernest Borgnine with karate chops. I'm just sayin', you don't see that every day.
I realized the other day that I'm not too familiar with Spencer Tracy, so I should work something of his into my K2K. And I figured what better movie to watch than one where he plays a one-armed karate master.
Directed by John Sturges, the fellow who did The Great Escape and The Magnificent Seven, it's a fairly enjoyable tough guy movie with a handful of strong action sequences, which are pretty badass for a 50's movie. Even at only 82 minutes, the plot seems stretched thin and can't really sustain the whole movie, but it's still entertaining, and aided by a good supporting cast including Lee Marvin.
And it's very satisfying to see a one-armed Spencer Tracy beat up Ernest Borgnine with karate chops. I'm just sayin', you don't see that every day.
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
Sunday, April 6, 2008
I know Robert Aldrich mainly for doing entertaining tough guy movies like Kiss Me Deadly and The Dirty Dozen. But here is a horror movie he did about an aging, former child star who is keeping her more famous, crippled sister trapped in her upstairs bedroom. It's weirdly poised somewhere between campy and grotesque.
The best part of the movie, and what I remembered most clearly from when I had seen this as a kid, is Bette Davis's performance as Baby Jane. She's over-the-top and often funny in the role, but also intense and convincing, so much so that she's uncomfortable to watch at times. And with her overly made-up face and weird baby doll clothes... Jesus, she gets under your skin.
I mean, this movie has some flaws, and it's a little too long, but damn if Baby Jane isn't one of the creepiest, most effective characters in a horror movie. Almost every moment with her puts you on edge. Even seemingly innocuous social situations turn uncomfortable, the way she's always announcing to completly clueless people that she is, in fact, Baby Jane Hudson. And then she descends completely into insanity; by the end she's dancing in front of a crowd of confused beach goers, apparently uner the impression that they are there to see her perform. It's some unnerving shit.
Her complete detachment from reality is a little tragic at times too, so even though she's a vicious looney you almost feel bad for her at times. So in that sense, this is a great horror movie because it constantly makes you feel awful. You're either creeped out or uncomfortable at all times.
I know Robert Aldrich mainly for doing entertaining tough guy movies like Kiss Me Deadly and The Dirty Dozen. But here is a horror movie he did about an aging, former child star who is keeping her more famous, crippled sister trapped in her upstairs bedroom. It's weirdly poised somewhere between campy and grotesque.
The best part of the movie, and what I remembered most clearly from when I had seen this as a kid, is Bette Davis's performance as Baby Jane. She's over-the-top and often funny in the role, but also intense and convincing, so much so that she's uncomfortable to watch at times. And with her overly made-up face and weird baby doll clothes... Jesus, she gets under your skin.
I mean, this movie has some flaws, and it's a little too long, but damn if Baby Jane isn't one of the creepiest, most effective characters in a horror movie. Almost every moment with her puts you on edge. Even seemingly innocuous social situations turn uncomfortable, the way she's always announcing to completly clueless people that she is, in fact, Baby Jane Hudson. And then she descends completely into insanity; by the end she's dancing in front of a crowd of confused beach goers, apparently uner the impression that they are there to see her perform. It's some unnerving shit.
Her complete detachment from reality is a little tragic at times too, so even though she's a vicious looney you almost feel bad for her at times. So in that sense, this is a great horror movie because it constantly makes you feel awful. You're either creeped out or uncomfortable at all times.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
They Live
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Patrick and I, for whatever reason, ended up hell bent on watching a bad-ass movie late Saturday night. After a few minutes of arguing, we agreed that it had to be a John Carpenter movie. And that posed a tough question... which John Carpenter movie is the most badass? Clearly, it came down to They Live and Escape From New York.
So we actually called up a friend of Patrick's (who I am told is such a big Carpenter fan that he actually owns a copy of Memoirs of an Invisible Man) to have him settle the dispute. And the rest is history.
They Live is tied with probably 2 or 3 other movies as Carpenter's best, and hence earns a spot somewhere on the all time greatest list. It is the most accurate movie ever made about America. It was made in the mid 80's, and it's about how Republicans are all secretly alien monsters from another dimension that have taken over Earth. Rowdy Roddy Piper finds this out, and so he spends the last hour of the movie shooting everyone and eventually teams up with Keith David, who also shoots a bunch of people. If you haven't seen this movie, there is something wrong with you and fuck you go see it immediately. I'm outtie.
Patrick and I, for whatever reason, ended up hell bent on watching a bad-ass movie late Saturday night. After a few minutes of arguing, we agreed that it had to be a John Carpenter movie. And that posed a tough question... which John Carpenter movie is the most badass? Clearly, it came down to They Live and Escape From New York.
So we actually called up a friend of Patrick's (who I am told is such a big Carpenter fan that he actually owns a copy of Memoirs of an Invisible Man) to have him settle the dispute. And the rest is history.
They Live is tied with probably 2 or 3 other movies as Carpenter's best, and hence earns a spot somewhere on the all time greatest list. It is the most accurate movie ever made about America. It was made in the mid 80's, and it's about how Republicans are all secretly alien monsters from another dimension that have taken over Earth. Rowdy Roddy Piper finds this out, and so he spends the last hour of the movie shooting everyone and eventually teams up with Keith David, who also shoots a bunch of people. If you haven't seen this movie, there is something wrong with you and fuck you go see it immediately. I'm outtie.
Wayne's World
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Remember when Mike Myers was funny? Damn, that feels like such a long time ago.
Remember when Mike Myers was funny? Damn, that feels like such a long time ago.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
My Beautiful Laundrette
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Stephen Frears has directed such top notch movies as High Fidelity, The Queen, Dirty Pretty Things and The Grifters. I enjoy the dude very much so. Here we have an earlier effort of his, co-starring a young Daniel Day Lewis.
I do not know what to make of this movie. I was a bit tired and distracted when I watched it, so maybe that's to blame, but there was an oddness to it that I couldn't quite put my finger on. It's both a laid back comedy/drama, yet oddly over the top in certain ways, with a weird sinister undercurrent in some sequences. It meanders around a bunch, not in a hard to follow way, but in a where the hell is this all going way. And the score for the film at times seems to sound like bubbles popping or liquid, I guess as a laundrette reference. Odd.
Well, I'm not really sure how much I liked it, but it's interesting and I guess there's some charm to its offbeat-ness. Hmm.
Stephen Frears has directed such top notch movies as High Fidelity, The Queen, Dirty Pretty Things and The Grifters. I enjoy the dude very much so. Here we have an earlier effort of his, co-starring a young Daniel Day Lewis.
I do not know what to make of this movie. I was a bit tired and distracted when I watched it, so maybe that's to blame, but there was an oddness to it that I couldn't quite put my finger on. It's both a laid back comedy/drama, yet oddly over the top in certain ways, with a weird sinister undercurrent in some sequences. It meanders around a bunch, not in a hard to follow way, but in a where the hell is this all going way. And the score for the film at times seems to sound like bubbles popping or liquid, I guess as a laundrette reference. Odd.
Well, I'm not really sure how much I liked it, but it's interesting and I guess there's some charm to its offbeat-ness. Hmm.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Short Night of Glass Dolls
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
That movie Awake (I think it was called) that came out earlier this year seemed to have a similar premise to this one. It's one of them stories where the main character appears to be dead, but he can still see and feel everything that happens to him, and he's trying to bring his body back to life and remember how he even got here in the first place, and every moment he's getting closer to his autopsy, etc. Short Night of Glass Dolls mostly takes place in the character's head, as he flashes back to the events leading up to this. I can't speak for what Awake's approach was to the material, but there is something about the odd, subjective, eerie tone of this one that I think is ripe for remaking. Imagine a horror movie version of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Sometimes I toy with the idea of writing it, for shits.
This is not quite a giallo, but it's an Italian horror flick by the same director as Who Saw Her Die? and I like it, although it's a bit too talky in places. It strikes the right tone, has a lot of cool ideas, and a really great ending (although the last shot is a little corny).
I'm considering, maybe as a break from my K2K, doing a "Giallo Month" or "Italian Horror Movie-a-Thon" because there are just too damn many that I want to see. But I feel like a bitch about abandoning the K2K... still, if I did this as an interlude, maybe when the semester ends as a way to celebrate the start of summer, it wouldn't be so bad. We'll see.
That movie Awake (I think it was called) that came out earlier this year seemed to have a similar premise to this one. It's one of them stories where the main character appears to be dead, but he can still see and feel everything that happens to him, and he's trying to bring his body back to life and remember how he even got here in the first place, and every moment he's getting closer to his autopsy, etc. Short Night of Glass Dolls mostly takes place in the character's head, as he flashes back to the events leading up to this. I can't speak for what Awake's approach was to the material, but there is something about the odd, subjective, eerie tone of this one that I think is ripe for remaking. Imagine a horror movie version of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Sometimes I toy with the idea of writing it, for shits.
This is not quite a giallo, but it's an Italian horror flick by the same director as Who Saw Her Die? and I like it, although it's a bit too talky in places. It strikes the right tone, has a lot of cool ideas, and a really great ending (although the last shot is a little corny).
I'm considering, maybe as a break from my K2K, doing a "Giallo Month" or "Italian Horror Movie-a-Thon" because there are just too damn many that I want to see. But I feel like a bitch about abandoning the K2K... still, if I did this as an interlude, maybe when the semester ends as a way to celebrate the start of summer, it wouldn't be so bad. We'll see.
Pickup On South Street
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
I didn't realize this at the time, but it turns out that the lead actor from this movie, Richard Widmark, just died last week. Odd coincidence, considering I don't think I've even seen him in a movie before.
This is a 50's noir with a little spy movie thrown in for kicks, and Widmark is really quite good as Skip, a character who is may be more of a cold-hearted bastard than his name would suggest. The director is Sam Fuller, this is the 3rd film I've seen by him and I should see more because they've all been pretty good. His The Big Red One is a semi-autobiographical war film, probably the oddest WWII movie I've ever seen, it stars Lee Marvin and Luke Skywalker and the main nerd from Revenge of the Nerds, and contains a scene where a woman gives birth inside a tank. The Naked Kiss is a 60's melodrama with a tinge of noir and the main character murders her fiancee when she discovers that he's a pedophile. So, he makes pretty kick ass movies.
Pickup On South Street is a short, exciting little movie with a lot of good characters, dark humor and a real cold blooded attitude. It also has some rather blunt sexism (possibly misogyny?), including a part where the hero accidentally punches out the heroine in the dark. At the risk of sounding un-PC, this attitude is kinda shocking in a very entertaining way. And I'll give Fuller credit, I think the sexism is coming from his characters, not from his own worldview. After all, The Naked Kiss is a movie about a former prostitute trying to start a new life, and the message is clearly that she's a good person who deserves a second chance. And in this one, all the male characters are right bastards, and the only likable character is an older woman who sells information on local crooks to interested parties. She gets murdered in cold blood, but it's because she's trying to protect the main character, and it's just about the only stand up thing anyone does in the whole movie.
I had a few complaints here and there, but overall this is a really good one, and only 80 minutes long, so it's absolutely worth your time.
I didn't realize this at the time, but it turns out that the lead actor from this movie, Richard Widmark, just died last week. Odd coincidence, considering I don't think I've even seen him in a movie before.
This is a 50's noir with a little spy movie thrown in for kicks, and Widmark is really quite good as Skip, a character who is may be more of a cold-hearted bastard than his name would suggest. The director is Sam Fuller, this is the 3rd film I've seen by him and I should see more because they've all been pretty good. His The Big Red One is a semi-autobiographical war film, probably the oddest WWII movie I've ever seen, it stars Lee Marvin and Luke Skywalker and the main nerd from Revenge of the Nerds, and contains a scene where a woman gives birth inside a tank. The Naked Kiss is a 60's melodrama with a tinge of noir and the main character murders her fiancee when she discovers that he's a pedophile. So, he makes pretty kick ass movies.
Pickup On South Street is a short, exciting little movie with a lot of good characters, dark humor and a real cold blooded attitude. It also has some rather blunt sexism (possibly misogyny?), including a part where the hero accidentally punches out the heroine in the dark. At the risk of sounding un-PC, this attitude is kinda shocking in a very entertaining way. And I'll give Fuller credit, I think the sexism is coming from his characters, not from his own worldview. After all, The Naked Kiss is a movie about a former prostitute trying to start a new life, and the message is clearly that she's a good person who deserves a second chance. And in this one, all the male characters are right bastards, and the only likable character is an older woman who sells information on local crooks to interested parties. She gets murdered in cold blood, but it's because she's trying to protect the main character, and it's just about the only stand up thing anyone does in the whole movie.
I had a few complaints here and there, but overall this is a really good one, and only 80 minutes long, so it's absolutely worth your time.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Key Largo
Sunday, March 30, 2008
If there's one thing I've really been fucking up on my K2K, it's been trying to watch a broad range of movies. Instead, I keep falling into my usual nerd trap of obsessing over one actor, or director or genre or whatever. So here's another John Huston / Humphrey Bogart collaboration.
It's another pretty good tough guy flick, although I saw it under less than ideal conditions and maybe I would have liked it more in other circumstances. This one has the benefit of featuring Edward G. Robinson playing an evil bastard. In a nice, odd detail, they introduce his character sitting in a bathtub with a fan blowing on him.
This one is less un-PC than some of the other Huston films I've seen, and it in fact tries to shed a positive light on the native American characters. But they are also kind of relegated to plot device and victim roles, and it comes off as a little condescending. But it's a huge step above Bogart slapping Petter Lorre around in The Maltese Falcon because he's gay.
I wonder if this one had a different ending originally. There's a lot of talk about risking one's life to save others, and Bogart's character is reluctant to do so until the very end. He gets plugged during the final shootout, so I figured it was going to end with him dying nobly to save all the others. But then the film ends with him wounded, but alive and steering his boat back to Key Largo. Feels a little like something the studio might have insisted upon.
If there's one thing I've really been fucking up on my K2K, it's been trying to watch a broad range of movies. Instead, I keep falling into my usual nerd trap of obsessing over one actor, or director or genre or whatever. So here's another John Huston / Humphrey Bogart collaboration.
It's another pretty good tough guy flick, although I saw it under less than ideal conditions and maybe I would have liked it more in other circumstances. This one has the benefit of featuring Edward G. Robinson playing an evil bastard. In a nice, odd detail, they introduce his character sitting in a bathtub with a fan blowing on him.
This one is less un-PC than some of the other Huston films I've seen, and it in fact tries to shed a positive light on the native American characters. But they are also kind of relegated to plot device and victim roles, and it comes off as a little condescending. But it's a huge step above Bogart slapping Petter Lorre around in The Maltese Falcon because he's gay.
I wonder if this one had a different ending originally. There's a lot of talk about risking one's life to save others, and Bogart's character is reluctant to do so until the very end. He gets plugged during the final shootout, so I figured it was going to end with him dying nobly to save all the others. But then the film ends with him wounded, but alive and steering his boat back to Key Largo. Feels a little like something the studio might have insisted upon.
Once Upon a Time in America
Sunday, March 30, 2008
My exploration of Sergio Leone culminated on Sunday by viewing his final film, a 3 hr 45 minute gangster epic spanning 50 years.
First off, this has to be one of the best looking movies I've ever seen. I've known that Leone was never one to waste a shot, but I'm a little blown away but just how complex and ornate every moment of this film feels.
This feels a lot different than his westerns, although some of his older style is detectable. Like there's this sequence involving a slow moving elevator that builds to a sudden, violent climax that feels like one of those big buildups to a shootout in one of the Dollars movies. Or, there's a set piece involving a mugging and a passing wagon that has the same kind of drawn out build-up leading to a fake-out that he's done before. And the storytelling is still pretty audacious, like when the Beatles' "Yesterday" suddenly cues on the soundtrack and the movie cuts to the 1960's. Didn't really see that coming.
Leone still will paint with broad strokes, but this film feels a lot more intimate, with better drawn characters than I've seen in any of his other movies. Makes me wonder if I should revisit Once Upon a Time in the West, which I had kind of felt slowed down too much for the "serious" stuff and didn't have enough payoff. Maybe I just saw that one in the wrong mindset.
The movie gets stranger but also more subdued as it goes along, and the finale is a bit enigmatic. I've seen it suggested that some of this movie is meant to be just an opium induced fantasy in Robert DeNiro's characters head, and I can kind of see that. That would explain a lot of the weird touches as the film progresses, like how one character doesn't seem to age at all after 30 years. And the final scene certainly seems to hint at this opium theory. But I'm not sure what this element adds to the movie, and it still leaves a lot unexplained. I'm not exactly sure what to take from the last chunk of this movie, and I mean that in a good way.
My exploration of Sergio Leone culminated on Sunday by viewing his final film, a 3 hr 45 minute gangster epic spanning 50 years.
First off, this has to be one of the best looking movies I've ever seen. I've known that Leone was never one to waste a shot, but I'm a little blown away but just how complex and ornate every moment of this film feels.
This feels a lot different than his westerns, although some of his older style is detectable. Like there's this sequence involving a slow moving elevator that builds to a sudden, violent climax that feels like one of those big buildups to a shootout in one of the Dollars movies. Or, there's a set piece involving a mugging and a passing wagon that has the same kind of drawn out build-up leading to a fake-out that he's done before. And the storytelling is still pretty audacious, like when the Beatles' "Yesterday" suddenly cues on the soundtrack and the movie cuts to the 1960's. Didn't really see that coming.
Leone still will paint with broad strokes, but this film feels a lot more intimate, with better drawn characters than I've seen in any of his other movies. Makes me wonder if I should revisit Once Upon a Time in the West, which I had kind of felt slowed down too much for the "serious" stuff and didn't have enough payoff. Maybe I just saw that one in the wrong mindset.
The movie gets stranger but also more subdued as it goes along, and the finale is a bit enigmatic. I've seen it suggested that some of this movie is meant to be just an opium induced fantasy in Robert DeNiro's characters head, and I can kind of see that. That would explain a lot of the weird touches as the film progresses, like how one character doesn't seem to age at all after 30 years. And the final scene certainly seems to hint at this opium theory. But I'm not sure what this element adds to the movie, and it still leaves a lot unexplained. I'm not exactly sure what to take from the last chunk of this movie, and I mean that in a good way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)