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.

Son of Rambow

Sunday, August 31, 2008

The Fall meets Be Kind Rewind, sorta. I thought this was gonna be pretty funny to see after just recently watching the entire Rambo series, but it turns out the references are pretty minimal. This movie is pretty cute, kinda loses it's way for a while in the final third by overly complicating things and having the story get a little too outlandish, but then has a sweet ending. Worth my time, but not what it could have been.