Category: (by verdict)

Days of Heaven (1978)

Last summer I tried to watch The Thin Red Line. I didn’t get too far. All of the huge name actors showing up throughout reminded me too much of It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t what Terrence Malick was going for. (Isn’t Phil Silvers in the Thin Red Line for a minute?)

The New World, well, Colin Farrell insured that I’d stay away from that one. But I was really struck by the cinematography of the Assassination of Jesse James, which of course got compared – poorly often – to Malick, though I thought the shots there were quite beautiful.

So, heartened by its 90 minute running time, I picked up the new Criterion edition of Days of Heaven. Anyone seen this recently? It’s really an impressive piece of work. The cinematography, of course, but also Sam Shepard’s performance – just the way his face looked throughout – was wonderful. Richard Gere, alas, looked like Richard Gere. Usually movies in the 1970s had the decency to cast actors who didn’t look like freaking models from the pages of Vogue. Except for Gere. He looks like the Fonz when he’s supposed to be working in a filthy Chicago factory.
Continue reading Days of Heaven (1978)

Oscar predictions?

Not much Oscar chatter here (or anywhere, for that matter). Is anyone interested in watching the ceremony? More than likely I will be switching back and forth between the Oscars and the NBA game, all the while grading papers. I do like the films up for nomination this year–they’re all very strong. But I just don’t have that much enthusiasm. Continue reading Oscar predictions?

Lust, Caution

In retrospect, this suspenseful melodrama is preposterous to the extreme. Still, I savored every moment. First, it’s an exquisitely crafted work of cinematic art (though it never strives to be anything other than a romantic thriller). Just watch the first four or five minutes as Ang Lee moves the camera with dexterity and precision to dramatically enliven a game of mahjong (the editing by Tim Squyres and the photography by Rodrigo Prieto are exemplary throughout). Wikipedia tells me mahjong involves skill, strategy, and calculation, as well as a certain degree of chance, which makes the game a perfect metaphor for the film’s central character: a young, idealistic woman (Wei Tang) who goes undercover for a resistance cell to seduce and trap a Chinese official (Tony Leung) collaborating with the Japanese government during Japan’s occupation of China in the late-thirties and early-forties. Continue reading Lust, Caution

Seductive destructions

I promised a post on In Bruges, which Kris and I very much enjoyed, but I’ve been wracking my brain about what exactly grabbed me about it. The plot’s too Tarantino: two hitmen sent to cool their heels in Bruges, and they do the sightseeing thing, while one (Ray, played by Colin Farrell) suffers both a crushing (funny) ennui with all things Bruges and the lingering ethical after-effects of their last gig. Farrell is not just better than I’ve seen him, and not just finally good (since I don’t think I’ve ever really thought much of his performances), he’s pretty damn good–holds his own in the constant precise shadings and even more constant tonal shifts of writer-director McDonagh’s dialogue. Ralph Fiennes shows up two-thirds of the way through and rips it up, gloriously unblinkingly BenKingsleyinSexyBeastish as the ridiculous vicious boss Harry.

Ostensibly the film uses this black-comic set-up as cover for a plot/theme about violence, kids, … stuff McDonagh’s exploited before in his play “The Pillowman.” But as a morality play, the thing’s quite thin–clearly, the pleasures of viciousness don’t just outweigh a moral vision, they stomp the shit out of it. Continue reading Seductive destructions

Better than eh

After you get past (or just used to) its Wes-Andersonny tics, Rocket Science boasts great acting from its actually-adolescent-looking cast, and manages to be that teen-angsty-romance-schoolcompetition sort of film without fading into those films’ ruts. It was funny, moving — but really the leads (Reece Thompson and Anna Kendrick) made the film more than a minor pleasure.

Acting also amps up the rewards of The Assassination of Jesse James, with the justly-nominated Casey Affleck as the weaselly Bob Ford wheedling across the screen in a really great performance, and lots of strong work from supporting cast (Sam Rockwell is reliably great, Paul Schneider quite funny, and Garret Dillahunt outstanding as the hangdog Ed Miller). Plus the film looks a wonder, shot by Roger Deakins to enthusiastically capture the look of images (photographed and painted) from the era depicted. Still, I found the story often muddled — some great dialogue, but… well, James was a cipher, and I couldn’t even get a real handle on Ford, let alone the film itself. Intriguing at first, always ravishing to see, but after a while (and it goes on a while) wandering with the emphasis on wan.

King of Kong

I was never a player of video games, still lose interest too quickly to really dig in and learn, let alone master, any game. And when it cost a quarter to play, you had to have a lot of quarters–and an obsessive slant–to sit and become anything like good. I grew tired of such antics after the initial blast of interest in the graphics or style wore off.

And my experience of those obsessive players who got really good at games–in the arcade or at home–was for the most part equally trying. I couldn’t empathize with their obsession. And while most were members of the same geek posse I got lumped with, it was hard to get past the arrogance of many game players. I mean, if I wanted boys with big attitudes about bullshit pasttimes, I could have just hung out with my brother and the athletes.

So I came at King of Kong as an ethnographer familiar with the culture, not a current or former citizen. Continue reading King of Kong

eh

Cloverfield is not bad, but nor is it particularly good. As stupid genre exercises go, it’s a reasonably entertaining one. Its strengths are similar to Sunshine‘s: energy, sensory overload, and a reasonably pacy set of genre thrills. Its weaknesses are also parallel: kind of dumb, when you step back and think on it.

Charlie Wilson’s War has the brilliant P. S. Hoffman in a great role, with some excellent screenwriting by Sorkin in the first hour, but it loses its way in the second half, forgoing snappy snarky dialogue for montages of rockets and more emotion. Now, Sorkin can do the sentimental laced with bite as well as anyone, but the film really seemed unsure of its footing, its outrage blunted by some patriotic enthusiasm, its venom diluted in sap, its thesis blurred so that it wouldn’t really offend anyone. Still, it lays out a reasonably smart backstory which does indict the historical blindness of the recent years’ foreign policy… but the film could have been so much better. Hanks is pretty good, as usual; Roberts is kind of irrelevant, and distracts more than sells the role.
Continue reading eh