The Master

Once again, Paul Thomas Anderson has made a flawed work of genius. Freddie Quell is a WWII vet, psychologically damaged before he even went to war and currently spends his time drinking solvents and cleaners during and between various jobs. He stumbles upon "the master's" (Lancaster Dodd's) vessel before it embarks upon a seafaring, brain-washing voy-ahj. Lancaster Dodd is to L. Ron Hubbard as Charles Foster Kane is to William Randolph Hearst.

"The Master" has a great premise, brilliant cinematography, and acting performances for the ages. It also has surprisingly good pacing for a movie that my friend Shawn accurately described as having "no plot, I mean NO plot."

The flaw is that I don't ever get a connection with the characters. I never truly felt why Lancaster Dodd and Freddie Quell need each other. I suppose Freddie seems to benefit by having a direction for awhile, but the whole thing is so ambiguous that it's hard to tell.

Quell, played by Joaquin Phoenix, and Dodd, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, have an early scene for the ages wherein Dodd engages Quell in "informal processing," which involves an interrogation apparently designed to confront the person being processed rapidly and quickly before delusion can set in so that the subject comes to some truth about him/herself. Amy Adams also gives an amazing performance as Dodd's wife, Peggy.

This movie's strong points make it hard to fault this movie. My brain was excited at the end, yet this was betrayed by the involuntary shoulder shrug that occurred as I relieved myself in the theater bathroom, focusing on one point in the urinal.

You should see this movie. 99% of the reason is for the "informal processing scene" and 1% is to get that toilet reference (do it for me).

IMDB page

Prometheus

There are a few things good about this movie, unfortunately they don’t make up for the movie being, well, stupid. If you’re reading this as a part of your decision process to see it in the theater, don't. Overall, the movie misses its mark. Read on if you don’t mind spoilers or have already seen the film.

Good things about the movie are Michael Fassbender’s performance and the cinematography and special effects.

So much for the good aspects.

The script for this movie simply makes no sense. During the opening scene, we are introduced to two archaeologists in love, Elizabeth and Charlie, who find a cave painting depicting giant humanoids pointing out to a star cluster. They connect this to other primitive cultures' depictions of similar humanoids pointing to a similar star cluster (5 stars).

Somehow that’s interpreted as an invitation to come find humanity’s creators (the “engineers”)? They rustle up some funding from Weyland-Yutani corporation - a TRILLION dollars, according to Meredith Vickers, played by Charlize Theron, the chosen Weyland representative. Vickers and crew, aboard the spaceship Prometheus, head to a distant moon. How they were able to narrow down a cluster of 5 heavenly bodies to a single spot in the universe seems ridiculous, but, okay, it moves the story forward.

Once aboard the ship, it seems that Meredith Vickers is in charge, but then a hologram of Peter Weyland, the company founder, instructs them that the archaeologists in love are in charge. Plus we have the captain of the ship, played by Idris Elba, who also seems to have some autonomy. A trillion-dollar expedition where no one is quite certain who’s boss?

Upon arrival at the moon, this lack of leadership is evident as they run off without, seemingly, forming a plan. Cap’n Janek warns them they only have 6 hours of daylight left, but damn the torpedos (!), the archaeologists in love are not going to wait to meet their makers! Ahem.

Other characters on this exploratory mission include a geologist and a biologist. These guys are the best part of the movie. Upon entering a cave complex, the geologist sets out robotic drones that quickly map the subterranean caverns and tunnels. The geologist skillfully leads them through the caverns whereupon they find dead engineers. The geologist and the biologist freak out at this. They knew there was the prospect of finding LIVE engineers and I guess they assumed that they would be friendly, but the fact that they were massacred, 2000 YEARS AGO, is freaking them out. So they split. Not only do they split, but THEY GET LOST. EVEN THOUGH THE ENTIRE PLACE IS MAPPED WITH THE GEOLOGIST’S DRONES AND THEY’RE IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH CAP’N JANEK. A storm comes and these two are forced to spend the night in the cave. During the night they run into a phallic, alien, snake-like creature. They're trapped underground, millions of miles from home and they're encountering their first live alien which acts just like a king cobra. What does the highly qualified BIOLOGIST, hired to go on a TRILLION-DOLLAR MISSION DO? HE TREATS IT LIKE A GERBIL FOR FUCK’S SAKE, COOING AT IT AND OFFERING HIS HAND TO IT, WHEREUPON ANIMALS ATTACK AND HE AND THE HANSEL-AND-GRETEL GEOLOGIST RIGHTLY SUFFER A HORRIBLE DEATH.

I almost applauded.

I’ll just (try and) stop here. They have an automated surgery pod that is for men only because apparently having breasts and a vagina complicates a pod capable of robotic surgery. The archaeologist in love convinces it to do an alien abortion, anyhow, and with her stomach stapled completes a bunch of action scenes meanwhile the rest of the crew ignores the abortion and the blood-spattered pod. Um, what else? Vickers gets crushed to death by a crashing, rolling space ship because she couldn’t figure out how to run a perpendicular path from it. I guess she thought it was chasing her. There are also tired existential discussions attempting to drive this film and two members of the crew we know nothing about who agree on a kamikaze mission at the end.

There is more. Suffice it say that this movie fails due to lazy writing.

I just hoped this would be better than "Alien 3" or "Alien Resurrection." Please don't make me pick where "Prometheus" fits in the now 3 horrible Alien franchise films.

Let the Right One In (the novel) - John Ajvide Lindqvist

After seeing both the Swedish and American film adaptations of this novel, and liking both, I was excited to read the novel. The books are always better, right? Not in this case.

Oh my. Where to begin? As well as being an original, creative vampire tale, I think Lindqvist was trying to make a larger statement about the moral decay of society. Pedophilia, alcoholism, and excrement all play a much too large role in this novel. Raskolnikov from Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" is mentioned a few times, alluding to this societal decay theme. If Lindqvist was attempting a modern, vampirish take on "Crime and Punishment," he failed. There are way too many points-of-view (including a squirrel, at one point), truly gratuitous descriptions of pedophilia, and the entire book leaves you wanting to take a shower.

Kudos to both films for getting the great nugget out of this book and leaving the rest behind. Gross. Stick with either film (I prefer "Let Me In."). I now understand why the person who lent me this book didn't care if he ever got it back.

The Brave One

Confession: I watched this movie because Jodie Foster is too damn cute on the cover. We’ll see how my DVD cover instincts turn out judging a movie as a whole.

Foster plays Erica Bain, a radio show host doing a “life on the streets,” “slice of life,” “heavy prose” presumably public radio show that I typically hate in real life. She’s dating a swarthy doctor, and we get a tidy little, multi-cultural romance developing when on a walk through the park at night with their dog, they run into thugs and... BAM! They’re brutally mugged, very graphically portrayed. A weird emergency room scene then occurs intermixed with a flashback of the couple’s lovemaking.

With the PC/artistic overtones coupled with the gratuitous violence and sex, I’m beginning to think this movie is going to suck.

Terence Howard appears as a detective investigating the crime, and, well, he’s great, and the movie barometer’s plummet has slowed.

Erica wakes up after 3 weeks to a world drastically changed, and, well, she’s mad as hell. Apparently the police work is so top-notch that they’ve confused a mugging into a domestic dispute and are blaming Erica with beating her fiance to death with a pipe. I guess fingerprints, blood, fabric and DNA samples aren’t part of the investigative routine. I nitpick. Yet, she’s free to go home. I guess they’re just in the habit of making knowingly baseless accusations.

Oh, shit. Another flashback lovemaking scene. The barometer’s descent quickens. WE GET IT, OKAY? SHE MISSES HIM. BUT?! I DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH! WE LEARN HE PLAYED GUITAR FOR HER IN THIS BLURRED FLASHBACK? HELL, I MISS HIM TOO!

She goes to a gun store that she referenced by a photograph at an art exhibit (wtf?). They won’t sell her a gun immediately, but a dude approaches her outside and immediately sells her a gun in an alley? Hey - her fortunes are turning, no?

Some random women tells her she shouldn’t smoke because it could kill her. She doesn’t care! This Nubian earth mother tells her that she needs to figure out how to live. Profound!

Now Erica is in a convenience store. Dear God, please don’t... but God answers my prayer with a “no,” because, of course, she’s witness to a robbery in progress, and she pumps a few rounds into the perp.

I’m thinking a lovemaking flashback is due? Wait for it... wait for it... she stumbles back to her apartment and takes a shower in her clothes. My bad, not a flashback, but a stupid public radio prose monologue ruminating on the need to persevere.

I’m done. I gave it 40 minutes. Lesson? Don't judge a DVD by its cover.

In summation, I'll quote Christopher Orr, from the New Republic:

"The Brave One is not merely the most morally repellent film of the year, but a contender for the stupidest."

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Upon viewing Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” I found myself questioning my attention span. I had trouble following the plot, characters and keeping the thread going. To be fair, I sometimes have the attention span of a 4-year old, but this film was too long and complicated for a Western - even the always-questionable narration didn’t help to hold things together.

Regarding the film’s postive aspects, there are several nice cinematogrophic touches: blurred shots that looked like old photographs, long sweeping panaromas of praries, and an overall grandiose feel. Most of the acting is very good, but, unfortunately, I think the most important role was miscast. Brad Pitt doesn’t provide, ironically, the charisma that the character demands. He has certain tics that he seems to fall upon that don’t fit the gravitas of the role. Casey Affleck is very good, although some might find his portrayal off-putting due to the quirks he incorporates - I feel this works, for the most part. Garret Dillahunt is excellent, as usual, as Ed Miller. Sam Shepard, as usual, is fantastic as Frank James. I’m divided on Sam Rockwell’s and Jeremy Renner’s performances. I think this movie also suffers from too many well-known actors. This brings up a reoccurring question concerning casting. Do you cast talented, well-known, actors or do you roll the dice with unknown actors? I feel that there is an abundance of talent out there, and a little more effort spent in finding a fresh face would have served this movie.

Fresher faces might have served, but not saved, the film because the story is too meandering and opaque. I felt you never truly understood the character’s motivations. You understand why the gang, including Robert Ford, wish to be part of the James’ gang, and you learn Ford’s hero-worship of James began at a young age. However, you’re never really sure what’s motivating Liddil and Miller’s betrayal. There’s a greed motive, but given the expressed notoriety of James being able to flush out those disloyal to him as well as the promise of future rewards being in James’s gang, why betray him? The most fascinating part of the story is after the assassination when Robert Ford is not greeted as a hero, but is somewhat reviled, yet, at the same time, goes on to star in a NYC play, recreating the assassination to rapturous audiences for over a year before his inevitable downfall.

In the end, though, this movie has aspirations of being a Western that breaks conventions, but fails. There aren’t any gunfights, there’s a lot of slow, lyrical shots, attempts to document the celebrity surrounding Jesse James Robert Ford, etc., that puts this solidly as an anti-Western, but it just didn't capture this viewer by turning the traditional Western on its head. With its 2 hours and 40 minutes running-time, it’s unfortunate that the most interesting part of the film doesn’t happen until after Robert Ford has pulled the trigger - the last 10 minutes. I agree with one review that said that this movie doesn’t know if it wants to eliminate or hold up the outlaw-hero.

Midnight in Paris

"Midnight in Paris," Woody Allen's current, in-theaters release is what I see as the perfect summer movie: not too long, doesn't take itself too seriously, but is also very clever and has only the slightest hint of fluff.

It is somewhat over-the-top, fanciful, and has a certain element that I've always deemed a deal-breaker (hint: it's not that it's a romantic comedy, although this isn't a positive, either). I'm not going to tell you what that element is as this movie needs to be seen the first time without any preconceptions. What I knew before viewing it was that it was a Woody Allen film, took place in Paris (duh), starred Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson, and, yeah, was a romantic comedy. It's a comedy, and there's romance(s), but the lion's share of the comedy is unrelated to romance. Not knowing anything more about this amplified my first watch tremendously.

I had so much fun that I'm considering going back and watching it again, albeit knowing what happens.

It is very unique, clever, well-acted, and really surprised me. I'm still not a huge fan of McAdams, but she certainly does better with a well-written script. I'll try and remember to do a longer review once I feel free to discuss it at length.

Go see it! Especially if you're a fan of literature! I've said too much.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Elizabeth Taylor’s death prompted me to watch “Cat On a Hot Tin Roof” via Netflix instant viewing. I was instantly endeared to this film as the brat children are described as “no neck monsters” unrestrained by their parents. The endearment continues with the pure, Southern gothic screenplay adaptation of Tennessee Williams’s Pulitzer-winning play, co-penned by Richard Brooks and James Poe.

This gang of no-necked, horrible children are the nieces and nephews of Maggie and Brick Pollitt - Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman, respectively. Brick is an alcoholic and it quickly becomes apparent that the couple have not made love in a long time. Maggie is not happy about this and says she feels like she’s a “cat on a hot tin roof," at times referring to herself as “Maggie the Cat.” The miscreants’ parents are Mae and Gooper Pollitt. The patriarch and matriarch of the family are “Big Daddy” and “Big Momma” Pollitt, with Burl Ives playing an uncharacteristically harsh, cruel (yet honest) role - that of Big Daddy Pollitt. The drama surrounds Big Daddy Pollitt's terminal illness and the resolving of his 28,000 acre, multi-million dollar estate.

The highlights of this film are the dialogue, the acting, the cinematography and the subtext. I’m not sure which order of greatness these fall in. The entire film is quotable. The themes of avarice and mendacity are brilliantly illustrated. The acting is 99% spot-on, and the color film and lighting is luminous and beautiful. There is a possible subtext of a gay relationship between Brick and a former friend who formed (at least) an emotional triangle with “Maggie the Cat.” The original play referenced homesexuality directly - Hollywood removed these direct references. Regardless, it’s an extremely brave play for the mid 1950’s and less-brave, but still courageous subsequent film for the mid to late 1950’s. Williams is said not to have been happy with the adaptation due to these omissions.

The actors, all of them, are to be praised for their gentile Southern accents - slight, very real and very well done.

I am thrilled with this movie. The blu-ray is not yet available, but the Netflix high-definition stream is - please avail yourself of this.

IMDB.com article
Wikipedia article

The Seventh Seal

Yet another one of my 50% off Criterion purchases was Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" made in 1957 - widely lauded as a classic cinema masterpiece. It takes its name from the Bible’s Book of Revelation, wherein seven seals are opened before rapture takes place and final judgement is rendered. As the film notes, "when the Lamb had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour" (Revelation 8:1). This is a meditation on religion, doubt and faith, referenced in the space of half an hour wherein God is silent. We are immediately introduced to the knight and his squire returning from the crusades. The knight, played by a young Max Von Sydow, starts a game of chess with Death in an attempt to bargain for his life. This is immediately contrasted with a scene involving a family of actors who, despite their poverty, are very much in love and are examples of faith and life itself.

The knight and squire wander into a church with an artist painting a fresco of death terrorizing a village, indicative of the black death (the plague of historical times) that surrounds them. The fresco portrays villagers who are whipping themselves into a frenzy in the belief that the black plague is a punishment handed down by God. The knight enters the confessional expecting a priest to hear him. During the heartfelt confession, the knight asks such questions as "Is it so cruelly inconceivable to grasp God with the senses? Why should He hide himself in a mist of half-spoken promises and unseen miracles?...What is going to happen to those of us who want to believe but aren't able to?" However, it is not a priest who is listening to the knight’s entreaties, but Death who poses the question “You want a guarantee?” The knight wants knowledge, not “faith or conjecture, but knowledge.” After explaining to Death that he wants God to reach out his hand to him, Death notes “yet, he is silent.” After the knight explains how he feels that God isn’t there at times, Death posits that, perhaps, “God isn’t there,” whereupon the knight relates that this isn’t an outcome he can accept - “No man can live facing death knowing that everything is nothingness.” I do not want to transcribe this entire conversation, although I’m tempted to - there are at least two other existential quandaries that are also illuminated - facing death and the general ignorance to its meaning . It is the core of not only this movie, but also the question of faith and doubt in religion. To juxtapose this argument onto the scenario of a knight returning home from the Crusades to find the black plague ravaging his homeland in a chess game with Death is nothing short of a brilliant intellectual and artistic display.

However, as Pee Wee Herman notes, "Why does everyone always have such a big but(t)?" BUT, HOWEVER, etc., the attempts at comedy relief in "The Seventh Seal" fall hard unto modern concrete, but maybe these found a sympathetic audience in 1957. Too much time is spent trying to humorously explore the notion of fidelity - it plays into a misogynistic theme that is too prevalent. This is a big stone dragging down the greater themes present.

On yet another, trivial, note, there is also WAY too much baby butt in this movie. Gross.

I’m not fond of the whiny circus performers, the baby butt present, the blubbering blacksmith, his tramp wife, etc. This movie boils down, for me, to the confessional scene between knight and Death and their interplay exploring mortality, doubt and faith. The burning of the “witch” is no trivial affair, either - also orchestrated by Death. A quick digress: George Lucas’s Emperor Palpatine looks suspiciously like Bergman’s Death driving the witch’s wagon.

In my layman’s opinion, this is a beautiful film with grand themes present, but too much of the film is wasted trying to be funny and marred by over-the-top acting.

IMDB.com "Seventh Seal" entry
"The Seventh Seal" wikipedia article

Spoileriffic trailer:

The Call of Cthulhu

The 2005 film adaptation of “The Call of Cthulhu” done by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society is an admirable attempt at creating a period, silent-film retelling of the famous H.P. Lovecraft story.

Although a very well-done endeavor, I find the mix of modern and silent film-making techniques to be distracting. An “either/or” philosophy would have served better. Generally, the silent-film techniques employed serve the film well, but we are taken out of the story by improbable overhead camera shots and other modern techniques. This technique, called “mythoscope” by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society should probably end here. It isn’t horrible, but it uses too many modern camera angles and other effects to suit my tastes. It’s cool on paper, but the execution leaves me wanting.

From a story-telling perspective, it does not elucidate the written story all that well - there’s a reason filmmaker upon filmmaker have passed upon this film - the three disparate locales in the story make it hard to film a narrative whole. I’m afraid that the HPLHS adaptation doesn’t succeed, either.

That being said, it is a short film. If you’re a H.P. Lovecraft fan, of course you should give this a viewing and decide for yourself.

Wikipedia article
IMDB.com article

The Thin Blue Line

This Errol Morris documentary is considered a classic documentary, but my impressions are that the Phillip Glass soundtrack, as well as the cheesy reenactments are over the top and sully the journalistic nature of what a documentary is supposed to achieve. The closeups of various items - a newspaper article, a clock, and the too-loud Glass soundtrack overlaying the actual participants’ dialogue makes for a frustrating viewing experience - maddening, actually. For example, what do we gain by watching the same b-movie the participants watched during the night in question? An insight into their psychology? I am really interested in the story, but the pretentious soundtrack and the cinematography ruin this for me.

Here’s the synopsis from the Wikipedia article:

The film concerns the November 28, 1976 murder of Dallas police officer, Robert W. Wood, during a traffic stop. The Dallas Police Department was unable to make an arrest until they learned of information given by a 16-year-old resident of Vidor, Texas who had told friends that he was responsible for the crime.[3] The juvenile, David Ray Harris, led police to the car driven from the scene of the crime, as well as a .22 caliber revolver he identified as the murder weapon. He subsequently identified 28-year-old Ohio resident Randall Dale Adams as the murderer.

Adams had been living in a motel in Dallas with his brother. The film presents a series of interviews about the investigation and reenactments of the shooting, based on the testimony and recollections of Adams, Harris, and various witnesses and detectives. Two attorneys who represented Adams at the trial where he was convicted of capital murder also appear: they suggest that Adams was charged with the crime despite the better evidence against Harris because, as Harris was a juvenile, Adams alone of the two could be sentenced to death under Texas law.

The film's title comes from the prosecutor's comment during his closing argument that the police are the "thin blue line" separating society from anarchy. This is a re-working of a line from Rudyard Kipling's poem Tommy in which he describes British soldiers (nicknamed "Tommy Atkins") as the "thin red line", from the color of their uniforms and their formation.

This documentary’s investigation showed that five witnesses committed perjury and, as a result, overturned Adams’s conviction. I do not argue that this is not an important movie, but its style is an unfortunate, pretentious precedent for films to come. On the other hand, it’s investigation and quest for truth set an even more important precedent - suffice it to say that I cannot argue with the importance of this movie, but from a viewer’s perspective, it falls short for me.

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring

This film is a Buddhist fable writ large upon the silver screen. It is beautiful, poignant, and also a little perplexing to me - there’s a scene where the master monk beats his student, albeit after a suicide attempt, and there’s some child endangerment issues. These are moot, though, as this film is meant, I believe, to be taken as a visual poem and not a literal tale.

It is a 2003 South Korean film, directed by Kim Ki-duk, and stars Su Oh-yeong, Kim Young-min, Seo Jae-kyung, and Kim Jong-ho.

Jimi Plays Monterey / Shake! Otis at Monterey

Another one of my Criterion Collections’ 50% off purchases was “Jimi Plays Monterey / Shake! Otis at Monterey” which documents each artists’ performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967. This is directed by D.A. Pennebaker - for the most part, straight concert footage is used, a credit to Pennebaker’s taste. One point where this strays during the music is during Otis’s “Try a Little Tenderness” where Pennebaker cuts in shots of various women in the audience and outside of the venue with children, lovers, etc. It’s short, very sweet, and manages to get beyond all the negative hippie mystique of the era and show the truly beautiful aspects of the 60’s - all in a short 2-3 (?) minute sequence. Very well done.

Both of these are historic performances and important documents of the history of rock and rhythm and blues music. There are many highlights, not the least of which is seeing a very young Donald "Duck" Dunn spasm all over his bass in glorious fashion.

I’m glad they’re in my collection.

Cronos

“Cronos,” Guillermo Del Toro’s first feature, is a tale of alchemy combined with vampiric elements. Positive elements include Guillermo’s fondness of children, the elderly and their interactions. After listening to Del Toro’s commentary, my thoughts coalesce: his alchemical symbols were lost on me, and probably most of his audience. The story revolves around a clock-like, golden scarab that holds a live insect inside. He speaks of selling his car to get the money needed to film the internal artifact shots, even though his producers said they weren't needed. He insists that they're critical to the movie to explain the alchemy of the movie. I'm not sure this should have been his, apparently, main focus.

This film isn’t a failure, and, I’m very glad this movie was made as it allowed Del Toro to make much better films. However, Del Toro’s insistence on the internal insect shots shows a navel-gazing in regards to this strange vamipire/alchemy mythology that simply doesn’t interest me.

I bought this based upon Del Toro’s later movies, and the Criterion Collections’ reputation, and, again, I don’t hate it, but I’ll probably be selling this on ebay.

Wilderness

Based on my friend, KennKong's urging, I did what I vowed I wasn't going to do - put a movie at the top of my queue considering I've recently spent too much money on the Criterion Collection's 50% off sale.

However, Ken being a good sport with my reviews, entertaining discussions, etc., I felt I shouldn't be so stuck in my ways.

Thus, I have seen Michael J. Basset's 2006 film, "Wilderness," and, as usual, Kong is spot on with his recommendations. It's an intense tale of revenge that doesn't take too long setting up. Humans hunting humans have been an interesting topic for me. In film, "Apocalypto," "Battle Royale," "The Most Dangerous Game" and a slew of Bond films have also had this as a theme.

Suffice it to say that other than appealing to bloodlust, something I feel guilty about, this movie is great. I'm not going to waste any more time, though, and direct you to Kong's review.

The Social Network

“The Social Network,” directed by David Fincher and starring Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg starts with an incredible scene of dialogue. Fincher notes in the commentary that it was very brave for Aaron Sorkin to write 9 pages of dialogue as an opening scene. Also, taking a cue from film noir, it is rapid-fire, intense and is filled with romantic tension. I loved it. Rooney Mara, playing Erica Albright, Zuckerberg’s girlfriend, is fantastic as the foil.

This rapid-fire dialogue follows throughout the movie and is the highlight. I don’t have a lot to say - it’s an interesting story, but the acting and the dialogue are the highlights.

I also love the soundtrack - its pace matches the dialogue and feel very well. I’ve never been a huge fan of Reznor’s music, but I’ve also never placed it in a soundtrack context - it’s working well - very well. It’s still quintissentially Reznor, co-written with Atticus Ross, but I’ll give credit where credit is due - this is a great soundtrack.

I really expected this to be a ho-hum movie. I love this movie - even though it’s a very modern topic, it returns to the old-fashioned notion that the script and dialogue need to be crafted and polished. I haven’t seen “The King’s Speech” yet, but this, so far, is what I think deserved the best picture Oscar for 2010. I do agree, however, with what it did win - best score, best screenplay, and best editing.

Paths of Glory

“Paths Of Glory” is a 1957 Stanley Kubrick film adapted from the novel of the same name penned by Humphrey Cobb.

First off, I’m watching the Criterion Collection Blu-Ray and it looks great. Second, we almost immediately have a scene where General George Mireau, played by George Macready, slaps a soldier because he’s a “baby,” not shell-shocked as another soldier advises. The general declares “there is no such thing as shell-shocked!”

A great dialogue follows wherein General Mireau, after advising Kirk Douglas’s character, Colonel Dax, that his men are expected to suffer 60% casualties after the planned offensive on the “Ant Hill.” Mireau notices a smirk on Dax’s face and asks Dax if he is amused after stating that “all of France is depending on you!” The two-minute conversation if full of traps and release, well-acted and contains more cinematic worth than most movies.

Throughout the film, the secondary actors leave a little something to be desired and take the audience out of the movie, unfortunately. The dialogue, however, is interesting enough so these minor acting deficiencies don’t significantly impact the movie as a whole.

The assault on Ant Hill is fantastic. It starts with Colonel Dix walking through the trenches, looking each weary soldier in the eye as the morning’s initial military barrage starts. He then whistles for the assault to begins, and the soldiers leap out of the trenches for the assault, which ultimately fails due to soldiers’ refusal to fight against insurmountable odds.

The film becomes a legal one. It is an early, antiwar movie, and illustrates the tenuous legal dynamics in military tribunals. Col. Dix uses an emotional appeal to protect the sometimes randomly-picked defendants in a court-martial trial for “cowardice in the face of the enemy.”
This appeal fails, and the three defendants are sentenced to death.

A rather shocking scene occurs when the priest informs the prisoners of their fate and offers to accept their confessions - hostility against religion is displayed, a precursor for anti-establishment films to come.

This is what I think is paramount to this film - it is a very early example of anti-establishment, anti-war film that is expertly made and primarily courageous for its time.

The cinematography is certainly worth mentioning. Not being a film scholar, it seems that the incorporation of wide-angle, macro shops with off-center, perspective shots was also early for its time. This movie has the distinctive Kubrick signature.

It is a short, 88 minute movie. Stakes are established, gambled, and realized. A closing scene of a bunch of horny soldiers clamoring for an obviously traumatized German woman to sing naively takes the humanist tone to a improbable conclusion - the soldiers stop acting like crazy horndogs and hum along with her, some sobbing in recognition of the dynamic present. Col. Dix looks on in approval and grants the men some more time before having to move back to the front.

This is not a perfect movie, but stands as an amazing accomplishment.

Alien 3

After last night’s Oscar mediocrity, I’m plunging ahead with rewatching “Alien 3.” This and “Alien 4,” or whatever the fuck it’s called was included in the blu-ray set I purchased. I really should have waited for the individual titles to come out, but they got me, so I’ll watch these final two movies which I hated upon first viewing. I think the movie studios are too cynical to care - they are, of course, in it for my hard-earned cash. They got it. The first two movies are so good, that I’ll spend the extra scratch on the last two. Not before I trash them on the internet to the 2 to 3 of my friends who might actually read this.

I hope I was previously mistaken.

Hmmm. I remember being SO EXCITED. DAVID FINCHER, right? Fire in cryogenic compartment? Uh oh. Ripley’s doing the chicken. Not good. Jettisoned into space. I guess? Her jettisoned tube becomes a lego piece? Or were they separate, jettisoned pieces? Either way it’s a maximum security prison planet. Maybe this post-apocalyptic priest will tell us. Ripley’s washed upon the beach, covered in black! RUN! Wake up, Ripley! Ripley coughs up water out of her lungs! She’s alive! Run! Get the water buffalo! Too bad for Hicks. And Newt.

WTF? YOU KILLED NEWT? WHAT KIND OF HEARTLESS HOLLYWOOD BASTARDS ARE YOU? Glad I caught that off the green-screen monitor. So much for the past? Let’s get this prison/pseudo-religious drama going!

The black priest speaks of sinning, and, apparently, black power! The followers are celibates, but are still upset by the prospect of a woman being in their midst. They bang on railings... lots of cockney accents... aliens coming out of water buffalos... lots of reilgious exposition...

Oh fuck it.

Winter's Bone

“Winter’s Bone” concerns itself with the plight of an Ozarks’ family during the winter. The family’s father, Jessop, is a methamphetamine manufacturer who has either skipped bail for a prior arrest or has been killed. Jessop also put up his and his family’s house as collateral for the bail. Due to his not showing up for his hearing, the family’s property is at risk for being taken. Ree, the 17 year-old daughter of Jessop, is the matriarch of the family. The mother is alive, but completely absent and a non-factor for an unexplained reason. Ree is raising her younger brother and sister. Ree decides to get to the bottom of the “Jessop” question and proceeds upon a quest to either find her father or prove that he is deceased.

This quest involves Ree’s uncle, Teardrop played by John Hawkes. I love, love, love the HBO series “Deadwood” in which John Hawkes plays Sol Star - a fantastic performance. Unfortunately I haven’t seen any of his other appearances. Garrett Dillahunt from “Deadwood” also makes an appearance as a sherriff deputy. Teardrop is a defining character for the film - initially he is villanious - contrary and violent. When Ree asks for his help, his wife takes her side, confronts Teardrop and Teardrop issues the following, menacing utterance: “I said ‘shutup’ already once with my mouth.” His character proves to have an empathetic part of him as the film goes on, but I think this underlies the violent male nature towards women depicted in this film - even the “good guys” are predisposed to smacking the women around.

My first thoughts toward this film involve another 2010 film, “True Grit.” Both protagonists, “Winter’s Bone” Ree and “True Grit’s” Mattie are both young matriarchs with strong wills fighting against a system that is male-dominated . Especially in the case of “Winter’s Bone,” it’s women cleaning up after the men’s destruction.

This is a nice example of a good story transferred to a movie format well.

Inception

This movie is the worst "Star Trek" episode x100 with slick visuals thrown in. Fail.

For a fairer review that outlines what I won't take the time to do, please see my friend KennKong's review.

The Hurt Locker

Mark Boal’s “The Hurt Locker” is a work of fiction, but brilliantly captures the tension of war during this long period of U.S. military history in Iraq. Numerous movies have been made, both fictional and documentary in nature, about the Iraq war. I think of the maxim of “truth is stranger than fiction,” and recall the Errol Morris documentary “Standard Operating Procedure,” which illustrates this maxim well (I’ve given my thoughts on this movie here). “The Hurt Locker”, conversely, illustrates how fiction can sometimes give a somehow truer emotional impact than a straight retelling. Although fiction, the screenplay was written by Mark Boal, a journalist embedded with an United States Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team during the Iraq War. In the commentary, Bigelow notes her appreciation of the script by discussing how during several moments in the film, it’s impossible to tell friend from foe - a guy using a video camera is potentially very hostile - this conflict and judgement call process repeats several times throughout the movie and illustrates America’s difficulty with guerilla wars throughout history.

I do not know of a more prominent tactic in modern combat than the use of IEDs. Who, other than those directly involved, would know what this military acronym means if it were not for the prominence of it in the media? The use of bombs as a terrorist device has a long history - the first documented use of a car bomb was the IRA in the 1920’s, but given how modern military and political conflict stems out of terrorism and more specifically, the bombs they use, “The Hurt Locker’s” combination of the tension involving disarming said devices with the psychology of those disarming them is amazingly astute as a modern sociological observation.

The movie starts, wasting zero time involving the audience - a bomb disposal is in progress. Immediately, the cinematography and direction captures the audience’s attention. I am not a film expert, so I don’t know whether to call this “cinéma vérité” or “direct cinema,” etc., but the point-of-view of the cameras during these scenes are very immediate - the camera shifts from wide macro shots to orient the audience to tighter shots involving the principals to tight-close ups. It is fast, intense filmmaking, and it would be easy to lose the audience, which Bigelow and crew never do. Sometimes it’s only good - usually it’s great. This won the 2009 Academy Award for best editing, and the editing team of Chris Innis and Bob Murawski deserve it.

My own personal bias in movies and literature for modern times is that it’s important to quickly give the short-attention-span dog a bone, as it were, and get your audience’s attention quickly. If it takes me more than 100 pages into a book or more than a half-hour into a movie to find something to hang on to, your audience could be on to the next book or movie. The heart-grabbing start of “The Hurt Locker” is an easy, perhaps definitive, example of starting out fast. The contrast between the bomb-disposal robot heading in one direction, and various military personnel and civilians running in the exact opposite direction is a stark image of life in Iraq during these times.

Sergeant First Class William James, played by Jeremy Renner, is quickly established as someone predisposed to fatalism. He removes the plywood covering his barracks’ window to let in sunshine. When advised by the seasoned Sergeant Sanborn, aptly played by Anthony Mackie, that he might want to keep the plywood up due to its protection against mortar fragmentation, he notes that it will do no good against a direct hit on the roof and the basks in the sunlight provided while listening to heavy metal.

Immediately following is the second of multiple bomb-disposal scenes. James dons a bomb suit in lieu of using the robot to reconnaissance the suspected IED site. A very tense moment occurs when James stands down a taxi with only his sidarm that has sped directly at him. The editing during this scene is amazing due to its numerous perspectives - there’s the James/taxi stand-off perspective, the US backup personnel providing cover to the scene, the closeups of the taxi driver, the narrowing of focus from James/taxi to James holding the gun against the driver’s head. The most striking visual in the film is soon to follow. The great "spider bomb" scene follows - another great example of editing and cinematography.

After confronting James about his recklesness, Sanborn notes that if they survive the day, they will have 38 days left in their rotation - a parameter used to measure time in the film. Specialist Owen Eldridge is the third member of the EOD team. He is obviously troubled, and the army psychologist counsels him, and, according to Bigelow and Boar, is true to life in that combat stress psychologists want to keep “the soldier in the fight and the fight in the solder.”

After encountering private contractors in the desert, the EOD team becomes engaged in a protracted sniper’s battle. During the commentary, Bigelow and Boar note that a single Humvee would not be traveling alone in the desert. Realistically, this would have been multiple Humvees - a convoy, but due to budget restrictions, compromises have to be made. This battle is yet another superb example of this film’s capacity to start, build, hold and eventually release tension. I am amazed at the pacing of this scene. This surely stands out as one of the best sniper scenes ever filmed. Not only is the action and tension of the battle itself competently illustrated, the vulnerable psychology of Specialist Eldridge is also dramatized. Again, personal psychology combined with battlefield tension drive home an agitated, unfortunate comment on the nature of war. The scale of a sniper fight is so dramatically increased that I think the movie does an amazing job of showing a mile-long battlefield. I think the action is lost in a very minor fashion during the start of this firefight, but that's arguably done to illustrate chaos and how you don't always immediately know where your attackers are.

There are a couple of sections that somewhat take me out of the movie. James’s adventure into the Bagdhad neighborhoods looking for a child’s killer and his reckless hunting of the insurgents responsible for the immense tanker bomb bother me. I don’t think they’re horrible - they’re done to establish James’ character, but I think they’re somewhat redundant. Perhaps Boar, Bigelow, et al. aren’t giving the audience enough credit. Both of these scenes illustrate the consequences of James’ reckless behavior, but I think that the movie up to this point has already set in the audience’s minds the risk and possible consequences - I’m not sure we needed to have this dramatized.

The last scene I wish to mention is when James has a furlough, returns home and is starting at the wealth of cereal options before basically shrugging his shoulders, shaking his head and grabbing one at random off the shelf. Boar drew upon his own experience at how after returning home he was tripped out by the display of wealth and consumerism that is the modern supermarket. He notes that many soldiers have told him that they, too, have had similar experiences.

Notes on commentary:

Money was raised independently - Bigelow and Boar are the producers. Shooting the movie in the Middle East was a bonus for producing the movie independently - this would have been a “non-starter” in Hollywood, according to Bigelow. Opening was shot in Amman, Jordan, and the city was very reluctant to allow a shoot here. The wide boulevards are very similar to Baghdad. Initially Morroco was chosen, but the architecture is very different, so Boal and Bigelow decided to scout Jordan. The scene where xxx throws a water bottle at the car in front of the Hummer is actual traffic in Jordan - as was the maimed cat. Additional locations included Kuwait and Iraq.

Real bomb squads criticisize “HME’s” - hollywood movie explosions - so Richard Stutzman and the rest of the special effects department worked to recreate realistic explosions - including the visceral “over pressure” that occurs - the expanding wave of air pressure expanding around the explosion, lifting everything up as well as expanding any air around it - literally exploding lungs or puncturing anything containing air in its path. A phantom camera was used that can shoot 10,000 to 20,000 fps to capture this effect in slow motion during the opening scene.

The robot in the film is a military issue “Talon” robot - Bigelow and Boar had to secure one from its manufacturer, Northrop Grumman.

The bomb suit weighs 80 pounds, and the average temperature during shooting was 115 degrees.

The “spider” bomb and the dropped 9v battery trigger is accurate - amazing that such a force can be unleashed by a simple 9v battery trigger.

Bigelow and Boar discuss the synchronization of score and foley - both the sound effects designer and the score composer would swap audio files so that a coherent whole could be achieved - notably during the car bomb defusal scene when James triggers the windshield wipers.

It might seem odd that James and Sanborn would be able to take over the Barrett sniper rifle after the contractors are killed, but EOD teams are trained to use Barrett sniper rifles - sometimes EOD teams would use a Barrett to detonate an IED from a safe distance.

Boar notes that during his time as an embedded journalist, they never had a translator - it’s hard to understand how an occupation of a foreign country could be competently established without the basic prerequisite of communicating with the populace.

If you haven't seen this movie, please do so. It's an amazing film.