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
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
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 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:
Monday, March 21, 2011
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
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
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
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:
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, February 28, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Monday, February 21, 2011
"Illegal" and "The Big Steal"
"Illegal" stars Edward G. Robinson - it is the first time I've seen him in a film. My first thought upon seeing him was of the Bugs Bunny caricature.
It's strange to have seen a caricature so early and so many times as a kid to then view the person on which it was based 30+ years later. Based upon this caricature, I was expecting Robinson to chew the scenery much more than he did - his is a level performance. However, the writing chews the scenery for him. To wit, Robinson plays Victor Scott - a District Attorney who prosecutes an innocent man into the electric chair. With his reputation sullied, Scott hits the bottle in true noir fashion, and then starts reassembling his life on the other side of the courtroom as a defense attorney. The scenery-chewing is a result of the stunts Scott pulls in the courtroom - punching a man to prove a point and ingesting poison, betting on a recess occurring, and then running next door to have his stomach pumped. There's also a humorous romantic scene wherein neither actor displays any affection for the other - they could be discussing a grocery list.
In spite of this, or maybe because of this, the movie is enjoyable as noir camp. It's well-paced, and has many of the noir stamps. Although perhaps not a true femme fatale, Ellen Miles is a romantic/daughter figure for Scott and he goes to dangerous lengths to protect her. A side note: Miles is played by Nina Foch who went on to become a film professor at USC and provides commentary for the film. We have a strong sexual component with Jayne Mansfield acting as the crime boss's girlfriend, Angel O'Hara, who delivers a tepid musical performance and a not-so-tepid figure.
I don't feel this is one for the ages, but I'm glad it's available and I enjoyed watching it.
I’d next like to post my thoughts on “The Big Steal,” which are interspersed with notes gleaned from the DVD commentary, done by Rick Jewell, Hugh M. Hefner professor of American Film at the University of Southern California.
“The Big Steal” was adapted from a short story, “The Road to Carmichael’s” by Richard Wormser. Columbia had purchased the rights, but Columbia never made the movie - RKO bought it from Columbia in 1948. Numerous edits took place leading toward its short length of 71 minutes and some inconsistencies in the film.
The two biggest points that stand out to me are the acting of Ramón Novarro and the direction, filming and acting during the big car chase which is a significant portion of the movie.
Ramón Novarro was a Latin-American actor who achieved his fame during the silent film era, with his biggest role being in “Ben-Hur.” Given the generally “stiff” acting of the time, I think Novarro stands out by being especially demonstrative with facial expressions, inflections, etc. - probably a carryover from his silent film days. This helps to set him apart and give his character a welcome contrast to the other characters. I particulary like where he is discussing how he wants to learn English and corrects his “mouses” utterance with “mice.” His personal story is not a happy one - for more info see his wikipedia article.
I love the big car chase scene in this movie. You can tell the stunt drivers are pushing the cars to their limits - on one turn, especially, if the car would have wobbled any more it surely would have lost traction. Greer does an excellent job of pretending to drive in front of a screen. Another excellent moment is when Captain Blake’s car nearly has a head-on collision before swerving just in front of another vehicle - this is a good, early example of action filmmaking.
I also love Jane Greer in this movie. I’ve been accused of liking “mousey” women before, but that’s just the book cover on Ms. Jane Greer - her performance is anything but mousey. Jane Greer and Robert Mitchum had previously appeared in “Out of the Past” - widely regarded as the best noir film made. In spite of their previous success, Howard Hughes, the head of RKO at that time, did not initially want to cast Greer due to a prior romantic relationship that Hughes shared with Greer. However, due to another complication, he ended up doing so.
The complication that Hughes was faced with was that Robert Mitchum had been recently arrested on marijuana charges. Even though Mitchum weathered this difficulty due to his popularity and that his arrest might have actually increased his popularity as one of the first “bad boys” of film, leading women of the time were initially reluctant to be paired with Mitchum. In fact, the original actress cast, Elizabeth Scott, withdrew due to a supposed illness once Mitchum’s involvement was made known. Several other actresses turned the part down before Hughes assigned it to Greer. Halfway through the production, Mitchum had to serve time in the county jail. Stunt doubles were used on location in Mexico to shoot various driving scenes and exterior shots during Mitchum’s incarceration. This was another reason for the streamlining of the script.
The director, Don Siegal, had a long career in movies - perhaps most notably directing “Dirty Harry.” Clint Eastwood considered Siegal one of his mentors. Siegal is noted in his early career for creating excellent montages. Jewel discussses why there are no montages in “The Big Steal.” Montages were used to illustrate the passage of time and since “The Big Steal’s” story happens within one day, it would have seemed out of place in the film.
Again, not my favorite noir and without the back story, I probably wouldn't like it as much. As with all mediocre movies, if it's brief, it helps and this movie is short. Navarro and Greer's performances are fun to watch.
It's strange to have seen a caricature so early and so many times as a kid to then view the person on which it was based 30+ years later. Based upon this caricature, I was expecting Robinson to chew the scenery much more than he did - his is a level performance. However, the writing chews the scenery for him. To wit, Robinson plays Victor Scott - a District Attorney who prosecutes an innocent man into the electric chair. With his reputation sullied, Scott hits the bottle in true noir fashion, and then starts reassembling his life on the other side of the courtroom as a defense attorney. The scenery-chewing is a result of the stunts Scott pulls in the courtroom - punching a man to prove a point and ingesting poison, betting on a recess occurring, and then running next door to have his stomach pumped. There's also a humorous romantic scene wherein neither actor displays any affection for the other - they could be discussing a grocery list.
In spite of this, or maybe because of this, the movie is enjoyable as noir camp. It's well-paced, and has many of the noir stamps. Although perhaps not a true femme fatale, Ellen Miles is a romantic/daughter figure for Scott and he goes to dangerous lengths to protect her. A side note: Miles is played by Nina Foch who went on to become a film professor at USC and provides commentary for the film. We have a strong sexual component with Jayne Mansfield acting as the crime boss's girlfriend, Angel O'Hara, who delivers a tepid musical performance and a not-so-tepid figure.
I don't feel this is one for the ages, but I'm glad it's available and I enjoyed watching it.
I’d next like to post my thoughts on “The Big Steal,” which are interspersed with notes gleaned from the DVD commentary, done by Rick Jewell, Hugh M. Hefner professor of American Film at the University of Southern California.
“The Big Steal” was adapted from a short story, “The Road to Carmichael’s” by Richard Wormser. Columbia had purchased the rights, but Columbia never made the movie - RKO bought it from Columbia in 1948. Numerous edits took place leading toward its short length of 71 minutes and some inconsistencies in the film.
The two biggest points that stand out to me are the acting of Ramón Novarro and the direction, filming and acting during the big car chase which is a significant portion of the movie.
Ramón Novarro was a Latin-American actor who achieved his fame during the silent film era, with his biggest role being in “Ben-Hur.” Given the generally “stiff” acting of the time, I think Novarro stands out by being especially demonstrative with facial expressions, inflections, etc. - probably a carryover from his silent film days. This helps to set him apart and give his character a welcome contrast to the other characters. I particulary like where he is discussing how he wants to learn English and corrects his “mouses” utterance with “mice.” His personal story is not a happy one - for more info see his wikipedia article.
I love the big car chase scene in this movie. You can tell the stunt drivers are pushing the cars to their limits - on one turn, especially, if the car would have wobbled any more it surely would have lost traction. Greer does an excellent job of pretending to drive in front of a screen. Another excellent moment is when Captain Blake’s car nearly has a head-on collision before swerving just in front of another vehicle - this is a good, early example of action filmmaking.
I also love Jane Greer in this movie. I’ve been accused of liking “mousey” women before, but that’s just the book cover on Ms. Jane Greer - her performance is anything but mousey. Jane Greer and Robert Mitchum had previously appeared in “Out of the Past” - widely regarded as the best noir film made. In spite of their previous success, Howard Hughes, the head of RKO at that time, did not initially want to cast Greer due to a prior romantic relationship that Hughes shared with Greer. However, due to another complication, he ended up doing so.
The complication that Hughes was faced with was that Robert Mitchum had been recently arrested on marijuana charges. Even though Mitchum weathered this difficulty due to his popularity and that his arrest might have actually increased his popularity as one of the first “bad boys” of film, leading women of the time were initially reluctant to be paired with Mitchum. In fact, the original actress cast, Elizabeth Scott, withdrew due to a supposed illness once Mitchum’s involvement was made known. Several other actresses turned the part down before Hughes assigned it to Greer. Halfway through the production, Mitchum had to serve time in the county jail. Stunt doubles were used on location in Mexico to shoot various driving scenes and exterior shots during Mitchum’s incarceration. This was another reason for the streamlining of the script.
The director, Don Siegal, had a long career in movies - perhaps most notably directing “Dirty Harry.” Clint Eastwood considered Siegal one of his mentors. Siegal is noted in his early career for creating excellent montages. Jewel discussses why there are no montages in “The Big Steal.” Montages were used to illustrate the passage of time and since “The Big Steal’s” story happens within one day, it would have seemed out of place in the film.
Again, not my favorite noir and without the back story, I probably wouldn't like it as much. As with all mediocre movies, if it's brief, it helps and this movie is short. Navarro and Greer's performances are fun to watch.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Bad Lieutenant
I'm going to put my thoughts on the interwebs concerning 1992's "Bad Lieutenant" with the caveat that my sole reason for doing so is autobiographical. I want to record every movie I watched in 2011. Given these past couple of weeks and that it took at least 4 separate nights of viewing to get through "Bad Lieutenant," I wish I could give this a more thorough critique.
My initial conclusion is that Abel Ferrara and Alejandro González Iñárritu share a common goal: torture their viewers while appearing to make insightful social commentary. Throughout the movie there are gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, sexual abuse of teenagers, nuns being raped, etc. This might have been progressive in 1950, but attempting to illustrate society's ills by graphically depicting them on screen without another frame of reference was passé, conservatively, 30 years prior to the making of this film.
What's sad is that Iñárritu is attempting the same tactic 20 years later.
Ebert loved this movie. He praised Keitel for being courageous enough to take the part.
Bruno Ganz was courageous to play the darkest portrayal of Hitler to see the silver screen. I think Keitel knew that Ferrara would let him have free reign, and it apparently wowed many, but I think it wasn't courageous - it was a misstep.
My initial conclusion is that Abel Ferrara and Alejandro González Iñárritu share a common goal: torture their viewers while appearing to make insightful social commentary. Throughout the movie there are gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, sexual abuse of teenagers, nuns being raped, etc. This might have been progressive in 1950, but attempting to illustrate society's ills by graphically depicting them on screen without another frame of reference was passé, conservatively, 30 years prior to the making of this film.
What's sad is that Iñárritu is attempting the same tactic 20 years later.
Ebert loved this movie. He praised Keitel for being courageous enough to take the part.
Bruno Ganz was courageous to play the darkest portrayal of Hitler to see the silver screen. I think Keitel knew that Ferrara would let him have free reign, and it apparently wowed many, but I think it wasn't courageous - it was a misstep.
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Aliens
“Maybe we’ve got them demoralized.” -Hudson
Continuing with the Alien blu-ray box set I treated myself to, here are my thoughts on “Aliens.”
I watched the director’s cut this time. My default is to watch the theatrical version unless I know that the director honestly prefers the director’s cut. There’s an intro to the director’s cut where Cameron states that he prefers this version - as well as my friend Kong's urging to watch the extended version. 20+ minutes were cut for the theatrical version. Multiplexes weren’t around in 1986 and there was more pressure to keep movies to a two-hour limit so that theaters could show more viewings per day.
This, like “Alien,” is an amazing film. Considering the precedent “Alien” set, Cameron pulled off a tremendous feat of writing and directing the sequel. There are many things to talk about, but I’ll throw out my thoughts on the editing, the story and characters, the acting, and the special effects.
The film starts out with an immediate continuation from the first - Ripley’s ship being rescued. It’s not always possible, but to immediately continue where the last movie left off lends a nice continuity. Yes, it was 50 years later, but that was spent with Ripley floating around space in the deep freeze. During her rescue there is a very nice dissolve of Ripley’s face matching the earth - a little too on-the-nose symbolism, perhaps, but a nice effect.
Storytelling and editing merge wonderfully in the movie to establish a smart pace. Shortly after Ripley’s rescue, we have a scene where an alien bursts out of Ripley’s chest, which is then revealed to be a dream. Not an original technique, but not only does this effectively ratchet up the tension quickly, it also establishes Ripley’s psychology and phobia. Later, the evidence of a ferocious battle, the acid holes in the floor, etc., in the first reconnaissance squad scene help to foreshadow things to come as well as tightening the tension. The scene where Ripley washes Newt’s face is tender, superbly-acted, and yet also accomplishes another click on the ratchet of tension with the following dialogue:
The tension continues to build when Ripley discovers that they’re near cooling tanks during the "rescue" mission, relays this information to Lieutenant Gorman who then commands Sergeant Apone to retrieve the squad’s ammo. The squad then discovers the not-quite dead colonist, her chest bursts, they torch the wriggling alien and then, finally, we see the aliens. After they get “their ass kicked,” the situation goes from bad to worse until the firefight ensues with Aliens coming out of the ceiling and the floor. All the gloves are off at that point, and it hurdles along to its conclusion. It was skillful and brave to hold off introducing the aliens until the pacing called for it - an hour or more into the movie (something like that) and not bore your audience in the meantime. In the commentary, Cameron notes that the studio felt the lead-up to the aliens reveal was too long and scenes prior to the reveal were cut.
One of these is the scene wherein Burke tells Ripley that her daughter is dead. It’s central to Ripley’s character and her relationship with Newt later - it helps fortify Ripley’s instincts towards Newt. Additional scenes that were cut are the scene of Newt’s family going to the derelict alien spacecraft and the scene where the working stiffs inside the facility kick the kids out of a work area. These scenes establish the notion that colonists with families were working there, but its omission in the theatrical version was less of a disappointment in my eyes to find left out than the Burke/Ripley scene. Both Newt’s parents and the working stiffs are (as always, in my humble opinion) the least-talented performances in the movie. The creators also admit that the tension around the alien derelict ship was much better in the first movie.
Overall, though, the acting is very good. Sigourney Weaver earned an Oscar nomination - something unheard of for a science fiction movie at that time. This was well-deserved - she is really good.
Cameron relates in the commentary how Weaver wanted 3 things in the movie that she didn’t get - she wanted to die, she didn’t want any guns (what?! Cameron rightfully chuckles at this), and she wanted to make love to the alien (interesting - eeeew). He notes that, thankfully, she didn’t get any of these, but when her power increased in the subsequent films, she got what she wanted - which is probably why those movies suck. It’s also probably why she is painfully absent for the commentary. We've seen Cameron be a huge dick on live TV, so I'd like to get Weaver's perspective - it's disappointing that she isn't on this commentary. He also notes that although he respects that the directors in the final films had their own vision, he was disappointed that they didn’t honor the “family” relationships - Ripley, Hicks and Newt. I am going to watch them since I had to buy them as part of the set, but I don’t think I’m going to reverse my previous opinions of the first two being really great films and the final two being disappointments.
I also HAVE to mention Michael Biehn who plays Corporal Hicks. His performance is brilliant - his eye movements, timing, volume, body posture, etc. He finesses it well - the best performance in my eyes. Well, actually, Carrie Henn is also amazing as Newt - this was her first acting, PERIOD. No school plays, no disturbing beauty pageants, nada. Gale Anne Hurd (producer and Cameron’s wife) relates in the commentary that what set her apart was that the vast majority of girls who auditioned had been trained to smile so much that they didn’t accurately display the trauma that Newt went through. Henn didn’t make her career in acting, though - she’s in the commentary briefly and Hurd notes that she chose a “normal life,” but no details. I’m guessing she became a basket case after the movie and mostly eats cats for sustenance - mostly.
Lance Henriksen, as always, does a magnificent job. Bishop’s character is compassionate and anxious to please. Ripley and the audience are immediately suspicious due to Ash’s betrayal in “Alien,” when, in fact, Bishop acts exemplary throughout, although the suspicion is triggered again by Bishop’s fascination whilst examining the face-hugger and also at the end when he seems to abandon Ripley and Newt. A little piece of commentary trivia is that Henriksen, at one point, wanted Bishop to have two pupils in his eyes - he’s fond of having something physical to associate with his characters. Cameron nixed this as being over the top - a good decision in my one-pupiled eye.
Regarding the ensemble acting, Cameron’s direction and Ray Lovejoy’s editing accomplishes a difficult task - capturing 5+ actors in a scene with rapid dialogue in a fashion that doesn’t betray the audience or the actors. It’s not something you usually pay attention to, because when it’s done well, you don’t notice, but when it’s not done well, it’s sometimes the reason you’re looking for when a scene doesn’t work. Cameron and Lovejoy make this an example of how it’s done well.
Stan Winston is also on the commentary. He was a second unit director and, more notably, created the alien effects. His commentary gave me a new appreciation for the type of miniatures work that was done - this was before CGI was an affordable option. The use of models involves a “forced perspective” to make the models look their intended size. In addition, cameras were run at a high-rate of speed to give this illusion. As a result of the camera speed, the crew manipulating them had to make them move that much faster. It’s a great technique - it looks so good that I wonder if its ever used today - obviously I’m not much of a special effects geek or I’d know - it’s probably too expensive when digital effects are available. Oh - the first shot of the queen, and most of the queen shots, however, aren’t a miniature - it’s a 14 foot puppet. Impressive stuff, throughout. I want that puppet. With a SDM built-in (see previous post).
Some trivia:
- The shoot for this film was only 65 days.
- Sigourney Weaver got a million bucks for the film because the producers didn’t work out the deal before numerous other commitments had been made and, apparently, she had a great agent.
Nitpicks:
- The Marines’ behavior rings false to me in the beginning. The characters are too stereotyped and the lack of discipline shown seems out of place. This doesn't persist throughout (mainly because they die off - Hudson, Vasquez and Gorman start acting like soldiers eventually when the shit hits the fan). There are valid arguments to be made (they’re special forces, traumatized themselves, among others), but it’s my gut reaction.
- The long shots of the drop ship flying show the age of the movie even more than "Alien," I think - they’re pretty 2D - it looks like a model in front of a screen. Given the amazing illusions involved with the miniature work elsewhere, the long ship shots in space and flying back into the burning facility at the end stick out to me - a true nitpick.
- The only possible writing/direction misstep I see in this film occurs when Ripley rescues Newt and purges the egg room with fire. She launches grenade after grenade, round after round, and she NEVER targets the queen (except for her egg sack)? It could be argued she was distracted by the face huggers and the warriors, but she seems to have time to select her targets and given Ripley’s character, I think she really would have launched everything at the queen until it was dead. There is the neat dynamic where she looks at the queen, the queen recognizes her precarious position and the warriors back off - but then Ripley torches the place anyhow? This certainly isn’t a major misstep, but I think a shot of her targeting the queen and the queen getting cover or something would have sufficed to account for this. I’ve probably missed something here. If I did, then it’s a misstep on Cameron’s pacing (joke).
A great movie - I haven't mentioned Bill Paxton or Paul Reiser, either - Hudson's quotes live on in pop culture, and Reiser's performance is also very good. I'll have to let them get the short end of the stick for this post.
More info:
Wikipedia article on "Aliens"
IMDB "Aliens" entry
Continuing with the Alien blu-ray box set I treated myself to, here are my thoughts on “Aliens.”
I watched the director’s cut this time. My default is to watch the theatrical version unless I know that the director honestly prefers the director’s cut. There’s an intro to the director’s cut where Cameron states that he prefers this version - as well as my friend Kong's urging to watch the extended version. 20+ minutes were cut for the theatrical version. Multiplexes weren’t around in 1986 and there was more pressure to keep movies to a two-hour limit so that theaters could show more viewings per day.
This, like “Alien,” is an amazing film. Considering the precedent “Alien” set, Cameron pulled off a tremendous feat of writing and directing the sequel. There are many things to talk about, but I’ll throw out my thoughts on the editing, the story and characters, the acting, and the special effects.
The film starts out with an immediate continuation from the first - Ripley’s ship being rescued. It’s not always possible, but to immediately continue where the last movie left off lends a nice continuity. Yes, it was 50 years later, but that was spent with Ripley floating around space in the deep freeze. During her rescue there is a very nice dissolve of Ripley’s face matching the earth - a little too on-the-nose symbolism, perhaps, but a nice effect.
Storytelling and editing merge wonderfully in the movie to establish a smart pace. Shortly after Ripley’s rescue, we have a scene where an alien bursts out of Ripley’s chest, which is then revealed to be a dream. Not an original technique, but not only does this effectively ratchet up the tension quickly, it also establishes Ripley’s psychology and phobia. Later, the evidence of a ferocious battle, the acid holes in the floor, etc., in the first reconnaissance squad scene help to foreshadow things to come as well as tightening the tension. The scene where Ripley washes Newt’s face is tender, superbly-acted, and yet also accomplishes another click on the ratchet of tension with the following dialogue:
Ripley: “Newt. Look at me. Where are they?” (Newt’s parents)
Newt: “They’re dead, allright? Can I go now?”
Ripley: “Don’t you think you’d be safer here with us?”
[Newt shakes her head]
Ripley: “These people are here to protect you - they’re soldiers.”
Newt (quietly): “It won’t make any difference.”
The tension continues to build when Ripley discovers that they’re near cooling tanks during the "rescue" mission, relays this information to Lieutenant Gorman who then commands Sergeant Apone to retrieve the squad’s ammo. The squad then discovers the not-quite dead colonist, her chest bursts, they torch the wriggling alien and then, finally, we see the aliens. After they get “their ass kicked,” the situation goes from bad to worse until the firefight ensues with Aliens coming out of the ceiling and the floor. All the gloves are off at that point, and it hurdles along to its conclusion. It was skillful and brave to hold off introducing the aliens until the pacing called for it - an hour or more into the movie (something like that) and not bore your audience in the meantime. In the commentary, Cameron notes that the studio felt the lead-up to the aliens reveal was too long and scenes prior to the reveal were cut.
One of these is the scene wherein Burke tells Ripley that her daughter is dead. It’s central to Ripley’s character and her relationship with Newt later - it helps fortify Ripley’s instincts towards Newt. Additional scenes that were cut are the scene of Newt’s family going to the derelict alien spacecraft and the scene where the working stiffs inside the facility kick the kids out of a work area. These scenes establish the notion that colonists with families were working there, but its omission in the theatrical version was less of a disappointment in my eyes to find left out than the Burke/Ripley scene. Both Newt’s parents and the working stiffs are (as always, in my humble opinion) the least-talented performances in the movie. The creators also admit that the tension around the alien derelict ship was much better in the first movie.
Overall, though, the acting is very good. Sigourney Weaver earned an Oscar nomination - something unheard of for a science fiction movie at that time. This was well-deserved - she is really good.
Cameron relates in the commentary how Weaver wanted 3 things in the movie that she didn’t get - she wanted to die, she didn’t want any guns (what?! Cameron rightfully chuckles at this), and she wanted to make love to the alien (interesting - eeeew). He notes that, thankfully, she didn’t get any of these, but when her power increased in the subsequent films, she got what she wanted - which is probably why those movies suck. It’s also probably why she is painfully absent for the commentary. We've seen Cameron be a huge dick on live TV, so I'd like to get Weaver's perspective - it's disappointing that she isn't on this commentary. He also notes that although he respects that the directors in the final films had their own vision, he was disappointed that they didn’t honor the “family” relationships - Ripley, Hicks and Newt. I am going to watch them since I had to buy them as part of the set, but I don’t think I’m going to reverse my previous opinions of the first two being really great films and the final two being disappointments.
I also HAVE to mention Michael Biehn who plays Corporal Hicks. His performance is brilliant - his eye movements, timing, volume, body posture, etc. He finesses it well - the best performance in my eyes. Well, actually, Carrie Henn is also amazing as Newt - this was her first acting, PERIOD. No school plays, no disturbing beauty pageants, nada. Gale Anne Hurd (producer and Cameron’s wife) relates in the commentary that what set her apart was that the vast majority of girls who auditioned had been trained to smile so much that they didn’t accurately display the trauma that Newt went through. Henn didn’t make her career in acting, though - she’s in the commentary briefly and Hurd notes that she chose a “normal life,” but no details. I’m guessing she became a basket case after the movie and mostly eats cats for sustenance - mostly.
Lance Henriksen, as always, does a magnificent job. Bishop’s character is compassionate and anxious to please. Ripley and the audience are immediately suspicious due to Ash’s betrayal in “Alien,” when, in fact, Bishop acts exemplary throughout, although the suspicion is triggered again by Bishop’s fascination whilst examining the face-hugger and also at the end when he seems to abandon Ripley and Newt. A little piece of commentary trivia is that Henriksen, at one point, wanted Bishop to have two pupils in his eyes - he’s fond of having something physical to associate with his characters. Cameron nixed this as being over the top - a good decision in my one-pupiled eye.
Regarding the ensemble acting, Cameron’s direction and Ray Lovejoy’s editing accomplishes a difficult task - capturing 5+ actors in a scene with rapid dialogue in a fashion that doesn’t betray the audience or the actors. It’s not something you usually pay attention to, because when it’s done well, you don’t notice, but when it’s not done well, it’s sometimes the reason you’re looking for when a scene doesn’t work. Cameron and Lovejoy make this an example of how it’s done well.
Stan Winston is also on the commentary. He was a second unit director and, more notably, created the alien effects. His commentary gave me a new appreciation for the type of miniatures work that was done - this was before CGI was an affordable option. The use of models involves a “forced perspective” to make the models look their intended size. In addition, cameras were run at a high-rate of speed to give this illusion. As a result of the camera speed, the crew manipulating them had to make them move that much faster. It’s a great technique - it looks so good that I wonder if its ever used today - obviously I’m not much of a special effects geek or I’d know - it’s probably too expensive when digital effects are available. Oh - the first shot of the queen, and most of the queen shots, however, aren’t a miniature - it’s a 14 foot puppet. Impressive stuff, throughout. I want that puppet. With a SDM built-in (see previous post).
Some trivia:
- The shoot for this film was only 65 days.
- Sigourney Weaver got a million bucks for the film because the producers didn’t work out the deal before numerous other commitments had been made and, apparently, she had a great agent.
Nitpicks:
- The Marines’ behavior rings false to me in the beginning. The characters are too stereotyped and the lack of discipline shown seems out of place. This doesn't persist throughout (mainly because they die off - Hudson, Vasquez and Gorman start acting like soldiers eventually when the shit hits the fan). There are valid arguments to be made (they’re special forces, traumatized themselves, among others), but it’s my gut reaction.
- The long shots of the drop ship flying show the age of the movie even more than "Alien," I think - they’re pretty 2D - it looks like a model in front of a screen. Given the amazing illusions involved with the miniature work elsewhere, the long ship shots in space and flying back into the burning facility at the end stick out to me - a true nitpick.
- The only possible writing/direction misstep I see in this film occurs when Ripley rescues Newt and purges the egg room with fire. She launches grenade after grenade, round after round, and she NEVER targets the queen (except for her egg sack)? It could be argued she was distracted by the face huggers and the warriors, but she seems to have time to select her targets and given Ripley’s character, I think she really would have launched everything at the queen until it was dead. There is the neat dynamic where she looks at the queen, the queen recognizes her precarious position and the warriors back off - but then Ripley torches the place anyhow? This certainly isn’t a major misstep, but I think a shot of her targeting the queen and the queen getting cover or something would have sufficed to account for this. I’ve probably missed something here. If I did, then it’s a misstep on Cameron’s pacing (joke).
A great movie - I haven't mentioned Bill Paxton or Paul Reiser, either - Hudson's quotes live on in pop culture, and Reiser's performance is also very good. I'll have to let them get the short end of the stick for this post.
More info:
Wikipedia article on "Aliens"
IMDB "Aliens" entry
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Snow Edict of Doom™ 2011 - ALIEN gush
"Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility." -Ash
I enjoyed my first night of 2011’s Snow Edict of Doom™ by viewing the blu-ray of “Alien.” This is very high on my all-time favorite movie list. There are many themes running throughout that are subtly interwoven into a sci-fi masterpiece: feminism, populism, classism, the intersection of technology with human psychology, and many more. There have been books written entirely on the character of Ripley. Hell, there’s even a Shelley/Ozymandias visual reference thrown in. In spite of all of these themes, none of them are too overbearing or exaggerated. In addition to its societal statements, it stands out on a variety of other levels.
It is both a science fiction and horror movie. Its pacing is nothing short of brilliant – when you think someone is going to catch it in the face they don’t. Eventually, they do, of course, but it does a great job of keeping you on your toes even after multiple viewings.
I’m not sure where to even begin with the parasitic face-huggers other than to say, well, gross! I’ve read some allusions to male rape and the androgynous images throughout but if you’re taking the time to read ol’ doug’s blurbs, I’m not going to elaborate, however I must further mention the art design and special effects. H.R. Giger’s design of the alien and sets is unmatched in its creepiness and melding of the organic and mechanical as well as the previously mentioned androgyny. This film was made in 1979! 1979! This was a mere two years after Star Wars and even though its only beginning to show its age in this regard, it was astounding for its time. The fight with Ash is not a special effects highlight certainly, but when they turn Ash back on, it makes up for it by being one of the tensest moments in the film - a fantastic performance by Ian Holm.
In addition to the problem with the special effects during the fight with Ash, it is not a perfect movie, although the flaws are minor in my opinion. There’s a scene of apparent rain in a cargo bay. Maybe it’s condensation, but you could argue that it didn’t make any sense. The self-destruct feature seems out of place on a commercial tow vehicle, but it could be argued that it was put in place for the very reason it was used for, except that the quarantine procedures, albeit their subversion, would seem an adequate measure. It’s a little overboard to design a self-destruct sequence in case the crew gets out of line. As we find out in “Aliens,” the company was most distressed by the destruction of the ship, so why have that “feature?” I’m grasping here to find negative points, so I’ll end on another positive one – the blu-ray makes me very happy. It includes the theatrical release and the director’s cut. I’ve read that Ridley Scott got the cut he wanted for the theatrical release and says the director’s cut is not necessarily preferred – it’s more of an alternate cut. I watched the theatrical release. The transfer is beautiful. I can’t wait to watch the others in the series.
More info:
"Alien" Wikipedia article
"Alien" IMDB entry
Even the trailer is great. Embedding is disabled for it, so hop on over to YouTube to check it out.
I enjoyed my first night of 2011’s Snow Edict of Doom™ by viewing the blu-ray of “Alien.” This is very high on my all-time favorite movie list. There are many themes running throughout that are subtly interwoven into a sci-fi masterpiece: feminism, populism, classism, the intersection of technology with human psychology, and many more. There have been books written entirely on the character of Ripley. Hell, there’s even a Shelley/Ozymandias visual reference thrown in. In spite of all of these themes, none of them are too overbearing or exaggerated. In addition to its societal statements, it stands out on a variety of other levels.
It is both a science fiction and horror movie. Its pacing is nothing short of brilliant – when you think someone is going to catch it in the face they don’t. Eventually, they do, of course, but it does a great job of keeping you on your toes even after multiple viewings.
I’m not sure where to even begin with the parasitic face-huggers other than to say, well, gross! I’ve read some allusions to male rape and the androgynous images throughout but if you’re taking the time to read ol’ doug’s blurbs, I’m not going to elaborate, however I must further mention the art design and special effects. H.R. Giger’s design of the alien and sets is unmatched in its creepiness and melding of the organic and mechanical as well as the previously mentioned androgyny. This film was made in 1979! 1979! This was a mere two years after Star Wars and even though its only beginning to show its age in this regard, it was astounding for its time. The fight with Ash is not a special effects highlight certainly, but when they turn Ash back on, it makes up for it by being one of the tensest moments in the film - a fantastic performance by Ian Holm.
In addition to the problem with the special effects during the fight with Ash, it is not a perfect movie, although the flaws are minor in my opinion. There’s a scene of apparent rain in a cargo bay. Maybe it’s condensation, but you could argue that it didn’t make any sense. The self-destruct feature seems out of place on a commercial tow vehicle, but it could be argued that it was put in place for the very reason it was used for, except that the quarantine procedures, albeit their subversion, would seem an adequate measure. It’s a little overboard to design a self-destruct sequence in case the crew gets out of line. As we find out in “Aliens,” the company was most distressed by the destruction of the ship, so why have that “feature?” I’m grasping here to find negative points, so I’ll end on another positive one – the blu-ray makes me very happy. It includes the theatrical release and the director’s cut. I’ve read that Ridley Scott got the cut he wanted for the theatrical release and says the director’s cut is not necessarily preferred – it’s more of an alternate cut. I watched the theatrical release. The transfer is beautiful. I can’t wait to watch the others in the series.
More info:
"Alien" Wikipedia article
"Alien" IMDB entry
Even the trailer is great. Embedding is disabled for it, so hop on over to YouTube to check it out.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Raging Bull
I christened my Blu-Ray player with "Raging Bull" - a Scorsese flick I'm ashamed to admit I hadn't seen. This is an amazing film - I think I was struck most by the use of cameras, women and fighting (natch) during slow-motion sequences. All of them are loved and, at times, manipulated well by Lamotta, but ultimately destroy him. This was Pesci's first major film and he is spectacular. I need to see "Ordinary People" again, but I can't imagine how that beat this out for best picture in 1980.
I think I stayed away from this movie because of my general queasiness with blunt-force, pugilistic trauma. After seeing it, I will probably not watch it again because my fears were realized. However, the cinematography is breath-taking and was worth the pain.
I think I stayed away from this movie because of my general queasiness with blunt-force, pugilistic trauma. After seeing it, I will probably not watch it again because my fears were realized. However, the cinematography is breath-taking and was worth the pain.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
To Have and Have Not
I watched Howard Hawks's "To Have and Have Not" film (loosely) based upon Ernest Hemingway's novel of the same name. This was Humphrey Bogart's (Harry "Steve" Morgan) and Lauren Bacall's (Marie "Slim" Browning) first movie together - they purportedly fell in love during the filming. Their chemistry is undeniable. Walter Brennan plays Eddie, Harry's alcoholic friend. Brennan's Eddie is a little over the top to our modern tastes, I think, but is lovable none the less. The Germans are a little curious as the head officer appears Samoan, but I'm sure the Germans enlisted creeps both far and wide.
The story isn't what you watch this movie for. You watch it for Bacall's and Bogart's performances, waiting for the classic lines such as "put your lips together and blow." As a bonus, Hoagy Carmichael plays Cricket, and provides a couple of velvet-voiced performances.
The story isn't what you watch this movie for. You watch it for Bacall's and Bogart's performances, waiting for the classic lines such as "put your lips together and blow." As a bonus, Hoagy Carmichael plays Cricket, and provides a couple of velvet-voiced performances.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)