Across the Universe

Julie Taymor, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

So, you all know that this is the musical based entirely upon songs by The Beatles, right? Plot-wise, there's not that much to tell. I feel like I saw this movie already in that network minseries from a few years back entitled The 60s, and in any case, the attempt to "tell the story of the 60s" in some impossibly all-encompassing manner seems pretty well-worn by now, so really all the film has going for it is the high concept. The characters are trite, the politics are verging upon the irresponsible, and the film really starts wobbling around the halfway mark when it tries to get serious.

I stand by all these objections, but for the most part, they occurred to me after the film was over. Maybe it's because I grew up watch musicals and MTV, and therefore have a tendency to imagine myself, while walking to or around campus, in some kind of music video, but I really felt captivated from this movie from the beginning. I don't really know how this movie rates against the best musicals, but it represents my idea of what a musical should be in that it does not shy away from including singing in real, lived-in spaces, as did, for instance, Chicago with its lame cut-aways to imaginary stage sets. To me, all the charm of the musical form is summed up right in that scene where people dance and sing in the bowling alley. It wasn't even one of my favorite numbers, but it looks like something I probably have, at least once, imagined myself.

So, I think one of the good aspects of the high concept is that it enabled the filmmakers to make (what I consider) a real musical. Another bonus is that they seem to feel the need to treat the Beatles songs well and give us, across the board, actors with strong vocal chops who deliver often beautiful renditions (I particularly enjoyed the songs by female lead Evan Rachel Wood and soul singer/guitarist Martin Luther McCoy, whom I've seen in concert with The Roots). I'm sure that not including any vocally-impaired stars helped contribute to the dismal box office, but it's probably the only way we can get a movie musical that actually sounds good (dismal reports are already coming in about the quality of the A-list cast's singing in Sweeney Todd). The only real objection I have here is that Jim Sturgess, while also a good singer, delivers vocal performances that, perhaps deliberately so, are too similar to that of originals (albeit with an obvious musical-theater flavoring). Such mimicry defeats the purpose of a reinvention, in my opinion.

Finally we come to the visual styling of Julie Taymor, which I found, here, to be more distracting and less essential than they were in the superior, if certainly less fun to watch, Titus. Taymor seems to know that her love story is, to put it lightly, far from original, but she tries to punch it up with awkwardly abstract set pieces that ultimately don't belong in the film.

If you weigh the pros and cons, the faults probably outnumber the virtues, but anyone who can't stop themselves from humming a tune here and there will probably appreciate this film at least on a visceral level.

Source: Sony 35mm print
16 Oct, 7 PM

3:10 to Yuma

James Mangold, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

As we all know, the Western used to be one of a few dominant genres, until people starting losing their nostalgia for the wild west (actually I don't know why the western declined, or even precisely when) and the western went all but extinct. Then in the 70s, various filmmakers started making occasional "deconstructionist" Western films, and this trend has continued, off and on, to this day. Of course, we can go years without a major western and then end up with two in the same month. I tend to assume that this is a genre I enjoy, but while I enjoyed this film, I'm not sure that it leaves me wanting to spend another three hours with people in cowboy hats within the next few weeks. I am, it seems, a postmodern consumer of westerns, someone who appreciates them because they haven't been dominant in a long time.

That said, I also bring up the "deconstructionist" thing because it's not entirely clear that this is that kind of film. One brings these assumptions to the table, particularly considering the respectable acting talent (Christian Bale and Russell Crowe) and the lack of attempt to convert the thing into a modern action film, but whereas the film has certain unnerving things to say about heroism, order, law, and masculinity, I'm not sure that, ultimately, any of these things really subverts the western genre.

This may well be because it's a remake of a film from exactly 50 years prior, and I wonder if my opinion of it wouldn't be lower if I'd seen the original. While not a long film, the 2007 version is about 30 minutes longer than the original, and you can imagine that almost the entire extra half-hour is plugged in there at the beginning. I say this because the film is very meandering for about that length of time, until the villain (Crowe) is apprehended. You can't even really say that there is any buildup going on during this time, as the plot is not even apparent yet. Instead, the filmmakers seem to be, quite leisurely, setting the scene, but they also don't seem to be saying that much during this time.

Instead, all the meaning and most of the characterization comes when the journey to take Crowe's character to Yuma begins. Whereas up to this point I figured I would just gently tolerate this film, I found myself really enjoying the characters, the portrayal of the characters by the actors, and the conflict of wills and ideas. It is the kind of film where you can correctly speculate about three of the four things that are going to happen, and it's also the kind of film where the teenager is just really annoying even as you understand that you're supposed to be witnessing his journey or some rot. Nonetheless, it is, at least without seeing the film it's based on, a very solid, enjoyable western, with, yes, some good action to boot.

Source: Lionsgate 35mm print
29 Sep, 9:30 PM

Grand Illusion

(La Grande illusion)
Jean Renoir, France, 1938
3 out of 4 stars

This classic film attempts to deal with the legacy of the first world war, as the countries involved teetered on the verge of the next one. It's an interesting exercise, albeit one that is perhaps almost lost on a 21st century American. Of course, the first thing that struck me was the unreal, "gentleman-like" manner in which the French officers are treated after they are captured and placed in the officer's prison camp. It's obvious, but it's still quite amazing to see the ways in which the class structure took precedence over nationalism even in times of war. This is still effective today, because this phenomenon was basically put to death by the war depicted (offscreen) here, and we regard it today with as much puzzlement as viewers then would have (okay, probably more).

If you've seen the film, however, you'll object to my over-simplification of the special treatment recieved by officers as due to the class structure. In fact, I assumed it was that simple for at least the first half of the film, because I was blind to the subtle, but frequent hints of class difference between the officers themselves. It was only after a complete change of scenery that these issues came surging to the surface. It's probably not a coincidence, then, that I really didn't appreciate this second half anywhere near as much as the first half, as I didn't really understand what the source of the conflict was until it was, finally, spelled out for me (and the fact that the film eventually does so indicates that these issues were perhaps already a bit muddled for some people as of 1933). The conflict itself is interesting, but it does feel a bit protracted. Finally, the film concludes with a fairly-tired road/buddy movie sequence that, thankfully, doesn't last all that long. I imagine that even this part of the film is probably more influential than tired, but some things are hard to appreciate in retrospect.

So, just to sum up, I was pretty impressed by the portion of the film that takes place in the first concentration camp. The message was clear and the surreal nature of the proceedings kept me interested. After that part, the film was still strong, but it was harder for me to relate to it, and by the end, I felt like everything had been dragged out for longer than necessary. Considering that this is a revered classic, it's probably not a fair judgment, but it's mine nonetheless!

Source: Home Vision DVD
19 Aug, 8:35 PM

Stardust

Matthew Vaughn, UK / USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

In a recent interview, Neil Gaiman wonders aloud whether this new film adaptation of his illustrated fantasy novella can really make a go of it, explaining that it is "the thing itself" whereas something established in popularity such as Shrek is "a comedy... that's making fun of the thing." After seeing it, I was tempted to disagree with him, as this film does not, by any means, play things as straightforward as the two major fantasy franchises of our day. That said, Shrek is probably the closest cousin in terms of subject matter (the faux medieval, rather than the pre-medieval or modern) and, furthermore, the film's gross is singularly unimpressive, particularly considering how in vogue fantasy is today.

That's a shame, because this was a film that I thought really struck the perfect balance between mocking and embracing the conventions inherent in the "fairy tale" genre (if there is such a thing anymore). Admittedly, you could very easily make the critique that this film is just a parade of zany and whimsical characters with a quest that barely even qualifies as a quest tying them together. All this is somewhat true, but there is a real charm to the proceedings, and a real love of fantasy is apparent, but the filmmakers also show that they are not blind to the absurdities of it. The platitudes that it espouses, about people being free to understand and appreciate their uniqueness, are familiar, yet appreciated, and the chemistry between the two leads is strong. Definitely a strong effort.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
17 Aug, 1 PM

The Twilight Samurai

(Tasogare Seibei)
Yamada Yoji, Japan, 2002
3.5 out of 4 stars

This is either the world's slowest action movie, or it contains the best couple of fight scenes you could ever expect to see in a historical romance, but either way, it's a surprisingly effective film because of, not in spite of, its languorous pace. Through occasional flashback voice overs, a woman tells us about her samurai father, Seibei, who raised her and her sister after their mother died and found, perhaps to his surprise, a contented, if difficult existence in which he was focused not on raising his meager status or on drinking at the bar with his co-workers (he seems to be an accountant, actually), but on taking care of them. Seibei's priorities, however, generate some negative attention from his superiors and colleagues alike. is If this doesn't sound like enough to base a plot on, there's also a female childhood friend involved, in addition to the occasional hints that the age of the samurai is very quickly nearing an end, leading to questions about everyone's role in society.

This may well sound like a downer, but actually, it is a very hopeful and engaging movie, and when people make choices that are, to put it lightly, not exactly audience-pleasing, there is always some clear, understandable motivation behind it. I don't know if this is what the samurai was "really" like (and in fact, Seibei is not supposed to be a regular samurai at all, or even a typical man for his time), but it certainly gives a well-rounded, full realized portrayal on the individual, family, and cultural levels, and is all the more rewarding for when the action actually does come (by which point I really didn't expect it at all).

Source: Empire DVD
15 Aug, 9:14 PM

The Bourne Ultimatum

Paul Greengrass, USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

First off, I should mention that there's this theater in the Ontario Mills mall, not far from where my uncle lives, that has three mega-sized screens, and after going to see stuff there for years when we visited, my mother and I finally managed to see something in the largest of the three screens. The movie thus fully consumed my field of vision, and the sound was also booming.

I mention all this because I can't help but suspect that it was probably in a factor in my deciding that this is easily the best film in the Bourne series. To be honest, I was somewhat surprised that the first one was so well-regarded, as it seemed like typical fare to me. The second one made a more favorable impression, but I did wonder, after watching it, if Paul Greengrass' jerky, pseudo-documentary camera technique wasn't better suited for pieces like United 93 than for action films (Greengrass did not direct the first film, by the way).

Indeed, I had the same questions as this film opened; actually, I was initially worried that I was going to get some combination of nausea and whiplash from seeing this kind of camerawork on this size of screen. Instead, I felt particularly engaged in the action, in a way that I haven't felt in a while. I do suspect that the only thing that's really changed between this film in the last is the medium I saw it in, hence my disclaimer above.

That said, i did find the storyline to be a lot less impenetrable this time. Some might point out that shortcuts were taken, or perhaps claim that the story was more sophisticated in the last film. However, I felt that I really appreciated the clarity with with the conflict was drawn. The primary villain, played by David Strathairn, is a CIA man whose methods will not be unfamiliar to anyone who has been paying attention to the news about renditions, secret prisons, and so on, giving this film a much-needed jolt of relevance. Bourne's attitudes towards the goings-on aren't always clear, but a strong supporting cast anchored by Joan Allen and Julia Stiles facilitates a strong, compelling conflict centered around these issues. It might be cheating to tie in Bourne's brainwashing campaign to the recent news of CIA misbehavior, but it felt like it was well-earned to me. I strongly recommend this film!

Source: Universal 35mm print
6 Aug, 2:15 PM

The Maltese Falcon

John Huston, USA, 1941
4 out of 4 stars

I first saw this film before graduate school, and I have now shown it three times for the last class in the composition series. The last time, I went out for a sandwich at one point, so I don't consider that a "full" viewing.

The time before that, I registered some displeasure at the one time that my students laughed. Well, if that's truly a bad thing, then I should have been out of my mind this time, as a big chunk of my students laughed numerous times throughout the movie. Actually, one student later explained in office hours that one of her peers in that corner of the room had a very contagious laugh, which makes a lot of sense, if only because I found myself laughing quite a bit as well!

So, did it take the serendipity of a giggly 19-year-old woman to reveal that The Maltese Falcon was actually a comedy after all? I think that's going a bit far, but it did make me think more carefully about the obvious fact of how ridiculous many elements are - deliberately, mind you. Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre), the walking gay/foreign stereotype is always throwing these absurd fits, while Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) at one point throws his own fit, just to get his foes into the right mindset (why this works is unclear, but it certianly does, and he calms down as soon as he leaves the room, to let us know he was just kidding - he doesn't really have that much emotion!).

I'm not sure I have much more to add than that for this viewing. I did raise the rating by a half star, if only because I'm not sure that I can find a whole half-star worth of flaws in this movie (does it really matter that much that Mary Astor is not that convincing? Maybe she's not supposed to be).

Source: Warner special edition DVD
24 July, 11:30 AM

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

David Yates, UK / USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I’m sure anyone that’s talked to me is tired of hearing me say how much better The Prisoner of Azkaban is than any of the other films, not to mention me going on about how it’s probably better because it’s possibly the most unfaithful adaptation. To be honest, I’m mostly going off of what other people say, as I usually don’t remember the book to well by the time the movie version comes out, although as the gap between the two shortens, that’s gradually changing.

Well, I wasn’t too thrilled with The Goblet of Fire, but this film, the fifth installment, does seem to be an improvement, even if, from what I read, the changes that were made were fairly superficial; this, as I explained to my friends, who were generally less impressed with it, probably prevents the film from being better than it is, as we should be able to recognize that film as a medium has different story requirements than a novel (to put it mildly).

What bothered me about The Goblet of Fire was that it seemed to be a clip show, a “greatest hits” of the book, and that there was no real attempt to lend coherency to the narrative, as there had been in the third film. I don’t know if it’s the new director, the screenwriter learning from his mistakes, or just a more adaptable narrative in the novel itself, but this film definitely achieves thematic unity. To my friends, this mean that it was less action packed, but to me, Imelda Staunton’s bone-chilling portrayal of super-evil Stepford bureaucrat Delores Umbridge will stick in my head much longer than the dimly-remembered CGI hodgepodge of the last film. (Not to mention that Staunton was over-the-top in a more suitable fashion than most of her scenery-chewing predecessors). The same can be said for the final confrontation, which, while somewhat unsatisfying in terms of narrative, at least hit the right geek chord (I’ll be vague here, just in case).

What’s funny, I suppose, is that I figured that the fourth film would lack appeal for those who hadn’t read the film due to its disconnected nature, while the unity of the fifth film would be more appealing to them. My friends, however, have not read the books, and reacted in the opposite manner, as detailed above. It seems that it’s actually quite hard to guess what interpretative choices would be better for someone who’s coming to the material from a different place.

Source: Warner 35mm print
20 July, 7:30 PM

Ratatouille

Brad Bird, USA, 2007
4 out of 4 stars

In the first segment, I really wasn’t sure about this film. “Where is this going?” I wondered. Later on, I realized how nice it was not to know where everything was going, as almost everything that happened, even most of the major characters, came as a complete surprise. I don’t know how much the trailers have been giving away, but I guess it helps that I haven’t seen a movie in theaters since Spider-Man 3 and that I no longer have cable.

As for the film itself, well, it’s “heartwarming” in the good way, without the schmaltzy or annoying connotations that word usually has. Having skipped Cars, it’s a real joy to see both Pixar and director Brad Bird delivering a perfect follow-up to The Incredibles, providing a populist balance to the previous film’s vaguely elitist philosophy, as well as effectively achieving the elusive balance between the depiction of the human world and the anthropomorphized rat world (so much so that I objected, verbally, to the portrayal of a different kind of interaction in the trailer for Bee Movie that I saw later, as if Ratatouille should in fact be the last word on that). Finally, it portrays the French in a very-endearing warts-and-all manner that speaks fairly effectively to some real issues in their culture, certainly a better depiction than you might expect from the guy who brought us Bomb Voyage in his last film.

Source: Buena Vista 35mm print
6 July, 7:40 PM

The Thin Man

W.S. Van Dyke, USA, 1934
3 out of 4 stars

A few months back, NPR did a brief feature on the Thin Man series, explaining how what started as a throwaway, low-budget B picture, starring actors who were either no-names or washed out, actually gave rise to a mega-popular franchise based entirely on the witty banter and touching chemistry between the mystery-solving married couple. Having rented the film based on this description, I couldn’t help but be disappointed when the detective ditched his wife whenever it was time to actually do any sleuthing. Admittedly, it might beggar belief that he would bring his wife along to potentially violent encounters, but I can’t help but wonder if there is more of a sense of actual partnership, at least as far as the cases go, in successive films, after the producers realized what the draw really was. As for the film itself, it certainly has more filler than one might like, particularly since it’s only 90 minutes long, but the repartee between the two leads is quite entertaining, and there is an effective use of slapstick humor, much of it involving their very cute dog. And despite the separate beds we see the couple sleeping in, there is no shortage of often-hilarious innuendo; even my clueless students, who asserted in their papers that no one has sex in The Maltese Falcon, oughta be able to recognize the passion between this couple. I figured that the writers were just pushing the limits of the Hayes Code, but after a bit of research, it appears that this film was released about a month before the Code was actually enforced. If I do get around to watching the next film in the series, it will be interesting to see if and how the innuendo is reigned in.

Source: Warner DVD
30 June, 10:10 PM

Breaking News

(Daai si gin)
Johnnie To, Hong Kong / China, 2004
3 out of 4 stars

The film kicks off with a violent confrontation between police and robbers, in which a beat cop is caught in the fray and, what’s worse, caught on camera looking particularly unheroic. This opening sequence is a setup for an hostage plot in which the commanding officer’s main goal is to craft a counternarrative for the media in order to restore her department’s credibility and public image.

The word “satire” popped into my head as I thought about how to describe this movie, but aside from some typically dubious uses of technology, the film avoids that slightly-exaggerated, larger-than-life tone of most satirical films. Indeed, it’s commentary on how PR holds equal importance with solving crime for police today is not particularly subtle, but it does constitute an interesting angle for what could have otherwise been a rote police drama. I find it interesting that, for the most part, the filmmakers refrain from condemning anyone overtly. This leads to less of the usual hand-wringing and finger pointing that we might expect from an American mainstream film attempting to tackle this subject.

The main downside to this film is that characterization is very slight. This is, of course, a film without much filler or prologue, so this decision seems to have been deliberate. I must confess, however, that I do like characterization, and without it, the connections between the characters sometimes seem hard to understand or unearned. It’s also a little difficult to see how the stock “renegade cop” character really ties in to the central commentary of the film, except until maybe the end, and that doesn’t seem to be that crucial, really. It’s almost as if his character is a major concession to the “bread and circuses” reality of mainstream film, something that is as much of an issue in Hong Kong as it is here, in all honesty.

Source: UMVD DVD
10 June, 8:27 PM

Devil in a Blue Dress

Carl Franklin, USA, 1995
2 out 4 stars

I always find it tiresome when a reviewer, or just someone with whom I’m having a conversation, starts off on how the book was so much better, and how the movie was bad because they changed things, and how dare they. When it comes to some recent franchises, I am strongly in favor of the plot alterations made by Peter Jackson and his screenwriting partners, and Alfonso Cuarón’s Harry Potter film is the best in part because it is the least slavishly faithful of the films that have been released so far.

Of course, the reason that I hold these opinions is because I believe Jackson and Cuarón each show better storytelling instincts than Tolkein or Rowling, or, if that’s too blasphemous for you, let’s just say that they know what works for cinema. So when I complain that Carl Franklin’s film seems to miss the point of Walter Mosley’s book in almost every way possible and is almost completely inferior, I hope that I’m merely recognizing that Franklin clearly falls short of Mosley. Even so, I have taught this book twice now and, in a month, will probably teach it for the third time, so I do wonder if I haven’t reached the point that so many others have, at which I am no longer receptive to an alternate version.

Suffice it to say that this is one of my least favorite noir films, perhaps because Denzel Washington’s character never really gets his hands dirty like the book’s protagonist, Easy Rawlins, does. The narration that he recites and the moral dilemmas he goes through just seem like going through the motions compared with the original. Indeed, although I like Washington, he is too unambiguous here. Don Cheadle, who plays an antihero of sorts, would have made a much better Easy. Considering that, even in 2004, Hotel Rwanda had to be made independently so that Cheadle instead of Washington, it’s safe to say that the studio system’s very narrow list of black stars considered “marketable” mandated casting here – to the detriment of the film. What’s perhaps harder to understand is why almost all the other characters seem miscast as well.

Most of the film just falls flat, in the end analysis. Franklin certainly missed the point of the book in many ways, which is not to say that the book is perfect; indeed, any adaptation would have to “fix” many awkward or confusing elements in it. Unfortunately, the fixes attempted here mostly just expose new holes.

Source: Sony VHS
2 June, 8:24 PM

Ali G Indahouse

Mark Mylod, UK / France / Germany, 2002
2.5 out of 4 stars

I was enjoying myself during the larger part of this movie’s running time, so I figured that I would give it a good rating. However, as I sat down to review it, I increasingly felt defeated by the film in my attempt to assess its quality, as if the idea of “quality” didn’t really apply to a film like this. It’s a lot easier when you’re just repelled by an often-disgusting, plotless film just as this, in which case you can dismiss it as dreck or whatever. I started to wonder if I even wanted to continue “reviewing” films here, considering that movie-watching is taking up less of my time lately, but some kind words from friends encouraged me to continue on, reviewing this film quite a while after the fact.

So, is this a good movie? No, although neither is it an awful film. Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but it’s possible to enjoy a movie even though it is not very good, although I will say that if the whole film had been funny, I probably would rate it higher. I think it starts off fairly strong, particularly in the south-central Los Angeles fantasy scene, and in the scenes in Ali G’s hometown of Staines. It starts to show the cracks around the time Ali makes it to Parliament, and, strangely, becomes less and less funny as it tries to put together a plot near the end. Everything is capped off with a protracted closing sequence that isn’t even remotely amusing.

You see, unlike Borat, here Sacha Baron Cohen is interacting with actors throughout, and there is not even an attempt to feign a “documentary” aesthetic. This frees sensitive souls such as myself from any need to feel sorry for the people he harasses, but it also robs the film of any pretensions of “outsider commentary” (and perhaps one could observe that said pretensions are exposed from the get-go by the reminder that Baron Cohen started his career by harassing his own countrymen). This just seems like the kind of movie a former cast member of Saturday Night Live would make, if slightly-more-inspired film than those efforts. And finally, Baron Cohen sure seems to put the truth to David Sedaris’ assertion that straight people spend too much time thinking about gay sex (I don’t even know if his “interest” is homophobic or not, it’s too weird to even be sure).

Source: Cinemax on demand
25 May, 9:17 PM

The Painted Veil

John Curran, China / USA, 2006
3 out of 4 stars

Those of you that are familiar with my kneejerk leftism will know that I’m no big fan of “white people in Asia” movies – I prefer to let the Asians speak for themselves, to put it bluntly. Nevertheless, this picture, aside from The Quiet American, is one of the better examples of this kind of film. The focus is on the spoiled socialite wife (Naomi Watts), and her microbiologist husband (Edward Norton), who find themselves acting out the ups and downs of all-but-arranged marriage against the backdrop first of Shanghai, then later of rural China, as Norton’s character tries to stem a cholera outbreak.

The perspective of the film is such that it does not try to instill the couple with an unrealistic level of insight regarding their complicity in 1920s Europeans imperialism. It does not shy away from pointing out these issues, but it also manages to avoid heavy-handedness. Ultimately, the movie really is about the trials of the couple themselves, and the actors both do a good job with some shifts and changes that might have seemed absurd if acted out by others. Finally, the cinematography is certainly nothing to sneer at.

Source: Warner DVD
19 May, 9:59 PM

Volver

Pedro Almodóvar, Spain, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

Certainly, Almodóvar retains his interesting, bright visual style, although it doesn’t seem quite as distinctive overall. And he continues spotlighting the generational traumas and triumphs of women and whatnot. Yet despite all that, this film fell fall short of the only other one I’ve seen by him, All About My Mother. There is much here that should be involving, but I felt strangely uninvolved for the most part. Despite the serious issues at play, the plot is structured in a manner that felt either like a sitcom or a soap opera, I’m not quite sure which. It’s also all over the map; threads get dropped or deemphasized at will, leaving me unsure as to what I was really supposed to be paying attention to.

If I’ve been vague about what happens in this film so far, it’s because anything that is really important happens after a good 30 minutes is past, which is generally my vague cut-off point for giving away plot details (this rather conservative spoilerphobe policy is a direct response to all those TV and film trailers, not to mention TV listing and DVD box covers, that carelessly tell you everything that’s gonna happen). To give you some kind of hint, though, just let me tell you the apparent use of magical realism was one of the more interesting things about the film, and I felt more than a bit let down once I realized how this element was actually being put to use. That might just be my fault, and perhaps I just wasn’t in the mood for this film, but as it is, I did not enjoy it very much.

Source: Sony DVD
13 May, 9:27 PM

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

George Roy Hill, USA, 1969
3.5 out of 4 stars

My parents showed me this film on videotape when I was a teenager, and then, on DVD, I’ve seen it in a composition class and now again as a projectionist for a lower-division film class. Each time, it holds up as an effective, entertaining deconstruction of the Western ethos, even in an era in which deconstruction is a dime a dozen. To be honest, I don’t think I knew much at all about what was being deconstructed the first time I saw this film, as, much like the neo-noir of the 1970s, it all ends up being “the past” for today’s generation, or even mine, so some level of genre awareness is required to understand what is transpiring (for this class, it was provided by an episode of Bonanza that I was unable to sit through due to its, well, suckiness).

That said, this kind of awareness is not necessary in order to be entertained by the film, which was evidenced by the significant amount of laughter I heard from the undergrads throughout the screening. Of course, wisecracks are that eternal, postmodern form of humor that resontates throughout the ages, but the actors clearly have good chemistry and really sell the material. I do think some parts are more uneven than others, and perhaps we have ended up with a lot of bad formula films as a result, but this film overall reminds one of how the formula can work.

Source: Fox DVD
7 May, 5:09 PM

Spider-Man 3

Sam Raimi, USA, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

So rumor has it that this film, at $250 million, surpasses Cleopatra as the most expensive movie ever made (adjusted for inflation, obviously), and while this might be an obvious angle on the latest in the spider-franchise (and one should try one’s hardest not to judge the film on the basis of what is said in the entertainment press), I can’t help but feel like they could have saved about $100 million and made a better film in the process. The third film, at 140 minutes, manages to seem both over-crowded and overly languorous.

You see, certain scenes from the second film, such as the first skyscraper fight with Dr. Octopus, or the climactic train scene, still stick with me, even though I only saw it once. Yet although the special effects are plenty bombastic and impressive here, I don’t think I will remember anything very specific about this movie even a few months later.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. I will remember Raimi’s really peculiar decision as to how to dramatize “evil Spidey.” My friend called him Emo-Spidey, whereas as the ridiculous montage of him strutting and prancing on the street continued, I was more inclined to view him as Metro-Spidey. No matter how you slice it, these scenes really take you out of the movie and into some truly bizarre, retro-musical pastiche, in which Maguire actually voices the words “dig on this” in a non-ironic manner. Huh?!?

There are other problems, mind you. The film is hyperviolent in the most disingenuous of ways; death only counts when the filmmakers want it to, to the extent that the same bomb exploding at the same range will produce entirely different results at different times. Emotionally, the film cheats as well, actually giving MJ a good reason to be mad at Pete early on, but then, about halfway through, drastically obscuring the issues at hand as if it is too distracted to really close the can of worms that it has opened.

You know, I did enjoy it, more or less. It’s just fortunate that I was expecting it to be a bit of a trainwreck thanks to what I have read. See it as long as you are expecting another installment in the cycle, but don’t go expecting any kind of culmination for the trilogy. The studio is already thinking about number four; let’s hope they learn to scale back for once.

Source: Sony 35mm print
5 May, 9 PM

Hot Fuzz

Edgar Wright, UK / France, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

If you’ve noticed the tagline “from the makers of Shaun of the Dead,” which in this case means not merely the producers but the same writers, stars, and director, then you know why I was looking forward to this film so much. In such an instance, the inevitable comparison must be made, and so I regretfully have to say that this movie is definitely not as good as their previous effort, which I rated at 4 stars, for whatever that’s worth.

That’s not to say that this isn’t a strong effort. In fact, it works on perhaps even more levels that Shaun did, although I don’t know if I’m saying that merely because I’m somewhat more familiar with the cop action genre and its clichés than I am with previous zombie horror films. Actually, I think it is fair to warn you that parts of this film are not entirely unlike a horror film, which is perhaps not that unusual for the genre.

Here, we have the meta aspect of the characters actually discussing other cop action films and comparing their own lives to it. This doesn’t merely take the shape of that lame “life isn’t a movie” type of false claim to realism that some self-referential films take, but neither is it the overly-knowing, braindead plotless “parody” of stuff like Epic Movie (which I admittedly have not seen) either.

The thing is, this is an intricately-crafted film that actually contains some good action and an interesting plot with a very chilling twist, one that I probably should have figured out early (oh sure I spotted the red herring, but I didn’t pay enough attention to most important bit of foreshadowing). The slash subtext (which seems to be rapidly becoming text) is hilarious and dead-on without being purile or homophobic, as one would expect in an American comedy. In fact, this relationship is probably the best part of the film. It just seems like, in the end, the film isn’t quite as funny as the other one, despite all that it has going for it. And although it doesn’t really bring the film down or anything, there are some peculiar ideological contradictions – it’s hard to be sure what the filmmakers are saying about the cops… perhaps nothing?

Source: Universal 35mm print
29 April, 4:30 PM

Good Night, and Good Luck

George Clooney, USA, 2005
3 out of 4 stars

A film like this raises inevitable difficulties when one sets out to evaluate it, and it is safe to say that these difficulties have been well covered by the criticism that has already been written regarding Clooney’s agit-prop resurrection of the newsman who, we are told, took down McCarthy and therefore left a lesson to us all, media people and common people alike, that we are clearly not living up to in the age of Bush II.

First, there is the question of whether this even really counts as a film. I would say yes, but just barely, and clearly filmmaking for its own sake was not key to Clooney’s agenda. It’s tempting then to ask what, exactly, this film is supposed to do. So-called intellectuals such as myself don’t really need to be educated on who McCarthy was. Perhaps I needed some education on Ed Murrow, the primary figure here, but amusingly, that has already been provided by the significant media coverage of the film. Of course, this coverage would not exist without the making of the film itself, and that leads me to conclude that the main reason that this is a motion picture is that, due to the medium, it therefore demands more attention than a book or, dare I say it, a television special, either of which might have been more appropriate for conveying this “lesson,” especially considering how much archival footage is used and how long the film spends showing us some of it.

Finally, then, we must consider how the “ignorant” would respond to such a film. I vaguely remember my roommate, who is not the brightest pulp in the package, being unsure as to what time period the damn thing took place in, but on the other hand, the undergraduate class that I watched most of it with (in my role as “projectionist”) seemed to get involved in the thing, cheering at some of Murrow’s more provocative lines.

And sure, I imagine we could have gotten the benefit of these choice tidbits from archival footage of Murrow’s show itself, but it goes back to the question of “would anyone have watched it in that case, even in a classroom?” I think the answer is no, and I have to admit that, for some reason, the film actually is pretty entertaining. It is a slight but also hard-hitting propaganda piece that has the benefit of being on the side of truth, more or less. So yeah, I recommend it, even if I’m somewhat bemused by it.

Source: Warner DVD
23 April, 6:37 PM

The Namesake

Mira Nair, India / USA, 2006
3 out of 4 stars

This is one of those movies where the progression of events is quite clear and linear, but the plot is nonetheless somewhat fluid, and not very defined. This partly results from the shifting focus from the couple that immigrates from Calcutta to New York, played by two Bollywood actors, to their American-born son, played by Kal Penn. If you've seen the trailer, you'll probably be surprised by this, as the advertising department has attempted to impose this very definite narrative on the film in which Penn's character is the sole POV and his identity crisis dilemma consumes the entire film. They do this by drawing almost all the trailer from one scene of the film, and by disrupting sequence the sequence in one key instance.

Suffice it to say, the actual movie is more interesting in that; we don't just see the son's journey towards understanding the parents and their "foreign" ways, rather we start with the parents, making us feel more understanding of their frustration with him. Overall, it's not a very didactic piece at all, and the son's identity crisis is a very subtle one. I think the performances were very effective and the film itself is rather well done, if perhaps still a bit familiar.

Source: Fox 35mm print
30 March, 1:10 PM