Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Woody Allen, USA / Spain, 2008
3 out of 4 stars

I’m not sure what to make of this movie. A spoiler-heavy review that I read after I’d decided not to see this movie (a decision I obviously reversed) indicated that it was just another example of Allen’s simplistic, misogynist depictions of women, which possibly primed me to react unfavorably when the two titular protagonists were introduced via a condescending, brutally reductive monologue, delivered by an unseen, apparently omniscient male narrator. These women are clearly presented as types; one is free-spirited, the other is straight-laced, and while they may not do what you (on the most superficial level) might expect them to do at all times, they largely stay true to their characterizations.

So is this misogyny, or merely a kind of (im)morality play, with the characters representing life paths rather than real people, and the narration constituting a judicious use of what Bertolt Brecht called the alienation effect (with which, I must confess, I have only a passing familiarity)? As the film progressed, with the narration continuing but becoming more infrequent, I found myself more accommodating of the latter hypothesis, and later, my female friend did point out that the men are easily more loathsome or pathetic (usually not at once) than the women, hands down. I’m not sure that debunking the misogyny accusation is as simple as merely pointing that out, but there’s something to it.

Overall, then, it’s an entertaining film with some dubious values (I don’t know just how laughable I should regard the depiction of “European men,” for one thing, as the one presented here seems more like a cinematic cliché than anything). I laughed quite a bit throughout, although I wasn’t always sure if I was supposed to be laughing (which, I suppose, is better than being sure that you’re not supposed to be laughing). I don’t quite recommend it, largely because there does seem to be a certain emptiness of purpose here, but it’s not that bad either.

Source: MGM 35mm print
22 Aug, 9:30 PM

A Moment of Romance

(Tian ruo you qing)
Benny Chan, Hong Kong, 1990
2 out of 4 stars

A jewelry heist leads to a getaway, which leads to a hostage situation, which leads the most carelessly-run police lineup I’ve seen in a film (who knows if the Hong Kong police were or still are that careless), which to an unlikely, and somewhat poorly-motivated, love between a triad (Andy Lau) and a well-off, sheltered young woman (Wu Shien-lien. The English title is perhaps misleading in that the majority of the “moments” in the film are devoted to “romance.” The gangster plot, while crowded with violent but ill-defined feuding bigshots whose machinations are difficult to follow, is mostly relegated to the backdrop.

Despite all this, A Moment of Romance is a particularly unfocused film even in its brief 90 or so minutes. Characterization is all but nonexistent; instead all the principles, including a “sidekick” who hints at being developmentally challenged, are just one-dimensional stock characters, which is perhaps unsurprising considering that the plot is also quite clichéd; there are a couple flirtations with moral ambiguity, but even those seem to be rote in the context of the overall film. Furthermore, nothing about how the film unfolded encouraged me to relate to the characters or to be concerned about their fates; the closest I came to that was a highly-detached, mild curiosity about which of the several conventional paths the filmmakers would take as the ending loomed (and it’s not all that hard to guess, either).

Of course, style can sometimes make up for these failings, but despite some promising flourishes in the early car chase sequence, there is little about the film that is stylistically compelling either. As is typical of even the better Hong Kong films from this era, the music is uninformly horrible, either baroque or repetitive, and at least three interminable Cantopop song montages caused me to decrease the volume. Honestly, it wasn’t an entirely painful experience, but I’m at a loss as to why this was recommended on various websites (I forget which, exactly). Perhaps it was more a product of its time than anything, or perhaps I just don’t appreciate the style.

Source: Tai Seng DVD
17 Aug, 11:06 PM

The Godfather

Francis Ford Coppola, USA, 1972
3.5 out of 4 stars

The key question here is, was the enjoyment I got from actually, finally watching The Godfather greater than the entertainment value I got from all the times people asked me, dumbfoundedly, “you’ve never watched The Godfather?!” As much as I would like to be a perverse contrarian (I admit it), yes, it was worth the trade-off.

There is, however, something of a profound miscalculation involved in watching a film like this when one is already 27 years old, which is to say that almost nothing in film could seem as familiar as this. I’m usually not that good at anticipating things, but this time I was able to see almost every murder or atrocity coming. Recognizing the origin not only of well-worn but sometimes-amusing catchphrases, not to mention the entire gangster genre as we know it today, with its tortured attitude towards glamorization of the practice, is fun in a way, but also invariably distancing.

The fact is, some seminal, watershed films were not as heavily imitated (because people didn’t “get it” at the time) and still have amazing power even now, while some were a bit too successful and as such can be robbed of their power by the legion of imitators that one may have had the misfortune to have seen first. Let me just say that the story is compelling, but moreso in the beginning, that the characters are interesting, but not especially complex, that the depiction of and attitude towards women could have been worse, but is still pretty pitiful (so what is the point of Michael’s first marriage, exactly?), and that (and this is perhaps the most regrettable) expectations for hyper-violence and confrontation have been inordinately escalated to the point where this film seems, dare I say it, quaint in some aspects. That we, the bloodthirsty mail viewers, don’t entirely get what we want (even if, at the time, we might not have known that we wanted it), constitutes one of the few suggestions that we should actually not admire and envy the mafia; of course, the glamour is there in enough quantity that that is not the overall message most young men got from the film (in particular, an entire generation of “gangsta rappers” who made names like Corleone even more familiar for me).

I am a bit curious about seeing the next one, as I could readily imagine how it might indeed be better. I will probably wait a while, though.

Source: Paramount DVD
8 Aug, 8:08 PM

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Guillermo del Toro, USA / Germany, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

I was greatly relieved to see that this film actually was a tremendous improvement upon its predecessor; the potential was clearly there in the firs tone, and it was finally lived up to here! I would go so far as to say that if you haven’t seen either film, you could go ahead and just see this one, as I don’t think that the sequence is particularly crucial here (a prologue sequence primarily sets up the plot but also gets viewers up to speed on the premise).

Just as I had read, there were in fact many more monsters in this film, part of an overall improvement in visual effects and all-out imaginativeness. The fight scenes are filmed more dynamically, and have more variety in how they are carried out. The pacing is worlds better than it was before; whereas before I was frequently bored by the languid scenes of character interactions, here I was laughing quite frequently, and I was otherwise invested in what happened to the characters. The plot is much more interesting, but also much less convoluted, and the villain, while still not portrayed by the most compelling actor, at least has a stronger motivation and a more interesting and even poignant scheme.

Finally, to only is Rupert Evans’ putrid “regular guy” character gone, but there is no attempt to create another character to take his place. Instead, Jeffrey Tambor is given more screen time in his often-hilarious role as the hapless, incompetent human handler of the “weirdos,” and in his case, I thought they did a good job of building upon his relationship with Hellboy as it stood at the end of the last one.

That does however lead to the one complaint I had, which is that the principle characters’ attitudes regarding regular human agents of the BPRD (Hellboy’s bureau), already somewhat callous before, has become starker, particularly in the beginning of the film, and whereas Hellboy at least was chastised for it then, it goes completely unremarked upon here. While I understand that his character is supposed to have some sort of “edge,” it doesn’t quite work with his colleagues. It might be peevish to object to the time-honored use of canon fodder, and I’m not doing so on grounds of “realism” (the female lead should have been killed within the first 10 minutes, but it’s not as if I actually want to see that), but more on moral grounds, as the idea that the non-special people are expendable is one that, in fact, I do find objectionable.

Source: Universal 35mm print
4 Aug, 8 PM

Get Carter

Mike Hodges, UK, 1971
2 out of 4 stars

At first, I felt sheepish about not getting into this more, as the plot (gangster Jack Carter leaves London for Newcastle because something about his brother’s death seems suspicious to him) isn’t even clear without reading the Netflix sleeve (for once I was glad that I did), at least not until about 15 minutes into the film, and because everything moves really slowly. Because this is a gangster film, you know that you will eventually get some carnage, but (and perhaps there is something to be said for this) it’s far some satisfying when you do (although I did let out some grim chuckles here and there). It was around the time that Jack started doling out comeuppance that I realized that I was, surprise, under no obligation to consider this a good film.

I actually tend to think of myself as someone who’s fairly fond of antiheroes, but Jack Carter makes me realize just how warm and fuzzy most contemporary antiheroes really are. The only thing that keeps you on his side is that he is trying to avenge a clear wrong; it’s equally clear that no one would ever root for him in any other situation. That’s another way of saying that crime itself is not even remotely glamorized here, which I suppose is also commendable.

Yes, Jack lacks flair for the most part, and he mostly lacks humor (and unquestionably lacks romance). I’m sure that it’s still possible to make an engrossing movie centered around an entirely despicable, joyless character with no redeeming or endearing qualities, but this doesn’t quite seem to be it. I respect what Caine and the filmmakers were trying to do, and the more I think about it, the more I do consider it to be “responsible” in a perverse sort of way, but I can’t consider it entertaining. The film itself does contain a few interesting shots, but is overall similarly lacking in flair. And I suppose it goes without saying that the sexual politics of this film are quite heinous. I can’t say it’s bad er se, but I can’t say that it’s recommended either.

Source: Warner DVD
31 Jul, 8:42 PM