Clerks II

Kevin Smith, USA, 2006
2 out of 4 stars

Kevin Smith is an interesting guy. I was reading something about how his box office has never measured up to his media hype, and I think it’s largely because of Smith as a personality, whether he’s starting feuds with comic writers, dishing about the Superman production process, or prancing around in his own work. Even at his best, his films tend to be missing something, as if Smith mostly seeks to impress you by what he’s willing to bring up, rather than by what he actually says about it. Here, he tries to have it both ways, throwing both the tasteless, apropos-of-nothing comedy and the mawkish sentimentality that we’ve seen in his work before, but he doesn’t fully succeed at either. There are undeniably some hilarious bits, but there is also too much dead air, mostly consisting of unfunny shock attempts by the often-tiresome Randal, and impotent objections from Dante, the protagonist. In the harsh light of color, the actors who portray both characters seem really flat and dull, leaving the luminous Rosario Dawson to practically carry the whole movie (and she does a better job than I would have thought her capable of).

The unfunniness isn’t really caused by the plot or the sappy stuff, but this stuff doesn’t work either. Part of it is that the pathos of something like Chasing Amy is missing here, because the choices are too easy and everyone is so shallow and one-note in the first place. Ultimately, though, the thin-skinned Smith should have known better than to (rightly) mock The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King for its multiple endings, only to commit the same sin. Oh, and Jason Lee was shamefully wasted.

Source: MGM 35mm print
24 July, 10:50 PM

Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story

(A Cock and Bull Story)
Michael Winterbottom, UK, 2005
3.5 out of 4 stars

As I’ve said before, I’m sucker for meta, so my enjoyment of this film was all but guaranteed. However, aside from a disorienting ending, A Cock and Bull Story is actually quite linear, largely giving us a 24-hour period in the making of an actual Tristram Shandy film (the original British title making the point that this is not that film; presumably it was changed because we Americans genuinely don’t know what a “cock and bull story” is).

Much of it, then, consists of Steve Coogan portraying himself. He’s clearly the protagonist in Michael Winterbottom’s film, but his most of the Coogan character’s efforts are spent making sure that he will in fact be the protagonist and lead in the film that “Mark” is making. Considering that I’d never even heard of Coogan before, I was quite glad that the American DVD distributor included a trailer for the box set of his old mock talk show, which comes up several times throughout the film (and is therefore a must-view for fellow clueless yank viewers; it’s the last one that plays before you get to the menu). Even with this admittedly fuzzy knowledge, I still really enjoyed Coogan’s persona and the unerringly hilarious antics that the film provides. There’s also a lot of good observations and snarky commentary implicit in the how Winterbottom deals with high literature and high film, and the usual cluelessness that the characters, especially Coogan, have regarding both despite the task at hand. Amazingly, there is even a bit of a plot too; it’s just not Shandy’s story, although I did actually wish we’d seen a bit more of that, despite my appreciation of what I did get.

Source: Warner DVD
23 July, 2:37 PM

Collateral

Michael Mann, USA, 2004
4 out of 4 stars

There’s no denying that the flawless style of Michael Mann is the main reason this movie is as remarkable as it is. However, this is also the movie that made me a big Jamie Foxx fan, even though I’ve still never seen Ray. Much like Damon Wayons in Bamboozled, I sensed both times I watched this film that Foxx was basing his role off of one of his comic personas, specifically the passive loser. Spike Lee talks on the Bamboozled DVD about using comic (black) actors in dramatic roles because he believes they’re capable of more (and probably because he hopes to redeem the buffoonish portrayal of blacks in film) and he was right; he just had the wrong guy.

Wayans never managed to rise above the level of preprogrammed comic persona, whereas Foxx, despite my initial skepticism on the first viewing, does a fantastic job at slowly progressing his character through a sometimes-ludicrous series of transformations and epiphanies, mostly revolving around how he both reacts against and is molded by Tom Cruise’s villain character (and Cruise-as-villain seems rather prescient now that people have turned against him; today, Foxx might well have gotten the top-billing he deserved).

I’ve read criticisms about the plot in spite of the style, but honestly, I’m not bothered by any of it, not even the ending that I’ve seen criticized the most frequently. What I love about this movie is that it’s a mainstream film that beats most art films at their own game. It doesn’t actually have to be so polarized. Imagine that.

Source: Universal DVD
20 July, 8:08 PM

Not One Less

(Yi ge dou bu neng shao)
Zhang Yimou, China, 1999
4 out of 4 stars

Surprisingly, I never lost my patience or got bored while watching this, even though it is very slow, understated film in which there is a great deal of repetition and very little character development. Zhang Yimou takes us along with a 13-year-old substitute teacher, played, like the other characters, by a nonprofessional actor (the credits even tell you where each person comes from, and that most of them actually do the jobs in real life that we see them doing here).

It is fascinating to see the bonds develop between the teacher and her students almost without anyone trying. The film barely even seems like it needs a “quest,” but when one develops, the teacher’s plight is even more poignant. I will say that I’m not sure I got any great insights into the problem of “poverty in rural China,” but the mindset of the characters as Zhang shows them – obstinate and determined – was quite captivating.

Source: Sony DVD
18 July, 10 PM

Blazing Saddles

Mel Brooks, USA, 1974
3 out of 4 stars

Maybe I jinxed it by reading about how important it was too many times, but it was unquestionably funnier and a better film than The Producers, which had me beginning to wonder if Mel Brooks was anything like what he was cracked up to be. While there seem to be some lulls, Brooks overall succeeds at depicting outrageous racism, often without much humor to shield the audience or the protagonist from its blunt impact, and then succeeds in depicting an almost cartoonish comedic effort to squash it. It’s a “deconstruction” of the western in that it fills in the blanks, rather than, say, the thoughtless revisionism that leads to casting Will Smith as the lead in Wild, Wild West and hoping we’ll accept that no white character in the film notices.It is, then, interesting to see how positive and forceful the political message of this film is, considering that the most one gets out of Producers is that gays and Germans are allegedly funny. The film isn’t always a laugh-riot, but it earns our patience.

Source: Warner DVD
16 July, 9:36 PM

A Scanner Darkly

Richard Linklater, USA, 2006
4 out of 4 stars

So far, it’s the best movie I’ve seen that came out in 2006. Richard Linklater and his rotoscoping animation staff have greatly improved on the already impressive technique used in his earlier film, Waking Life, and the improvement is only helped by the use of actual characters this time around; there’s still not tons of plot, but it’s less of a patience-testing talkfest than the aforementioned film, which was nonetheless still fairly good.

Although it’s not particularly plot-driven, it’s still a narrative film (being as it is based on a Philip K. Dick novel), and so that means that we get to see this technique used toward “traditional” film towards the purpose of disrupting it. Some effects clearly need this medium to be accomplished effectively, but the nice thing about this medium is that the effects aren’t particularly different from the sight of a ashtray on the table, slightly wobbling in its color distribution. What this means is that every frame of the film is ultimately a joy to look at, which is a rare thing in film.

Surprisingly, the film is also quite hilarious, in addition to the expected morose darkness. Drug addiction is shown to be “funny” without the awful side of it somehow being erased with this depiction. This humor is mostly thanks to Robert Downey, Jr. although the other, more frequently maligned cast members hold their own fairly well. The twists and turns of who’s watching who and who’s responsible for what are politically and dramatically compelling.

Source: Warner 35mm print
11 July, 11 PM

An Inconvenient Truth

Davis Guggenheim, USA, 2006
3.5 out of 4 stars

At first, I figured that a movie based on a PowerPoint presentation didn’t really need to be seen on the big screen, but having finally succumbed to good buzz from friends and media, I found that I was mistaken after all. Surprisingly, the still photos Al Gore offers of the effects of global warming are quite effective – breathtaking and disturbing – on the big screen. There are, of course, some videos too, and even a few quite funny cartoons, but the director chooses to show all of these through Gore’s giant video screen, which means that we are, barring some autobiographical interludes in Tennessee and so on, firmly placed in the seats of Gore’s college audience. This seems like folly, but it is surprisingly effective.

Speaking of those autobiographical bits, Gore narrates some key turning points in his life, but I wish he had explained what epiphany transformed him from a guy that couldn’t carry a CSPAN session to a guy that can carry a major motion picture! I definitely want him for president now, almost in spite of myself. As for the science, I did learn a lot, and I thought he was most effective when he took shots at the characterization of global warming as “theory.” This movie is a force for good and its actually well mad and honest; it’s nice when these things come together for once.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
10 July, 6:57 PM

The Devil Wears Prada

David Frankel, USA, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

This is one of those movies that seems solid and entertaining, then starts to crumble a bit when you think about it afterwards; however, it still holds up for the most part, and the main purpose of a movie is to keep you interested while you’re watching, after all. The first problem is the title, which also implies that Meryl Streep is the main role, rather than protagonist Anne Hathaway who is, in fact, effectively plays an interesting character rather than just a sounding board for another virtuoso Streep performance (which isn’t to say that Streep isn’t good, either).

The main problems mostly lie in how Andy, Hathaway’s charcter, deals with her dilemma; should she stay true to herself or fall into the fashion world? This isn’t as lame as it sounds on paper, especially since they managed to convey some sense of the aforementioned fashion world’s glamour to someone like me who by default reviles every aspect of it. This, however, might mean that I sympathized more with her plight than someone who, say, never had any qualms about “fitting in” at all costs. However, the weakness of the detractors seems to sap this film’s moral clarity, as does its eventual mutation from a series of critiques of a whole industry to a mere interpersonal conflict; of course this is inevitable in Hollywood film, but the way this happens in this movie decidedly muddies up and changes the entire issue at hand. Of course, a film like this wants to have it both ways, but one hopes at the very least that when several characters describe a size 4 as “fat,” the filmmaker means to attack that perspective. A lack of clarity on this issue is a lot more unforgivable. All that said, I did find it to be compelling and well-played.

Source: Fox 35mm print
6 July, 7:00 PM

The Mission

(Cheung fo)
Johnnie To, Hong Kong, 1999
2 out of 4 stars

This film does have a reasonable amount of style, but ultimately, it’s not enough to make up for the baffling nature of most of the action, and more importantly, the utter lack of character development. Actually, the film does become fairly compelling in its final sequences, but ultimately this is too small a part of an already short film to make enough of a difference. The action is okay, impressive at times, but the acting is basically not there, even though I’ve at least seen Anthony Wong in other things and know that he can do better when he’s meant to. A bit of a disappointment, to be sure.

Source: Tai Seng DVD
5 July, 7:19 PM

Caché

Michael Haneke, France / Austria / Germany / Italy, 2005
3.5 out of 4 stars

This is a “family under siege” film in which the threat (or menace) increasingly seems insignificant compared to darkness in the protagonist’s own past. Georges’ darkness has political shades to it, but most interestingly, it’s always a little fuzzy just exactly what happened, and this lack of clarity continues into the “present day” of the film. I’m used to ambiguous endings and what not, but this film threw me off a bit in regards to how the director included ambiguity throughout what seemed to be a “realist” rather than impressionist film, and yet managed to do it without leaving the viewer merely irritated. My observations on this count were influenced, to some extent, by my viewing of the director interview found on the DVD.

Source: Sony DVD
3 July, 1:22 PM

Infernal Affairs II

(Mou gaan dou II)
Andrew Lau & Alan Mak, Hong Kong, 2003
3 out of 4 stars

What a tangled web a studio can weave when they realize they desperately need to make some money off of a sequel to a film that didn’t need one. That’s not to say that this is bad, but it would strike me as an ordinary film even if I hadn’t seen the extraordinary film that came before. This “sequel,” despite the number, is actually a prequel, but it doesn’t so much fill in the blanks as muddy up the waters; it’s often confusing, it’s not always clear if some of the new backstory really squares with the depictions we saw in the first one, and some of the more glaring questions are left unanswered (possibly for film number three). The young replacements the mole characters, previously played by Tony Leung and Andy Lau, are certainly not up to the task. Thankfully, the movie works because Anthony Wong and Eric Tsang reprise their roles as the respective cop and mob boss, and it is quite interesting to learn about a relationship between them that, from what I recall, was far from obvious before. I certainly wouldn’t recommend watching this before the first one, despite the chronology, but I imagine it is worth satisfying the likely thirst for more that you will most likely have after watching the previous film.

Source: Mega Star DVD
6 June, 3:15 PM

Crimson Gold

(Talaye sorkh)
Jafar Panahi, Iran, 2003
3.5 out of 4 stars

It’s positively amazing what you can sometimes get with non-professional actors, basically playing themselves, especially compared to the many times that real actors flub things entirely. This film follows the sad trajectory of a disaffected pizza delivery driver in Tehran, but while his journey is rooted in reality and presented, aside from the cuts from one scene to another, in something much like real time including all the boring waiting periods (and without the comforting style of similar scenes in Chinatown), the story itself is almost fantastical, probably in part because the people Hussein meets are, to no small degree, more symbolic than anything. The story is heartbreaking and the visuals held my interest without being flashy in the least. Most interestingly, director Jafar Panahi provides us with a removed, rational view of modern Iranian society even as he shows his considerable skill in unobtrusively guiding us along with one man’s unfortunate journey.

Source: Wellspring DVD
28 June, 9:11 PM

Superman Returns

Bryan Singer, Australia / USA, 2006
3.5 out of 4 stars

I thought that Richard Donner’s 1978 film, which I recently reviewed here, came from the right place, but was largely unsuccessful. You would think, then, that I wouldn’t get much out of a Superman franchise reboot that is nothing more than a rejuiced version of the Donner films, seeing as how I enjoyed Christopher Nolan’s pastiche of all the best Batman elements.

It is perhaps true that Bryan Singer’s choice of adaptation can be limiting in that he wasn't able or willing to drop anything that perhaps didn’t work ideally. Despite this, the film is an incredible, almost miraculous success. I’m really impressed with how well Singer does at creating good riff on something I didn't find that impressive, as I am with his general ability to sustain an un-ironic “earnest” tone without being overly corny (give or take a few minutes) or excessively anachronistic. The best example is Kevin Spacey’s Lex Luthor; he took Gene Hackman’s Luthor, which I was none too fond of, and made it work (with help from the script I presume). Certainly, there are problems; some scenes go on forever despite their lack of suspense (the filmmakers only get a pass on the “will Superman save them” thing for the first time), and the ending is abrupt in all the wrong ways. Finally, I’m not sure if this will convert you to the pro-Superman camp, but it will satisfy both casual and true believers.

Source: Warner 35mm print
28 June, 10 PM

Mulholland Dr.

David Lynch, USA / France, 2001
4 out of 4 stars

This film is usually Exhibit A in my argument that you don’t have to entirely understand a film in order to not just appreciate it, but to enjoy it as well. After I watched it in a French theater, my dad sent me a thorough e-mail explaining his interpretation of the film, and later, I saw various webpages backing him up. My viewing this time was colored by his interpretation, but discussing it with my friend (who has seen it 10 times already), she poked several holes into his reading. When I first saw it, though, I really had no idea what was going on and what the connections between the two sections were. I knew that the film started life as a television show and I figured that some of the discontinuity could be explained with this in mind, but that didn’t actually go too far within the context of the film. Mostly, I was captivated, both times, by the extreme surrealist approach which never started to alienate me as a viewer even on a visceral level (okay, maybe the last music scene). Strongly recommended, just don’t tax your brain too much if, like me, you meet with little success when you try to “figure it out.”

Source: Universal DVD
25 June, 6:22 PM

Paradise Now

Hany Abu-Assad, France / Germany / Netherlands / Israel, 2005
3 out of 4 stars

I expected this film to give me a good look at the experiences of two potential suicide bombers, and at Palestine in general, and it certainly did. However, it’s not exactly some kind of verité piece either. It’s very beautifully shot and contains some rather affecting moments. While the directing is largely unobtrusive, it’s not absent either. I did think that there were some aimless patches and that some of the motivation shifts weren’t quite clear, which is unfortunate considering that this film is almost entirely about motivations. However, the film succeeds because the director takes a clear eye at a very difficult and disturbing issue, and doesn’t choose to preach or condescend to the viewer. It’s meaningful, but unlike, say, Hotel Rwanda, it doesn’t just coast on its meaningfulness.

Source: Warner DVD
20 June, 10:56 PM

The Untouchables

Brian De Palma, USA, 1987
2.5 out of 4 stars

Perhaps I was just frustrated because this film brings up some ideological issues, but then turns out to be largely visual. Or perhaps I don’t respond well to the cloying nostalgic music and acting, even. There was certainly one really strong sequence, taking place in a train station in the final half-hour of the film that actually really bored me at first. I think perhaps that some of what Brian De Palma tried to do for suspense struck me as indicating lack of momentum. Certainly at the beginning of the scene, I found myself largely wondering what I was supposed to think was going on, and I’m not even sure if that was deliberate. It probably contributes to the thrill when the confrontation does ensue, but maybe there’s a smoother way to do that, especially when regarding the particularly lethargic.

Certainly, the colors are very rich, and there are some masterful shots, which all shows a good level of artistry. Maybe I just expect my action to be too fast, or maybe this is really more of the Disney version of cops vs. mafia, ambiguous morals and hardcore violence aside. Of course, Costner’s inevitable woodenness doesn’t help much.

Source: Paramount special edition DVD
19 June, 7:56 PM

Pride & Prejudice

Joe Wright, UK / France, 2005
3 out of 4 stars

Perversely enough, I started to become interested in seeing this film after I heard three of my friends railing against Keira Knightley when she was nominated for the Oscar. Indeed, Knightley is the weakest link in this version, not standing up too well to Jennifer Ehle (1995 BBC version) or even Aishwarya Rai (2004 “Bollywood” version). Thankfully, Matthew Mcfayden, while still no Colin Firth, does us the pleasure of not trying to be Firth, and certainly whups Martin Henderson’s ass (not much of a challenge, admittedly).

Overall, I quite enjoyed this rendition. What it lacks in thoroughness and in acting (compared to the BBC), it makes up for with production values, which are thankfully not put to use. The cinematography is quite beautiful, especially when regarding the English countryside where some key tableaus occur, and the dinginess of the Bennett home is keenly brought into view in a clearer fashion than I’ve seen in most Austen interpretations. Finally, Joe Wright has a strong style, with some signature, abrupt reaction shots and other little flourishes I’m not knowledgeable enough to name, and ultimately, this helps the film be a worthwhile contribution rather than a half-assed cash-in type of remake. Knightley, however, did bug me, especially in the opening part of the film, which made me feel that, despite her age, she might have been better cast as Lydia, someone she probably resembles more closely. Every time she crinkled her nose laughing, she seemed to convey a lack of depth that didn’t fit her character. I imagine marketability was, to put it lightly, the main reason for her inclusion.

Source: Universal DVD
6 June, 9:10 AM

Kings and Queen

(Rois et reine)
Arnaud Desplechin, France, 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

It starts out with a woman describing her various marriages, then, after a bit, we meet a man right before he is condemned to a mental hospital. The connections and the backstory aren’t clear at the outset, but this is not at all frustrating in this film. Instead, I was captivated from the beginning. The dialogue is all top-notch, very literary but also grounded. The style of the film is quite remarkable; the two plots are expertly intertwined, and the director makes judicious use of a quick-cut technique in which he rapidly shows the viewer two, usually brief, takes of the same action or emotional reaction. The acting is very strong, and the characters are sympathetic but also, well, “complicated.” Finally, the story is very poignant and at times crushing, but it also contains a wealth of little charming moments and amusing quirks. I can’t really do justice to how good this movie is, though, so really, I can only say that I highly recommend it!

Source: Genius DVD
3 June, 8:25 PM

Lady Vengeance

(Chinjeolhan geumjassi)
Park Chan-wook, South Korea, 2005
3 out of 4 stars

This is yet another film that I started to lose faith in as it got nearer to the end, and I kept asking, “and then what?” I think that it suffered unfairly from comparisons to Park Chan-wook’s previous film, Oldboy, so I will probably need to watch it again when it comes out on DVD. I did really enjoy the main character, even though her very personality is hard to pin down thanks to the machinations of the plot. The other characters are interesting, but there are a lot of them, and it’s hard to tell who’s who after a while. In general, there are several confusing aspects of this film that made me feel as if I would need a full plot summary after watching it.

I do think that this film is saying something interesting and important about revenge, and that this is reflected in the somewhat-slow concluding portion of the film. The “message” does strike me as a tad bit obvious, but then there are a lot of different ways to react to the protagonist’s decisions near the end, so there does seem to be a worthwhile amount of ambiguity. I think the best parts of the film are the jail flashbacks and the adoption subplot. Once we get fully into the vengeance, the film becomes more contemplative, but somewhat less interesting.

Source: Tartan 35mm print
1 June, 7:18 PM

The Bourne Supremacy

Paul Greengrass, USA / Germany, 2004
3 out of 4 stars

It can be a little frustrating seeing a “spy plot” unravel to the point where you realize there wasn’t much of anything there at the center of it. It’s especially frustrating when the ending comes with 20 minutes to go, and you don’t even really feel the need to see what happens afterwards. Luckily, this film has a tremendous amount of visual style, and it’s almost surprising to me that this was enough to make me enjoy the film, as I’m not always a big fan of the “handheld camera” thing when it comes to action films. In this case, however, the jolting camera was an important part of the action and of the character, such as it was. I think ultimately, this is a very forced sequel that doesn’t justify its undoing of the last film’s ending (while also relying too much on the audience’s knowledge of its predecessor). Most of all, though, I think it’s a pretty clear case of a good director, Paul Greengrass, having been saddled with a half-assed script.

Source: Universal DVD
31 May, 11:10 PM