The important thing is, we’re awake now, and hopefully for a long time to come
Nicole Kidman as Alice Hartford
It explores the sexual ambivalence of a happy marriage, and tries to equate the importance of sexual dreams and might-have-beens with reality
Stanley Kubrick
Movies always portray sudden passion and rushes of blood in the elevator, but they never deal with married sex.
Kubrick to Friedric Raphael(?)
That just about sums it up. When Stanley Kubrick died in March 1999, Eyes Wide Shut became condemned as a razzie classic. The audience hoped to get some nice Tom and Nick porn and instead got a ridiculously boring epic about a high society couple hiding many romantic and erotic pathologies. Based on Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (1926), Eyes Wide Shut examines a New York couple as played by Tom Cruise as Dr. Bill Harford, Nicole Kidman as Alice Harford, and Madison Eginton as Helena Harford.
Ostensibly, the plot is about Kidman admitting to some bizarre sexual desires that sets Bill on an almost endless journey through orgies and hookers bearing even odder sexual tastes. But Kubrick is cleverly haing fun ith the audience and himsel. This movie isn’t really about sex or even love but the illusions about sex and love. Both Bill and Alice seem to have everything but they do? Does any couple?
On one point, Kubrick can be faulted and that is for concentrating too much on Bill’s phobias. He has many. One possible consort, Marion (Marie Richardson), the daughter of the elderly patient, tells him she is madly in love with him. Another, a college-going hooker, Domino looks suspiciously like … his daughter To top all that, he attends a masquerade ball that has a mysterious woman sacrifice herself to save him from the clutches of a secret society led by a masked man, the Red Cloak.
There’s no point to look or a simple narrative logic. The audience is supposed to get lost in Bill’s maze. The conclusion – such as it is – has Bill confront a superb Sydney Pollack revealing that he, too, had been at the party and knows all about Bill’s secrets. But does he?? Or is he bluffing?? Pollack’s Ziegler says to us: “Please, Bill … no games.” But it appears this scene like the others is meant to be maze-like and baffling.
There is no good or right answer. The ending has Bill admit everything (?) to Alice and they travel to a Christmas shop at F.A.O. Schwarz – in another maze-like pattern – to have an interesting but odd conversation. There’s a lot to comment but let me brief. Most commentaries note the only conspiracy messages in the film. Those are plausible but I think this misses the dominant motif here which is humor. Like Lolita, Kubrick sees sexuality as a power game but also something else: downright hilarious. Especially hilarious is conversation Bill has with Alan Cumming as a desk clerk poking not-so-subtle fun at Tom’s (alleged) homosexuality.
The jokes may not work on most since scenes have to look at repeatedly to pick up the subtext. This isn’t to say there isn’t a lot of seriousness at play either. Like The Shining, imperialism and the Holocaust are major running themes as are class difference, prostitution and money.
Aesthetically, the movie has many rich layers including the music and costumes. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is Kubrick’s utilizing light in many scenes like blue lighting to frequently used to convey dread or sorrow. The movie also looks back on Kubrick’s films (Fear and Desire, Killer’s Kiss, The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey) and stylistically nods to them. This movie is probably only going to satisfy Kubrick addicts since the scenes are meant to have multiple readings. A first-time viewer is no doubt going to be overwhelmed or underwhelmed but more long-time film buff are going to many unexpected treats here.
Lastly, the film credits Julienne Davis as Mandy, and Abigail Good as the Mysterious Woman. Davis is NOT the girl at the mansion. Many people including professors get this incorrect. Recommended only for mature audiences.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
EVEN IN SPACE NICK CAGE CAN SCREAM Con Air *1/2
Nick Cage must like to rile critics. Con Air is a polarizing pic as any. On the surface, it’s a high-octane adventure. Or, it’s an atrocious promo pastiche of much better films. On the plus side, the movie is only rarely confusing. But the premise is too silly to sustain itself. Cage is a Marine wrongfully imprisoned – he used lethal force on some rednecks. He turns himself into a muscular Jesus-like ass-kicker and has the double misfortune to be coerced into joining a daring escape attempt by a group of convicts hi-jacking a plane.
John Cusack head-scathingly comes along for the ride. There are too many good moments in Con Air to condemn it as a piss-poor clone of Michael-Bay scripting.
Any movie that dares to call its baddie Cyrus the Virus – who, by the way, hates rapists – is, at least, going for the glory. And, one has to admit, Ving Rhames and Steve Buscemi are especially good as crazed convicts.
But there’s just nothing hold this baby up and the supposedly satisfying final confrontation in Las Vegas feels overdone. More effective as a comedy than an action film but, at least, sel-consciously aware of its silliness. A one-and-half star vehicle but still recommended as a howler. A guilty pleasure all the way through.
John Cusack head-scathingly comes along for the ride. There are too many good moments in Con Air to condemn it as a piss-poor clone of Michael-Bay scripting.
Any movie that dares to call its baddie Cyrus the Virus – who, by the way, hates rapists – is, at least, going for the glory. And, one has to admit, Ving Rhames and Steve Buscemi are especially good as crazed convicts.
But there’s just nothing hold this baby up and the supposedly satisfying final confrontation in Las Vegas feels overdone. More effective as a comedy than an action film but, at least, sel-consciously aware of its silliness. A one-and-half star vehicle but still recommended as a howler. A guilty pleasure all the way through.
But Is IT Any Good It (1990) **
Stephen King on the big screen has been almost always awful. Is the small screen better? A decided no has to be said. King’s IT is arguably his Magnus opus. The adaptation not surprisingly can’t match the sheer bigness (it’s about 1,100 pages!) or even allusiveness in the book – King slyly name checks himself using a Christine-like a 1958 Red Plymouth Fury and young Dick Hallorann. And, admittedly, it could have butchered King even worse but, as it stands (no pun), this adaptation is too unremarkable to merit praise.
In many ays the book is a severe indictment o the 1950’s and lashes out at the Puritanical repression during that time. The film misses that but it does capture some of the alleged innocence during the time. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, IT originally aired on ABC Network television and TV censorship really neuters a potentially great movie. Not much explicit material is needed here but the direction is too tame by half. Easily, the best highlights are when the music comes on.
Like the book, the story is told in nonlinear as the camera move back and forth beteen 1957 and 1984. The cast includes Stuttering Bill Dengbrough, Eddie Kasprak, Ben Hanscom, Richie Tozier, Stan Uris, Beverly Marsh, and Mike Hanlon in their younger and older selves growing up in Derry, Maine. Almost no one remembers or cares to but the Losers’ Club as they dub themselves comes across a ferocious monster called IT, killing the local children and absorbing them. It calls itself Pennywise, the Dancing Clown but Pennywise is just an alias (the book has it take on several names).
Tim Curry as Pennywise is electrifying – though perhaps derivative in taking a lot of cues from Freddy especially. Though much of the terror comes from Curry’s sharp accent. He sounds scary telling the children: “Oh you are priceless Brat! I am eternal, child. I am the eater of worlds.” But, again, the adaptation is only a minor slice of the book.
In the novel, It, cleverly, mutates into many old monsters – many from 1950s monster movies. The book has IT become the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, a mummy, and even hobo with leprosy and leeches. The movie sadly features only some of these mutations but, at least, those it does has are incredible. Easily the most terrifying scene in IT has Richie encounter It wearing a Letterman-like high school jacket and imitating the werewolf in I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957). Characters in a movie like this are going to be constrained so that can’t be the main problem the adaptation doesn’t cohere.
Three major dilemmas come up that the poor direction doesn’t help. One is the sheer production value. Although money is well spent in many places in many other places the film just looks bad and cheap. Another is there is no sense of genuine building of terror. Only a handful of scenes are genuinely scarily – like the mid-point journey to the sewers. Another is the sheer unstable focus. At times, it looks like It is the major villain but, at others, the local bullies, the Bowers gang (Henry Bowers and “Belch” Huggins) takeover.
This is more a rent-it than see-it film with a standout role by Annette O’Toole as Beverly as an adult. John Ritter also does a capable job. But, alas, the film merely floats (no pun intended) and only rarely hooks onto the rich material King has provided.
In many ays the book is a severe indictment o the 1950’s and lashes out at the Puritanical repression during that time. The film misses that but it does capture some of the alleged innocence during the time. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, IT originally aired on ABC Network television and TV censorship really neuters a potentially great movie. Not much explicit material is needed here but the direction is too tame by half. Easily, the best highlights are when the music comes on.
Like the book, the story is told in nonlinear as the camera move back and forth beteen 1957 and 1984. The cast includes Stuttering Bill Dengbrough, Eddie Kasprak, Ben Hanscom, Richie Tozier, Stan Uris, Beverly Marsh, and Mike Hanlon in their younger and older selves growing up in Derry, Maine. Almost no one remembers or cares to but the Losers’ Club as they dub themselves comes across a ferocious monster called IT, killing the local children and absorbing them. It calls itself Pennywise, the Dancing Clown but Pennywise is just an alias (the book has it take on several names).
Tim Curry as Pennywise is electrifying – though perhaps derivative in taking a lot of cues from Freddy especially. Though much of the terror comes from Curry’s sharp accent. He sounds scary telling the children: “Oh you are priceless Brat! I am eternal, child. I am the eater of worlds.” But, again, the adaptation is only a minor slice of the book.
In the novel, It, cleverly, mutates into many old monsters – many from 1950s monster movies. The book has IT become the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, a mummy, and even hobo with leprosy and leeches. The movie sadly features only some of these mutations but, at least, those it does has are incredible. Easily the most terrifying scene in IT has Richie encounter It wearing a Letterman-like high school jacket and imitating the werewolf in I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957). Characters in a movie like this are going to be constrained so that can’t be the main problem the adaptation doesn’t cohere.
Three major dilemmas come up that the poor direction doesn’t help. One is the sheer production value. Although money is well spent in many places in many other places the film just looks bad and cheap. Another is there is no sense of genuine building of terror. Only a handful of scenes are genuinely scarily – like the mid-point journey to the sewers. Another is the sheer unstable focus. At times, it looks like It is the major villain but, at others, the local bullies, the Bowers gang (Henry Bowers and “Belch” Huggins) takeover.
This is more a rent-it than see-it film with a standout role by Annette O’Toole as Beverly as an adult. John Ritter also does a capable job. But, alas, the film merely floats (no pun intended) and only rarely hooks onto the rich material King has provided.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
GIVING WATERWORLD WHAT IT DESERVES Waterworld (1995) **
Given my recent pillaging it might seem odd to cut Waterworld (1995) a break. To be sure, the canonical consensus is correct. It's a thoroughly lousy film. But it ISN'T as bad one may have thought. The problem is not that it's a bad film but just an average one and truly average despite the massive efforts being made. Kevin Costner is a weird kind of fishman calling himself the Mariner (a very cool name) in an apoclayptic future where the Earth is covered with water. The story idea is potentially great but Kevin Reynolds' poor direction and a so-so script by Peter Rader and David Twohy keep managing to trap the film in Battfield Earth stupidities.
A post-apocalyptic science fiction action film is not a tough genre to make either but Costner's heroics here have been done to death and his performance is nice but no great surprises are in store. More critically, there is no great villain which kills any narrative momentum. The action scenes and special effects are spectacular and the story never bores you. But it never grips you either.
The real tragedy is Jeanne Tripplehorn who offers up another stellar performance and could have been a potential Jennifer Connelly - this film sadly destroyed her career.
An average, sub-par movie that could've easily been a three-star delight with just better editing and writing.
A post-apocalyptic science fiction action film is not a tough genre to make either but Costner's heroics here have been done to death and his performance is nice but no great surprises are in store. More critically, there is no great villain which kills any narrative momentum. The action scenes and special effects are spectacular and the story never bores you. But it never grips you either.
The real tragedy is Jeanne Tripplehorn who offers up another stellar performance and could have been a potential Jennifer Connelly - this film sadly destroyed her career.
An average, sub-par movie that could've easily been a three-star delight with just better editing and writing.
THE BIGGEST WHIMPER OF ALL Dark Knight Rises (2012) Bomb
Since Christopher Nolan experienced such a sharp rise it's only right he receives his proper downfall. But such rise-and-fall narratives are tiresome (as this movie shows) and I'm going to resist hating Nolan because it is the current trend. Granted, Nolan was never and probably is never going to match Kubrick or Hitchcock or Scorsese. But let's put aside his modest talents. He did a fairly good job on the first two Batman films despite this.
Moreover, he can't be entirely blamed. The death of Ledger truly distorts the film aa the Joke was clearly meant to be here and he is sorely missed. Dark Knight Rises is Batman's confronting his true opposite, Bane. Let us be clear: Nolan's Bane isn't Schumacher's monstrosity. But this isn't Batman's Bane either and the changes made to Bane are puzzling - to begin with it's almost impossible to HEAR Bane which in a MOVIE IS a problem.
The other dilemma is that Bane's entire style - ideology, custome, and strategy never add up. WHY is he torturing Batman? The logic escapes me and the explanation given borders on the ludicrous. Catwoman is thrown in and she looks lovely as does the Batbike and huge "Bat plane" at the end. But the Batman trilogy resisted these easy - and mindless - pleasures. This film is needlesssly long, tedious, boring, illogical, comical, and, jus plain, confusing.
I know Nolan is TRYiNG to tell us something deep and profound about terrorism, fascism, class warfare, and Batman's mythology but this is, basically, a really bad sci-fi plot made worse by poor pacing and even poorer twists. Adding characters to an already bloated cast just makes one wonder if Nolan has truly lost his mind or is unable to deliver any film without pretensese of being some Joycean novel. A final problem and its HUGE ONE is Nolan's lack of anything resembling a good sense of humor. Batman Begins had a few dry laughs but this film tries to deliver the dumbest, longest jokes in film history OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
This isn't Def Jam comedy. It's as if a deaf is TRYING to direct a horror/comedy and manages to make a bad version of the Sixth Sense and Mad Max together and those were hardly the classics everyone thinks they were. A truly awful movie by Nolan and all the more puzzling that it is considered the best in the trilogy. Some people have no taste or just sharper hearing than me.
Moreover, he can't be entirely blamed. The death of Ledger truly distorts the film aa the Joke was clearly meant to be here and he is sorely missed. Dark Knight Rises is Batman's confronting his true opposite, Bane. Let us be clear: Nolan's Bane isn't Schumacher's monstrosity. But this isn't Batman's Bane either and the changes made to Bane are puzzling - to begin with it's almost impossible to HEAR Bane which in a MOVIE IS a problem.
The other dilemma is that Bane's entire style - ideology, custome, and strategy never add up. WHY is he torturing Batman? The logic escapes me and the explanation given borders on the ludicrous. Catwoman is thrown in and she looks lovely as does the Batbike and huge "Bat plane" at the end. But the Batman trilogy resisted these easy - and mindless - pleasures. This film is needlesssly long, tedious, boring, illogical, comical, and, jus plain, confusing.
I know Nolan is TRYiNG to tell us something deep and profound about terrorism, fascism, class warfare, and Batman's mythology but this is, basically, a really bad sci-fi plot made worse by poor pacing and even poorer twists. Adding characters to an already bloated cast just makes one wonder if Nolan has truly lost his mind or is unable to deliver any film without pretensese of being some Joycean novel. A final problem and its HUGE ONE is Nolan's lack of anything resembling a good sense of humor. Batman Begins had a few dry laughs but this film tries to deliver the dumbest, longest jokes in film history OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
This isn't Def Jam comedy. It's as if a deaf is TRYING to direct a horror/comedy and manages to make a bad version of the Sixth Sense and Mad Max together and those were hardly the classics everyone thinks they were. A truly awful movie by Nolan and all the more puzzling that it is considered the best in the trilogy. Some people have no taste or just sharper hearing than me.
MOORE GOES FOR LESS AND GETS MORE Sicko (2007) **1/2
A big complaint from even the left is filmmaker Michael Moore's tendency to showboat and play for the cameras. Apparently, some memos got to Moore since he is almost completely absent in
Sicko, a documentary that investigates health care in the United States, focusing on its health insurance and the medical paradoxes and insanities. This proves more effective than the usual set-ups Moore has. Essentially, people are left to tell their own endless tales of horror of waste and mismanagement. If anything, the film is rather generous since the US system really is almot bottom-of-the-barrel and indeed in terms of what people pay for - it's a disgrace and deserves a pounding. Still Moore is Moore and can't help himself by pulling a stunt that is going to infuriate even friendly critics (I count myself here).
He "ends" the film with an incredible trip to Cuba where all the patients he brings are given superb care. The problem is not the obvious propaganda being done but Moore once-again playing stupid as if he doesn't know that things are not what they appear to be. In fact, the Cuban system IS a model in many ways but, to be fair to Moore, he skips over the pathologies in other systems (Canada, Cuba, England, etc) to contrast the US badly.
But point a may be true - the current US system is intolerable. Point b - everyone else does it better needs more argumentation. But focusing on point a the film delivers the laughs. But point B is going to require more seriousness - and the fact that no such documentary has emerged is a challenge to critics of Moore who hate him to do his type of politicized reporting even better.
None, unfortunately, have done a better job - yet.
He "ends" the film with an incredible trip to Cuba where all the patients he brings are given superb care. The problem is not the obvious propaganda being done but Moore once-again playing stupid as if he doesn't know that things are not what they appear to be. In fact, the Cuban system IS a model in many ways but, to be fair to Moore, he skips over the pathologies in other systems (Canada, Cuba, England, etc) to contrast the US badly.
But point a may be true - the current US system is intolerable. Point b - everyone else does it better needs more argumentation. But focusing on point a the film delivers the laughs. But point B is going to require more seriousness - and the fact that no such documentary has emerged is a challenge to critics of Moore who hate him to do his type of politicized reporting even better.
None, unfortunately, have done a better job - yet.
DENZEL AND RUSSELL TEAM UP!!! (MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE) Virtuosity (1995) BOMB
Something happened to Denzel Washington in the mid-1990s - it's as if he decided to do his best and worst work simultaneously. Co-starring with a (then unknown) Russell Crowe in Virtuosity (1995) has to count as one of his worst efforts. it's tempting to put all the blame on Brett Leonard, who had done The Lawnmower Man (not exactly a good sign of what's up ahead). Crowe is a vicious serial killer named SID 6.7 but SID is a computer program used by the police to train themselves. Given Crowe's future brilliance what happened??!??
Here I can only offer a two-prolonged attack that MAY explain this disaster. One - apprently Leonard - notice this are the sheer PHYSICAL problems in having Denzel Washington face=off against Sid. This is not Gladiator and Crowe (because he is) looks SMALLER and WEAKER than Denzel's more muscular and taller character making the conflict seem absurd - like a midget fighting a heavy weight champ. To be sure, SID has more power but, cinematically, the film doesn't look good - literally, the colors, costumes, and the like don't meld nicely.
Secondly, and no one can be blamed here but the major problem the film is genre. Thanks to Silence of the Lambs, the studios went beserk in pumping out serial-killer movies that soon lost any novelty. Unless one has a brilliant script there's no point in trying. It's painfully obvious the movie is trying for some edgy, cross-genre of sci-fi and serial killing but this is not Total Recall or even Robocop, it's just an empty thrill-fest and Crowe's SID brings nothing to the table.
My own guess is that Denzel and his people thought the script was OK and any problems could be hammered out. Big mistake. Not a total waste of time but given he talents present, it's a crime that Washington and Crowe couldn't be given something better to do. Still, it's not a complete disaster. Crowe looks OK in a kimono. And that's all there is to say about this lamentable exercise.
Here I can only offer a two-prolonged attack that MAY explain this disaster. One - apprently Leonard - notice this are the sheer PHYSICAL problems in having Denzel Washington face=off against Sid. This is not Gladiator and Crowe (because he is) looks SMALLER and WEAKER than Denzel's more muscular and taller character making the conflict seem absurd - like a midget fighting a heavy weight champ. To be sure, SID has more power but, cinematically, the film doesn't look good - literally, the colors, costumes, and the like don't meld nicely.
Secondly, and no one can be blamed here but the major problem the film is genre. Thanks to Silence of the Lambs, the studios went beserk in pumping out serial-killer movies that soon lost any novelty. Unless one has a brilliant script there's no point in trying. It's painfully obvious the movie is trying for some edgy, cross-genre of sci-fi and serial killing but this is not Total Recall or even Robocop, it's just an empty thrill-fest and Crowe's SID brings nothing to the table.
My own guess is that Denzel and his people thought the script was OK and any problems could be hammered out. Big mistake. Not a total waste of time but given he talents present, it's a crime that Washington and Crowe couldn't be given something better to do. Still, it's not a complete disaster. Crowe looks OK in a kimono. And that's all there is to say about this lamentable exercise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)