There is no such thing as a perfect film but The Fugitive , directed by Andrew Davis, comes as close as anyone is likely to get. Though too long in places and using dubious logic sometimes, The Fugitive stars Harrison Ford as wrongly convicted Dr. Richard Kimble hunting a one-armed man that has killed his wife. But the plot really doesn't matter.
The real movie is the seemingly endless cat-and-mouse fight between Ford and Tommy Lee Jones as a pugnacious and unstoppable U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard. The classic speech delivered early still stands out:
"Alright, listen up, people. Our fugitive has been on the run for ninety minutes. Average foot speed over uneven ground barring injuries is 4 miles-per-hour. That gives us a radius of six miles. What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Checkpoints go up at fifteen miles. Your fugitive's name is Dr. Richard Kimble. Go get him."
Ostensibly the film is based on a TV series by the same name. Alas, the film doesn't have twenty episdoes to tell the story in toto so Davis is forced to radically condenses Kimble's investigation into his wife's murder. The pay-off is sadly lacking as a huge, medical cover-up apparently is behind everything. But, again, the real point is watching not just Ford and Jones shadowbox one another - especially in one tense scene at an Irish Day parade! - but Davis masterfully pace the thriller to its conclusion. Davis makes incredible use of Chicago locations here as he did for Above the Law in the 1980s.
Looking back, there are some regrettable lapses. Scenes by Julianne Moore were unwisely cut - but then the added romantic sub-plot crowds a film juggling about five stories simultaneously. Another problem is sheer implausibility of the conspiracy and its resources - they can't hire a normal TWO-armed man??? But these small issues aside, Davis has made perhaps the definitive action film of not just 1990s but arguable one still unsurpassed in terms of its distinct acting, character and dialogue - especially the unforgivable forgotten dam scene early on in the film. Though he unfortunately never surpassed this gem it deserves repeated viewings.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
North by Northwest (1959) **1/2
North by Northwest is a mild effort by Alfred Hitchcock. Starring Cary Grant, it has Grant as Thornhill, an advertising man and fish-out-of-water caught up in a major conspiracy/spy plot. This is not Hitchcock at his best but it does have its moment as he taps in 1950s paranoia over alien threats and the powerful and very real abuses of power by American intelligence. Unfortunately, Hitchcock has too much fun to make the audience scared.
James Mason plays the villain, a well-educated but ambiguous figure that mistakes Grant for some super-spy. Much of the film has Grant try desperately to piece together his ordeal and narrowly escape death repeatedly. The problem isn't in the performances - Grant as a long-time vaudeville actor - mixes humor and heroism just fine but the politics. Who is Hitchock attacking or lambasting? The Americans? The Russians? It's hard to say. This comes recommended but don't be surprised to regret seeing the film afterwards due to its needless and disturbing nihilism. The title comes from Hamlet.
James Mason plays the villain, a well-educated but ambiguous figure that mistakes Grant for some super-spy. Much of the film has Grant try desperately to piece together his ordeal and narrowly escape death repeatedly. The problem isn't in the performances - Grant as a long-time vaudeville actor - mixes humor and heroism just fine but the politics. Who is Hitchock attacking or lambasting? The Americans? The Russians? It's hard to say. This comes recommended but don't be surprised to regret seeing the film afterwards due to its needless and disturbing nihilism. The title comes from Hamlet.
Blood Simple (1983) ***
Blood Simple is perhaps the best Coen Brothers film ever made. It isn't as technically accomplished as Old Men or even as funny as Barton Fink but given their youth, the film is an impressive piece of work. That said, fans are unlikely to appreciate the sheer zaniness of this film since it is incredible bloody, visceral, and even slight. This is a POSTMODERN. It is not meant to be seen or enjoyed as a noir or neo-noir film. The Coens are deconstructing the tropes of the genre and cleverly reversing. Instead of a woman being the victim, she is the aggressor. And the role reversals that occur here are remarkable as characters live or die or return from the dead at various points. That said, this isn't for everybody's taste.
The humor the Coens have is, decidely, an acquired taste. There is also the problem that the lack of money forced them to control themselves. Their later, even allegedly better, films are too self-indulgent, fat, and ponderous. This is not an academic film. It is smartly written, well written, and an incredibly vicious snapshot of 1980s America and even feminist work of art. The plot can't really be described since it would give away the essentials of the twists and turns. But those are the minor attractions. The major reason to see this film is to bask in its images, music, and sheer Nietzschean madness.
The humor the Coens have is, decidely, an acquired taste. There is also the problem that the lack of money forced them to control themselves. Their later, even allegedly better, films are too self-indulgent, fat, and ponderous. This is not an academic film. It is smartly written, well written, and an incredibly vicious snapshot of 1980s America and even feminist work of art. The plot can't really be described since it would give away the essentials of the twists and turns. But those are the minor attractions. The major reason to see this film is to bask in its images, music, and sheer Nietzschean madness.
Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1997) **1/2
Arguably the worst film ever made and perhaps the low point in the Star Wars prequels. Nevertheless, Episode One, comparatively, is a fairly fine and fun piece of entertainment. It's fatal flaw is one that escapes even most fans. The story is a literal COPY of A New Hope. In terms of writing, there isn't much new here or even worth criticizing.
The main focus is on the acting, especially by Ray Parker as Darth Maul (though the voice is artificial as is the one Natalie Portman has as the Queen Amidala). The major problem is Lucas is trying to hard to recreate the magic from the old films. The story as such kicks off with a trade negotiation masking a grand conspiracy by Lord Vader to capture Naboo. Why is tis important or why does it matter? The rest of the films - sort of - explain more behind the motivations of the characters but this entire film is arbitrary.
It in no sense does Episode One really moves the story forward. So are the light-saber battles featured here the only reason to watch it. Portman is passable as always. And Jake Lloyd does the best he can with the incredibly bad dialogue that frames as him as Jesus Christ(??). The real stars here are the special effects - which are hardly top rate despite the money poured in - and set designs and even those are overdone and overused. Still, the film, at least, potentially gave us a universe of characters to care about. But the lack of any focused plot or even real tension - aside from the Sith conspiracy render this a enjoyable but empty film experience. Only mildly recommended.
The main focus is on the acting, especially by Ray Parker as Darth Maul (though the voice is artificial as is the one Natalie Portman has as the Queen Amidala). The major problem is Lucas is trying to hard to recreate the magic from the old films. The story as such kicks off with a trade negotiation masking a grand conspiracy by Lord Vader to capture Naboo. Why is tis important or why does it matter? The rest of the films - sort of - explain more behind the motivations of the characters but this entire film is arbitrary.
It in no sense does Episode One really moves the story forward. So are the light-saber battles featured here the only reason to watch it. Portman is passable as always. And Jake Lloyd does the best he can with the incredibly bad dialogue that frames as him as Jesus Christ(??). The real stars here are the special effects - which are hardly top rate despite the money poured in - and set designs and even those are overdone and overused. Still, the film, at least, potentially gave us a universe of characters to care about. But the lack of any focused plot or even real tension - aside from the Sith conspiracy render this a enjoyable but empty film experience. Only mildly recommended.
Black Swan (2010) *1/2
Black Swan is marketed - or was (??) marketed - as a 2010 American psychological thriller/horror film directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring Natalie Portman of Star Wars fame. But as a critic one has to see the film for what it really is: an incredibly awful and pompous remake of Kubrick's The Shining. Granted, The Shining is perhaps not the best cinema has to offer. Still it is everything this film is not: it is moving, funny, intellectual, spooky, and genuinely disturbing. The Shining can be seen as a deep reflection of the violence of man against man and a subtle commentary on the American Holocaust against the Indian population.
Black Swan, in contrast, is a cheap and unbelievably stupid attempt to be a pornographic retelling of the werewolf legend. Just about every scene in the film is lifted from far superior horror films. Portman plays a dedicated ballet dancer who steadily goes crazy (why????). She meets a couple of guys called Tom and Jerry ... get it? Twins. And then there's Kunis and Portman ... more twins.
Like those twins in the ... Shining. Even when playing homage Aronofsky is being pathetic. Portman in one scene masturbates to her mirror image. But the power of the Shining is one didn't NOTICE the mirrors in the Overlook Hotler until AFTER repeated viewings. Certainly, Black Swann isn't scary. It's too dumb to do that. It also isn't even artistic. There is a huge controversy that Portman didn't perform most of the dancing in the film. But why bother or care?? If the film is derivative then isn't it consistent to have Portman fake being a dancer? And why would a dancer turn into a wereworlf much less a Swan-wolf or a were-Swan. It's an open question whether Aronofsky is talented or not but this film is so unbelievably shoddy the money and deceit behind it are a scandal. That the man who made pi thinks this is cinema is an added travesty. NOT RECOMMENDED.
Black Swan, in contrast, is a cheap and unbelievably stupid attempt to be a pornographic retelling of the werewolf legend. Just about every scene in the film is lifted from far superior horror films. Portman plays a dedicated ballet dancer who steadily goes crazy (why????). She meets a couple of guys called Tom and Jerry ... get it? Twins. And then there's Kunis and Portman ... more twins.
Like those twins in the ... Shining. Even when playing homage Aronofsky is being pathetic. Portman in one scene masturbates to her mirror image. But the power of the Shining is one didn't NOTICE the mirrors in the Overlook Hotler until AFTER repeated viewings. Certainly, Black Swann isn't scary. It's too dumb to do that. It also isn't even artistic. There is a huge controversy that Portman didn't perform most of the dancing in the film. But why bother or care?? If the film is derivative then isn't it consistent to have Portman fake being a dancer? And why would a dancer turn into a wereworlf much less a Swan-wolf or a were-Swan. It's an open question whether Aronofsky is talented or not but this film is so unbelievably shoddy the money and deceit behind it are a scandal. That the man who made pi thinks this is cinema is an added travesty. NOT RECOMMENDED.
Inglourious Basterds (2009) **
Given the sheer number of bad WWII films, Inglourious Basterds is, comparatively, a below-average but not unwatchable film. Long-time Tarantino fans are going to find the same old tricks. The heart of the film has Brad Pitt as an American Indian (Aldo Raine) lead a commando squad to kill Nazis. That's it. Presumably, the real film is in the sub-plot about an escaped Jewish girl who also plans to exact revenge against a sadistic Nazi hunter played by Christopher Waltz. She plans to trap the Nazi elite in her movie theater and light them on fire. Get it? A victim of the Holocaust committs a holocaust. The film is just too silly to be morally offensive. But is it fun?? Yes and no. Hitler drops by and is killed by machine-gun fire. The problem is Tarantino just doesn't know when to hold back. Fellow Jewish director plays a Jew called "the Bear" who takes delight in butchering Nazis with an axe. This is supposed to be ironic or politically incorrect but it just comes off as excessive.
In some scenes, this - to give Tarantino - does work as when Waltz as Hans Landa kills a woman after he has succeeded in capturing Aldo! Spectacle has its place but even Tarantino at his best can't top Brian DePalma. The simple problem is Tarantino has used this material before repeatedly in the Kill Bill series and the woefully underappreciated Jackie Brown. Another problem is that the tone and imagery never cohere. This is a very beautiful-looking film, sometimes scary in its accuracy. But is it supposed to transport us back to the WWII era or are we supposed to come in seeing it as a post-modern exercise?? I can't say. It's enjoyable. But given the sheer talent involved, the founder of torture porn and director of Pulp Fiction, one expects more than lame double-entendres in thick German accents.
In some scenes, this - to give Tarantino - does work as when Waltz as Hans Landa kills a woman after he has succeeded in capturing Aldo! Spectacle has its place but even Tarantino at his best can't top Brian DePalma. The simple problem is Tarantino has used this material before repeatedly in the Kill Bill series and the woefully underappreciated Jackie Brown. Another problem is that the tone and imagery never cohere. This is a very beautiful-looking film, sometimes scary in its accuracy. But is it supposed to transport us back to the WWII era or are we supposed to come in seeing it as a post-modern exercise?? I can't say. It's enjoyable. But given the sheer talent involved, the founder of torture porn and director of Pulp Fiction, one expects more than lame double-entendres in thick German accents.
Dune (1984) *
One star?! Why bother reviewing a dreadful film that merits one star?? For most people, even David Lynch fans, Dune is a major embarrassment but one sadistically they subject themselves to. But is is all that bad? Unfortunately, yes. The major problem - that can't be surmounted - is SOUND. In order to try to condense Frank Herbert's massive novel, Lynch employs endless voice-overs. Which wouldn't be such a bad idea but there are literally at times INAUDIBLE. At other points, one can hear the characters but the dialogue is so thick with jargon and insider-language it was better not hearing them. Even the prologue added at the beginning - which literally gives away the ending and destroys any dramatic tension - causes more confusion and simply makes the film even mnore unbearable.
Most of the blame resides with executive producer Dino De Laurentiis for deliberately turning the film into a mindless blockbusters that made money in France and nowhere else. Even with all these problems, the film is worth seeing and not just because it is part of the Lynch canon. The sets and costumes are amazing. The characters and folklore - though overdone - have an interesting Shakespeare-like quality. But what probably stands out and makes the film so incredible is Lynch's fairly clear endorsement of holy jihad against the imperialist powers. The villain is fairly thin stand in for the Shah of Iran (Shaddam in the film) and Paul Atreides is a Jesus-like, Arab warrior who thinks of himself as a God. So the film is an amazingly powerful and unlikely political allegory that condemns US policy (remember this was done during the Reagan presidency).
But, in the end, ironically, it's precisely because the film IS BAD that it's so enjoyable. Kyle MacLachlan is simply not very good here and has the dubious honor of being in both this and Showgirls. This is movie that can, literally, be enjoyed because it has few redeeming qualities. As bad entertainment, this movie works. Or, as I've hinited, as an interesting though failed Lynch myth it also has its charms. It is - I mean this sincerely - perhaps better seen without any volume. Finally, Alicia Witt and Sting play crucial cameo roles.
Most of the blame resides with executive producer Dino De Laurentiis for deliberately turning the film into a mindless blockbusters that made money in France and nowhere else. Even with all these problems, the film is worth seeing and not just because it is part of the Lynch canon. The sets and costumes are amazing. The characters and folklore - though overdone - have an interesting Shakespeare-like quality. But what probably stands out and makes the film so incredible is Lynch's fairly clear endorsement of holy jihad against the imperialist powers. The villain is fairly thin stand in for the Shah of Iran (Shaddam in the film) and Paul Atreides is a Jesus-like, Arab warrior who thinks of himself as a God. So the film is an amazingly powerful and unlikely political allegory that condemns US policy (remember this was done during the Reagan presidency).
But, in the end, ironically, it's precisely because the film IS BAD that it's so enjoyable. Kyle MacLachlan is simply not very good here and has the dubious honor of being in both this and Showgirls. This is movie that can, literally, be enjoyed because it has few redeeming qualities. As bad entertainment, this movie works. Or, as I've hinited, as an interesting though failed Lynch myth it also has its charms. It is - I mean this sincerely - perhaps better seen without any volume. Finally, Alicia Witt and Sting play crucial cameo roles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)