« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

April 25, 2005

Nine Queens

Nine Queens (2000), Fabián Bielinsky:
I guess I've seen too many con movies, but halfway through this I stopped caring about how things were progressing from one step to another, and just wanted to know how things were going to end. Much as I dislike him, Mamet's House of Games and The Spanish Prisoner are the flagships of the genre.

I hope my curiousity over how bad Criminal was doesn't get the better of me.
5/15

Posted by bing at 06:18 PM | Comments (0)

The Statement

The Statement (2003), Norman Jewison:
After Constantine and remembering perhaps the only bright spot of The Beach I decided to go Tilda Swinton hunting. I could've sworn I heard a few good things about this, but apparently not. What might've been a taut thriller about the church's dark secret because a mild "Chase an old Michael Caine" movie for which Ms. Swinton (and Mr. Caine) steps down her efforts.
3/15

Posted by bing at 06:14 PM | Comments (0)

The Last Wave

The Last Wave (1977), Peter Weir:
Peter Weir, while I can't think of any real unifying style between his movies, I seem to like them a fair bit. I was hoping for something here like the gracefully unnerving and meticulously balanced Picnic at Hanging Rock. It deals with a Sydney lawyer who starts having premonitions after reprenting a group of Aboriginies. I just didn't buy it at times, but the end was exactly what I was looking for.
7/15

Posted by bing at 06:07 PM | Comments (0)

Sullivan's Travels

Sullivan's Travels (1941), Preston Sturges:
Man, Veronica Lake looks good on screen.

So Christopher Guest said on the commentary (what he's doing on the commentary I'm not sure) that when he first saw this, it didn't blow him away. It didn't blow me away either. Maybe I should try watching it again in a few years.
8/15

Posted by bing at 06:04 PM | Comments (0)

April 22, 2005

Slums of Beverly Hills

Slums of Beverly Hills (1998), Tamara Jenkins:
I can't figure out Natasha Lyonne (dog molesting threats aside). She's undeniably "hott", but her individual features aren't really so. Ah well.

Anyways, another autobiographical movie. Basically: "Breasts are good, steaks are better". Also, could there be any more obvious breast doubles?
5/15

Posted by bing at 05:29 PM | Comments (0)

Sorcerer

Sorcerer (1977), William Friedkin:
This apparently is the movie that ruined Friedkin. A remake of the aforementioned Wages of Fear, Roy Scheider helms the truck across the jungles of South America. It's very much a straight-up remake, preserving the grey nihilism of the original. It's a little less earnest and a little more thrilling, but I think equally as good.
10/15

Posted by bing at 05:26 PM | Comments (0)

The Wages of Fear

The Wages of Fear (1953), Henri-Georges Clouzot:
One of the truly great truck thrillers (sorry Duel) about a raggedy bunch from a raggedy South American town hired to drive cases of nitroglycerin across miles of unhospitable environs. It's not as whiz-bam-pow, but the tension still survived pretty well.
10/15

Posted by bing at 05:22 PM | Comments (0)

April 20, 2005

The Village

The Village (2004), M. Night Shyamalan:
I remember thinking the trailer for this looked really good, then I heard the collective grumble building up again Mr. Shyamalan. I guess I wasn't really surprised, either; his work has been on a steady decline since The Sixth Sense, and while I still liked Signs, it didn't seem to have the same ease of narration the others had.

I also kept hearing about the twist, and how the people guessed the twist and how it ruined the movie. I guessed the twist halfway through and it was fine. It really seems like people put so much emphasis on the twist when it's just a piece of the whole. The Sixth Sense would still be a great movie without the last five minutes. There's a little stress on the twist here, which I don't like, but I enjoyed it.
10/15

Posted by bing at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2005

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

The Manchurian Candidate (2004), Jonathan Demme:
It's an interesting concept, at least, updating the Manchurian Candidate with Multi-National Corporations instead of Communists, but this doesn't feel like it got much further beyond the "Hey, wouldn't it be great if..." stage.

In particular, the end (which was so magnificently orchestrated in the original) is a messy reshuffling. It's as if the filmmakers knew they had to change the ending somehow, so they just gave different characters different roles and left it at that, with little regard to why anything at all like that should happen. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
4/15

Posted by bing at 04:42 PM | Comments (0)

1984

1984 (1984), Michael Radford:
I can't tell if it's exceedingly neat that they filmed some scenes on the exact date mentioned in the book. I suppose something like this had to happen and it is compelling on its own right, but the movie just doesn't carry its part of the bargain.

Nothing's particularly bad about it. It looks like what Orwell wrote. Things happen just about how they happen in the book. There's just nothing particularly good about it, despite Richard Burton's final role and the expectation of being the definitive 1984 adaptation. This might be a good alternative to a tenth grader who doesn't feel like reading much, but as a movie, I expect more life and adaptation.
4/15

Posted by bing at 04:34 PM | Comments (0)

House of Sand and Fog

House of Sand and Fog (2003), Vadim Perelman:
You know, I didn't expect to like this this much. I thought it'd be a typical just-above-the-middle-of-the-road tragedy, getting its fair share of praise, but disappearing in a matter of months.

So it's actually very good. The tragedy is somewhat lyrical; not just one bad event falling after another. It's superbly acted (then again, does Ben Kingsley ever mail it in?). I remember people talking about whether Ben Kingsley or Jennifer Connelly was right, but I don't see how that is particularly important.
13/15

Posted by bing at 12:12 AM | Comments (0)

April 17, 2005

Kung Fu Hustle

Kung Fu Hustle (2004), Stephen Chow:
I didn't get to check out Shaolin Soccer but was pretty hyped on this. Notwithstanding Ebert's incoherent babbling, it at least gives you a sense of the film, be as it may just an extension of the standard kung fu movie--albeit an increidbly imaginative and intellengent one.

It's really funny, the fight scenes rank pretty high on a scale from one to awesome, the shot in the hall of the prison I'm sure will rank among the best of the year. Seriously.
14/15

Posted by bing at 08:36 PM | Comments (0)

April 15, 2005

Pursued

Pursued (1947), Raoul Walsh:
A decent noir-Western that seems to have been lost through the cracks; even the blurb on the back of the case got the plot wrong. Robert Mitchum is great as the guy who gets the worst of it, with Teresa Wright as the step-sister/love interest/femme fatale. It takes a lot more from its noir pedigree; it doesn't follow the Western track much at all and I swear there were venetian blinds at times.
11/15

Posted by bing at 04:35 PM | Comments (0)

Fever Pitch

Fever Pitch (2005), The Farrelly Brothers:
So I didn't really plan on watching this, but Look at Me seemed so heavy and it did look pretty entertaining, which Mahnola Dargis pretty much said it was sublimely endearing, if not particularly good.

So I think without the 2004 season of the Red Sox, this movie probably wouldn't even be that endearing. Drew Barrymore still has a really great screen presence for some reason, though Jimmy Fallon should have, too, but besides a few moments, he's utterly dead on screen. It's a shame, too, because when they do click (I think for maybe two scenes), they're really great together.

The movie starts off terribly. The first twenty minutes, it sounded like they were acting in a warehouse, it seemed that dead, and the rest of the movie develops in stops and starts.

So what's notable? First and foremost, there's the Boston Red Sox. Not matter how gimmicky it might be, it's still pretty cool seeing them on the field after game four in St. Louis. There's an Ione Skye sighting, too.
6/15

Posted by bing at 03:05 PM | Comments (0)

April 12, 2005

Sylvia

Sylvia (2003), Christina Jeffs:
I remember AO Scott really liking this, but he also is a 40-year old woman at heart, so I didn't put much creedence into that, but I'd been on a Blythe Danner kick so I figured that was at least a second thing going for it. It's a pretty uninspiring biopic of Sylvia Plath. It's one of those things where you see nothing but hatred between Sylvia and Ted Hughes, but they still insist on saying things like "No one understands him like you, Sylvia".

I'm starting to realize that Gwyneth Paltrow isn't really that good an actress. I mean, she's gtreat at times, but it seems when push comes to shove, she can't really hack it. I think besides Ms. Danner and a few intellegent shots here and there, there's really not much else here. At least A Beautiful Mind felt important, even if Ron Howard is a terrible human being.
4/15

Posted by bing at 08:28 PM | Comments (0)

April 11, 2005

Diabolique

Diabolique (1956), Henri-Georges Clouzot:
The story is Clouzot beat Hitchcock by mere hours to the novel rights.

I was forewarned that after 50 years, the movie has lost its punch, which would fit, being my main complaint with much of Hitchcock's catalogue (but could hardly be his fault (Then again, the Orwellean thrillers haven't aged nearly as badly)). Back to the matter at hand, it took a while to get started, but the mystery fully captivated me; I really had no idea what was going to happen.

Has anyone seen the Sharon Stone remake?
12/15

Posted by bing at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)

A Woman is a Woman

A Woman is a Woman (1961), Jean-Luc Godard:
Godard still fills the screen with whimsy, making a play on the musical--one devoid of song and dance in the traditional form. Anna Karina glows, and the movie's radiant vitality makes this notable, though it's decidedly not as sound as the other two I've seen, Band of Outsiders and Masculine Feminine.

The Criterion DVD comes with a great short, Charlotte and Veronique, or All the Boys are Called Patrick, written by Eric Rohmer. It's very funny and fits Godard like a glove. I haven't seen any Rohmer, so I can't tell who really did what, but I think I read somewhere (the liner notes?) that Godard handwrote the credits, so he has very nice penmanship.
10/15

Posted by bing at 11:41 AM | Comments (0)

April 07, 2005

To Be or Not to Be

To Be or Not to Be (1942), Ernst Lubitsch:
So I see where Mel Brooks gets it from, but (no offense, Mr. Brooks) this is clearly in another class. Teetering on the edge of tastelessness, Mr. Lubitsch walks the line without incident. It's also really funny. Surprisingly enough, I had never seen Jack Benny before, but I was surprised how subdued he was. I expected something more manic, but eh.
15/15

Posted by bing at 07:27 PM | Comments (0)

April 06, 2005

The Incredibles

The Incredibles (2004), Brad Bird:
On rewatch, this lost a bit. It's not as consistant as Finding Nemo, the current Pixar gold standard. Some of the animation, while spectacular in places and overall, jumped out as just not as good as the rest. It's still a great movie, but I think I'll have to put it below Monsters, Inc.
12/15

Posted by bing at 06:29 PM | Comments (1)

Throne of Blood

Throne of Blood (1957), Akira Kurosawa:
Macbeth wasn't my favorite Shakespeare, and this isn't my favorite Kurosawa. It has a great Toshiro Mifune freak-out, as always. The Criterion DVD commentary helped me appreciate what a great technician Kurosawa is, though, something easily overlooked.
8/15

Posted by bing at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)

April 03, 2005

Before Sunrise

Before Sunrise (1995), Richard Linklater:
Wanted to check out what this Before Sunrise/Sunset thing was all about, so it obviously starts here. I'm not sure how long I should wait before watching Sunset, but seeing as I watched the entire Seven Up! series in two weeks, I don't have much faith in my waiting prowess.

On another note, I hate Richard Linklater solely for Waking Life. I don't doubt he's a fine filmmaker, but there are some people who loved The Cruise and some who didn't, and we fall on different sides of that line.

This, I liked. It's a nice play on the romance movie: though it's fully in the world of movies, it feels authentic. I didn't even like the characters as people very much, but even so it's a very easy watch.
10/15

Posted by bing at 11:04 PM | Comments (0)

Beautiful People

Beautiful People (1999), Jasmin Dizdar:
Definitely a labor of love, but done pretty well. In short it's a Magnolia-esque (the box said it, not me) collection of people interacting with people, showing the distance between them, whether close or far. I say labor of love because all the threads gravitate towards the clashes in what was Yugoslavia, and however well intentioned, it felt forced. The rest of the action, though, was sharp and full of life, which makes it well worth watching.
11/15

Posted by bing at 10:56 PM | Comments (0)

April 02, 2005

Capturing the Friedmans

Capturing the Friedmans (2003), Andrew Jarecki:
So the older brother is the premier party clown in New York City? Baffling. I wonder how his business is doing after this.

The mystery? Seems like everything got caught up in the hoopla and especially with such a public case, there aren't many objective voices. It's interesting what went on, but all the screaming people got real annoying real fast.
10/15

Posted by bing at 11:04 PM | Comments (0)

Mean Streets

Mean Streets (1973), Martin Scorsese:
So I mentioned before that I never really understood Martin Scorsese, but the more I watch, it turns out that I just don't understand Goodfellas (and the terrible Casino).

I mean, this was so good. I expected something a little more raw and rougher, but though it's weird seeing Robert DeNiro and Harvey Keitel before they settled into their perennial characters, there's nothing else about the movie that's really under-developed. It's a view of New York on par with Taxi Driver or that poetic (but irritating) American Express commercial.
13/15

Posted by bing at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)

April 01, 2005

Sin City

Sin City (2005), Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino:
I never really got into Robert Rodriguez; everything people were going crazy over (Desperado, From Dusk Till Dawn, Spy Kids) fell pretty flat on me. When the Sin City stuff first started coming out, I wasn't really that into it, but the more I saw, the more it finally got to me. So, despite my track record with Mr. Rodriguez and not having read the comics, I was really hyped on this (I actually started tearing up during the opening credits).

Yeah, it's pretty awesome. Almost every single piece of it is individually awesome; all the characters are awesome (Elijah Wood perhaps the awesomest? Who knew?); if you've seen the trailer, you know it looks awesome.

Ok, now that I've finished geeking out, it's pretty good, too. I feel like with its inter-related but independent vignettes, it'd be easy to let things spiral out of control, but the directors keep the overall structure nice and tight. There's a miniscule Tarantino time loop at the end, but nothing distracting. Regarding the segments, there's a definite heirarchy. Personally, I think the first was by far best, though I guess it was also the first (Emily complained that things got a little repetitive each time around).

We were also trying to guess which segment was Tarantino's [update: I looked it up. He only directed a scene]. An additional discussion topic: What exactly is the difference between Jaimes King and Pressly?
14/15

Posted by bing at 11:50 PM | Comments (0)

Melinda and Melinda

Melinda and Melinda (2005), Woody Allen:
This is actually the first Woody Allen picture I've seen in the theaters. I'm sorry your latest movies have been so bad, Mr. Allen.

Dare I say I enjoyed the atrocious Hollywood Ending better? I know with that it felt like a cheap knock-off, but it at least had a few moments of that Woody Allen brilliance. This admittedly feels a lot more like a Woody Allen flim--you can feel he's at least trying--but it's almost completely flat. There're no terrible parts, there're no great parts. For a movie that plumbs the depths of comedy/tragedy, it also is very much neither. I actually laughed more at the trailer than the movie, which is odd because you'd figure the subset wouldn't perform as well. I guess that's the point, but it makes for a boring movie.

The cast is actually pretty good. Beyond the much heralded Radha Mitchell, Chloe Sevigny, Chiwetel Ejifor and Will Ferrell are all good to excellent. There's a dud here or there (Amanda Peet?) but over all, nothing really gets in the way.
6/15

Posted by bing at 12:25 AM | Comments (0)