weblarg

Capote

Capote (2005), some dude who directed The Cruise:
So yeah, this was pretty good. Very good on the biopic and "Oscar-worthy" scale, though not really something I'd particularly care to see again. I did enjoy it, despite "watching Philip Seymour Hoffman pretend to be Truman Capote for two hours" (as Loy put it). I don't think it overreaches too much, and it only really hammers in its talking points a few times. The photography was excellent, and it's always good to see Chris Cooper. I still have no idea how Catherine Keener can try so hard and always come off completely unremarkable. It's odd having Bob Balaban playing the straight man editor (or maybe Editor; there was after all only one William Shawn*) and not play opposite some zany hijinks.
13/15

* - Father of Wallace Shawn? Who knew?

Memory of a Killer

Memory of a Killer (2003), Erik Van Looy:
Memory of a Killer is an intellegent Belgian (I know, whe knew?) thriller about a hit man on his proverbial last hit. As things inevitably go wrong, he gets embroiled in scandal involving the highest members of society. More important than evading his employers and the cops, though, is staying a step ahead of his rapidly developing Alzheimer's. It opines on innocence and the fate of corruption in society and only gets a smidge preachy.
13/15

Hotel Rwanda

Hotel Rwanda (2004), Terry George:
Like I said in my The Battle of Algiers post, I don't dislike movies that educate me about bad things happening in the world, but there's a line between making you think about something and making you feel bad about it. It's well intentioned, sure, and the theater is a pretty good way of bringing attention to things, but that just makes it good advocacy, not good cinema. Well-made guilt porn can only go so far, sure, but without much more (and there's not much) it's just that. Don Cheadle is becoming a fine actor though. I guess his equally amazing skills as an supporting actor kept him doing that until Traffic.
9/15

Barry Lyndon

Barry Lyndon (1975), Stanley Kubrick:
This is the last of the major Kubricks I had yet to see. I was never a Kubrick fanboy and am still convinced anyone who thinks 2001 was anything but an artistic exercise either knows they're lying or should know. The last two I saw, though, The Killing and this, were excellent.

Victorian dramas I don't love much either but it's impossible not to get drawn into Barry Lyndon. The photography looks stolen from an art museum, and the settings are look astounding, even out-timemachining Russian Ark for visual and historical splendor. Also, Ryan O'Neal in leggings, who knew?
13/15

Repo Man

Repo Man (1984),
Alex Cox:
Ah, the punk movie. It's not about punks per se (well, it is), but it's made by and made for them, embodying the punk lifestyle, kinda like Gregg Araki for the "metal movie".

Rough and highly enjoyable, it's a movie you would make with your friends if you were good and had a decent budget.
12/15

Jules et Jim

Jules et Jim (1962), Francois Trauffaut:
Still doing my French New Wave education, and I still just can't get into Trauffaut. There's something so deeply despairing in this and The 400 Blows that's presented so earnestly that it's disarming. It seems participatory, though, so if you don't get it, Trauffaut doesn't really invite you in; it's not really designed for the spectator. It was really well done though.
10/15

A History of Violence

A History of Violence (2005), David Cronenberg:
There's been a little bit of buzz about this, but mostly I've just been really excited about it on my own, I'm not sure exactly why. I guess like Watchmen and Astro City (to name a few), it grafts a genre piece over the real world and lets its characters figure their way through it, and that always appealed to me. Deep down they're still comic book figures, but in a way that there're not aware of it, if that makes any sense. (I was actually surprised when I read this was adapted from a graphic novel, having never heard of it in that form.)

I guess the difference is that it's maintains the same genre setpieces, but approaches them from a different angle. Cronenberg indulges us with thrilling action scenes, but never lets us really enjoy them. The movie keeps you on an emotional unease throughout, and it's this emotional complexity that adds that extra dimension.

The film also fits perfectly well into the Cronenberg oeuvre. Emily pointed it out to me that the character's bodies reflect the accumulation of experiences and their development. It's not Videodrome, but it's there.
14/15

Jeremiah Johnson

Jeremiah Johnson (1972), Sydney Pollack:
Another Western as reaction to Vietnam. It's much, much more nuanced than that kneejerk Josey Wales and gives plenty to chew on. I wonder what happened to Sydney Pollack; this and They Shoot Horses, Don't They are great great movies, a far cry from Random Hearts and Sabrina. Maybe he got more into producing interesting movies than making them.

So Robert Redford stars at the title character, veteran of the Civil War seeking asylum in the Rockies, away from all men. The movie divides into chapters as he encounters the inhabitants of the wild: a Crow warrior, a grizzly man, a christian missionary, a trader. It's these interactions that form the substance of the movie, how even trying to run from people, finds himself discovering the nature of society and America.
13/15

Sweet Smell of Success

Sweet Smell of Success (1957), Alexander Mackendrick:
I have no idea why, but I had always thought this movie was a screen adaptation of a broadway musical/comedy. Yeah, so it's a pleasant surprise when it turns out to be a fairly dark film noir. It only took me fifteen minutes to catch on.

So I can watch Burt Lancaster. Of course, it's easy when he plays the Man with such relish. Tony Curtis is delightfully sleezy as the publicity agent trying to make it big. (I wonder if all his roles have homosexual undertones).

The setting seems odd at first, but the genre fits nicely over it. As Tony Curtis tries to hustle his way to the top, he also must stay one step ahead of his quickly collapsing plans.

I also love movies that wallow in New York. I loved Mirage for the fleeting glance of that ugly, ugly building at Columbus Circle. Unlike something like The Apartment which just seems to be set in New York, Sweet Smell Success explores the depths of the city the deeper the characters get in their dealings.
14/15

O

O (2001), Tim Blake Nelson:
In college, I was actually going to see it but took a wrong turn on the way to the theater and missed the showing, so we ended up getting ice cream instead. I did not know then that that was the best outcome possible for that situation (a proverbial Kobayashi Maru, if you will).

Like the Ethan Hawke Hamlet, O is a completely uninspired Shakespeare translation that hopes desperately that you're entertained enough by the change in setting that you'll ignore the dullness of it all. Also, I swear Julia Stiles wasn't always this bad an actress, but thinking back, I can't recall anything to refute that.
4/15

The Battle of Algiers

The Battle of Algiers (1965), Gillo Pontecorvo:
Concerning our present situation, this is a perfect companion piece to Gunner Palace, both are opposite and surprisingly unemotional and unbiased views of a foreign occupation. It's not perfect, since Iraq is much more legitimate a military action, but the parallels still made me pause.

In whose footsteps Z would later follow, The Battle of Algiers shows that a documentary-style approach can be all the more powerful, invoking less Hollywood storytelling or political propaganda* (well-meaning or no) and more reflection of real-world situations. Living in the Western wold, it's not often we see a view from the occupied or the subjected. When the protagonists detonate bombs in public, you realize it's meant for us, and it's these opposite reactions that are the most enlightening. I much rather prefer a movie that makes you think than something like Hotel Rwanda which, as good as its intentions were, strives to make you feel bad.

14/15

*Of course, the storytelling and political intentions are top-notch, or else it wouldn't be compelling at all.

Grizzly Man

Grizzly Man (2005), Werner Herzog:
Herzog retells the tragic story of Timothy Treadwell, the man who decided that life with the grizzlies was better than that with mankind. What's for debate is whether the tragedy is that he died or the way in which he tried to live.

Herzog makes a couple things eminently clear; this is his movie, and he does not share Timothy's philosophy. It's actually completely fair for Herzog to do this, because while you may not like Timothy (I didn't), he's unabashedly fascinating, both in his actions and on-screen persona. While he wasn't as good a crusader for good as he thought he was (his closest analogue in the movie was someone who cut off and tried to take home the paw of a museum's mounted bear), you selfishly understand the allure simply by watching the incredible footage of Alaskan wilderness and wildlife; like a child's temptation to touch newly born birds in a wild nest. Even being told of the consequences, the hand still reaches out.
12/15

The Constant Gardner

The Constant Gardner (2005), Fernando Meirelles:
So I admit, it's a pretty dumb title. Whatever happened to the "The [cool sounding name] [random noun]" convention for international thrillers?

So then the buzz started coming out. I mean, as soon as I saw the people involved, I got excited. John Le Carre meant this was the genuine article, adapted by perhaps the most exciting international director to come to prominence in the last five years. Also, I still enjoy watching Ralph Fiennes on screen, even though he's only really played two characters well (Quiz Show and Schindler's List, though we've got Spider from "the 'flix").

Yeah, so buzz, hype whatever. It's such a sexy premise: multinational pharmaceuticals, developing nations, British spies, but ultimately it just doesn't get the job done. It does well indicting of MNCs' practices in foreign nations and very well on the connection between Fiennes and Weisz, but the 'thriller' part is stock and everything as a whole seems just patched together.

Of course, I enjoy the resurgence of the international spy thriller starting with Bourne series. Between this and the well-meaning Interpreter, I think American cinema's rediscovered countries beyond our own and found that the politics today can be just as fertile as the Cold War's were.
9/15

Advise & Consent

Advise & Consent (1962), Otto Preminger:
I've been behind on both my movie watching and blog updating. I had actually started this movie about a month ago before finally watching it now. What's funny is the part where I had left off is right around where it does a complete change of tone.

The movie (apt for this time) starts off as a simple senate confirmation of Henry Fonda as a replacement Secretary of State, whose main detractor comes from a Dixiecrat Charles Laughton in a splendidly performance, his last.

So about 45 minutes in, the movie veers away from the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington set-up and heads straight into backroom politics, rife with secret deals and dirty tricks. I honestly didn't expect anything so candid and so delightfully gritty.

The movie's fantastic in other regards. The tracking shots and the cinematography are top-notch, with Saul Bass titles to boot.
14/15

Lovely & Amazing

Lovely & Amazing (2001), Nicole Holofcener:
So the moral is I should stop watching movies just because they're on tv.

Like Crash, L&A adds another to the pantheon of guilt-porn, making you feel terrible about being an upper-middle class white woman. Featuring women behaving like terrible people and trying to cope when they get their collective comeuppance, the simplistic reduction as insult is magnified by the unburdened little black girl serving as moral foil (the great Ashlynn Rose. I don't blame her).
2/15