Change Your Image
nycsean
Reviews
Crash (2004)
A stereotypical script that ruins great acting and cinematography
After the latest awards, I was really excited to go rent "Crash", which I had missed in the theater, and having recently become interested in the various films that explore the modern demographic fractal of Los Angeles.
The story tries to follow 8 main characters that interweave through a day in Los Angeles, and there is some excellent acting, with actors playing against type. Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock and Matt Dillon all put in fine performances that deserved more publicity, and Ludicrous makes an impressive acting debut. The lighting is great and a pleasure to watch.
It's just to bad the story and dialogue are so horrid. Every incident is pulled from a "racial dynamics 101" after-school special, with none of the subtlety and tension that underlies the real interplay between race, ethnicity and class in modern America. It comes across as a film about diversity and conflict as written by a white liberal who has never experienced any of these incidents, nor really knows someone who has.
By the middle of the movie, it's lost any sense of surprise, it's an interplay of stereotypes rather than characters, and it leaves no sense of tension. The one surprise for me involved the incident between the Hispanic family and the Persian store owner, and since that was my one surprise, I spoil it for you.
By it's end it was rather tedious, and I can't believe that this film won Best Picture unless the other candidates just stank. It's a real shame that this ones and "A History of Violence" (good - not great), wasn't even nominated.
Watch it for curiosity, but don't expect a good movie. For a movie that explores modern Los Angeles, Collateral was actually a superior film (but I guess thrillers don't get nominated)
The Third Man (1949)
A perfect, succinct film
The Third Man is a classic that just seems to get better and better with each viewing. A classic film-noire, incorporating elements of noir, Graham Greene's jaded spy thrillers, and excellent acting performances.
It's a succinct film that masters how to tell a basic story, while adding a richness and depth through characterization and atmosphere. The unique zither that strums along matches it perfectly.
While some may find it dated, I find it a forward thinking masterpiece and you can see the shots that Scorsese and Spielberg have copied for their black and white work. After watching overblown and obvious films such as Crash (this won an award?), it was a gem to see this again. It's my third time, and it just seems to improve with age.
It's the little moments that count. Cotten's innocent writer (or is he- since he has some hints of a past with the villain), the great sewer chase, and of course, Orson Welles entrance. The film glides perfectly, with nothing out of place of not making sense.
Excellent
Troy (2004)
A real stinker - how NOT to adapt a film
I am a big fan of both historic costume drama films, and the Iliad, so I was curious about Troy as soon as I heard about it. Then came the reviews, followed by the bad word of mouth. So I avoided it in the theaters, and waited until it came out as a rental.
Man I am glad I didn't pay $10 for this turkey. This was awful, not boring, not trite or predictable. It just plain stank. The dialog was wooden, and you could see the actors just giving up and not caring anymore. The balance and wealth of characters in the Illiad was stripped down to cardboard caricatures.
I don't mind a retelling or new interpretation of the tales, Naomi Wolf's Cassandra is a great example of how a new classic can be rebuilt from the old, but I don't understand the choices behind Troy. It's like Shakespeare, you have a ready built screenplay for you. You actually have it easy.
Instead, the makers of this film had to alter it and experiment, but not in any cohesive way. Achilles is played as a cynical glory hound, and Agememnon a political manipulator. Great ideas (not original but hey- it's a movie), but they are executed in such a poor fashion, that it's ludicrous. "Realism"? , as the previous reviewer attests, well, realism if you like cliché filled dialog. Realism stripped of the powerfully emotional personal moments that abound in the Iliad. Strip the gods from the Iliad, and you still have many great moments, some of the best in all literature, but even these were ripped asunder, and made into corny scenes with silly music.
the film's attempt to make any statements, artistic or otherwise, are never sustained. We could have had a story arc with Acilles and Patroclus dying in his own quest for glory. Nope. Hector fighting a rush to barbarity. Nope.
The film has 2 redeeming features- Sean Been as Odysuess, a small king having to play along with the big fish, and the scene where Hector chooses his bond of brotherhood over the rites of combat. But that's it.
If you are in the mood for a sand and sandals epic, save your money and go watch Gladiator again.
Hao nan hao nu (1995)
Hou Hitting his stride
I was introduced to Hou Hsiao-Hsien by Flowers of Shanghai, an exquisite piece of work that spoke of a mature film maker, who had mastered his visual language. I imagine that it would be a similar experience to an introduction to Wong kar Wai or Almovodar with In the Mood for Love or All About My Mother, respectively being pieces where an good director became a great. You finish these types of films wondering where did he (the director) come from intellectually, and where is he going.
Hou's style is subtle, an excellent cinematographer and picture taker, like many of the Asian films (whether this is from a common thread or by accident I don't know). He is not as overtly stylish as Wong Kar-Wai, but the shots he takes and chooses (perhaps the better adjective) are beautiful.
A previous commentator called this style "cinematic masturbation", which I think is an adolescent argument. Just because the points don't hit you over the head doesn't mean they are not being made. This is a political film, dealing with a still sensitive topic. The director definitely cares about the audience. Like anything else, it's the little details that count.
One of those little details is an Ozu film being played on TV in one background shot. Hou has consciously acknowledged Ozu as an influence and his style shows it. The action, so to speak, takes place within the context of the everyday events. The points being made are observed by the routine actions, and unique touches within them.
The most solid point being the commonality of loss, and tragedy between two Taiwanese actresses of different generations. Both lose lovers, and sacrifice children to the events around them.
The other point is the simultaneous affluence and emptiness is modern day life. The actress in the older story is based on a real person, who joined the anti-Japanese resistance in China during WWII. After this, her husband is executed in an anti-communist crackdown in Taiwan. She is both pushed along by events, but shows a determination to live her life and make decisions, This is in contrast to the other story, that of the actress playing (there is a movie within a movie), who is looking back on a life with petty gangsters, drinking and drugs. In material goods she is richer than the older actress ever was, with her upper middle class life, yet poorer in far more many ways. Both are played by the same actress, who handles the two stories well.
In the Hou portfolio, I prefer this to Goodbye South Goodbye, which I felt got a little lost in fancy camera work, but I feel that this is close to Flowers of Shanghai.
8½ (1963)
Beautifully shot, extravagant and obvious
Ok, to start this off and be fair, I have to warn you that I am not a Fellini fan. This is to say, I don't dislike his films, but I don't love them either. Truffaut, Kurosawa, Ford and Kar-Wai all rank very highly in my heart, but not Fellini.
Admittedly, this opinion was formed about 15 years ago, so I thought that maybe it was time to give it a second chance and see if my opinion changed with time, so I picked this one up (Criterion Collection DVD, to give it the best chances of success). Well, I find myself giving my 19-year-old mind more credit than before.
My young adult mind has always found Fellini films interesting in pieces, but empty as a whole, and in particular his surreal dream sequences, to be self-extravagant pieces of nothingness that neither add nor subtract to the story, as being neither particularly deep nor particularly new.
8 1/2 confirmed this, starting with a scene in a crowd where the main character Guido Ansemi (Marcelo Mastrioanni) is stuck in a traffic jam and begins to drown in his car as others watch. He is then seen flying above the traffic jam, over the ocean, when suddenly his producer pulls a rope and brings him crashing to the sea. All of his dreams are basic, simple and straight out of Pysch 101. As an example, he has a sideshow magician as the creative side, and the critic therapist as his logical side, almost immediately, you know exactly what they represent and the enfolding seen is obvious, you know it's progression before it happens, so why not leave and get the popcorn. Even the famed sequence with all the women of his life both pampering him like a child and obeying his orders is pretty basic, and develops nothing of either the plot or the Guido's inner turmoil, merely restating what has already become obvious in the non-surreal world.
After a while you get annoyed, the story is enough, and the interactions between the characters are actually quite funny, but suddenly, zip another dream sequence that in the end is redundant.
I often felt that Fellini got away with this because of a naiveté we Americans have about Europeans, and thus Italians. `Ah, well the Italians are just that way', in terms of Fellini's sloppiness, and lack of any cohesion. But are they? Watch Cinema Paradiso, the Director's Cut, which is as tight and cohesive a film as you will ever watch, or even the neo-realists who delved into flights of Magical Realism, but in the end it always supported the plot. Fellini on the other hand, is all over the place, and perhaps this is where the film is most correct in having his creative side be the sideshow magician- he tricked everyone into making him an auteur.
But again, this film is not a complete waste of time- the cinematography for this film is amazing, some of the best I have ever scene, and timeless, it is as stirring today as it was then, making the film age less then say, the French New Wave, and Marcelo Mastroanni is charming as Fellini's alter ego, Guido. His, and the other actors in the film give it an extra star.
However, even given those pluses, I suspect that in the end, this film rates highly in many film polls because it is about film making, about a director in a creative crisis, and a much better movie in this genre would be Truffaut's Day for Night.
I am glad I rented it, but I am also glad I that I only rented it.
The Searchers (1956)
Awesome classic, that lived up to its promise
I have been stepping through the "classics" of film, pulling lists, renting and observing, usually finding some good ones, but also being disappointed as the films felt dated, or whatever was amazing and innovative has been absorbed and commonplace. Surpsised to see a Western, I rented the Searchers.
And man was I surprised, its amazing, and like Kurosawa's Seven Samurai it's in no way dated, and in fact, has more hints of the changes in attitudes in the west than one would believe.
First, watching this film, you are going to see what everybody else has been riping off and borrowing for the last 50 years- Star Wars, etc. Second, the cinematography, at a time before special effects, is in itself amazing. The camera work, from the opening shot that leads out the door, to Wayne staing outside the family's house, is stupendous. Characters and scenes are framed in a language that is both beautiful AND tell's the story. I don't think I will ever forget the shot of little Natalie Wood running from John Wayne's Ethan.
As for datedness from the views of the west, I feel that the very changes we are aware off are hinted at here. The cavalry and the texans are shown as little more than raiders, not being particularly selective on who gets hit when they raid Indian villages. the majority of absurd, racist statements come from Ethan's mouth, which is a major part of his character.
Which leads to the final amazing part of the film- John Wayne's character Ethan. If you thought Wayne couldn't act. or always played the same role, well you better watch this film. Here Wayne's tough guy act is stretched a little, to make him a dangerous character, whose actions are frightening to everyone around him. It's a subtle but amazing performance, that makes me a John Wayne fan.
La règle du jeu (1939)
Captivating classic, but a little disappointing
After reading multiple reviews and "greatest" all-time lists, I finally got a chance to see this film, in the latest Criterion Collection DVD, and I have to admit I have come away disappointed. Perhaps it was the high expectations I had for it, or the relative distance in time and geography between myself and its origin, but I was expecting a Citizen Kane or Seven Samurai and came away instead with a good film, but for now it's not in my top 10.
I am surprised because I am a fan of world cinema and French cinema, but like a lot of historically influential films, this movies language has been so adopted by those who came after that their initial effects are lost, similar to how kids today view the special effects of the original Star Wars.
I won't go over the story again here (for many other reviewers have discussed it), but I will comment on it's strengths. The acting and directing is definitely tight, and I for one found the cast, and the interplay between the upper, servant and lower classes to be fascinating. The little nuances, such as the aristocratic husband taking in the poacher, at the protest of his gameskeeper, is a great analogy for how the upper classes are "charmed" by the lowest underclass, while both employing and betraying the class that enforces their order at the lowest classes expense (and if you don't think this has revalancy in the modern United States, what's your explanation for adoption of gansgter rap fashion, and the vehement debates between ivy-league liberalism, and Pat Buchanan conservatism).
In these slight touches, Renoir creates a whole social order, accurately mimicking the societal dance between the classes. Unlike most works of this order, all classes are shown as compassionate but also contemptible characters. Schumacher, the gameskeeper who in the end loses his wife, is the most pitiable character, actually weeping tears, even though he is in affect the police and executioner for the bourgeoisie, who shows the greatest range of emotion, rage, disgust, and sorrow. His wife, the maid (her name), is the opposite, a flirt, who in the end chooses serving her lady for the creature comforts and status of the position, over her husband OR her lover, a predecessor to the mass consumption of luxury brands and mall shopping.
Perhaps the key part of the film, and why I have some problems with it, is its theme of emotional distance. Besides Schumacher, there is very little emotion, which is in fact the purposeful theme of the film. The entire social order (not just the bourgeoisie) has become distant, and unable to react or feel. The pilot-romantic hero and the aristocrat's mutual relationship traverses a terrain of romantic competition, fisticuffs, camaraderie, to a final tearless lament. None of these transitions are real.
Even Renoir's character, Octave, who suddenly admits his love for Christine (imparting a 3 way competition) backs off, and sends the pilot for what is in fact his execution, scared by the comment of the maid about their age difference and what is "proper".
The hero's execution ends the film, here is a noble if somewhat impetouos character, firmly middle class in his desire to do everything "honourably", shot as a martyr, but he is barely mourned by anyone, including his lover Christine, or his new found comrade, the Count. Instead, they walk up the stairs, with a final speech, covering up the entire affair, leaving the guests to comment on the "style" of the event.
Perhaps this one will grow on me with more viewings, but for now, this doesn't beat Seven Samurai.
Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (1988)
An excellently nuanced film
I just saw the new Cinema Paradiso this weekend, which also marks the first time I ever saw it. It's a long film but you don't notice the time passing as you watch, since it speaks on many different levels of terms of life, memory and experience.
The film has several storylines, reflecting different comments. A film about a first love, about a mentor and a student, about films or about not being able to go home again. However, to select a single one of these as the main story would miss the overall experience, since they are parts of an overall tapestry about the tough choices life presents.
The standard hollywood treatment would made a completely happy ending, our hero gets together with the girl (now woman) of his heart; continues his successful movie career; his mentor remains flawless, and somehow restores the old town's spiritual heart. This doesn't happen, for as his mentor states "life is much harder than in the movies".
Not to say that this a sad film, it's an extremely happy one, and by being tough and presenting a more truthful aspect of experience, its exquisite moments are that much more joyous.
Hai shang hua (1998)
A beautiful, excellent film- a future classic
I have to disagree with the previous poster on this film, I thought it was fantastic and moving. It tells the stories of a set of turn-of-the century courtesans and their client in Shanghai. About 20 characters revolve in and out, yet the director has expertly chosen to focus on key moments and conversations. The movie never leaves the internal rooms of the brothels or "flower houses", and you feel a sense of the entrapped social circumstances that ensnares all the characters. The cinematography is beautiful, taking advantage of low-lighting and inner spaces.
Ying xiong (2002)
Fantastic- didn't let me down
First, let me say that I have been dying to see this film. The combination of Jet Li, Zhang Yimou (Director) and Christopher Doyle (Cinematographer)gave it a superstar billing both in front and behind the screen. The additions of Maggie Cheung, Tony Leung, Donnie Yen and Zhang Ziyi just heightened it.
Within 20 minutes, the film had already surpassed my expectations. Yimou is never a dull director, and he reconstructed heroism. Other reviews compare this film to Kill Bil and Rush Hour. INHO- that's a disservice, those films are parodies of a genre (or classic western appropriation).
The other film it bears comparison to is Crouching Tiger, but it is better in several ways. First, to get ti out of the way, the fight scenes. Second, and much more important, the film is cerebral, with it's intellectualism supported in the fights and colors. The film explores individual action in the context of a society, and like Rashomon before it, breaks each story into an individual context. It completes the Postmodern context, resetting back into the overall repurcussions (something the Deconstructionists have yet to rectify).
Each protoganists story is told differently, in different colors. The colors are left up to us to interpret. Red- perhaps revenge. Green, innocence and youth.
Each heroe's stoy is also a different role. Jet Li starts as a character seeking personal vengeance but begins to think it terms of the greater the good. Tony Leung also makes this transition, at an earlier stage. His lover, Maggie Cheung, holds on to her motive of revenge and pays a price (I am being a little vague so as not to give it away), her emotional path effectively boomering back on her.
How far should the hero in persuing the personal cause? How far in the political? What actions are permissible in either realm? ANd what is the greater good? All of this is debated.
This film will rank with Seven Samurai in the genre of the action film.