I started my prac on March 19th, so I decided I should probably plan my time around that as opposed to movies. As a result, I watched far fewer movies, and decided to put all the films I watched over the two week period in to one post.
76. Notorious (1946) - March 20th
There's a reason Hitchcock is remembered as one of the Greatest Of All Time.
Notorious is sublime; slick direction, dialogue as smooth as butter, and perfectly melodramatic acting, all working together to execute an intense and intriguingly grey story poisonous love and the effects of trust and communication. As far as Hitchcock's works go, it's one of his most important. - 9/10
I wish I had more to say about it, but right now I don't have much time to put more thought in to it; movie watching has to be juggled with both assignments and my prac placement.
There are a few things that stuck out to me on this initial viewing, however. I love the way the direction casts this spells on the early scenes. For a moment Bergman and Grant's romance feels "movie real", with this intense chemistry supported by intimate angles and soppy music to hammer it home, only to have it all dashed at the revelation of Grant's intentions. I love the way Claude Rain's Alex Sebastian is positioned pathetically; he's a Nazi, so it's the shortest of short-hands to make him a bad guy, but the film goes out of its way to humanise him, trusting too easily and being emasculated at every turn. He's still an absolute villain, obsessing and possessing Bergman's Alicia Huberman and being, you know, a Nazi, and particularly how these two things tie together to create a situation in which he poisons her; but it's all forged by conflict, a mixture of his emasculation at the hands of his mother causing him to confuse love with possession and not understanding how to deal with and the jealousy that boils within him. He's a broken human, but in a position of power, and it makes for a thrilling combination to watch as it all crumbles. I'm conflicted on the way Huberman is simply used by the men around her. On the one hand, this was made in 1946, so I shouldn't be surprised, and I'm at least impressed by the amount the film develops her character and makes sure that while the men around her use her as an object, the film works to show that it doesn't see her the same way. I also appreciate that the film is about Devlin learning not to do that, to treat her as a human being and to not push her away; like Sebastian he's conflicted about trust, communication and women, and he at least learns to overcome these things through the terrible conflict within himself over what he does to Huberman. At the same time, he never see punishment for his actions, no real rebuttal from Huberman, and the way he learns to appreciate her is fueled by her degradation in to a mere damsel. The first I see the workings of; duty takes precedence for Devlin and acts as the key to his conflict and the reason for why he's the "better man" of the story. He pushes her away, but he does so for a number of reasons, all of which are to minimise the hurt for both characters and make the grizzly situation slightly easier. It's understandable, even justifiable, and some may say that seeing the woman you love in the arms of another man is the external punishment, and punishment enough for his crimes. Were I someone in 1946, I'd agree; standing in 2018 it's far less cut and dry. With that in mind, at least the morality of the situation lends itself to discussion. The degradation of Huberman's character is a little harder to abide. I understand what they were going for, but the act essentially removes her as a factor in the story outside of the impressively and intimately filmed kiss scene. She no longer has a chance to regain her agency, an opportunity to draw attention back to the woman between the two men and be as dynamic as she has been. It's a product of its time, so it's a bit of a wash; the degradation works within the context of the film, but there's an unsettling feeling that goes beyond the film's melodrama. Perhaps upon re-watch I'll see it again and find it to be an intentional layer, one that isn't just me being a product of my time; it wouldn't surprise me given Hitchcock's work. At the same time, it's also not unlikely that this aspect of the film is simply a product of its time, one that like many others I'll have to uncomfortably make an exception for. Either way, it contributes little to my overall loving opinion of the film right now.
77. Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) - March 22nd
This wasn't bad. It's not good, either, but most of what's bad about this movie comes from the failure to complete the myriad ideas it suggests. Also, Scott Eastwood can't act and John Boyega can, which creates a stark contrast between them when they're together on-screen. Eastwood sounds perpetually phoned-in, like he has all the range of his dad but none of the grit; Boyega on the other hand delivers even the most cliche dialogue with complete earnest enthusiasm, making every scene involving him having to say something positively magnetic. - My full review can be found here. - 5.5/10
78. Mission: Impossible 2 (2000) - March 26th
A week ago, I watched Notorious. Today I did it again.
Seriously, I decided to watch Mission: Impossible 2 after reading that the story beats were the lifted from Notorious; the idea of these two particular movies sharing such a strange connection was intriguing enough for me to see how it plays out on-screen.
The similarities are all conceptual only. As far as stylistic and narrative approach are concerned the two could not be more different; Notorious is a scalpel, and M:I 2 is a lead pipe. Where Notorious emphasises psychological thrills, duplicity, and character growth, M:I 2 is all unbridled emotion, testosterone and John Woo's signature action style, applied liberally to every possible character action and reaction. There's points of comparison that can be made between the two films in terms of how they handle the same story beats, especially in how the details are completely altered by the context of each film, but for two films made over fifty years apart and with completely different, I can't imagine it would be to a constructive end if these were the only two films considered. As it is, I'll just talk about M:I 2.
I thoroughly enjoy how insane this movie can be with its spy stuff, and how seriously it takes itself in spite of this. John Woo has no sense of restraint, and as a result he can make even the smallest shot simmer with slow motion, or choose to cut to a close-up on even the slightest character action. At its worst, this can be exhausting, but it's honestly so funny how much he just really wants you to know a character is watching another character like a hawk by slowing things down for a few seconds, or how he cuts between ultra-close and medium shots of a conversation while the camera is moving around, just to make sure you know that a cigar cutter is going to be used. It's necessary to know these things, of course, but Woo smacks you in the face with it over an extended period of time, just to be sure. This style is much better applied to the action scenes, where high-octane thrills can get lost in the chaos; Woo's extra insurance is more than helpful here, as opposed to the dialogue scenes. There's also the regulation Woo doves/pigeons, which is just hilariously wonderful no matter how many times I see it.
That said, Woo's style doesn't exactly ruin the dialogue scenes; they weren't good to begin with. While a handful of lines sit well because of the movie's intense emotional core, for the most part the dialogue is nothing but one placeholder action cliche after another. That's not exactly the gravest problem facing our society today, as a film like this emphasises action and style over literally everything else, but this isn't Pacific Rim for me, the film doesn't resonate with me on such an innately engaging level that I intentionally ignore all these flaws, so they come up relatively prominently on this first time around. It's still a solid action movie, and I always love it when a movie takes itself as seriously as a film like this one, but the dialogue was literally cliche about a decade before this film was released. The dialogue is also awfully stereotypical in its discussion of women, which is ok when it's coming from the bad guy, we hate him already, but it's placed uncomfortably innocuously sometimes.
I appreciate the performances though. Cruise is never a disappointment, always giving his strongest effort and he's even better here than he was in the first, again helping to smooth-over the film's rough attempt to maintain earnestness in its emotional core. Thandie Newton is also good fun here, playful and sexy without being a total prop, a character with some agency behind her intense expression. The two of them keep the whole thing entertaining even if the story and dialogue leave much to be desired.
All-in-all, this was a decent early 2000s action flick and it doesn't surprise me that it led to more sequels; as I hear it, it's all uphill from here, so I'm looking forward to the next few. - 6/10
79. Rushmore (1998) - March 27th
After having seen it, this is probably one of my preferred Wes Anderson movies, primarily because the film is so prototypical of his style that everything that would become a Wes Anderson staple feels understated, clever by virtue of not rubbing it in the audience's face at all times. I appreciate the 'self-aware filmmaking with unaware characters' dynamic that allows the main character to be a completely insufferable douche without the movie losing its charm and creating an opportunity for the him to learn and grow out of it. - 8/10
80. Brick (2005) - March 30th
Stylistically speaking, this is probably my favourite movie in recent memory. A neo-noir framed by a high school with visuals inspired by seemingly everything including Cowboy Bebop? How is this not the best thing ever?
I love the way the film just plays out beat for beat like a hard-boiled detective story, but with every character archetype as a high school student. You have characters speaking the usual stylish dialogue spoken in smoky tones (-"You don't know me, I'll save you some time" -"I know everyone and have all the time in the world" -"The folly of youth" - a quick exchange between two characters that feels ripped right from the pages of Hammett or Chandler) and dressed up to be every kind of noir stereotype, except they're all kids essentially living out the power fantasy of adulthood; it's a fantastic juxtaposition of self-aware filmmaking and unaware characters. I love the choice to always shoot Gordon-Levitt's Brendan's entrance in to scenes at shoe-height, and to frame him compared to others with low angles and high blocking to create the sense of power he thinks he has over everyone else by being apart from them, and how it strips that away when he's with Emily, until her differences drive her away (and therefore below) him too. I love the way the film supports all this with some clever (if occasionally way too fast) editing and the dulcet rattle of jazz.
One more time, I love the dialogue in this movie. It's all perfectly crafted but for another genre, so in context it comes out sounding just off enough to be completely charming and hilarious at the best of times. Moments like Brendan going on a rant like an undercover cop too long on the streets and ending it with "I'll see you at the parent conference" are pure genius, and really toe that line between the engrossing nature of the text and the self aware, genre-savvy nods. A rough-up interrogation being taken "upstairs" meaning to go in to the kingpin's mother's kitchen is just another example of this film's great use of juxtaposition; the film is constantly reminding you of its own absurdity and reveling in it. - 9/10
81. Ready Player One (2018) - March 30th
This was such a strange mix of good direction and bad writing. The movie looks and moves so well, but there's nothing to make me care about any of it. My full review can be found here. - 6/10
82. The Terminal (2004) - March 31st
Steven Spielberg always knows how to make a crowd-pleaser.
It's a simple fish-out-of-water story that acts as a nice metaphor for the universality of the American Dream. It's soft and easy to digest, with only a little tension, and I'll probably forget most of it by next week. Nothing about it really blows my mind, the whole experience is safe and plodding but pleasant. It feels like the perfect movie for a lazy Sunday afternoon. Once again, though, I care very little for everything that actually happens in the movie, even if what happens isn't badly done. The direction is Spielberg's work as expected. He uses a lot of really slick one-ers that don't draw attention to themselves and function primarily to pack a lot of information and allow the acting to often come off as organic as possible. This is a good thing, too, because credit is due the actors as well, who all offer sweet emotional performances that suit the tone of the romantic comedy, with Hanks so charismatic that he's capable of making a character like this seem deeper than he is. The writing is trite romantic comedy at it's most middling, with a lot of cute moments that manage to work on their own but feel rushed and underdeveloped in context, such as the on/off nature of Hanks' relationship with Zeta-Jones, and the rush of Luna's marriage to Saldana. However, the overall positivity of the film fits what it's going for, with the impact Hanks has on the people around him having a sense of that movie magic that makes you want so very much to believe the best in the people. This is too nice not to feel good about, but it's not more than that. - 6/10
83. Sahara (2005) - March 31st
This is the sort of fun bad movie made retroactively better by virtue of the fact that we can examine McConaughey's performance from the perspective of someone who understands that he's actually an incredibly talented actor. His performance here was probably insufferable pre-McConaissance, but taken with the knowledge that he knows what he's doing, this performance comes off as far more self-aware than it probably would have at the time of the film's release. It's still a pretty bad movie that seems right out of the less memorable parts of 80s All-American Cheese, but seeing it with McConaughey in the social consciousness as a champion as opposed to a punch line makes the whole experience worthy of great guilty-pleasure. - 5/10
Published April 2nd, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment