watch more movies

I have a slightly longer comment on All Consuming, but here’s an excerpt:

You should watch this film because of and not despite its nearly 4-hour running time, especially if you consider yourself a cinephile. (I can’t believe it took me this long!) The length provides the film with its depth and the audience immersive experience in the visual (and aural) experience of cinema; I’m just sorry to say I saw it at home on DVD instead of in a theatre. There are so many beautiful shots that it’s hard to pick a favorite, but I’ll mention one that has been touted by many: the jump cut between Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) and the desert’s rising sun is stunning. As addeed incentive to see the film, many directors—among them Scorcese & Spielberg (and who were instrumental in restoring this film to Lean’s original vision)—have been influenced by the film.

Goal: 43 films
To Date: 26 seen
Remaining: 17 films

Watched two more noir films recently:

Murder, My Sweet (1944) is an adaptation of Raymond Chandler’s Farwewell, My Lovely. Directed by Edward Dmytryk, the film’s plot loosely centers on detective Phillip Marlowe (Dick Powell, not Humphrey Bogart) reluctantly working for ex-con Moose (Mike Mazurki), a big lug who’s looking for his missing tomato.

The film is a quintessential noir, marked by dark streets and an almost unmappable city, tough guys and sultry dames, snappy dialogue, and-with Powell-the definitive portrayal of Chandler’s best-known character. Like The Big Sleep, the plot is near-incomprehensible; like The Big Sleep, this viewer didn’t even care. I just sat back and let the atmosphere wash over me.

I will deviate, however, from most critics’ take on the film to this degree: while I do think Powell makes a great Marlowe, perhaps even the best, I don’t think you can top the Bogart/Bacall combination of The Big Sleep.

Like Murder, My Sweet,Kiss Me Deadly (1955), Robert Aldrich’s adaptation of the Mickey Spillane novel, is noted for its lead actor’s embodiment of a famous detective. In this film, Ralph Meeker’s Mike Hammer is a cold and violent man, even a sadistic one. Over the narrative’s development I becaome more and more fascinated by his obvious enjoyment of the violence he is forced to use in order to discover who murdered Christina Bailey (Cloris Leachman) and attempted to murder him. During the course of his investigation, enabled by his partner/girlfriend Velda (Maxine Cooper, in a much more limited role than she was given in the novel) and obstructed by the police, Hammer realizes his investigation involves much higher stakes than a personal vendetta. That the entire film represents its Cold War context is evident in the (admittedly convoluted) plot’s focus on the Great Whatsit and in the film’s famous climax; I won’t offer spoilers here.

I will note that Spillane’s/Aldrich’s Hammer seems to have a great influence on, among other things, Ian Fleming’s James Bond, Repo Man, and Quentin Tarantino, especially Pulp Fiction.

Goal: 43 films
To Date: 25 seen
Remaining: 18 films

I’ve lost track of how many I’ve seen between today and 26 (!) weeks ago. That said, here are some sound bites on recent films. Longer mentions on future films, I promise.

The Da Vinci Code: Like the book, what’s the hoopla? Unlike the book, movie-going audiences seemed to get its non-event status right away. Anthony Lane gave an absolutely scathing, and absolutely accurate review, which I’ll paraphrase poorly here: in essence, the film is a faithful adaptation of the book; the film is dull and overwrought, which thus reveals the book is as well. Hilarious!

Mission Impossible 3: Makes a great drinking game. Every time another Cruise film/character is refernced, take a shot. You’ll be very happy by the end.

X-Men: The Last Stand: New theory about the mutants’ appeal—it’s all in the hairstyles. Pacing on this film was so bad, and ruined so much of the series’ potential as established in the two previous films, that it actually made me long to see Superman Returns. You see, I though Singer had a gimme with the X-Men, that the franchise really couldn’t be ruined. I was wrong, as X3 proved, and now I want see what Singer will do with another superhero. (And I didn’t think anything could convince me to watch Superman.)

Cars: Worst Pixar film yet. Violates the rules of the series by focusing more on heartwarming individual journeys and romance rather than the buddy-film aspect. Plus, it overplays the nostalgia angle. Lasseter got the balance in Toy Story right, not in Cars. That said, a bad Pixar film is better than most mainstream animation out there.

Ice Age 2: Does every animated film have to have an action sequence that could be made over into a theme-park ride? And just let that damned squirrel Scrat get his damned acorn.
Hotel: Remember the Mike Figgis 2003 split-screen follow-up to Time Code? If you don’t, consider yourself lucky. If you do, I have two words for you, a favorite phrase I’ve been looking for a reason to use: pretentious claptrap.

Thank You for Smoking: Cute, lighthearted, palatable. An enjoyable film, but not really a biting satire. The harshest criticism concerns the state of public debate, but the film didn’t stay with the idea long enough for me to be uncomfortable. Still, worth a watch.

40-Year Old Virgin: I like Carell and find him to be a very genial comic. He works well in taking the edge of The Office without ruining the integrity of the BBC concept. And he shows some acting skills, too, noticeably a sense of pacing. I wish I could say the same of this film. I liked bits of the film, but it didn’t really hold together for me.

Panic in the Streets: Not a bad little Cold-War noir, interesting for me primarily because of documentary style, the performances by Jack Palance and Zero Mostel and director Elia Kazan’s use of long takes. Oh, and I liked the use of New Orleans as a locus for border anxiety.

Oldboy: Chan-wook Park’s 2003 thriller/mystery of an individual kidnaped and imprisoned, then released after 15 years. A revenge play, with the revenge a dish that is not served cold. Skinny on the movie is that its ending is unpredictable. For everyone but me, I guess. I saw it on video and about halfway through I turned to my friends and said, “Does anybody else see how this is going to end….?” Of course, I find it a bit troublesome that the film was narratively incoherent and I still figured it out (I think that says something about me). I will give Park credit for some interesting visuals, including one with an octopus which elicited a visceral reaction from me.

V for Vendetta: Yes, I think there’s quite a market for graphic novels that don’t rely on superheroes. But so far, I’ve yet to be impressed with many that make it to screen, including Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, and this, V for Vendetta. (Sin City is an exception.) Most annoying elements1) The generic use of WWII fascism to stand in for all evil, which allows any audience member access to the evil of fascism but also strips the film of any ability to do real ideological work for today. (I’ve noticed a similar problems occurs with Hamlet productions set in the 20th century—really, it’s such a trade-off that it’s almost insulting.) 2) The awkward, unmotivated and just plain wrong romance that’s invented between V and Evey; it’s absolutely essential in the novel that this not happen, for many reasons. And for the film, it just doesn’t make sense.

Kingdom of Heaven: Caught on this, because I really want to like Ridley Scott films, especially because of Blade Runner. Good visuals again, but really Eurocentric. Maybe I need to watch it again, without the dialogue.

Goal: 43 films
To Date: 23 seen
Remaining: 20 films

Cool title, wacky plot, kinetic action. I’d say more (and perhaps will later), but this is great little film to see. Some people compare it to Tarantino, negatively, and many critics have lambasted the film because it’s not coherent. I admit, the plot is a little weak-especially for those who feel film’s all about narrative-but director Katsuhito Ishii is a talent to watch. Just let this film’s visual style become your focus—you’ll find lots to appreciate. (And if you know anything about Japanese Yakuza gangsters or manga, you’re bound to really get it.)

Goal: 43 films
To Date: 12 seen
Remaining: 31 films

I was talked into going to the most recent Harry Potter film as part of the holiday family movie-going experience. That’s probably the best way to see the film—with loved ones whose company you value more than the film. I wasn’t awfully impressed, even given my lower expectations for the series. I have read the books, of course, and expected the darker turn this film’s PG-13 rating promised. But I didn’t find the film to be balanced or that coherent, despite the obvious narrative structure enabled by the tournament. What’s more, those folks who were with me and who haven’t read the books, were a little lost as to the film’s plot and how it fits within the overall arc of the series.

That said, I will note that this is the first film where I felt Harry was really in danger. (Too bad Daniel Radcliffe’s reactions to the situation demonstrates he hasn’t improved as an actor-not to mention how painful it is to watch Rupert Grint.) The increase in stakes for the young characters was much appreciated. I also liked Newell’s willingness to spend more time with adult actors-and really enjoyed seeing Maggie Smith (as Prof. McGonagall) and Brendan Gleeson (as Mad-Eye Moody) demonstrate their acting chops.

Overall, I guess what I’m most disappointed by is how this film situated itself more firmly in a fantasy-action adventure hybrid. In so doing, it eschewed some of the social commentary of Rowling’s books, as well as her witty observations of adolescence. Perhaps even more so, I missed the sense of whimsy of the earlier films; I was most certainly willing to let that go if the film were to offer some more meat in exchange; alas, the production did not deliver on that potential.

As for Capote, which I’d seen recently but hadn’t gotten around to writing about, I was quite pleased. I must say I’m not enamored with the recent trend in bio-pics, though they’re much improved over the hagiographic treatment of individuals of films past. Such recent films are competently done, even finely wrought, but the bio-pic is not my preferred genre.

Even with that caveat, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. All the performances are strong but, as critics have noted, Philip Seymour Hoffman is captivating as Truman. He deserves an Oscar nod. Also impressive are Clifton Collins Jr. as Perry Smith (we’ll forgive Collins for Grant Theft Auto: San Andreas) and Catherine Keener as Harper Lee. The performances really inspired me to read In Cold Blood, which has been on my reading list forever but which seems always to be pushed to the bottom of the list. (An excerpt is read in the film.)

Of course, the plot behind the film, especially in conjunction with the real-life situation which inspired In Cold Blood, kept my attention. It asks significant questions about the lure of celebrity, the possibility of objectivity, the nature of intimacy and even the tried-and-true debate about good and evil. All these ideas are introduced through a confident, character-driven focus.

Last note about Capote: if you like paying attention to details in a film’s mise-en-scene, and really like the aesthetics of the film’s early 1960s setting, you may enjoy this film as visual candy. Aside from a few anachronisms, the film was accurate and had me jonesing to redo my digs and to throw a cocktail party.

Goal: 43 films
To Date: 11 seen
Remaining: 32

I wasn’t feeling well last night, so we passed on a Saturday night out and stayed home instead. Luckily, Gaslight was playing on TCM and we had Jim Jarmusch’s Coffee and Cigarettes in the house (thank you, Netflix).

Both are nice little flicks, engaging without demanding too much attention. It’s a solid thriller, and one can certainly see the roots of film noir in Gaslight, and so it was enjoyable; regular filmgoers or those who expect a complex narrative won’t be surprised by the plot, but there is a delight in watching Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer and Joseph Cotton. I’m always struck by Bergman’s beauty, and her interaction with Boyer kept me entertained. (I privately think Cotton is wasted in his role.)

Coffee and Cigarettes is one of Jarmusch’s more mainstream projects. It’s a real vehicle for the actors, with several vignettes designed to showcase the intimacies and trivalties of human interaction. Be sure to look out for the vignettes with Iggy Pop/Tom Waits, one with Cate Blanchett, and one with Bill Murray. Steve Buscemi is also very entertaining is his segment with Joie and Cinque Lee (who rise to his level of performance).

All in all, an enjoyable evening, if not the one I had planned.

Goal: 43 films
To Date: 9 seen
Remaining: 34

I saw Blood Simple a few years ago as part of series of Coen brothers films. I wasn’t as impressed with the film then as I was when I rewatched it this last week. My change of impression has to do, I believe, with the context in which I saw the film (on its own merits, not as part of an auteur canon).

The film, as is consistent with my screenings over these last few months, is a noir (a neo-noir, actually). The cast, which includes John Getz, Frances McDormanc, Dan Hedaya, and Samm-Art Williams, is strong. M. Emmett Walsh steals the show, though, as he so often does in these noirs.

But more important than the peformances is the technical quality of the film. One of the things that really blew me away from this standpoint is the sound/sound editing. Absolutely brilliant, possibly the best thing about the film. If you watch it, be sure to check out the film’s bold use of silence during a pivotal scene between Ray (Getz) and Julian (Hedaya).

Unimpressed. It was highly recommended by people whose opinions I value, and I enjoy Cronenberg films. Perhaps my expectations were set too high, but this is not his best film. Not by a long shot. As it’s still current, and the public buzz seems to favor minimal spoilers, let me just say I found it Cronentberg’s most mainstream, and least thought-provoking, film to date.

P.S. This was not a reference to Aleem’s entry, which I didn’t see until I saved mine.

A great noir film about a police investigation into the murder of the title character, Laura (Gene Tierney). Heading up the investigation in Det. Mark McPherson (Dana Andrews). On his list of suspects: Waldo Lydecker (the incomparable Clifton Webb), Ann Treadwell (Judith Anderson), and Shelby Carpenter (Vincent Price), all of whom seeem to adore Laura but whose actions are also suspect.

Laura has many of the elements associated with noir: flashbacks, voice-over, scenes with high-contrast lighting, sexual and other obsessions. Particularly delightful is Webb’s portrayal of the condescending, hyperintellectual, and effete Waldo. Webb’s a real scene-stealer. Meanwhile, Tierney’s practically luminous in the role of Laura, the noir “good girl” who’s so idealized that even her portrait glows.

Well worth a watch, this film should be on more “best of” lists than it is.

As you can see from my other entries, I see a lot of movies. Partially it’s because of my profession, partially because it’s a hobby, and partially because I live in a provincial Midwest town. (Pssstttt…the real reason? I love movies.)

But I really just wanted a place to list the movies that I’ve seen in addition to the other lists.

So…here’s what I’ve seen this week:

Gilda (1945): Rita Hayworth at her sassiest!
The Hitch-Hiker (1953): perhaps the only film noir directed by a woman, the incomparable Ida Lupino. Makes a nice complement to the noir DetourShadow of a Doubt (1943): Hitchcock’s noir-ish look at small-town American and families.
Spellbound (1945): Hitchcock’s study of pyschology, with a great dream sequence designed by Salvador Dali.