It's not hard to make an argument that Akira Kurosawa was Japan's greatest writer/director. He established an international reputation with Rashomon (10) and sustained it through many years with films like Ikiru (8), Yojimbo (8), Tsubaki Sanjuro (7), and Dersu Uzala (8). This film, whose English title is "I live in Fear" (although a closer English translation of the Japanese title would be "Record of a Living Being", is lesser known but quite interesting for a few reasons.
First off, this movie shows off a stunning performance by Toshiru Mifune, an actor whose best roles came under Kurosawa. Here, at age 35, he convincingly plays a stubborn old (using very little makeup!) man who has a somewhat paranoid fear of nuclear holocaust. And that subject is the next most interesting aspect here. After all, this is Japan in the 1950s, so everyone is at least a bit fearful of nuclear bombs. So when Mifune's character decides to build a bomb shelter and then move his embittered family to Brazil, it's not too hard to empathize with him.
The story revolves around his family's efforts to oppose his move, and is often shown through the point of view of one of the mediators of their legal dispute, a dentist played by another Kurosawa stalwart, Takashi Shimura. Shimura's character becomes increasingly drawn into the dispute. The idea here is that nuclear bombs are so horrific that the more you think about them, the more fearful you become of them, and that is what happens to both Mifune's and Shimura's characters. And as the film ultimately suggests, what if Mifune's character is correct in thinking that a bomb is right around the corner?
Aside from the nuclear fear theme, this is a story about family disputes. Mifune's character wants to bring not only his immediate family, but also his two mistresses and illegitimate children along to Brazil, but meets opposition from just about all. They legally block him from selling the family factory on grounds of insanity, thus necessitating the mediation. The film starkly shows this family's conflicts and greed.
A thought provoking 7 rating.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Alice In Wonderland -- Burton, 2010
First off, I saw the 2-D version, but I don't think it matters much except that some of the effects might be more novel. Clearly the strength of this film is in the graphics and art direction, even in 2-D.
Tim Burton is a master of the "almost-excellent" film. So many times he gives us an interesting premise, great art direction, and enough quirkiness to give us a promising film. And so many times he lets us down with mediocre dialogue and story line. Beetle Juice (6), Edward Scissorhands (6), Big Fish (6), and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (6) are all films which could have been rated higher without script flaws. All the rest of his movies, I have rated 5 or less, with one exception -- Ed Wood (7), which is Burton's only truly excellent film.
And Alice In Wonderland fits squarely into that "6 but should have been a 7" category. The main difference between this film and Burton's other 6s is that good parts are better and the bad parts are worse. Three of the main art directors are fresh off of Avatar, and do a fabulous job here. And the animation is first rate. Like most of Burton's better movies, most of the actors do a great job with their quirky characterizations. Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover are clearly the best of the bunch here, and Mia Wasikowska is fine, so long as her character is in Wonderland. Unlike most of Burton's movies, Johnny Depp is not a highlight. He gives us one of his rare bad performances as the Mad Hatter. It's actually painful to watch him in some scenes, especially knowing that he is (or was) capable of so much more.
As for the story, I liked the premise of an adult Alice returning to a mixed-up version of Wonderland (and one that seems to incorporate Looking Glass land as well). However the beginning and ending sequences in the real world are not done well, and even most of the Wonderland story is mundane. The dialogue in this film is particularly spotty. It just reeks of big budget compromise and lowest common denominator plot line. And unfortunately that seems to work, as this film is doing great at the box office.
A 6 rating.
Tim Burton is a master of the "almost-excellent" film. So many times he gives us an interesting premise, great art direction, and enough quirkiness to give us a promising film. And so many times he lets us down with mediocre dialogue and story line. Beetle Juice (6), Edward Scissorhands (6), Big Fish (6), and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (6) are all films which could have been rated higher without script flaws. All the rest of his movies, I have rated 5 or less, with one exception -- Ed Wood (7), which is Burton's only truly excellent film.
And Alice In Wonderland fits squarely into that "6 but should have been a 7" category. The main difference between this film and Burton's other 6s is that good parts are better and the bad parts are worse. Three of the main art directors are fresh off of Avatar, and do a fabulous job here. And the animation is first rate. Like most of Burton's better movies, most of the actors do a great job with their quirky characterizations. Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover are clearly the best of the bunch here, and Mia Wasikowska is fine, so long as her character is in Wonderland. Unlike most of Burton's movies, Johnny Depp is not a highlight. He gives us one of his rare bad performances as the Mad Hatter. It's actually painful to watch him in some scenes, especially knowing that he is (or was) capable of so much more.
As for the story, I liked the premise of an adult Alice returning to a mixed-up version of Wonderland (and one that seems to incorporate Looking Glass land as well). However the beginning and ending sequences in the real world are not done well, and even most of the Wonderland story is mundane. The dialogue in this film is particularly spotty. It just reeks of big budget compromise and lowest common denominator plot line. And unfortunately that seems to work, as this film is doing great at the box office.
A 6 rating.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Crowd - Vidor, 1928
I'm a big King Vidor fan. No one is better at combining realism with heart-tugging sentimentalism. He gave us great films such as The Big Parade (8), Street Scene (8), The Champ (7), Our Daily Bread (7), and Stella Dallas (8). He directed films from 1913 to 1959. And even some of his post-prime, later films, such as Ruby Gentry (6), still have that interesting mix of gritty realism and emotional symbolism.
And to my mind, The Crowd is his best film. I've seen it three or four times and come away impressed each time. First off, you have some absolutely amazing location shots of New York City. The scenes where they are riding around on the bus are unlike any I've seen in movies of that era. And the long tracking shot of New York City into the office building filled with a screenful of symmetrical desks is a perfect example of Vidor's eye for artistic symbolism. In this case, the theme is alienation and relationship of the individual to the "crowd". The protagonist has high hope to set himself apart and above the throng, but is hopelessly not up to the task.
Another notable aspect of The Crowd is its realism. Whether the characters are in their tiny apartment, or at the beach, or on a boat, you feel that they are behaving pretty much exactly how you would expect them to in real life. This is supposedly the first movie to depict a toilet flushing (BTW, Hitchcock's Psycho, made 32 years later, is often, absurdly given this distinction!), in a scene where the couple has a domestic squabble. And many, including the MGM studio head, considered that obscene at the time!
Also significant is the complex and tragic plot. Just when it looks like things are going to turn around for this guy (just as it does in so many Hollywood films, where his ship magically comes in and everything is fine after that) the protagonist is instead dealt a crushing blow. Yet unlike simple tragedies, where the ending is a simple nose-dive from there, we are instead left with a bittersweet, semi-tragic, semi-hopeful ending, that is truly poignant.
Vidor purposely used unknowns for the lead characters, in an effort to preserve the feeling of a realistic everyman/woman. It worked then, as the film was both a critical and box office success, and it holds up very well today. The Crowd got two Oscar nominations for Best Picture (actually, in those days, there were two Best Picture categories, one for Production, and the other for "Unique and Artistic Production", and this film was nominated for the latter) and also for Best Direction (likewise, there were two categories, one for comedy and one for drama). Vidor lost to the capable Frank Borzage (who, ironically, also directed from 1913-1959!) and his now largely forgotten 7th Heaven. And The Crowd lost out to Murnau's masterful Sunrise (9), perhaps the only other movie of those years in the same league as The Crowd.
A 9 rating.
And to my mind, The Crowd is his best film. I've seen it three or four times and come away impressed each time. First off, you have some absolutely amazing location shots of New York City. The scenes where they are riding around on the bus are unlike any I've seen in movies of that era. And the long tracking shot of New York City into the office building filled with a screenful of symmetrical desks is a perfect example of Vidor's eye for artistic symbolism. In this case, the theme is alienation and relationship of the individual to the "crowd". The protagonist has high hope to set himself apart and above the throng, but is hopelessly not up to the task.
Another notable aspect of The Crowd is its realism. Whether the characters are in their tiny apartment, or at the beach, or on a boat, you feel that they are behaving pretty much exactly how you would expect them to in real life. This is supposedly the first movie to depict a toilet flushing (BTW, Hitchcock's Psycho, made 32 years later, is often, absurdly given this distinction!), in a scene where the couple has a domestic squabble. And many, including the MGM studio head, considered that obscene at the time!
Also significant is the complex and tragic plot. Just when it looks like things are going to turn around for this guy (just as it does in so many Hollywood films, where his ship magically comes in and everything is fine after that) the protagonist is instead dealt a crushing blow. Yet unlike simple tragedies, where the ending is a simple nose-dive from there, we are instead left with a bittersweet, semi-tragic, semi-hopeful ending, that is truly poignant.
Vidor purposely used unknowns for the lead characters, in an effort to preserve the feeling of a realistic everyman/woman. It worked then, as the film was both a critical and box office success, and it holds up very well today. The Crowd got two Oscar nominations for Best Picture (actually, in those days, there were two Best Picture categories, one for Production, and the other for "Unique and Artistic Production", and this film was nominated for the latter) and also for Best Direction (likewise, there were two categories, one for comedy and one for drama). Vidor lost to the capable Frank Borzage (who, ironically, also directed from 1913-1959!) and his now largely forgotten 7th Heaven. And The Crowd lost out to Murnau's masterful Sunrise (9), perhaps the only other movie of those years in the same league as The Crowd.
A 9 rating.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Atonement - Wright, 2007
Joe Wright broke away from directing TV mini-series with a very capable version of Pride and Prejudice (6) in 2005. He followed it with this film, Atonement, an adaptation of an Ian McEwan novel. I haven't read the book yet.
It is immediately apparent that this is a visually striking film. The scenes in the opulent Tallis Estate and the later war scenes, most particularly the long sequence following the refuges on the beach, are gorgeously shot. This movie was nominated for Oscars in cinematography and art direction, and was completely robbed by not winning both of them.
One can make a pretty fair argument that it was robbed by not winning best picture as well, particularly as it was an especially weak field that year. Saoirse Ronan shockingly got an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest Briony Tallis. Surprising not because she wasn't good, but because she was only 13, and I thought Romola Garai was equally good as the second version of Briony. James McAvoy and Keira Knightley are also solid in their roles as star-crossed lovers.
Christopher Hamilton is a screenwriter who often works on film adaptations of classic books (A Doll's House, The Secret Agent, The Quiet American, etc). I'll be interested in seeing how he does with the upcoming remake of East of Eden.
A 7 rating.
It is immediately apparent that this is a visually striking film. The scenes in the opulent Tallis Estate and the later war scenes, most particularly the long sequence following the refuges on the beach, are gorgeously shot. This movie was nominated for Oscars in cinematography and art direction, and was completely robbed by not winning both of them.
One can make a pretty fair argument that it was robbed by not winning best picture as well, particularly as it was an especially weak field that year. Saoirse Ronan shockingly got an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest Briony Tallis. Surprising not because she wasn't good, but because she was only 13, and I thought Romola Garai was equally good as the second version of Briony. James McAvoy and Keira Knightley are also solid in their roles as star-crossed lovers.
Christopher Hamilton is a screenwriter who often works on film adaptations of classic books (A Doll's House, The Secret Agent, The Quiet American, etc). I'll be interested in seeing how he does with the upcoming remake of East of Eden.
A 7 rating.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Unknown - Browning, 1927
Tod Browning is probably best known today for the 1931 version of Dracula (6) and for the cult film Freaks (5), but The Unknown is probably his best film. Like Freaks and The Show, Unknown is set in the strange world of the carnival circus, full of sideshow characters with various odd deformities.
Lon Chaney gives an astonishing performance as a murderer in disguise as a no-armed circus performer. Browning got a real circus performer to manipulate objects with his feet, in place of Chaney's, but they work together so convincingly that even when you know the trick you still find it believable. Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar in 1989 for My Left Foot (5), with a shadow of Chaney's performance here, but Chaney was too far ahead of his time to receive accolades, as this film was not considered one of his best until years after his death.
Joan Crawford plays the ingenue love interest, and gives us a taste of the great star she would become. Sure, there is some over-acting here, but that is the style for the silent era. The supporting cast is very solid as well.
The bizarre plot is what both ruined this film in its day and makes it all the more intriguing today. Chaney murders Crawford's father and is aware that she has witnessed his hands, which somewhat conspicuously have three thumbs. Crawford has some bizarre phobia about being touched by men, so she is drawn to the faux-armless Chaney and rejects the amorous advances of strongman Malabar The Mighty. Chaney maliciously fuels this phobia by encouraging Malabar to embrace her.
Chaney loves Crawford with an insane passion but is stymied because she can never discover that he is not really armless. So, with the help of his dwarf sidekick, he blackmails a doctor into removing his arms, so that he can declare his love for her! While he is recovering from this horrific operation, Crawford gets over her phobia for men's arms, and for Malabar's in particular, and becomes engaged to him. Chaney's expressions when he learns of this are unforgettable. Ironies abound because of Chaney's earlier encouragement of Malabar and the fact that Malabar once saved his life at the hand of Crawford's father.
Browning is not yet done with the ironies though. Chaney sees a chance to rid Malabar of both of his arms during his circus act and tries to seize his opportunity. He underestimates what Joan Crawford can do with a whip though, and love conquers all in the end.
This is one of Chaney's last performances. A child of two deaf-mute parents, you could almost say that Chaney was born for silent film, and his career would basically end with the silent era and throat cancer. Browning planned to have him play the lead in Dracula, but he died before it was shot. His son went on to have a long, famous career in talkies.
A 7 rating.
Lon Chaney gives an astonishing performance as a murderer in disguise as a no-armed circus performer. Browning got a real circus performer to manipulate objects with his feet, in place of Chaney's, but they work together so convincingly that even when you know the trick you still find it believable. Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar in 1989 for My Left Foot (5), with a shadow of Chaney's performance here, but Chaney was too far ahead of his time to receive accolades, as this film was not considered one of his best until years after his death.
Joan Crawford plays the ingenue love interest, and gives us a taste of the great star she would become. Sure, there is some over-acting here, but that is the style for the silent era. The supporting cast is very solid as well.
The bizarre plot is what both ruined this film in its day and makes it all the more intriguing today. Chaney murders Crawford's father and is aware that she has witnessed his hands, which somewhat conspicuously have three thumbs. Crawford has some bizarre phobia about being touched by men, so she is drawn to the faux-armless Chaney and rejects the amorous advances of strongman Malabar The Mighty. Chaney maliciously fuels this phobia by encouraging Malabar to embrace her.
Chaney loves Crawford with an insane passion but is stymied because she can never discover that he is not really armless. So, with the help of his dwarf sidekick, he blackmails a doctor into removing his arms, so that he can declare his love for her! While he is recovering from this horrific operation, Crawford gets over her phobia for men's arms, and for Malabar's in particular, and becomes engaged to him. Chaney's expressions when he learns of this are unforgettable. Ironies abound because of Chaney's earlier encouragement of Malabar and the fact that Malabar once saved his life at the hand of Crawford's father.
Browning is not yet done with the ironies though. Chaney sees a chance to rid Malabar of both of his arms during his circus act and tries to seize his opportunity. He underestimates what Joan Crawford can do with a whip though, and love conquers all in the end.
This is one of Chaney's last performances. A child of two deaf-mute parents, you could almost say that Chaney was born for silent film, and his career would basically end with the silent era and throat cancer. Browning planned to have him play the lead in Dracula, but he died before it was shot. His son went on to have a long, famous career in talkies.
A 7 rating.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine; Hood, 2009
I had high hopes for this film, first because I've liked the X-Men movies so far (6, 7, and 7 ratings for the first three) and Wolverine is clearly the most interesting character. But this movie falls short in many ways.
First, the plot is both confusing and convoluted. Even someone like me who knows the X-Men comics is often left head scratching. Liev Schreiber does a fine job of playing the creepy brother, in a role he almost seems to be reprising from Defiance (6). But if that is supposed to be Sabortooth, then why doesn't he look anything like the Sabretooth from the comics? And I thought he was supposed to be Wolverine's father, not his brother?
That's not the real problem with the plot though. The writers simply plucked bits and pieces from the large store of Wolverine lore from the comics, but didn't bother to include any kind of plot continuity or pacing. All the dialogue scenes with Stryker just seem lame. And Gavin Hood is no director. How did he even get this gig?
Jackman does his best with the lead role, and fits the bill about as well as in the previous films. It's cool to see Agent Zero and the rest of Stryker's task force in action. And speaking of action, there are some good scenes (New Orleans fights) and some bad ones (yet another motorcycle chase scene). The supporting cast is likable enough to push this to a 5 rating, but I was expecting more.
First, the plot is both confusing and convoluted. Even someone like me who knows the X-Men comics is often left head scratching. Liev Schreiber does a fine job of playing the creepy brother, in a role he almost seems to be reprising from Defiance (6). But if that is supposed to be Sabortooth, then why doesn't he look anything like the Sabretooth from the comics? And I thought he was supposed to be Wolverine's father, not his brother?
That's not the real problem with the plot though. The writers simply plucked bits and pieces from the large store of Wolverine lore from the comics, but didn't bother to include any kind of plot continuity or pacing. All the dialogue scenes with Stryker just seem lame. And Gavin Hood is no director. How did he even get this gig?
Jackman does his best with the lead role, and fits the bill about as well as in the previous films. It's cool to see Agent Zero and the rest of Stryker's task force in action. And speaking of action, there are some good scenes (New Orleans fights) and some bad ones (yet another motorcycle chase scene). The supporting cast is likable enough to push this to a 5 rating, but I was expecting more.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Dragnet - Mankiewicz, 1987
The only reason I even mention this movie is because it is interesting to contrast the director's career with those of his more famous father's and uncle's. Joseph L. Mankiewicz (pere) was one of Hollywood's best writers for decades, and he also proved to be a very capable director. He wrote and directed one masterpiece: All About Eve (10), and produced another: The Philadelphia Story (9). He started writing titles for silent films in the 1920's, and either wrote, directed, or produced up until 1972, when he directed Sleuth (6). He's clearly a Hollywood icon and one of its most talented and versatile.
Joseph's brother Herman, also had a stunning movie career. Although he primarily just worked as a writer, he penned (or helped write) some huge films, including Citizen Kane (10), and The Wizard of Oz (8).
On the other hand, Joseph's son (and Herman's nephew) Tom has a thankfully small number of credits over an unfortunately long career. Like his dad he was a writer/director/producer and even creative consultant, but the list of films he worked on gives us names like Superman II (1), Ladyhawke (2), and Dragnet.
Tom Hanks has some embarrassing performances during his career, but this one has to rank as one of the worst. Dan Aykroyd has plenty of trash on his resume, but even he must cringe a bit when he thinks back on this one.
The premise actually had promise because the old Dragnet TV series had plenty of semi-non-intentional comedic moments. I can vividly remember as a kid watching the (I think first) episode, where Joe Friday listens to a hippie with his face painted two colors freaking out on LSD (which was new as a recreational drug and not yet illegal): "on the train, on the train, on the train... I am the chair, I am the chair, I am the chair". It was great stuff. The contrast between the straight-laced Jack Webb and Harry Morgan and 1960's LA was full of humorous moments, particularly when Friday would fill us in on the latest street slang terminology. Unfortunately, translating that to the 1980's completely failed. A 2 rating.
Joseph's brother Herman, also had a stunning movie career. Although he primarily just worked as a writer, he penned (or helped write) some huge films, including Citizen Kane (10), and The Wizard of Oz (8).
On the other hand, Joseph's son (and Herman's nephew) Tom has a thankfully small number of credits over an unfortunately long career. Like his dad he was a writer/director/producer and even creative consultant, but the list of films he worked on gives us names like Superman II (1), Ladyhawke (2), and Dragnet.
Tom Hanks has some embarrassing performances during his career, but this one has to rank as one of the worst. Dan Aykroyd has plenty of trash on his resume, but even he must cringe a bit when he thinks back on this one.
The premise actually had promise because the old Dragnet TV series had plenty of semi-non-intentional comedic moments. I can vividly remember as a kid watching the (I think first) episode, where Joe Friday listens to a hippie with his face painted two colors freaking out on LSD (which was new as a recreational drug and not yet illegal): "on the train, on the train, on the train... I am the chair, I am the chair, I am the chair". It was great stuff. The contrast between the straight-laced Jack Webb and Harry Morgan and 1960's LA was full of humorous moments, particularly when Friday would fill us in on the latest street slang terminology. Unfortunately, translating that to the 1980's completely failed. A 2 rating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)