I like foreign cinema. It's not all about explosions, for example. Foreign films don't go for the easy crowd-pleasing cliches. Sure, a lot of European films are just plain plotless, but a viewer can count on getting something different from foreign cinema than the same tired platitudes constantly regurgitated by American cinema. Which is why I was boiling made when I saw that a new Hollywood trend of remaking foreign films for American audiences is coming to the forefront.
Now sometimes this works. The brilliant The Departed is from a 2002 Hong Kong film Mou gaan dou (Infernal Affairs), but Jack Nicholson's performance and the thorough Americanization of the original cop/mole storyline hides the story's original roots. And I'm not saying I think stories are culturalized; stories are what unite all cultures. I'm against taking a film that was brilliantly done in another country, and deciding Americans are too stupid to appreciate it, so it has to be remade. This is true, Americans don't have much of an appetite for foreign anything unless its food. But for a well-rounded film education, one can't discount Kurosawa's brilliance with Rashomon, Ran, or Seven Samurai. ( which was remade into the American Western The Magnificent Seven, a poor copy at best, despite the presence of Steve McQueen.) One cannot discount Truffaut, Fellini, Bergman or Almodovar simply because their films are in French, Italian, Swedish or Spanish. And most Americans have never heard of Bollywood, despite its considerable output. Maybe it's the Hindi.
The impetus for this post is the growing anticipation for Let Me In, which comes out in October. The original film, Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In, 2008) is beautifully made, extremely watchable, and happens to be in Swedish. The original novel is Swedish, so it is appropriate for the film to be Swedish as well. Låt den rätte komma in is currently 204 on imdb.com's top 250 movies list, which is voted for by viewers. So why the American remake? Because, according to producer Simon Oakes, "...the story was so great, so beautiful, that it should be seen by a bigger audience. So I was always saying to myself, people in Manhattan have seen it, guys like you [genre journalists/fans] because it's in your wheelhouse, in New York, in Chicago, in Chelsea, in Notting Hill, in London but no one in Glasgow or Edinburgh or Bristol or Idaho or Pittsburgh has seen this film. It's a story that needs to be seen by a wider audience. Then it came down to [the question], how do you achieve that? By paying homage to the original." So they're not remaking, they're homaging.
This is a crock. Gus Van Sant tried this once by "homaging" Psycho in 1998 and what he got was a mess that bore no semblance to the brilliant original. Hollywood has a track record of not trusting audiences. They want a guaranteed return on their money, followed by Avatar-style profits. So the prospect of releasing a Swedish movie just isn't financially attractive. Occasionally some foreign, untranslated films do make the mainstream by being released in the USA, such as France's Amelie, Mexico's El laberinto del fauno (Pan's Labyrinth), and Y tu mama tambien, Spain's Volver (To Return) and Germany's Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others). But these films are almost exclusively on the art house market, and not heavily advertised unless there is awards buzz. And so the snake eats its tail.
Other good foreign films set for the Americanized market include the South Korean thriller Oldboy (2003), last in development with Steven Speilberg as producer. Never mind that it's 113 on the IMDb top 250. Daniel Craig was just cast in the American remake of the Swedish film Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 2009), which is capitalizing on the English language release of the "Millennium" novel trilogy by Stieg Larsson. Again, most people don't know these were originally made in other countries.
Foreign films will never be staple in the US market until they're pushed into the mainstream. Since the studios don't trust American audiences, the audience demand is the only way this will happen. Get a good dub job, and release it. See what happens.
What do you think? Do you think foreign films should be a staple of the US film market, or should they stay in the art house and be remade for American audiences? Let me know in the comments!
Thank you to imdb.com for information that contributed to this post/rant.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
War on Film
War films have always repulsed me and fascinated me. I've never fully understood why people like them. Isn't the purpose of the war film to highlight the brutal consequences, and ultimate stupidity of war? Whenever I discuss war films and someone says, "Oh, I LOVE that movie," I can't help but think that person missed the point. When done well, a war film can be the most powerful kind; not so much a form of entertainment but a bringer of awareness to universal human consciousness. Only in the throes of a false war, a fake war before our eyes, can empathy form and we have the reactions to war that we ought. A great example of this the 1942 film Mrs. Miniver directed by William Wyler. This film was made to bring American sympathy to British citizens suffering from the blitzkrieg. Not a straight-up war film, but a powerful piece of propaganda designed to bring support to war by showing its effects on the "average" person. And this film still is affecting, despite the passage of time. So here are a few especially powerful war moments put to film:
The end of All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) shows a rare glimpse into the German trenches of World War One. This is a powerful indictment of indoctrination from youth into the "glories" of war. The film's violence in itself is pretty tame by today's standards, but the final shot of a character, disenchanted and emotionally brutalized, reaching for a butterfly, is heart-breaking.
Cheesy entry, but the long crane shot of the miles of injured Confederate soldiers is still as powerful today as it was when Gone with the Wind debuted in 1939.
Apocalypse Now (1979), the ultimate war-is-hell film, brims with intensity when Willard and his team stop a boat full of Vietnamese merchants, killing them for resisting, only to discover they were hiding a puppy. Insanity ensues, because when one doesn't know up from down, and who to trust, how can one stay sane?
The first half-hour of Saving Private Ryan (1998), Spielberg recognizes the power of the indelible image. He barrages the senses to give the audience a front seat into D-Day, but with the deafening pauses after explosions shows searing images of soldiers blindly retrieving their limbs, entire groups on fire, others dragging what is left of their fellow soldiers, drowning, and the general misery of war. But its the quiet on the beach after with dead bodies, dead fish and red waves that sends the message home. And call me crazy, the most heart-wrenching part is watching the government car pull up in the driveway to tell a woman three of her sons are dead. The audience is left to marvel how this maneuver even worked at all.
Enemy at the Gates (2001), has an incredible battle sequence, where terrified Soviet soldiers are literally shoved into battle, and forced to choose between the bullets of the German army when they directly charged the German lines, or the bullets of the Soviets, since the Soviets would fire on their own troops for running away.
Lastly, Black Hawk Down (2001) is relentless, just like we imagine battles to be. The intensity of this film is enough to give someone a heart attack, and I don't mean that in a hyperbolic way. The constant bombs, bullets, blood and gore throughout that very long night are enough to give anyone nightmares.
War is hell. It's sad we need films to remind us of that.
Note: There are a number of war films BackseatDirector has not seen, because she is a wuss. She had to turn off The Deer Hunter, and hasn't been brave enough to watch Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and simply has never seen Patton, Gettysburg, Letters from Iwo Jima, or Flags of our Fathers, or your insert film here. So cut me a break :).
The end of All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) shows a rare glimpse into the German trenches of World War One. This is a powerful indictment of indoctrination from youth into the "glories" of war. The film's violence in itself is pretty tame by today's standards, but the final shot of a character, disenchanted and emotionally brutalized, reaching for a butterfly, is heart-breaking.
Cheesy entry, but the long crane shot of the miles of injured Confederate soldiers is still as powerful today as it was when Gone with the Wind debuted in 1939.
Apocalypse Now (1979), the ultimate war-is-hell film, brims with intensity when Willard and his team stop a boat full of Vietnamese merchants, killing them for resisting, only to discover they were hiding a puppy. Insanity ensues, because when one doesn't know up from down, and who to trust, how can one stay sane?
The first half-hour of Saving Private Ryan (1998), Spielberg recognizes the power of the indelible image. He barrages the senses to give the audience a front seat into D-Day, but with the deafening pauses after explosions shows searing images of soldiers blindly retrieving their limbs, entire groups on fire, others dragging what is left of their fellow soldiers, drowning, and the general misery of war. But its the quiet on the beach after with dead bodies, dead fish and red waves that sends the message home. And call me crazy, the most heart-wrenching part is watching the government car pull up in the driveway to tell a woman three of her sons are dead. The audience is left to marvel how this maneuver even worked at all.
Enemy at the Gates (2001), has an incredible battle sequence, where terrified Soviet soldiers are literally shoved into battle, and forced to choose between the bullets of the German army when they directly charged the German lines, or the bullets of the Soviets, since the Soviets would fire on their own troops for running away.
Lastly, Black Hawk Down (2001) is relentless, just like we imagine battles to be. The intensity of this film is enough to give someone a heart attack, and I don't mean that in a hyperbolic way. The constant bombs, bullets, blood and gore throughout that very long night are enough to give anyone nightmares.
War is hell. It's sad we need films to remind us of that.
Note: There are a number of war films BackseatDirector has not seen, because she is a wuss. She had to turn off The Deer Hunter, and hasn't been brave enough to watch Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and simply has never seen Patton, Gettysburg, Letters from Iwo Jima, or Flags of our Fathers, or your insert film here. So cut me a break :).
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Reconsidering "The Dark Knight"
This week has been a blast of movieland serendipity. Last weekend, motivated by a family member's Netflix choice, I rewatched The Dark Knight, and mentioned Christopher Nolan as one of the best directors working today. Today, I found out the release date for the next Batman film, July 20, 2012. This is the same weekend The Dark Knight was released in 2008 to incredible critical, audience and financial acclaim. This was one of the primary reasons for the delay of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from November 2008 to July 2009; the studio (ridiculously) felt that it was the weekend choice that made The Dark Knight so successful.
But I digress. When The Dark Knight was released, it became one of the most successful movies ever released. The anticipation was heightened with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the film's Joker (for the three people who live in a cave somewhere). It shot to the top of IMDb's top 250 list, and two years later has settled at number 10. It's sequel is one of the most anticipated films right now, including with yours truly. I adore The Dark Knight, and rank it among my favorite action films.
But rewatching it, my opinion has slightly changed. Mind you, I still adore it, but I've noticed some flaws in the storytelling I hadn't noticed before. The first two hours are some of the best committed to film. Ledger is a revelation, and was absolutely terrifying in his unpredictability. The unpredictability factor is gone after repeat viewings, but he's still pretty darn scary (come on, who isn't scared of someone who randomly shoots at cars driving down the street?). The script is smart, the action exciting, and the whole film is an intense, suspenseful slow burn towards an exciting climax involving ethics and choices. The film pulls no punches, does not flinch, and it goes places the typical super-hero movie doesn't go. Hence, my adoration.
But when Gordon receives that phone call, the film starts to fall apart. When Nolan let Harvey Two-Face out of the box, and he kidnaps Gordon's family, the film becomes overblown. It tries to do too much at the end, cram in another subplot. And it does the film no favors. I have to admit, usually after the Joker's upside down "madness" speech, I turn the movie off, because for me that feels like the film's natural conclusion. Adding on another twenty minutes of Harvey Two-Face stopped a great film dead. Now, in a narrative sense, Nolan had to do something to get Batman exiled; the Harvey thing works, but it doesn't work well. So in a moment of Monday morning quarterbacking, wouldn't the film itself be better served for Batman to be blamed for Harvey's disappearance, and have had Two-Face be an underground villain for this upcoming third film? Same end result, and it would be an interesting plot to have Harvey commit crimes, but them constantly being blamed on Batman, and have Gordon's family's peril be a part of this film? Alas, this is just my very overblown sense of ego talking, but to me, this adjustment would have sent The Dark Knight into the sublime, and set up for an interesting sequel. It's still a great film, but not as great as it could have been.
Now, lets pop some popcorn, and listen to the harebrained rumors and theories for titles, villains and wait for what I hope will be an even better film in 2012.
But I digress. When The Dark Knight was released, it became one of the most successful movies ever released. The anticipation was heightened with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the film's Joker (for the three people who live in a cave somewhere). It shot to the top of IMDb's top 250 list, and two years later has settled at number 10. It's sequel is one of the most anticipated films right now, including with yours truly. I adore The Dark Knight, and rank it among my favorite action films.
But rewatching it, my opinion has slightly changed. Mind you, I still adore it, but I've noticed some flaws in the storytelling I hadn't noticed before. The first two hours are some of the best committed to film. Ledger is a revelation, and was absolutely terrifying in his unpredictability. The unpredictability factor is gone after repeat viewings, but he's still pretty darn scary (come on, who isn't scared of someone who randomly shoots at cars driving down the street?). The script is smart, the action exciting, and the whole film is an intense, suspenseful slow burn towards an exciting climax involving ethics and choices. The film pulls no punches, does not flinch, and it goes places the typical super-hero movie doesn't go. Hence, my adoration.
But when Gordon receives that phone call, the film starts to fall apart. When Nolan let Harvey Two-Face out of the box, and he kidnaps Gordon's family, the film becomes overblown. It tries to do too much at the end, cram in another subplot. And it does the film no favors. I have to admit, usually after the Joker's upside down "madness" speech, I turn the movie off, because for me that feels like the film's natural conclusion. Adding on another twenty minutes of Harvey Two-Face stopped a great film dead. Now, in a narrative sense, Nolan had to do something to get Batman exiled; the Harvey thing works, but it doesn't work well. So in a moment of Monday morning quarterbacking, wouldn't the film itself be better served for Batman to be blamed for Harvey's disappearance, and have had Two-Face be an underground villain for this upcoming third film? Same end result, and it would be an interesting plot to have Harvey commit crimes, but them constantly being blamed on Batman, and have Gordon's family's peril be a part of this film? Alas, this is just my very overblown sense of ego talking, but to me, this adjustment would have sent The Dark Knight into the sublime, and set up for an interesting sequel. It's still a great film, but not as great as it could have been.
Now, lets pop some popcorn, and listen to the harebrained rumors and theories for titles, villains and wait for what I hope will be an even better film in 2012.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Best Directors Working Today
There are some directors who are just artists. They work film like an artist paint, a sculptor stone, or a writer words. Some just get the medium. These are the directors whose projects I look forward to the way normal people look forward to Happy Hour, their birthday or a beach trip. Here are, in my humble opinion, some of the best working directors today, and some of their upcoming projects. Since its safe to say none of them read my blog, you know they didn't pay me to promote them!
Christopher Nolan immediately comes to mind. His resume includes Memento (2000), Batman Begins (2005), The Prestige (2006), and The Dark Knight (2008). His latest project is Inception, and of course, his mostly highly anticipated is the third Batman movie, release date undetermined. My reasons for loving him are many; the greatest is his ability to combine the cerebral with entertainment. From Memento, which is told backwards, to The Prestige, with its time-shifting and uncertain protagonist, to his intelligent reboot of the beleaguered Batman franchise, Nolan always has a trick up his sleeve, and will entertain you intelligently, with tight, complicated plots, twists and smart dialogue. But he's not too flashy; look on his insistence of verisimilitude in Batman. He's smart, and intelligently made, well-crafted films are hard to come by. So I can't wait to see Inception, a psychological thriller due out July 16th.
Next is Joe Wright. He's not as established, or prolific, as some other directors, but his brief resume is pretty darn impressive. It includes Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Atonement (2007). He also made a film called The Soloist in 2009, but I can't comment on that one as I haven't seen it yet. Being a Jane Austen purist, I was mortally offended on the undertaking of ANOTHER Pride and Prejudice. After the perfection that is the 1995 BBC adaptation, how dare he? Though imperfect, this film brings an artistic eye to the comedy of manners and makes it unabashedly romantic while still being visually interesting. He perfected the game in Atonement; it's a beautiful mix of styles, images and moments that perfectly recall the very internal nature of the novel source material. He's flashier than Nolan, but his style takes what would be conventional stories and makes them original and memorable visually. And isn't that the point? His next project is called Hanna, set for release in 2011, about a girl who is a killer, but is taken in by a family who want to give her a normal life.
Up next is Martin Scorsese. I know, he's a legend. Taxi Driver. Raging Bull. Goodfellas. Casino. The Aviator. The Departed. And my personal favorite, The Age of Innocence (No really! Only he can make receiving a letter as violent as a gunshot. But just kidding on the my favorite part. That's The Departed.) And you fans out there know this is the shortlist. Scorsese's mediocre film (*cough* Shutter Island *cough*) is still a far better day at the office than most directors can boast. He's simply a master at the top of his game. Most any project with his name attached is bound to garner attention. His most recent project was Shutter Island, released in February. He's got a George Harrison documentary in the can, and his next project is called The Invention of Hugo Cabret, which is due out December 2011, about an orphan trying to solve the mystery of his father. It's refreshing for Scorsese to branch out from the gangster genre his name automatically evokes, so I'm glad to see he's really stretching his wings.
Close behind is Alfonso Cuaron, a Mexican director who isn't familiar to most American audiences unless you've seen Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004). I know him as the brilliant mind behind the Mexican film Y tu mama tambien (2001) and Children of Men (2006). His film making (family friendly A Little Princess and HP films aside) is visceral and in-your-face, be it sex or violence. He doesn't flinch and he doesn't turn away. Children of Men is on my list of practically-perfect films; I am still breathless whenever I watch it. He doesn't have any projects currently in production; I look forward to seeing what he's doing in the future.
And who could have a conversation about directors without Spielberg? Though I'm not always a fan of his gape-mouthed kiddie fare (at least not since ET), I love his more adult work. Though Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was just unfortunate, his other body of work, especially his impressive list of producing credits, always brings me in. His current project is producing The Pacific, a mini-series answer to the immensely popular Band of Brothers, while his CGI motion capture project with Peter Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is in post production until its release in 2011.
Lastly, you know I couldn't make it through a director conversation without mentioning Edgar Wright. You know this to be true. I could go on and on about whip pans, but I know you don't want to hear it. So I'll make this easy on all of us: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is due out August 13th, and I'll be first in line. I don't even know anything about the comic books its based on, but he's enough.
Any favorites of yours I missed? Tell me all about it in the comments! Movie fans, unite!
Christopher Nolan immediately comes to mind. His resume includes Memento (2000), Batman Begins (2005), The Prestige (2006), and The Dark Knight (2008). His latest project is Inception, and of course, his mostly highly anticipated is the third Batman movie, release date undetermined. My reasons for loving him are many; the greatest is his ability to combine the cerebral with entertainment. From Memento, which is told backwards, to The Prestige, with its time-shifting and uncertain protagonist, to his intelligent reboot of the beleaguered Batman franchise, Nolan always has a trick up his sleeve, and will entertain you intelligently, with tight, complicated plots, twists and smart dialogue. But he's not too flashy; look on his insistence of verisimilitude in Batman. He's smart, and intelligently made, well-crafted films are hard to come by. So I can't wait to see Inception, a psychological thriller due out July 16th.
Next is Joe Wright. He's not as established, or prolific, as some other directors, but his brief resume is pretty darn impressive. It includes Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Atonement (2007). He also made a film called The Soloist in 2009, but I can't comment on that one as I haven't seen it yet. Being a Jane Austen purist, I was mortally offended on the undertaking of ANOTHER Pride and Prejudice. After the perfection that is the 1995 BBC adaptation, how dare he? Though imperfect, this film brings an artistic eye to the comedy of manners and makes it unabashedly romantic while still being visually interesting. He perfected the game in Atonement; it's a beautiful mix of styles, images and moments that perfectly recall the very internal nature of the novel source material. He's flashier than Nolan, but his style takes what would be conventional stories and makes them original and memorable visually. And isn't that the point? His next project is called Hanna, set for release in 2011, about a girl who is a killer, but is taken in by a family who want to give her a normal life.
Up next is Martin Scorsese. I know, he's a legend. Taxi Driver. Raging Bull. Goodfellas. Casino. The Aviator. The Departed. And my personal favorite, The Age of Innocence (No really! Only he can make receiving a letter as violent as a gunshot. But just kidding on the my favorite part. That's The Departed.) And you fans out there know this is the shortlist. Scorsese's mediocre film (*cough* Shutter Island *cough*) is still a far better day at the office than most directors can boast. He's simply a master at the top of his game. Most any project with his name attached is bound to garner attention. His most recent project was Shutter Island, released in February. He's got a George Harrison documentary in the can, and his next project is called The Invention of Hugo Cabret, which is due out December 2011, about an orphan trying to solve the mystery of his father. It's refreshing for Scorsese to branch out from the gangster genre his name automatically evokes, so I'm glad to see he's really stretching his wings.
Close behind is Alfonso Cuaron, a Mexican director who isn't familiar to most American audiences unless you've seen Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004). I know him as the brilliant mind behind the Mexican film Y tu mama tambien (2001) and Children of Men (2006). His film making (family friendly A Little Princess and HP films aside) is visceral and in-your-face, be it sex or violence. He doesn't flinch and he doesn't turn away. Children of Men is on my list of practically-perfect films; I am still breathless whenever I watch it. He doesn't have any projects currently in production; I look forward to seeing what he's doing in the future.
And who could have a conversation about directors without Spielberg? Though I'm not always a fan of his gape-mouthed kiddie fare (at least not since ET), I love his more adult work. Though Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was just unfortunate, his other body of work, especially his impressive list of producing credits, always brings me in. His current project is producing The Pacific, a mini-series answer to the immensely popular Band of Brothers, while his CGI motion capture project with Peter Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is in post production until its release in 2011.
Lastly, you know I couldn't make it through a director conversation without mentioning Edgar Wright. You know this to be true. I could go on and on about whip pans, but I know you don't want to hear it. So I'll make this easy on all of us: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is due out August 13th, and I'll be first in line. I don't even know anything about the comic books its based on, but he's enough.
Any favorites of yours I missed? Tell me all about it in the comments! Movie fans, unite!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
These Are a Few of My Favorite Things...
Sorry all, the behemoth that I like to call the school year got in the way of my regular posting. I've still been watching, loving and critiquing films since I got busy, but sadly had neither the time nor the energy to rant. But the sun is out, spring is in the air, and I'm back, bitches!
To open this new era of me having free(r) time, I wanted to post about a few of my favorite movies. Most people are hard-pressed to name their favorite film. To cinephiles, it's akin to picking a favorite child. We all have movies we love for various reasons/moods/occasions. For example, I can't imagine allowing my birthday to pass without viewing the first movie on My Favorite Things list. Granted, I haven't seen every movie ever made, so this list is from my experiences up to April 2010.
Overall Favorite:
Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain, 2001, Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
Little confession of mine: normally I'm into the "Dark Side" kind of stuff, but I'm also a sucker for a good fairy-tale. And this French film, my favorite for several years, serves up. Sure, a shy waitress replaces the fairy princess, and an odd-ball replaces the prince charming, but that doesn't make this movie any less charming. For me, this film has everything: romance, comedy, deep pathos. The bright colors, motley crew of characters and situations, poetic musings on taking chances and the power of fate, and the irrepressible imagination of the heroine keep me coming back for more. That, and it's beautifully romantic.
Favorite Action
The Bourne Ultimatum, 2007, Paul Greengrass
Sure, it's the third in a series. Sure, it doesn't have much in the way of story. But this movie has so many great action set-pieces (foot chases, explosions, car chases, hand-to-hand combat, intrigue) in exotic locales, natch, that are so perfectly conceptualized and executed, it's hard not to be in awe. This movie keeps your attention with the shaky camera, brilliant fights, and of course, looking at Matt Damon for a couple of hours will never hurt your cause. This is one I can't flip past.
Favorite Romance
Atonement, 2007, Joe Wright
I'm sure from reading the above films, you're wondering, didn't she already cover this? But Atonement is a great film adapted from a flawless novel. It's not purely a romance; there's a lot more going on about truth and the necessity of narrative for survival, but the central romance is the beating heart of this film. And it's handled so unusually for this kind of "epic" romance. No histrionics. No hand-wringing, ridiculous demonstrations or pretensions usually found in this kind of film. Just two people who love each other, and want nothing more than to be together. Not to mention the library scene is probably one of the most romantic (without cheesiness) ever committed to film.
Favorite Thriller
Rear Window, 1954, Alfred Hitchcock
This was the toughest to pick by far, with this being my favorite genre. But this is an example of perfect execution and virtuosic film making. Again, this is a film that for me has everything. Jimmy Stewart is a likable hero, Grace Kelly is sublime as his girlfriend, and the tension, mystery and suspense generated on a small set with a physically limited protagonist would make most filmmakers today incredibly jealous. Not to mention the dialogue is witty and holds up well.
Favorite Romantic Comedy
Bringing Up Baby, 1938, Howard Hawks
The best screwball comedy ever made. Period. But on top of that, it explains something very important and fundamental about love when Cary Grant exclaims, "I've just discovered that was the best day I've ever had in my whole life!" to Katharine Hepburn. And considering this day involved a mix-up with leopards, unintentional cross dressing, and following around a dog hoping it will show him a priceless bone, that means it must be love.
Favorite Horror
The Exorcist, 1973, William Friedkin
The term "favorite" is a bit strong in this category because horror/gore is my least favorite genre. But the most terrifying movie I've ever seen is this one. It's a healthy helping of Catholic guilt, a heap of over-active imagination, and a pinch of wussiness (okay, maybe more than a pinch), but this film terrifies me to no end. I've only actually made it through the movie twice. It's not the head-spinning or the crab walk that gets me. It's the desecration of a beautiful, innocent little girl by absolute evil, which is a terrifying idea unto itself. Add the elements of suspense, and the idea that God is not the only one who knows one's soul and one's weaknesses, ready to manipulate your every move, and you get me hiding under the covers with the lights on.
Favorite Comedy
Hot Fuzz, 2007, Edgar Wright
Anyone who knows me knows my devotion to all things Pegg, Wright and Frost. But this movie consistently makes me laugh no matter how many times I've watched it. Be it the brilliant sight gags, the twisting of every ridiculous buddy-cop-action movie convention into something freshly hilarious, or the witty dialogue, it gets me every time. Not to mention it's a pretty solid action movie on its own, taking it above trite parody. That's how we do it in the West Country!
Favorite Fantasy
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 1977, George Lucas
The selling out of Star Wars still devastates me, since I've been watching this movie since I was five, and it doesn't feel any less fascinating or absorbing. Sure, the dialogue is cheesy, and CGI has come leaps and bounds since then, but this is still a seminal movie in my life because it draws you into a world so real that one almost hopes it is.
Favorite Drama
Casablanca, 1942, Michael Curtiz
Why not under Favorite Romance, you ask? Well, it was a contender. Again, another movie that has everything. Its perfection in execution goes beyond words.
Favorite So-Bad-It's-Good
Twilight, 2008, Catherine Hardwicke
Um, do I have to state the obvious? Be it the bad make-up, cheesy special effects, or the car junk-yard clunky dialogue, this movie never fails to disappoint with unintentional humor.
Favorite Epic
Munich, 2005, Steven Spielberg
Desperate times call for desperate measures, right? Well, that's the hypothesis tested in this film, which chronicles the actions of the Mossad after the murder of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. And Spielberg doesn't flinch from the uncomfortable and numerous answers to that question. This is not a typical epic, but with its varied locales, a seemingly unending odyssey of names and faces to die for the sake of safety, retaliation and the quagmire of violence, this film is exhausting, enlightening and shows that the world is not as simple as we'd like.
Favorite Adventure
Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1982, Steven Spielberg
A much lighter, souffle of a piece by Spielberg, who doesn't love the intrepid, always-in-over-his-head hero, Indiana Jones? The story is ridiculously over the top, but it's all so well done (sets, action, stunts, suspense) all one can say is "Pass the popcorn!"
Favorite Musical
Moulin Rogue!, 2001, Baz Luhrman
This is a tough category because I hate musicals, given for my general love of verisimilitude. So I have to pick one so outrageous, so over-the-top, so obviously not set in our real world and definitely in one where people regularly burst into song. Thus Moulin Rogue!, or as I subtitle it, A Beautiful Mess. A mix-tape of a musical, it's colorful, shiny, and so much fun it's hard not to love.
Honorable Mentions:
Children of Men, 2006, Alfonso Cuaron
Sunset Blvd., 1950, Billy Wilder
Some Like it Hot, 1959, Billy Wilder
Shaun of the Dead, 2004, Edgar Wright
Jurassic Park, 1993, Steven Spielberg
Psycho, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock
Rope, 1948, Alfred Hitchcock
The Dark Knight, 2008, Christopher Nolan
Citizen Kane, 1941
What are your favorites? Post in the comments below! (I'm always looking for something new to watch...)
To open this new era of me having free(r) time, I wanted to post about a few of my favorite movies. Most people are hard-pressed to name their favorite film. To cinephiles, it's akin to picking a favorite child. We all have movies we love for various reasons/moods/occasions. For example, I can't imagine allowing my birthday to pass without viewing the first movie on My Favorite Things list. Granted, I haven't seen every movie ever made, so this list is from my experiences up to April 2010.
Overall Favorite:
Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain, 2001, Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
Little confession of mine: normally I'm into the "Dark Side" kind of stuff, but I'm also a sucker for a good fairy-tale. And this French film, my favorite for several years, serves up. Sure, a shy waitress replaces the fairy princess, and an odd-ball replaces the prince charming, but that doesn't make this movie any less charming. For me, this film has everything: romance, comedy, deep pathos. The bright colors, motley crew of characters and situations, poetic musings on taking chances and the power of fate, and the irrepressible imagination of the heroine keep me coming back for more. That, and it's beautifully romantic.
Favorite Action
The Bourne Ultimatum, 2007, Paul Greengrass
Sure, it's the third in a series. Sure, it doesn't have much in the way of story. But this movie has so many great action set-pieces (foot chases, explosions, car chases, hand-to-hand combat, intrigue) in exotic locales, natch, that are so perfectly conceptualized and executed, it's hard not to be in awe. This movie keeps your attention with the shaky camera, brilliant fights, and of course, looking at Matt Damon for a couple of hours will never hurt your cause. This is one I can't flip past.
Favorite Romance
Atonement, 2007, Joe Wright
I'm sure from reading the above films, you're wondering, didn't she already cover this? But Atonement is a great film adapted from a flawless novel. It's not purely a romance; there's a lot more going on about truth and the necessity of narrative for survival, but the central romance is the beating heart of this film. And it's handled so unusually for this kind of "epic" romance. No histrionics. No hand-wringing, ridiculous demonstrations or pretensions usually found in this kind of film. Just two people who love each other, and want nothing more than to be together. Not to mention the library scene is probably one of the most romantic (without cheesiness) ever committed to film.
Favorite Thriller
Rear Window, 1954, Alfred Hitchcock
This was the toughest to pick by far, with this being my favorite genre. But this is an example of perfect execution and virtuosic film making. Again, this is a film that for me has everything. Jimmy Stewart is a likable hero, Grace Kelly is sublime as his girlfriend, and the tension, mystery and suspense generated on a small set with a physically limited protagonist would make most filmmakers today incredibly jealous. Not to mention the dialogue is witty and holds up well.
Favorite Romantic Comedy
Bringing Up Baby, 1938, Howard Hawks
The best screwball comedy ever made. Period. But on top of that, it explains something very important and fundamental about love when Cary Grant exclaims, "I've just discovered that was the best day I've ever had in my whole life!" to Katharine Hepburn. And considering this day involved a mix-up with leopards, unintentional cross dressing, and following around a dog hoping it will show him a priceless bone, that means it must be love.
Favorite Horror
The Exorcist, 1973, William Friedkin
The term "favorite" is a bit strong in this category because horror/gore is my least favorite genre. But the most terrifying movie I've ever seen is this one. It's a healthy helping of Catholic guilt, a heap of over-active imagination, and a pinch of wussiness (okay, maybe more than a pinch), but this film terrifies me to no end. I've only actually made it through the movie twice. It's not the head-spinning or the crab walk that gets me. It's the desecration of a beautiful, innocent little girl by absolute evil, which is a terrifying idea unto itself. Add the elements of suspense, and the idea that God is not the only one who knows one's soul and one's weaknesses, ready to manipulate your every move, and you get me hiding under the covers with the lights on.
Favorite Comedy
Hot Fuzz, 2007, Edgar Wright
Anyone who knows me knows my devotion to all things Pegg, Wright and Frost. But this movie consistently makes me laugh no matter how many times I've watched it. Be it the brilliant sight gags, the twisting of every ridiculous buddy-cop-action movie convention into something freshly hilarious, or the witty dialogue, it gets me every time. Not to mention it's a pretty solid action movie on its own, taking it above trite parody. That's how we do it in the West Country!
Favorite Fantasy
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 1977, George Lucas
The selling out of Star Wars still devastates me, since I've been watching this movie since I was five, and it doesn't feel any less fascinating or absorbing. Sure, the dialogue is cheesy, and CGI has come leaps and bounds since then, but this is still a seminal movie in my life because it draws you into a world so real that one almost hopes it is.
Favorite Drama
Casablanca, 1942, Michael Curtiz
Why not under Favorite Romance, you ask? Well, it was a contender. Again, another movie that has everything. Its perfection in execution goes beyond words.
Favorite So-Bad-It's-Good
Twilight, 2008, Catherine Hardwicke
Um, do I have to state the obvious? Be it the bad make-up, cheesy special effects, or the car junk-yard clunky dialogue, this movie never fails to disappoint with unintentional humor.
Favorite Epic
Munich, 2005, Steven Spielberg
Desperate times call for desperate measures, right? Well, that's the hypothesis tested in this film, which chronicles the actions of the Mossad after the murder of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. And Spielberg doesn't flinch from the uncomfortable and numerous answers to that question. This is not a typical epic, but with its varied locales, a seemingly unending odyssey of names and faces to die for the sake of safety, retaliation and the quagmire of violence, this film is exhausting, enlightening and shows that the world is not as simple as we'd like.
Favorite Adventure
Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1982, Steven Spielberg
A much lighter, souffle of a piece by Spielberg, who doesn't love the intrepid, always-in-over-his-head hero, Indiana Jones? The story is ridiculously over the top, but it's all so well done (sets, action, stunts, suspense) all one can say is "Pass the popcorn!"
Favorite Musical
Moulin Rogue!, 2001, Baz Luhrman
This is a tough category because I hate musicals, given for my general love of verisimilitude. So I have to pick one so outrageous, so over-the-top, so obviously not set in our real world and definitely in one where people regularly burst into song. Thus Moulin Rogue!, or as I subtitle it, A Beautiful Mess. A mix-tape of a musical, it's colorful, shiny, and so much fun it's hard not to love.
Honorable Mentions:
Children of Men, 2006, Alfonso Cuaron
Sunset Blvd., 1950, Billy Wilder
Some Like it Hot, 1959, Billy Wilder
Shaun of the Dead, 2004, Edgar Wright
Jurassic Park, 1993, Steven Spielberg
Psycho, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock
Rope, 1948, Alfred Hitchcock
The Dark Knight, 2008, Christopher Nolan
Citizen Kane, 1941
What are your favorites? Post in the comments below! (I'm always looking for something new to watch...)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Couch Potato Review: Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Here in BackseatDirectorLand, I like to keep an open mind. I understand films will not always have ideas and themes that I will openly embrace. Woody Allen as a writer and director has often written about the complications and disappointments of love. (See: pretty much any film of his. No, really. Annie Hall is his best example.) However, to make a film about the disappointments of love in general, in its many potential forms, one really should pursue some sort of point. And the punctuationally-challenged title Vicky Cristina Barcelona is not that film.
Vicky (a lovely Rebecca Hall, a Brit I'd love to see more of), and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) are polar opposites in how they perceive love: Vicky is very traditional big-house-in-the burbs, has a stable fiancee, whereas Cristina is constantly searching for, as she vaguely puts it "something different," which leads her to a more open and atypical lifestyle. The best friends go to Barcelona for two months while Vicky works on her Master's thesis. Both meet, and become entangled with free-thinking, free-loving artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem, no longer creepy as he was in No Country for Old Men) and his unstable ex-wife Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz, who won an Oscar; she was good, but I don't see it).
All I can say is, I don't get it. It is a worthy subject, to try to explore the confinements and potential dissatisfaction of a traditional life and what would be considered an alternative life-style (think plural relationship). But this film just sort of drifts without coming to a consensus on either. And I don't think Allen wants us to decide one is superior to the other. An audience or viewer will come in with their own conception of that. But the film is oddly empty, and dissatisfying. And I'm attracted to films that present problems without easy answers. Sadly, this fairness to both sides leads to an emptiness, a lack of emotional involvement which kills the film. Allen doesn't try to change your mind or persuade you, but again, that leaves the film with a sense of dead weight and pointlessness that is difficult to shake, despite a very promising subject. I wished he had more closely pursued the volatile, passionate relationship between Bardem and Cruz's characters; a best of both worlds approach, if you will, because their relationship cannot work in a traditional mode, but it also has difficulties in a nontraditional mode. Now that would be worth exploring. Unfortunately, with the way the story is set up, the characters come off as neurotic, pretentious, and often downright annoying, and I found I was wondering when the film was going to end. The one real highlight of this film for me was the beautiful Spanish setting, that really is shot like a love-letter to Spain.
Final word: Skip it. Catch some earlier Allen instead.
(Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving sexuality, and smoking. Also some mild language, but in Spanish.)
Vicky (a lovely Rebecca Hall, a Brit I'd love to see more of), and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) are polar opposites in how they perceive love: Vicky is very traditional big-house-in-the burbs, has a stable fiancee, whereas Cristina is constantly searching for, as she vaguely puts it "something different," which leads her to a more open and atypical lifestyle. The best friends go to Barcelona for two months while Vicky works on her Master's thesis. Both meet, and become entangled with free-thinking, free-loving artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem, no longer creepy as he was in No Country for Old Men) and his unstable ex-wife Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz, who won an Oscar; she was good, but I don't see it).
All I can say is, I don't get it. It is a worthy subject, to try to explore the confinements and potential dissatisfaction of a traditional life and what would be considered an alternative life-style (think plural relationship). But this film just sort of drifts without coming to a consensus on either. And I don't think Allen wants us to decide one is superior to the other. An audience or viewer will come in with their own conception of that. But the film is oddly empty, and dissatisfying. And I'm attracted to films that present problems without easy answers. Sadly, this fairness to both sides leads to an emptiness, a lack of emotional involvement which kills the film. Allen doesn't try to change your mind or persuade you, but again, that leaves the film with a sense of dead weight and pointlessness that is difficult to shake, despite a very promising subject. I wished he had more closely pursued the volatile, passionate relationship between Bardem and Cruz's characters; a best of both worlds approach, if you will, because their relationship cannot work in a traditional mode, but it also has difficulties in a nontraditional mode. Now that would be worth exploring. Unfortunately, with the way the story is set up, the characters come off as neurotic, pretentious, and often downright annoying, and I found I was wondering when the film was going to end. The one real highlight of this film for me was the beautiful Spanish setting, that really is shot like a love-letter to Spain.
Final word: Skip it. Catch some earlier Allen instead.
(Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving sexuality, and smoking. Also some mild language, but in Spanish.)
Forgotten Genius: Buster Keaton
So I was idly flipping over TCM's offerings last night (I know, how many people start conversations like that?), when I noticed two silent offerings were on, both featuring Buster Keaton: Sherlock, Jr. and Steamboat Bill, Jr. I'd only seen one Buster Keaton movie before this, The General, which Keaton spends most of suspended or otherwise imperiled by a train. I was amused, but I didn't think it really held up. Curious, I decided to watch both features. Boy, am I happy I did.
If you're not familiar with Keaton, he was a very famous silent film star through the late 1920's. He was known for acting with an almost deadpan face, and for his incredible physicality as an actor; during this era you had to be, out of necessity. It's not like those dialogue cards were doing you any favors. Charlie Chaplin gets most of the credit in this era, mostly because he did have the Little Tramp, but also because he made a smooth transition into the sound era. Keaton, due to contract difficulties, did not. What I learned, thanks to "Uncle" Robert Osbourne of TCM, was that almost all of the incredibly dangerous-looking stunts I watched in those two films, and his others were just that dangerous: he did them for real. If you're not familiar with some Keaton gags, he falls down a lot, runs himself into walls and flips, etc. But in Sherlock, Jr., he allows a water-pipe to throw him at least 15 feet down to a set of railroad tracks, and in Steamboat Will, Jr., he precariously positioned himself to allow a full-weight house wall to fall around him. I'd never seen an actor that willing to run toward falling scenery! I found out from imdb.com, aka Mecca, that the fall from the pipe accidentally fractured his neck, and the falling house would have killed him if it landed just wrong. A portion of the "stunt" crew refused to be a part. And these movies, though the story lines are dated, the gags are still funny and timeless--a lot of this due to Keaton's appeal as a performer.
And this is something that upset me. Who, besides geeks like me, have heard of him? His movies are holding up, considering they were made at least eighty years ago, and the man practically invented movie stunts, quite a few of them at his own physical expense. He is forgotten mainly because of his long transition into sound movies. You can catch him in speaking roles (notably, a cameo in a classic favorite of mine, Sunset Blvd., and a role in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum). Alas, his time had pasted by then.
So pay tribute to this performer, director and all-around daredevil by Neflixing one of the movies above. You'll discover a forgotten jewel in the annals of Hollywood history, who deserves a much bigger role in the mainstream consciousness.
Thanks to www.imdb.com for information that contributed to this post.
If you're not familiar with Keaton, he was a very famous silent film star through the late 1920's. He was known for acting with an almost deadpan face, and for his incredible physicality as an actor; during this era you had to be, out of necessity. It's not like those dialogue cards were doing you any favors. Charlie Chaplin gets most of the credit in this era, mostly because he did have the Little Tramp, but also because he made a smooth transition into the sound era. Keaton, due to contract difficulties, did not. What I learned, thanks to "Uncle" Robert Osbourne of TCM, was that almost all of the incredibly dangerous-looking stunts I watched in those two films, and his others were just that dangerous: he did them for real. If you're not familiar with some Keaton gags, he falls down a lot, runs himself into walls and flips, etc. But in Sherlock, Jr., he allows a water-pipe to throw him at least 15 feet down to a set of railroad tracks, and in Steamboat Will, Jr., he precariously positioned himself to allow a full-weight house wall to fall around him. I'd never seen an actor that willing to run toward falling scenery! I found out from imdb.com, aka Mecca, that the fall from the pipe accidentally fractured his neck, and the falling house would have killed him if it landed just wrong. A portion of the "stunt" crew refused to be a part. And these movies, though the story lines are dated, the gags are still funny and timeless--a lot of this due to Keaton's appeal as a performer.
And this is something that upset me. Who, besides geeks like me, have heard of him? His movies are holding up, considering they were made at least eighty years ago, and the man practically invented movie stunts, quite a few of them at his own physical expense. He is forgotten mainly because of his long transition into sound movies. You can catch him in speaking roles (notably, a cameo in a classic favorite of mine, Sunset Blvd., and a role in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum). Alas, his time had pasted by then.
So pay tribute to this performer, director and all-around daredevil by Neflixing one of the movies above. You'll discover a forgotten jewel in the annals of Hollywood history, who deserves a much bigger role in the mainstream consciousness.
Thanks to www.imdb.com for information that contributed to this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)