How Do You Know (2010)

I should just rename this blog 'Reasons i don't agree with movie reviewers #152'. 
I mean this is James L. Brooks- the man's a golden god. To paraphrase Yeezy, 'his presence is a present'. 
And i love Nathan Rabin and i accept this issues with How Do You Know like all the characters are overly analytical to the point of preposterousness and i could add that- 
it's too long/takes an age to end and the title is just horrible but i guess those things just didn't bother me as much.

I liked this more than i thought i would. I guess the participation of Owen Wilson is a turn off for most. 
I like him too. I'm never going to watch a film because of Owen Wilson but i like the stuff he did with Wes Anderson and i think he's pretty sterling in this, doing that charismatic Texan surfer bit he does. 
Reece Witherspoon is ok-to-good as is Paul Rudd doing his sturdy left-of-centre straightman thing. 
Nicholson does his gruffly intense talking shtick. It's nobody's best work but everyone's likeable enough to care about and be funny.
For me, this movie was about compromising your happiness. Both Rudd and Witherspoon have an asshole in their lives (Nicholson and Wilson respectively). Nicholson is trying to get his son eat a fraud rap equating to a 3year custodial sentence, simply because he'd rather his son take the rap than him. Witherspoon is trying to deal with new beau, Wilson- a charmingly arrogant ass with no apparent inner-monologue. To paraphrase Chris Rock, 'someone who wants credit for some shit they're supposed to do'.
I think that's why Wilson is so effective in this role. He's so premeditated in his douchieness but yet you watch and you eat this guy's BS because he's confident and charming. He thinks because he's knows and you're both aware he's a bit of a thorough jag that it's okay because it was made clear from the outset. 'You know i was an asshole when you got involved with me? What's the problem?'
What is her problem? She doesn't want to change this guy. In a way they're perfect for each other but... Is that all there is? 
Then Rudd enters this love triangle, through means i kinda remember but are too convoluted to say. Rudd and Witherspoon go on a date that begins, muddles and ends poorly but he likes her- whats not to like? She's determined, nice and pretty. And round and round we go around the mulberry bush... 
So Witherspoon has to decide between her 2 suitors and it's long and drawn out but we knew it would be like this before we entered the cinema. 
I'm not selling this movie am i? But i was truly suprised by how funny it was, specifically a scene where Wilson is trying to tell an inspirational story to cheer Witherspoon up, about a guy who gets dropped from his team by the coach and sends him beautifully-wrapped piece of dog shit everyday.

I'm not suggesting you run out to see it now or even rent it but... If when it's inevitably on BBC3 before Family Guy, i think you'll turn it over to find out what this strange programme called How Do You Know, is about and i think you'll enjoy it...


I watched How Do You Know (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Killer Nun (1978)...

The Mechanic (2011)

Oh Statham. How did it get this far? 

He doesn't look like he should be the current foremost action hero does he? He doesn't even look like he should be the current foremost boiler engineer from British Gas and yet 10years'n'change after the first Transporter movie here we are. 

Who is i to try and knock the appeal of the beefy lug? I've probably seen 90% of his output.70% of it is inarguable shit; stuff like The Bank Job and War but i keep coming back and God love him, for not trying to do any romantic comedies or broad drama- he's the poster boy for sticking to what works.
So The Mechanic, a fairly meat and potatoes action revenge assassin dealy. Seriously this scenario has been rehashed so many times in movies, the likely only reason the producers went to the trouble of licensing the remake of an old Charles Bronson vehicle was so they could reuse the cool 'Mechanic' title.
But you know, Staths is great in this.

Everyone else however made a major mis-step by participating.

Ben Foster- I'm sure I've seen Ben Foster be good in something but i have no recollection of what that was or it was Ryan Gosling or Jared Leto- You guys all look the same to me.

Here he plays Statham's protégé- an idea in it's self which is patently preposterous; Foster has the physique and presence of a meth-addict; not attributes he tries to cover in this movie. Are meth-heads dangerous? Indubitably yes. Could they assassinate a despotic … despot? No.

Donald Southerland turns up and wheels around for 5mins presumably looking to see if he can pick up his cheque from petty cash. But as with most films, it's not the actors that are at fault- it's either the director or writing. 

Here it's both. Simon West can certainly do this variety of bullshit action movie- Con Air proved that and as much as Tomb Raider was a disappointment, i don't remember it being so horrible but he does a really crappy job here. I guess he's not used to small budget action pics but this looks crap. He'll be directing CSI Alberquerque by the end of the week. 

The soundtrack too is just weird noises, at points. It sounds like the stage manager of the Avalon stage at Glastonbury Ipod on random. But most at blame for the failure of this movie must be the writers. Oh deary me. There are better written episodes of Baywatch Nights. It's just indicative of most of the things about this movie- the writers probably turned in one draft and the producers didn't even look at it and when they did it was too late to punch it up but that would have been too much effort in the first place. It would have been better if the actors had just made up they're own lines.
I'm beginning to realise that Statham is the best thing in his films but in the end, that's a bit of a false economy and it takes more than one man to make a movie.

Hmmm- 10 Stathams in a movie?

...

Back off Neveldine/Taylor, this ones mine!


I watched The Mechanic (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with How Do You Know (2010)...

The Beat my Heart Skipped (2005)

This post will concern the thing where you find an amazing piece of art and/or artist and you in back to see what they did before hand; their back-catalogue. 
The artist/art in question is Jacques Audiard and 'A Prophet'. I saw 'A Prophet' about this time last year maybe earlier but it was good enough for me to remember it at the end of the year as one of the years best. It might not be the best gangster movie ever BUT it is the best prison movie ever...
Anyway, to The Beat my Heart Skipped- all i ask is that it be half as good as 'A Prophet'. But that's a pretty big ask...

No, it's not as good as A Prophet but few things are. It is very good though. I don't know how but Audiard just seems to be able to siphen these stellar performances out of his leading actors- Romain Duris is brilliant. He plays a thuggish property developer,making people leave their homes and them buying the real estate for a song. At the same time, he decides to take up the piano again, 10years after playing and his concert pianist mother died. We know he's still greiving his mother when he reacts poorly to finding out his father (Niels Arestrup in a similar role to A Prophet) is remarrying. Almost immediately after returning to piano, he becomes obsessed with becoming a concern musician like his mother and sets an audition with his mother's manager and starts getting lessons from a Chinese pianist- who doesn't speak any French.
As you can see- Audiard- not a fan of a simple straightforward plot.

So now, Duris playing Tom, is juggling his corrupt work life and obsessively practising the same piece on the piano. The way his obsession manifests it's self is best described this way- the plays the same piece of music in the same way, you'd replay a level on a videogame until you complete it. You're so close and yet you're never disappointed enough to stop when you go back to the start.
Meanwhile in his worklife as a way of getting back at his best friend whos screwed him on a deal, HE starts screwing his wife while he's out screwing the other female population of Paris. Apart from revenge, it's not really clear why he does this or tell her he loves her or makes her tell him that she loves him. Tom's just an extreme sorta bloke, sometimes seemingly just doing things for effect like threatening dangerous Russian gangsters and having sex with head gangsters 'moll'. It's hard to describe why Tom is such an interesting character. He's self righteous and arrogant but you could also say that was focus and naivety. Maybe childish is a fair compromise.
Like i said at the start, The Beat... isn't as great as A Prophet and i'd put that down to storytelling. What's great about his films is that Audiard gives his audience a lot of credit for filling in the gaps but i think there's a bit too much of that going on here. I think we need to know more about Tom and his motivation but i couldn't say that it's ever confusing or boring.
And to think this is all loosely based on James Toback's Fingers. I was actually given that movie a few years ago and it's horrible; like Mean Streets on ketamine but Audiard is so brilliant... I'd queue to watch him reimagine Barney's Big Adventure.


I watched The Beat my Heart Skipped (2005) on DVD via LoveFilm.My 2011 in Movies will return with The Mechanic (2010)...

Brighton Rock (2010)

Brighton Rock is just all kinds of satisfaction to me. It seems that some of the critical press seem to think it's boring or something. 
I don't read reviews any more so it doesn't influence my opinions and I know we were not in the same cinema but surely we watched the same film? At the very least, you can not knock the hustle of Rowan Joffe, a debut (or as close to) director and writer. I'd say he's already a big name in modern British auteurs simply based on the focus he shows here. It's as well written as it is well directed. It's a pulpy script with a suitably stylish vision. I don't quite know how he convinced Studio Canal/Optimum to let him this make a big broad likely-expensive-cos-it's-period gangster movie but i'm so glad he did. It concerting to think British film has another 'steady-hand' so early in his career. So what if he's moved the story from Graham Green's original setting of the 40's to the mods'n'rocker riots of the 60's- it works. Green's novel was about Britain getting back to business as usual, after the war. Joffe's 1960's is are a world where colour is just beginning to turn up. Brighton Rock isn't black and white anymore... It's kinda navy- moody and dark.
Which brings me to Pinky Brown, the epitome of moody and dark. God Sam Riley is good. Richard Attenbourgh's Pinky was pure malevolence. Now Pinky is far more human; for all his badman stink-eye snarling, we know he's a chancer and a coward too.
But it's not just the Sam Riley show- Joffe's rounded out the cast with first string team. I've seen Andrea Riseborough in a few things before, playing very big characters and considering that she's amazing as Rose here. The character of Rose is as her name suggests- she is character that's developing from wallflower to a woman in bloom (hey, if Graham Green can write character names with CapsLock subtext, I can write clumsy delineations too!) Just great acting from them both as a couple who for their own reasons feel like they almost don't deserve affection and are surprised that anyone could find love for them- the raison d'etre of being in love.
Helen Mirren generally does her wounded-yet-strong older woman thing and it's great as per usual but I'm more excited about great British actors like Phil Davis, Andy Serkis and others getting to do this sorta thing- British period gangster movies don't come along very often-more's the shame.
And Craig Parkinson too. He's not a 'name' actor yet but he's been in the best British films of the last few years- Tony Wilson in Control, Omar's white friend in Four Lions. Currently the social worker on Misfits too. I'm not saying he's the best thing in whatever he's in but he's a good luck charm. I think this is going to be the best worthwhile watch at your cinema until True Grit. I'm just so surprised at the British critics perception of this Brighton Rock. I suppose they have a chip-on-their-shoulder about the great-and-Crazy-Cody-won't-say otherwise Boulting Bros. classic but like a parent remarrying; not allowing themselves to like it but it's unfair to grade it on a curve like that. It's a great example of adaptation- it's not scene-for-scene or page-for-page- it just uses the book and previous film as the jump off. I 'm not sweating the differences- Rowan Joffe certainly isn't...


I watched Brighton Rock (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Beat My Heart Skipped (2005)...

The Secret Of Kells (2009)

I think the way The Secret Of Kells succeeds personally for me is that the idea of watching anything about Irish mythology sounds like a severe snorefest but i thought it was great despite that. 

Not that it's a sprawling piece- it's a pretty delightful story about a boy on a journey, discovering the world around him. It's just brilliant to look at too- you could probably freeze any frame and it would be typically as luscious as the last. The animation-style is like a softer anime. Like Studio Ghibli but more defined. I think it also should be said that it's quite cathartic to see any Irish animation, especially on this scale.
As i mentioned, this is a story about a young boy, Brendan living in a compound- lead and built by his only family, his uncle The Abbott (voiced by classic Irish grump actor, Brendan Gleeson). The boy has unreserved affection for his uncle and despite his concentrated reserve, we understand The Abbott also sincerely just wants what he sees as the best for the boy. The Abbott is building this enclosure to save his world from marauding vikings, to build walls high enough to save their celtish culture, specifically the book of Iona (later to become the historic Book of Kells). When his colleague Brother Aidan and his cat, Pangur Ban arrive, The Abbott seems relatively glad to see to him but Aidan's free-thinking (hippie?) artistic temperament is clearly influencing the boy. 
Brendan is growing to the age where the compound is not enough and being told what to is not adequate anymore.
And as he ventures out in to the neighbouring forest to gather materials of the book, the naive boy encounters a forest sprite, Aisling - a guardian of the forest and they have this cute 8yo boy-meets-8yo girl relationship.
It's easy to see why this was lauded all the way to the Oscars-it's well paced at 75mins and it's cartoony with a positive message about contributing and finding your artistic voice, for the kids but striking and beautiful for adults to appreciate. It's also brimming with Brendan's boisterous enthusiasm for life, which contributes to tone of the overall film.
You have to remind yourself that they don't make much 2D cell animation any more, more is the shame, but you forget because the images just 'pop' here.
The Secret of Kells is patently made for a family gathering like Christmas or Easter.


I watched The Secret Of Kells (2009) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Brighton Rock (2010)...

Barney's Version (2010)

Barney's Version is a big slice of Paul Giamatti pie, for all those who hoped it would be. 
It's sad it hasn't got more play here or America but then i can see why it's hard to sell- there's no really starry in it and the story is convoluted as shit.
Broadly put, it's about a guy who gets married 3times-first, outta misplaced duty; second time for security and finally, because he's found the love of his life. Now that's all Heartbreak Kid and dandy but it's told in a non-linear fashion and there's a murder mystery too (?!)... As you may have guessed Barney's Version only suffers from one thing- story- it's got way too many plates spinning at the same time. I looked at my watch expecting the film was concluding soon only to realise that only an hour had passed and there was an hour to go. It's got as much as a 4hour mini-series crammed into 2hours. 
I'm not going to say it's too long because this is good stuff but after the first hour, you kinda want a break.
Why? Because it's adapted from a prolific book and this is a common problem with film adaptations of literature. Film-makers seem to think they've got to pack it all in, whether it be for the fans of the book or to do 'justice' to the piece and they don't necessarily. I think there should be a sliding scale- if it's a book you could read in 2-3hours like say
Elmore Leonard's Out Of Sight- fine- adapt everything on the page but when you come too something like Watchmen, that's been slavishly-adapted it's too much for 2-3hours because Watchmen takes longer than that to read. It's a very dense book as is i'd imagine Barney's Version.
Perhaps-unfair-aimed-gripe-at-very-good-film over. It is stocked with great actors doing sterling work delivering great crisp dialogue. Giamatti is really good here in a meaty 3-ages-of-man role. Minnie Driver excels as his jewish-princess middle wife. Dustin Hoffman is incredibly funny in this as Giamatti's father. He's in it quite a bit too- It's no extended cameo. A great surprise about this movie is that it's quite Canadian- set mostly in Montreal, it features some great in-jokes on Canadian culture from silly director cameos. I could tell you why their funny but it wouldn't be funny if i had to explain, would it? Let's just say there are 2bits which would be akin to say, Mike Leigh in a mullet wig directing Footballer's Wives.
I also have issues with the ending and the fact that the comedy doesn't meld with the drama. There are lots of really funny moments but then there'll be cloying scenes of drama too- which is not to say you can't have a comedy drama- i love comedy dramas but here they mix like oil and water.
I'd imagine that this all seems like quite conflicting information.
Is it Giamatti's finest hour? Could be.
Is it worth watching? Yes.
But this would have been killer as a HBO mini-series.


I watched Barney's Version (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Secret of Kells (2010)...

My First Mister (2001)

Something really peculiar really happens in the structure in My First Mister...

The first 20 Albert Brooks-less minutes drag like hell; hopelessly so. It’s just the worst cliché-ridden teen emo/goth-dramatics- all incense and poorly-lit bedrooms. Gawd. Leelee Sobieski is struggling to keep her head above water in this over written introduction complete with sarky and self-loathing voice-over.

Once Sobieski leaves school and comes in contact with men’s formalwear mall-shop manager (Albert Brooks) then become quite watchable, which I level solely at his quiet grumpy genius.

She asks for a job at his store and he agrees as long as she removes her piercings and make-up… she begins to scrub up and develop a friendship and burgeoning crush on her. Here’s the crux of the story- at this point, which way do you turn?

Do they get together and do the May to December thing?

If not, do they play out an inspoken jawn like in Lost In Translation?

If they do, how will that inevitably muss-up?

I imagined that they would but Sobieski learns more about what she’s searching for in life by realising that she can’t be happy trying to share her life with him because they’re basically very different but they end as good friends.

What actually happen is… well it aint predictable. Brooks gets leukaemia and they set out to make peace with his life before he expires. They get shoe-horned love interest from this point onwards- Sobieski finds Brooks long-forgotten son and Brooks gets lucky with his nurse (the awesome Mary Kay Place).

To be fair there is a lot of unused acting talent unused from Michael McKean to Carol Kane, which is strange since My First Mister is directed by Christine Lahti, an actress herself. I’m not surprised see she can attract actors or that she’s no visual stylist but i’d have thought she’d be able to tell the difference between a good and bad script or would set-up all her colleague for a fall like this one- only Brooks comes out of this movie unscathed and that would be because he has a history like Bill Murray of… not ad-libbing but performing his own version of the dialogue; in his own voice.

As acceptable as My First Mister is for it’s Sunday afternoon comedy-drama-ness, it’s instantly forgettable or easily confused with Steve Buscemi and Thora Birch in Ghost World, though I’d be quick to say they’re very different films.


I watched My First Mister (2001) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Barney's Version (2010).

The Fighter (2010)

One of the downsides of this blog, is that I can’t watch movies any more without creating the hook of my posts about these films. 

Halfway thought The Fighter it was going to be :- Christian Bale just Godzilla’s’ his way through this movie. This is not the blandiose Bale of recent years, this is like a return to a character that’s Patrick Bateman meets the guy from The Machinist. Just one of the great acting performances of the year, another total character-transformation (we’ve never seen him play this guy before) and a career-best for him. Also Mark Wahlberg is it.

But that was at the halfway point. First half, we love watching Bale play Dickie, this gregarious crack-addled doofus. It’s 100% charisma. The lovable crack-heads of cinema are few. Dickie, lest I drown in an encumbering cliché/quotation, ‘could have been a contender’; he’s a ‘local legend’. Dickie is what happens after you fall down and you can get back up and we can totally empathise with him because Bale plays it human and interesting. At this time, you wonder why is Wahlberg in this- it’s distracting like if you were sat next to a celebrity at your kid’s first nativity- ‘I want to concentrate on what’s going on but why-how are you here?’

Then comes the dipsy-doodle. Now the focus is on Wahlberg playing Micky because Dickie’s been sent away. As we focus closer on Micky and his struggle to deal with boxing and his life outside of it, we’re empathising with him. His is the story of coming within touching distance of glory, of potential, though I guess that’s what any sports movie is about. Mick has all the talent but he just needed a ‘break’; luck to get over the next obstacle, something we can all identify with and now I’m irritated Bateman keeps popping up, in this Mark Wahlberg movie.

But The Fighter is not just success in terms of the 2 leads; Melissa Leo might have an even more complex role in the boys mother than Bale does. She plays the domineering matriarch pitch perfect- she somehow balances playing the exploitative boxing manager of her children and caring mother at the same time.

David O’Russell also excels here. He uses the ‘lo-def tv’ cameras during the fights to good effect, in the way the reality of the boxing is unreal or playing from fuzzy memory. The tone of the film never become solemn or worthy. He uses this great device where (and it may be based on truth, this being a true story and all…) the boy’s have 7sisters that make up this great comedy Greek chorus and the father played by Jack McGee, who you’ve seen in tons of stuff makes a break out performance for himself here.

I remember when I heard about this movie coming together, 2years ago I guess. Just that it was Bale and Wahlberg in a movie called The Fighter. I guessed that it would be Bale fighting Wahlberg but I wondered how that would work- surely one would be good and one would be bad or something. Obviously you know that’s not what the story is but in acting stakes, that’s what the 3^rd act is. Round1 was Bale’s. Round 2 went to Wahlberg. Round 3?... Bale wins on points, only because he’s ACTING!

I watched The Fighter (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with My First Mister (2001)...

Bloodbath At The House Of Death (1984)

Via Here

I first heard about this film watching a DVD of Grindhouse trailers.

Not that I'm fascinated by everything i've never heard of nor am I a Kenny Everett fan. It's never been unusual for British TV to spin off into the movies from On The Buses to Bless This House and made in the year I was born (1984), it has all the necessary requirements of the time- Pamela Stephenson. but I was instantly enthused about seeing this horror spoof. As I listened to the story of the making of the film, it's a very sad tale of a film that found it's self a year later with his star on wain and being given an overly conservative '18' certificate.

It's not very good but it's not for lack of trying. They pile in jokes wherever possible (great early one- "Headstone Manor- "Businessman's weekend retreat and Girls' summer camp") and it's certainly interesting to see Everett work on a bigger canvas as is plain to see in the trailer-

Looking for a reason(s) why it doesn't work, it may be that Everett or (writers) Barry Cryer and Ray Cameron (also the director) had never had to sustain a story over 80mins. Everett and especially Cryer are/were masters of the short skit but a feature is a whole different animal. 
Maybe it's the spoof genre. I'm struggling to think of a harder sub-genre to work in. Making a great spoof film is less an art than alchemy- Even the 'masters' of the genre like Mel Brooks and Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker were capable of one or two good examples in a list of shlocky efforts.
But I think the central problem is there are too many characters for the story- Yes, it's traditional for horror movies to have lots of disposable characters but here, there are 8 when there should have been 4 perhaps.
Maybe it's that the characters are not despatched quickly enough. I love Don Warrington and John Fortune and i like that they're in this film but here they're one note characters, who spend a lot of time with not much to do except play the wall.
The best actor, with the best lines and best character is Vincent Price playing for all intents and purposes... Vincent Price. Obviously you don't generally get to hear him swear but hearing him prissily tell people to piss off is great.

At best, Bloodbath At The House Of Death is comfortably better than the 'Scary Movies' put together but that is unfortunately not good enough.


I watched Bloodbath At The House Of Death (1984) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Fighter (2010)...

Blue Valentine (2010)

Watching Blue Valentine is like going to see and watching your favorite band from your formative years. 
It takes you back to some of your favorite times but you realise that they don't really apply you today. It's not that they're bad far from it. It's just not what you're interested in anymore.
It stars Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams as a couple falling in and out of love. The hook is the narrative. There'll be a tense, strained scene from the present then a cute, tender scene of the start of their coupling then back to the present and so on. We see how the characters have changed over 4year, what's happened their ambitions and personalities.
At this point, it goes without saying that Gosling and Williams are amazing in this film. Gosling- more obviously; his transformation is more physical, more in attitude. Michelle Williams has the harder task of having to be more prescribed in her performance of a young woman making important decisions to a mother aching with frustration at the fact the love of her life has become this awful, awful dingus. Gosling playing said dingus, is literally 2 different characters- the sensitive young 'smart-alec' who we see will become this unreasonable, balding asshole.
In other words- this is less a love story but a study in what happen when a relationship is compromised beyond it's original shape.
They have a child and never in a way, that they would even consider resenting the child but they're ambitions have been but on hold straight away. Gosling is a painter and decorator whereas he all set to be a musician and Williams has to settle for being a nurse when she'd been training to become a doctor.
Blue Valentine also features very strange cameo from John Doman. John Doman, most memorable from The Wire as the 

egregiously ill-tempered Rawls. He's pretty ill-tempered here too as Williams' religious father but you can't knock the guy's hustle. He's the best at playing grumpy pricks.

In an unusual use of the SPOILER ALERT, the following SPOILER ALERT consists of the technique used in making this film...
During the early parts of the relationship, Cianfrance shot one take and in the 'end of' scenes, he used the last take of scenes presumably performed ad-infinitum by that point. I'm not sure where i gleaned that information but I'm sure it would have been a neater trick if I'd found that out after watching the film but it still works on the basis that Cianfrance is an arch-dramatic-technician; that he innately how best to produce great performance. 




I watched Blue Valentine (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Bloodbath at the House of Death (1984)...

Scarface (1931)

I think in terms of remakes, the 80's version of Scarface is better than this, the 30's Howard Hawks original. 
The stories are essentially the same with a smart thug calculating his way to the top and be king gangster running booze (not the coke of the 80's), with dollops of violence and killen-ings. Other common threads include Tony's unhealthy if more subtle interest in his sister and his lieutenant and her get into a relationship too.
Also 80's Scarface has an extra hour on this one but De Palma's version hardly has any fat on it's running time.
Paul Muni is great and necessarily charismatic as Tony but when we're talking about iconic gangsters, Pacino's Tony Montana is just the definition of maniacal blind ambition -Muni's Tony at least has trace amounts of empathy. Karen Morley is just as great as the moll Tony's affections are vying for- the one you'll remember Michelle Pfeiffer playing in the remake.
You can see why Hawks was so influential to Tarantino and Scorsese- there are so many visual flourishes. Anyone who knows anything about Hawks, knows he was thought quite the exploitation director at the time but 80years later, his Scarface will hardly shock anyone with it's PG violence but i'd counter it's just as exciting and i'm going to say 'jaunty', in the way only films of the 30's could be. Actually the one thing 30's Scarface has over the 80's one is, it has a very ambitious car chase (of the 30's). (FFWD to between 1min18secs - 2min-20secs)

I think the main thing, De Palma and Oliver Stone's Scarface has over this one is major tension, like that of the chainsaw scene but obviously 50years later the limits of taste had... Well, there were few limits left by the 80's.


I watched Scarface (1932) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Blue Valentine (2010)...

The Thin Man (1934)

This will be tough to write because as much as i hate to say it- The Thin Man is not very good. 

It has one huge asset but otherwise it's an extremely by-the-numbers detective story. I've not seen any films starring Myrna Loy or William Powell before this but I'll bet a gazillion dollars that they don't work half as well separately as they do together. These two guys together is like cinematic alchemy- they must be the one of the greatest on-screen couples in cinema. I must be clear-it's not that 'every-sigh-aches-with-love' bond or they have this explosive sexual chemistry sort of dealy. 
They just have this great believable affectionate teasing, the same that all the greatest relationships have, down pat.
They have this luminescent bond that could survive anything.

At one point, Nick Charles punches his wife.
I guess the type of relationship they share is what one would expect from of a 30's/40's screwball comedy but their love is not used as a devise to make comedy, it's a delightful draw as well as the comedy; it's not about a developing relationship, it's about an already well-defined couple. It goes without saying that any scene without them makes the film flatline and sadly, there's a fair amount of that.
I mean to say the script by Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich is titanium-strong on dialogue & kitten-weak on plot. The plot is stodgey at best- you feel like they're pushing through the exposition so they can get back to the fun-to-write 'talky' stuff. I don't know but I doubt this issue pervades the Dashiell Hammett book this was based on, but i plan to read it. A curious thing about this film is the jolly positive effect of alcohol. Nick and Nora Charles drink like fish. They inhale booze. Are there any negative effects? If anything their intake might make them more effective in their laisse faire style of sleuthing.
I think the following exchange epitomises their relationship-

How much have you had to drink?  

5 Martinis.

Humph...well, I'm gonna need 4more Martini's over here then....

I guess at the time, The Thin Man must have been just a very idiosyncratic take on the murder mystery, complete with the mischievous drawing room group reveal of the murderer but the tone is that of our heroes saying- 
'We're gonna invite all the suspects... here?'
'Yeah.'
'What if something happens to us?'
'Hmmm-i do really want to find out who did do it...'

It's strange because i liked this movie but i know it's not very good; It could be better so i'll no doubt be watching at least one more of the 6 'Thin Man' movies made...


I watched The Thin Man (1934) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Scarface (1932)...

The Night Porter (1974)

The Night Porter was a great educator for me, in terms of understanding the dynamics of a sado-masochistic relationship.  I love love love Secretary and that's a good foundation in figuring out the appeal but this film more intermediate. Not more extreme, which is strange to say considering it's about a Nazi and his concentration camp muse but The Night Porter is not quite as broad-more pronounced. In essence- this is the story of Max, a hotel manager in 1957  trying to keep his head down after the war, haunted by his past. His existence changes when the young girl, Lucia he was infatuated with, happens to stay in his hotel in Venice. As you do.  They are almost coma-stricken by this revelation, having to remember their horrific past. Not that it was particularly horrific at the time for Max; if anything it was probably the best time of his life. Lucia certainly not so much. Her appearance in flashback is comparable to a chemical-lab rabbit with her pale complexion and sickly red hair. As much as they try to avoid each other since they're staying in such close quarters, Max decides to violently confront Lucia but they resolve to recede to the previous sub/dom relationship, we didn't yet know they had. At that point, i guessed at that point- their affair on a scale of successful German manufacturing would be Hindenburg-grade. Dirk Bogarde and Charlotte Rampling are just impeccable here. They both have real meaty complex roles to play here. Rampling has to completely strip herself of 'ego' to play the scenes where her whole presence has been stolen by the physical and mental torture of existing in this concentration camp.  Bogarde's character is literally one of the most conscienceless people portrayed on screen. Not because he is constantly doing reprehensible things but because he shows no remorse for the things he's done. He can't even refrain remorse. I mean you have to celebrate Liliana Cavani for her metered direction and script but Bogarde's denial about what he did or is doing to Lucia is hypnotic to the point, the audience begins to forget he's a man who's abused people, desecrated bodies. He plays it on the knife-edge of 'humanity'-Max is a human character who can be completely inhuman. We're aware he's possessive of Lucia but only in the sense, she is his possession. I don't know if this is based on anything in reality but they have this device, where all the former Nazis have a mock trial, to exercise the things they've done as a therapy of sorts. I'm fascinated by the thought process that realised that these people would need to confess the horrendous things they've done or that they would want to. If i have any issues with the film, it's that it's kinda too long and the 1st hour floats around before it decides what it wants to do. I guess what I'm saying is the 1st half could be condensed into 30mins but The Night Porter is a very striking film like this NSFpretty-much-any-situation-you'd-have to-explain-yourself fantasy scene- Lot of might think 'this is what you call fuckery, 'Black Swan' not your petty body-horror shit'... I watched The Night Porter (1974) on LoveFilm Player. My 2011 in Movies will return with Blue Valentine (2010)...

Blow Out (1981)

It's one of Tarantino's top 5 favorite films. That's the only reason i want to see Blow Out. 

Not De Palma, who i respect if i don't always like and not Travolta, who in my opinion is wildly hit-and.miss. I just want to see what could possibly be so great that it's held in such high esteem by one of the world's most famous cineastes.

You probably shouldn't start your writing with a metaphor but here it goes-  Blow Out is a reimagining of Antonioni's Blow Up, which was about a photographer who witnesses a murder. Blow Out is about a movie sound recordist who witnesses a murder (a car tire is 'blown out' leading to the murder). Now when you see what De Palma has done there, you think 'hmmm clever, very wry' which is a bit like the film it's self. It's very well made, it's a good idea, it's not predicable but there's no soul to it. You feel very disconnected while watching it. In the 'conspiracy thriller' genre, it's still a fresh idea/story 30years later and John Travolta has probably never been better but it's just 'robotic'- it looks good but it's not engaging. The way he directs certain scenes is almost lyrical, particularly a shot where Travolta is searching his office rabid for missing material:-

(FFWD to between 4min.40s-7min.30s)                         

The mise en scene is plain and direct. I guess this is what Tarantino appreciates about Blow Out. That and it's commentary on low-budget schlock cinema- Travolta is a sound recordist for teen-slasher movies and that gives De Palma, the opportunity to mock his own rep as an American 'giallo' filmmaker.

But then again, I'm thinking the problem might be with Nancy Allen, playing Alice. She's a character so dumb and feckless, i couldn't bring myself to care about her. She's the woman-in-danger and female interest. I say female interest because she may supposed to be the love interest but she and Travolta have zero chemistry. (Maybe because her husband was on set. Brian De Palma.) Her energy towards him seems purely sisterly.
That is to say, i didn't want anything bad to happen to her but I'm struggling to believe Travolta is trying to save the love of his life.
I have to call out Dennis 'Sipowicz' Franz for special praise- his lascivious lecherous sleazeball is really great. You could almost taste in desperation. Bleh...salty.
John Lithgow plays an unhinged psycho, but to be fair, this was probably the first time in a long list of his sociopaths.
I think De Palma will be fondly remembered in the annals of cinema as a great director, more than a technician or cameraman but he isn't an auteur. He can't write as well as he photographs and i think that's what lets Blow Out down.
In rap-music terms (!?), De Palma is like Dr Dre or The RZA. They made groundbreaking music but in rap-music, they're no one's favourite rapper.
People talk about De Palma's interest in voyeurism but isn't voyeurism supposed to feel exciting and engaging?

I watched Blow Out (1981), on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Night Porter (1974).

Jonah Hex (2010)

Sometimes you just watch movies to have an opinion on them. 
Like James Cameron movies.
Jonah Hex is one of those. This mean it is likely to be shit but i'm still excited to see it since, i want to have my own opinion and i want to see where it goes wrong and how it does so.

Before i begin that polite hatchet job of Jonah Hex, i'll start with what good with it. It's short- it's 80mins (inc. 6mins of credits...). This blog's 'reason d'etre' will likely be- films are too long but 80mins is 'hell's bells, that's short' short. That's the size of a HBO pilot but with 4x the budget, which admittedly is pretty much on the screen with practical stunts and explosions. Neveldine/Taylor's script is not horrible, it's passable in so much as there are 'zingy' lines and the story's not so ambitious, it could become stodgy. Um, what else... people had work for a few months in 2009? Anyway, it's basically unmitigatingly crap. But we knew this. We'd heard. The question is why? Where does it fall down? Well everywhere really but mostly the acting.  From the droney Mastodon score to the paint-by-numbers direction. Jimmy Hayward was a Pixar (no-less) animator who got lucky. Hollywood- please stop letting CGI people direct live-action films, it'll never work. I'll admit it's not as bad as when Mel Gibson let his hairdresser direct Paparazzi but that was an isolated incident. I guarantee that from now on. (Fun Fact - Jon Peters, Joel Schumacher and Danny De Vito also started as hairdressers.) I'm not going to address the role of Malkovich in this film. It's not that urgent or important to me, to do so. I could talk shit about his acting but i want to focus on Michael Fassbender. Let me just compose myself, Michael Fassbender. I'm not upset... I'm just very disappointed. So much potential gone to waste Mike...  You were like 5 wins and undefeated in your short career. From Inglorious Basterds to Fishtank to Hunger.  Hunger-what a sumptuous cinematic debut. And then this... Playing irish henchman #1. If that wasn't so abhorrent, you really 'mick' it up to eleven. You're a proud Irishman FFS. It was so bad, i thought you were going to ask Jonah Hex if he wanted his drive tarmac'ed. I expect it of him, he says thumbing at Malkovich. But not you Fassbender. Not you. Apparently other-modern-acting-great Michael Shannon was in this, but I don't remember seeing him sooo... congrats to him. That's the cinematic equivalent of having gym-note from your mother. Not going to lay into Megan Fox cos well, Megan Foxs are meant to be seen and not heard but Josh Brolin has the capacity to be great- very good in W. and No Country.., generally solid actor. Here- phoning it in... just faxing it in. I get overarching feeling all the actors knew this was a piece of shit, the producers set-out to make 5-showing-a-day-for- 2weeks programmer. That this was made for the short-term, not as art made to last the test of time. It's already failed last year.

I watched Jonah Hex (2010) on Blu-Ray via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Blow Out (1981)...