When most people think of the found footage genre the immediate thought is to things like Blair Witch Project (1999) or Cloverfield (2008), as well as some other science fiction and monster movies that have tried to emulate those movies style, yet there are other movies that have done the foot footage dance without the acclaim of the avaunt garde Blair Witch Project or the mystery leading up to the viral marketing fueled Cloverfield, one of these is Gang Tapes (2001) a movie which follows a gang in Los Angeles after one of the young bloods aquires a camera and begins to document what he and his friends have to go through from drive bys to Kris's first time.
This film isn't for everyone. The main reason for this is the fact that in a lot of ways this isn't a standard movie, there is no established story arc where the story is revealed a course is set out and an end will be achieved, instead this is the definition of a "Slice of Life movie" where scenes are merely vignettes that run as long as Kris left the film rolling.
Gang Tapes isn't anything new, really, the gangster "coming of rage" (as the back of the DVD case quips) story has been around in film since the 1930s (See Little Caesar (1931) for a prime early example), but the way the film handles it is the main saving grace of a weak movie. Instead of seeing the gangsters as tragic antiheroes who are like modern cowboys we see crime as it is: beatings, cooking up some crack rocks, grand theft auto, and more are shown with brutal intensity that is helped by the fact that all but one of the leads are played by former gang members, adding a level of verisimilitude that is lacking in most gangster fare.
Though a film is not made into a good film with realism alone. The script is painfully realistic making use of the N word and the F word more often then using the word "and." Furthermore, there's no shortage of slang making Gang Tapes seem like a foreign language film to those who don't know anything about LA slang... like me for example.
The next major flaw is the acting, which is both good and bad. Yes, by casting gang members you get an added intensity that actors can't bring... yet by not casting actors you get the clunky reading of lines and horrible handling of extended dialogue that gangsters don't know how to do. I'm not saying acting is the hardest thing to do, but there is a certain level of skill that was distinctly lacking in this movie. The worst failing of this movie though is how the leads are treated like throwaway characters. Kris, Lonzo, and Cyril are the only characters that I can remember the names of... and those three have their names said a bunch of times including a monologue in which Cyril explains how he got his "gang name."
Gang Tapes sets out with a lot of ambition and a very unique premise, yet, the finished product requires a heavy dose of polish and maybe a little less ambition. There are definitely worse movies, but there are scores of better ones dealing with similar subject matter.
Dr. Brooklyn says: AT LEAST WATCH this movie (6.75/10)
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Monday, February 7, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Review of the Titans (1981)
First let me apologize, dear and faithful readers, for a mortal nerd sin... until today I had never seen the original Clash of the Titans (1981), yes I sat through the effects laden hot mess that was last summers Clash of the Titans (2010), but the original evaded me. Although, seeing as how I would have been a decade late on this movie even if I watched it my first day in existence, I don't feel to bad.
If you check IMDb, Wikipedia, the back of the DVD case, or the end credits this movie is considered a Desmond Davis picture, due to his directorial credit, but this is not his movie. No, this movie belongs from beginning to end to Ray Harryhausen and his effects mastery, because no matter how the rest of the movie shines, at the time of it's creation there was no one who could have done it like the master of old school SFX.
Though even with this praise, I must point out that this movie is infinitely less SFX based than the recent adaptation. It's weird, considering that this story is an amalgamation of the Greek myths, how original the story feels. The parts are old, but the sum is fresh, an impressive feat for a movie that is essentially a popcorn version of Greek lore. And here is where the two versions of this movie veer the most, even in the face of (at the time) groundbreaking stop motion, the story is never given the back seat.
A lesson modern blockbusters should learn, that effects are like condiments... fine on a burger, but to pour ketchup and mustard directly down one's gullet would be both foolish and grotesque. The same can be said of the special effects and movies... effects are good in a movie, but pure special effects just for the sake of special effects is both foolish and grotesque.
But don't get me wrong and think the script and story makes it the Citizen Kane (1942) of Sword and Sandal fare. Yes, it's better than some, and I'd even say most, in that particular sub genre, but above average to good is where this movie dwells. A lot of the dialogue falls under the Lucas rule: You can write it, but you can't read it, making for some clunky exchanges even if the actors could have handled more... albeit not much more. Beverly Cross does a great job of sticking close(ish) to the source material, weaving several different yarns into one nice tapestry, but the final cloth is all bright colors and not and amazing design.
When it comes to acting there is a lot of what viewers have come to expect, good enough where no cringes are induced, but not quite good enough where any one performance makes the viewer sit up whenever an actor appears onscreen. The closest a performance gets is Laurence Olivier's turn as king of the gods, Zeus, but seeing as how he has very little screen time... there's not really enough to judge the performance as great.
Although the effects may seem dated, the story and action help make the movie an exciting thrill ride and superior in many ways to the all style sequel. In terms of fun it's more than worth a watch, but it won't blow your mind.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.25/10)
If you check IMDb, Wikipedia, the back of the DVD case, or the end credits this movie is considered a Desmond Davis picture, due to his directorial credit, but this is not his movie. No, this movie belongs from beginning to end to Ray Harryhausen and his effects mastery, because no matter how the rest of the movie shines, at the time of it's creation there was no one who could have done it like the master of old school SFX.
Though even with this praise, I must point out that this movie is infinitely less SFX based than the recent adaptation. It's weird, considering that this story is an amalgamation of the Greek myths, how original the story feels. The parts are old, but the sum is fresh, an impressive feat for a movie that is essentially a popcorn version of Greek lore. And here is where the two versions of this movie veer the most, even in the face of (at the time) groundbreaking stop motion, the story is never given the back seat.
A lesson modern blockbusters should learn, that effects are like condiments... fine on a burger, but to pour ketchup and mustard directly down one's gullet would be both foolish and grotesque. The same can be said of the special effects and movies... effects are good in a movie, but pure special effects just for the sake of special effects is both foolish and grotesque.
But don't get me wrong and think the script and story makes it the Citizen Kane (1942) of Sword and Sandal fare. Yes, it's better than some, and I'd even say most, in that particular sub genre, but above average to good is where this movie dwells. A lot of the dialogue falls under the Lucas rule: You can write it, but you can't read it, making for some clunky exchanges even if the actors could have handled more... albeit not much more. Beverly Cross does a great job of sticking close(ish) to the source material, weaving several different yarns into one nice tapestry, but the final cloth is all bright colors and not and amazing design.
When it comes to acting there is a lot of what viewers have come to expect, good enough where no cringes are induced, but not quite good enough where any one performance makes the viewer sit up whenever an actor appears onscreen. The closest a performance gets is Laurence Olivier's turn as king of the gods, Zeus, but seeing as how he has very little screen time... there's not really enough to judge the performance as great.
Although the effects may seem dated, the story and action help make the movie an exciting thrill ride and superior in many ways to the all style sequel. In terms of fun it's more than worth a watch, but it won't blow your mind.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.25/10)
Monday, January 10, 2011
Review Carter
A Muppets Christmas Carol. That was my first introduction to the legendary Sir Michael Caine. Obviously not his first movie, and not even his first movie made after I entered the world... but A Muppets Christmas Carol was the first time I had ever seen him act. Fast forward 15 odd years and I find myself watching Caine in a very different role, that of Jack Carter in the 1971 movie Get Carter.
To say that Get Carter is a different role from the previously mentioned movie would be a gross understatement, for everything about the movie except the British setting, and star, is different. Viewers here find Caine portraying Jack Carter, a hit man who's returned to his place of birth to pay his brother final respects. Although listed as the victim of his own drinking and driving, but Carter won't believe it. So begins a mystery in which Carter begins to scour the British Crime scene trying to find a man called "Brumby." But, as is typical in mystery fare, Carter has bitten off more than he's able to chew, resulting in intrigue, murder, gangsters, lots of ins, lots of outs and a lot of what have you.
For a movie with a lot of substance, there is plenty of style as well. The story unfolds in two ways: the ongoing events on the screen, but the story also unfolds in the viewers mind, with previous events being explained with later scenes, only making sense with a complete viewing. And yet, even with a tapestry of a script there is enough style to impress (Many shots suggest Quentin Tarantino took notes during a viewing of this film.) But, most of the style doesn't come from Mike Hodges, instead it comes from just how bloody cool Michael Caine is, even though Hodges brings a major portion of the cool. In many ways Get Carter was ahead of it's time, paving the way for Tarantino, Guy Ritchie, and the many others who have made movies in Gangster Suave* sub genre.
Even beyond shot composition, many style choices suggest an avaunt garde quality. There is little over laying music, instead relying on a more ambient soundtrack. Yes, there are several cases of music that isn't "in universe" but because most of the movie lacks score, there is a sense of realism that is lacked by many films even today. There are no dramatic music stabs to alert the presence of rival gangsters, no high tempo chase music to get the viewers heart racing, just the sounds caused by the people as they fulfill Hodges directions... beauty in simplicity.
But, as I hinted on earlier, all the directorial magic is meaningless unless there is a cast able to capitalize on his or her direction. The Cinema gods smiled fondly down on Hodges, granting him with one of the truly phenomenal actors of all time: Sir Michael Caine. Caine's Carter is charming, cruel, suave, and foreboding. In short, Jack Carter is like James Bond's crazy brother. Yet, even when he is beating up cronies, Carter is able to find the time to seduce several women, and be the kind of anti-hero every man secretly wishes they could be.
Surrounding Caine is a strong cast, albeit mostly of unknowns to me... due to my general ignorance of 1970s British cinema. Bryan Mosely and John Osborne are as cuddly as cobras in their roles as scheming crime lords, both trying to use Carter's rage for their own benefit. The rest of the cast supplements Caine nicely, but in so many ways this is his movie, take him out and you'd get a lesser movie... a lesson that it seems the 2000 remake learned the hard way.
Although I disagree with the Total Film claim that Get Carter is the greatest British film of all time (as I often times disagree with cross genre rankings) but Get Carter does succeed in being not only one of the better British films I've seen, but by being one of the best Crime movies I've seen.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.5/10)
*Gangster Suave is not an established genre... as such don't go looking for movies labeled as Gangster Suave... you won't find them.
To say that Get Carter is a different role from the previously mentioned movie would be a gross understatement, for everything about the movie except the British setting, and star, is different. Viewers here find Caine portraying Jack Carter, a hit man who's returned to his place of birth to pay his brother final respects. Although listed as the victim of his own drinking and driving, but Carter won't believe it. So begins a mystery in which Carter begins to scour the British Crime scene trying to find a man called "Brumby." But, as is typical in mystery fare, Carter has bitten off more than he's able to chew, resulting in intrigue, murder, gangsters, lots of ins, lots of outs and a lot of what have you.
For a movie with a lot of substance, there is plenty of style as well. The story unfolds in two ways: the ongoing events on the screen, but the story also unfolds in the viewers mind, with previous events being explained with later scenes, only making sense with a complete viewing. And yet, even with a tapestry of a script there is enough style to impress (Many shots suggest Quentin Tarantino took notes during a viewing of this film.) But, most of the style doesn't come from Mike Hodges, instead it comes from just how bloody cool Michael Caine is, even though Hodges brings a major portion of the cool. In many ways Get Carter was ahead of it's time, paving the way for Tarantino, Guy Ritchie, and the many others who have made movies in Gangster Suave* sub genre.
Even beyond shot composition, many style choices suggest an avaunt garde quality. There is little over laying music, instead relying on a more ambient soundtrack. Yes, there are several cases of music that isn't "in universe" but because most of the movie lacks score, there is a sense of realism that is lacked by many films even today. There are no dramatic music stabs to alert the presence of rival gangsters, no high tempo chase music to get the viewers heart racing, just the sounds caused by the people as they fulfill Hodges directions... beauty in simplicity.
But, as I hinted on earlier, all the directorial magic is meaningless unless there is a cast able to capitalize on his or her direction. The Cinema gods smiled fondly down on Hodges, granting him with one of the truly phenomenal actors of all time: Sir Michael Caine. Caine's Carter is charming, cruel, suave, and foreboding. In short, Jack Carter is like James Bond's crazy brother. Yet, even when he is beating up cronies, Carter is able to find the time to seduce several women, and be the kind of anti-hero every man secretly wishes they could be.
Surrounding Caine is a strong cast, albeit mostly of unknowns to me... due to my general ignorance of 1970s British cinema. Bryan Mosely and John Osborne are as cuddly as cobras in their roles as scheming crime lords, both trying to use Carter's rage for their own benefit. The rest of the cast supplements Caine nicely, but in so many ways this is his movie, take him out and you'd get a lesser movie... a lesson that it seems the 2000 remake learned the hard way.
Although I disagree with the Total Film claim that Get Carter is the greatest British film of all time (as I often times disagree with cross genre rankings) but Get Carter does succeed in being not only one of the better British films I've seen, but by being one of the best Crime movies I've seen.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.5/10)
*Gangster Suave is not an established genre... as such don't go looking for movies labeled as Gangster Suave... you won't find them.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tron: Legacy: A Review
It's been a while since I reviewed the original, but here I am reviewing the sequel... and I must say I'm feeling pretty good. Tron: Legacy (2010) is very much a sequel, with more references to the former than Empire, but in many ways Legacy stands on its own in a way few sequels do. As a heads up most of the plot will be ignored due to the fact that there are several twists and turns, a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have you.
To begin with: Yes, the movie is pretty. I won't spend a lot of time on this seeing as how anyone who has viewed a single trailer knows that this movie is a stunning piece of CGI. The world of Tron came to life in ways that the creators of the original probably only dreamed of, with bright lights and vivid imagery, allowing the Grid to become a world of it's own, not a sound stage with a lot of neon tubing.
Also a thing of beauty is the Daft Punk Score, as a newbie to Daft Punk I was really impressed with how they were able to mix the sound of classic video game music with new style to make probably the best soundtrack I've heard in years, frankly if Daft Punk doesn't win the Oscar, or at least gets nominated, then there is something wrong with the Oscars... well... that's a rant for another day.
Really, my only problem with this movie comes in with the Script, although when compared with the first they are on par, Legacy does what the first one doesn't... leave frayed ends. The Purge of the ISOs is touched on, but the ISOs themselves are mentioned for just a few scenes. I know Disney was gunning for a sequel to this sequel, but the way the ending doesn't show what Sam has done now that's he's back, or for that matter what happened to Tron after his lights changed back to blue, leaves the viewer with a sense of longing. Furthermore, the whole state of the Grid is in question, now that Flynn and Clu are gone, will there be some rebuilding? Will Sam rebuild The Grid? Who knows? The viewers don't, that's for sure.
Also, there was some dialogue that felt a little weird, falling under the Lucas Rule of "You can write it, but you can't read it." Though, there are few movies without an occasional snag in the script. I do appreciate all the Fan service that was done, I really do, but if you have time to include the Tanks passing in the background, then you should have time to polish the script enough to keep the ends of the strands inOle Duder's Kevin Flynn's The Grid loose.
The acting is actually a lot better than I thought it would be. But, as could be expected, Bridges stole the show in his double role as both Flynn and Clu. What was probably the best CGI piece was "Young" Flynn, even though there were a few times that the CGI was very obvious. Also strong was Olivia Wilde, who oozed sex appeal, at the same time she seemed innocent and naive. Garrett Hedlund is very good, but he lacks the pure laid back charm of Bridges in the original, and even here.
For a sequel, you won't find much better. Plot snags aside Tron: Legacy is a very fun ride and well worth a trip to the cinema for a big screen viewing. For fans of the first... it's definitely been worth the wait.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
To begin with: Yes, the movie is pretty. I won't spend a lot of time on this seeing as how anyone who has viewed a single trailer knows that this movie is a stunning piece of CGI. The world of Tron came to life in ways that the creators of the original probably only dreamed of, with bright lights and vivid imagery, allowing the Grid to become a world of it's own, not a sound stage with a lot of neon tubing.
Also a thing of beauty is the Daft Punk Score, as a newbie to Daft Punk I was really impressed with how they were able to mix the sound of classic video game music with new style to make probably the best soundtrack I've heard in years, frankly if Daft Punk doesn't win the Oscar, or at least gets nominated, then there is something wrong with the Oscars... well... that's a rant for another day.
Really, my only problem with this movie comes in with the Script, although when compared with the first they are on par, Legacy does what the first one doesn't... leave frayed ends. The Purge of the ISOs is touched on, but the ISOs themselves are mentioned for just a few scenes. I know Disney was gunning for a sequel to this sequel, but the way the ending doesn't show what Sam has done now that's he's back, or for that matter what happened to Tron after his lights changed back to blue, leaves the viewer with a sense of longing. Furthermore, the whole state of the Grid is in question, now that Flynn and Clu are gone, will there be some rebuilding? Will Sam rebuild The Grid? Who knows? The viewers don't, that's for sure.
Also, there was some dialogue that felt a little weird, falling under the Lucas Rule of "You can write it, but you can't read it." Though, there are few movies without an occasional snag in the script. I do appreciate all the Fan service that was done, I really do, but if you have time to include the Tanks passing in the background, then you should have time to polish the script enough to keep the ends of the strands in
The acting is actually a lot better than I thought it would be. But, as could be expected, Bridges stole the show in his double role as both Flynn and Clu. What was probably the best CGI piece was "Young" Flynn, even though there were a few times that the CGI was very obvious. Also strong was Olivia Wilde, who oozed sex appeal, at the same time she seemed innocent and naive. Garrett Hedlund is very good, but he lacks the pure laid back charm of Bridges in the original, and even here.
For a sequel, you won't find much better. Plot snags aside Tron: Legacy is a very fun ride and well worth a trip to the cinema for a big screen viewing. For fans of the first... it's definitely been worth the wait.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
Gremlins: A Review
Some movies stand the test of time not because of amazing stories or outstanding performances, but instead they just touch certain audiences in a certain way. In other words, they're just fun. Such is the case of Gremlins (1984), equal parts comedy and camp, with a delightful infusion of horror and Christmas joy to make a movie that will be remembered for decades because its fun and unique, but nobody will accuse it of being one of the greatest movies ever made.
In some ways the movie plays like a modern version of 'The Trouble with Tribbles' one of the truly classic Original Star Trek episodes, but other than the annoying, rapidly spawning creatures the similarities end there. Gremlins starts out very innocent, with a like able kid, matched with geeky yet like able parents, and a cranky old lady causing trouble in his life. In a lot of ways the characters work because they are very conventional, many are straight out of the standard 80s mold (think The Goonies). The redeeming element to this is that all the characters are very enjoyable, because viewers have seen them before.
As I briefly touched on earlier, the script, by later Harry Potter helmer Chris Columbus, mixes comedy with horror to produce a very different Christmas movie. I was kind of impressed with how interesting a movie about little monsters could be. There's the main story involving the aforementioned monsters, there's also a romantic side plot for Billy (Zach Galligan). Again, these subplots are very cliche for a movie that came out during the 1980s, but the point is that they work.
In what was probably my favorite inclusion of the movie was the constant shots of old movies, many of which set the stage for the events of the movie. Particularly The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) before the Mogwai began to break out of their own pods, it was little touches like this that allowed sci-fi genre fans an added level of enjoyment.
From the future looking back, the effects are quite lame, the creatures eyes often don't sync up and motion is very rigid and unnatural, something that today would be done easily with CGI. That being said, for the time the effects would have been cutting edge and probably would have left a young viewer or two with bad dreams for a while after seeing this movie.
Also, the human performances all fall into the "1980s camp" pile, due to shoddy acting made alright simply because the movie is shoddy itself therefore the average performance play along with the whole campy vibe, instead of seeming out of place. There are no great performances, but there's nothing on a Wiseau level, either.
As a piece of high quality cinema, Gremlins is a bit of a failure. The story is bizarre, matched with decent acting and sub par effects there's not a lot of substance. But taken as a piece of entertainment... there is a lot going for Gremlins. There are laughs, good characters, and even a bit of romance, all added up to make a very fun movie, even if it's not a Citizen Kane or a Casablanca.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8/10)
In some ways the movie plays like a modern version of 'The Trouble with Tribbles' one of the truly classic Original Star Trek episodes, but other than the annoying, rapidly spawning creatures the similarities end there. Gremlins starts out very innocent, with a like able kid, matched with geeky yet like able parents, and a cranky old lady causing trouble in his life. In a lot of ways the characters work because they are very conventional, many are straight out of the standard 80s mold (think The Goonies). The redeeming element to this is that all the characters are very enjoyable, because viewers have seen them before.
As I briefly touched on earlier, the script, by later Harry Potter helmer Chris Columbus, mixes comedy with horror to produce a very different Christmas movie. I was kind of impressed with how interesting a movie about little monsters could be. There's the main story involving the aforementioned monsters, there's also a romantic side plot for Billy (Zach Galligan). Again, these subplots are very cliche for a movie that came out during the 1980s, but the point is that they work.
In what was probably my favorite inclusion of the movie was the constant shots of old movies, many of which set the stage for the events of the movie. Particularly The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) before the Mogwai began to break out of their own pods, it was little touches like this that allowed sci-fi genre fans an added level of enjoyment.
From the future looking back, the effects are quite lame, the creatures eyes often don't sync up and motion is very rigid and unnatural, something that today would be done easily with CGI. That being said, for the time the effects would have been cutting edge and probably would have left a young viewer or two with bad dreams for a while after seeing this movie.
Also, the human performances all fall into the "1980s camp" pile, due to shoddy acting made alright simply because the movie is shoddy itself therefore the average performance play along with the whole campy vibe, instead of seeming out of place. There are no great performances, but there's nothing on a Wiseau level, either.
As a piece of high quality cinema, Gremlins is a bit of a failure. The story is bizarre, matched with decent acting and sub par effects there's not a lot of substance. But taken as a piece of entertainment... there is a lot going for Gremlins. There are laughs, good characters, and even a bit of romance, all added up to make a very fun movie, even if it's not a Citizen Kane or a Casablanca.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8/10)
Sunday, December 19, 2010
I Review You, Man
Over the last few years the slacker set has invaded motion pictures and established a base camp in the romantic comedy genre. Some of the movies have turned into modern classics, with an endless stream of quoting and tie in merchandise for teenagers to wear. One of these movies was the 2009 movie I Love You, Man starring Paul Rudd (Knocked Up) and Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall). In effect the movie is part of the current "slacker/striver" strain of the romantic comedy virus, but as it describes itself, it's a "bromantic comedy."
Pete (Rudd) seemingly has no friends, except his girlfriend and most of his female coworkers. With an impending wedding, Pete has a problem: He has no Best Man. As such, he decides to set out to find a best friend: involving a few gay men that think effeminate Pete is also gay, all leading to the meet cute with Sydney (Segel). The two instantly become friends and in true rom-com style spend all their free time together... falling deeper and deeper in bro-love.
As a romantic comedy there are many of the same pitfalls that plagues most movies in the genre, mainly being: Love and friendship like this is not instantaneous. Also, there's a love building montage set to "Tom Sawyer," and worst of all... two dimensional characters.
Jon Favreau is the worst offender here; as shown in movies like Swingers (1996), Favreau can do comedy, but here he is so abrasive there is little to no comedy... just... Favreau being an asshole. Rudd's character is just a loser, I'm sorry, but he is. For character's like Rudd's to work, they have to be more than just sad sacks. Tragically unhip, Pete is just a loser pretending to be cool... but the writers gave him so little real development he remains a loser acting cool. Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum in Sydney, a guy who is so hipster cool that he wears Ugg boots ironically, has a hybrid dog, and plays Rush songs. Again, there is so little characterization that Sydney is essentially what a 10 year old dreams they'll be like when they are nearing 30.
Bringing me to my biggest complaint with the movie: the script. I have seen just about the whole cast in other movies, even the back ground fillers pop up in most of the "edgy" comedy shows and movies. So I know they can do comedy and are all decent actors, leading the weakness of the movie to be shared between the script writers and the director, the latter being one of the former. There are some funny parts, but most of the movie isn't funny on it's own, laughs are only elicited because of Segel's over acting, the only redeeming part of this movie. The jokes are usually strung out longer than they should be, making them less funny than they were.
I heard this movie get hyped beyond belief, and I was a little let down. Segel and Rudd have both been in much better movies, so if you want a does of Segel or Rudd (or Segel and Rudd in some cases) check out most of the Apatow family tree. Though if you're looking for a few immature laughs and hip references check this out, but if you want a good comedy... don't.
Dr. Brooklyn says: PASS this movie (6/10)
Pete (Rudd) seemingly has no friends, except his girlfriend and most of his female coworkers. With an impending wedding, Pete has a problem: He has no Best Man. As such, he decides to set out to find a best friend: involving a few gay men that think effeminate Pete is also gay, all leading to the meet cute with Sydney (Segel). The two instantly become friends and in true rom-com style spend all their free time together... falling deeper and deeper in bro-love.
As a romantic comedy there are many of the same pitfalls that plagues most movies in the genre, mainly being: Love and friendship like this is not instantaneous. Also, there's a love building montage set to "Tom Sawyer," and worst of all... two dimensional characters.
Jon Favreau is the worst offender here; as shown in movies like Swingers (1996), Favreau can do comedy, but here he is so abrasive there is little to no comedy... just... Favreau being an asshole. Rudd's character is just a loser, I'm sorry, but he is. For character's like Rudd's to work, they have to be more than just sad sacks. Tragically unhip, Pete is just a loser pretending to be cool... but the writers gave him so little real development he remains a loser acting cool. Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum in Sydney, a guy who is so hipster cool that he wears Ugg boots ironically, has a hybrid dog, and plays Rush songs. Again, there is so little characterization that Sydney is essentially what a 10 year old dreams they'll be like when they are nearing 30.
Bringing me to my biggest complaint with the movie: the script. I have seen just about the whole cast in other movies, even the back ground fillers pop up in most of the "edgy" comedy shows and movies. So I know they can do comedy and are all decent actors, leading the weakness of the movie to be shared between the script writers and the director, the latter being one of the former. There are some funny parts, but most of the movie isn't funny on it's own, laughs are only elicited because of Segel's over acting, the only redeeming part of this movie. The jokes are usually strung out longer than they should be, making them less funny than they were.
I heard this movie get hyped beyond belief, and I was a little let down. Segel and Rudd have both been in much better movies, so if you want a does of Segel or Rudd (or Segel and Rudd in some cases) check out most of the Apatow family tree. Though if you're looking for a few immature laughs and hip references check this out, but if you want a good comedy... don't.
Dr. Brooklyn says: PASS this movie (6/10)
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Reviewer No. 1
During my recent hiatus I was still watching movies, one of them being the ground breaking and controversial A Clockwork Orange (1971) which starred Malcolm McDowell. After liking him in Time after Time (1978) and A Clockwork Orange, seeing his name on the cover was enough to convince me to watch the movie Gangster No. 1 (2000).
To be frank I have been let down by several of the British crime flicks I've seen... mainly those directed by Guy Ritchie, because many times the movies rely too heavily on conventions and American precedent, but Gangster No. 1 is surprisingly original. To begin with, the movie is stylized beyond belief, shots are broken up in a nod to old pop art movies, with fourth wall breaks and a bi-linear plot of The Gangster (McDowell and Paul Bettany) in the modern times and as a young man, facing his own fall and rising respectively. Although released in 2000, the movie oozes 1960s cool, mainly because that's when the Gangster begins to make his climb to the top.
In that regard it seems like most Rise of the Gangster movies (see Scarface, Carlito's Way, State Property, The Public Enemy, GoodFellas, etc), and in many ways it is conventional: young Gangster learns from Boss, only to later usurp Boss resulting in animosity and blood shedding, but because of all the style and the variables thrown into the formula is enough to make Gangster No. 1 different and exciting.
Although it's not his first movie, this is the first Paul McGuigan movie I've seen, and I was pleasantly pleased by his eye for style. I know I have been saying the word "style" a lot, but that's only because this movie had more in the opening minutes than Snatch had in it's entire run time. McGuigan captures the brutality of the Gangster and the world around him in a way that is visually pleasing and impressive for a man on his second film.
Furthermore, McGuigan was working from a great script by Johnny Ferguson. My main problem with the films of Ritchie is that he is a so-so screen writer who tries to be edgy and funny, but fails. Ferguson on the other hand gives a subtle wit to a very violent movie, kind of like a lesser Tarantino.
The acting is all amazing, McDowell is grand, playing the character (in his own words) as an older Alex Destrange. As such the character has a roguish charm to him, despite not getting a lot of screen time until Act III. The way The Gangster narrates Act I and II though do establish him as a very strong character, despite McDowell's face being absent for much of the early stages of the film.
That being said the man playing the Gangster during Acts I and II really owns this movie; and that man is Paul Bettany. Many Americans will know him as the hype man Geoffery Chaucer in A Knight's Tale (2003), but his role here is so far removed from that film that it;s hard to imagine that same jovial man is this violent psychopath who rises to the top... of a heap of corpses. The sheer ice of The Gangster's soul shows every time Bettany opens his eyes, cold and unforgiving.
To be honest this is a very good movie: great acting, a great script, great direction, amazing style and a very cool plot roller coaster. Although it won't be on any of my crime top 5s it's a very thrilling movie and worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.25/10)
To be frank I have been let down by several of the British crime flicks I've seen... mainly those directed by Guy Ritchie, because many times the movies rely too heavily on conventions and American precedent, but Gangster No. 1 is surprisingly original. To begin with, the movie is stylized beyond belief, shots are broken up in a nod to old pop art movies, with fourth wall breaks and a bi-linear plot of The Gangster (McDowell and Paul Bettany) in the modern times and as a young man, facing his own fall and rising respectively. Although released in 2000, the movie oozes 1960s cool, mainly because that's when the Gangster begins to make his climb to the top.
In that regard it seems like most Rise of the Gangster movies (see Scarface, Carlito's Way, State Property, The Public Enemy, GoodFellas, etc), and in many ways it is conventional: young Gangster learns from Boss, only to later usurp Boss resulting in animosity and blood shedding, but because of all the style and the variables thrown into the formula is enough to make Gangster No. 1 different and exciting.
Although it's not his first movie, this is the first Paul McGuigan movie I've seen, and I was pleasantly pleased by his eye for style. I know I have been saying the word "style" a lot, but that's only because this movie had more in the opening minutes than Snatch had in it's entire run time. McGuigan captures the brutality of the Gangster and the world around him in a way that is visually pleasing and impressive for a man on his second film.
Furthermore, McGuigan was working from a great script by Johnny Ferguson. My main problem with the films of Ritchie is that he is a so-so screen writer who tries to be edgy and funny, but fails. Ferguson on the other hand gives a subtle wit to a very violent movie, kind of like a lesser Tarantino.
The acting is all amazing, McDowell is grand, playing the character (in his own words) as an older Alex Destrange. As such the character has a roguish charm to him, despite not getting a lot of screen time until Act III. The way The Gangster narrates Act I and II though do establish him as a very strong character, despite McDowell's face being absent for much of the early stages of the film.
That being said the man playing the Gangster during Acts I and II really owns this movie; and that man is Paul Bettany. Many Americans will know him as the hype man Geoffery Chaucer in A Knight's Tale (2003), but his role here is so far removed from that film that it;s hard to imagine that same jovial man is this violent psychopath who rises to the top... of a heap of corpses. The sheer ice of The Gangster's soul shows every time Bettany opens his eyes, cold and unforgiving.
To be honest this is a very good movie: great acting, a great script, great direction, amazing style and a very cool plot roller coaster. Although it won't be on any of my crime top 5s it's a very thrilling movie and worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.25/10)
Monday, December 13, 2010
An American Reviewer in London
Hey guys, just so you know I AM alive... but barely due to exam week. The Doctor has been getting schooled. That having been said I am making my triumphant return to the reviewing game... so buckle up... we're going to go for a little journey.
Although many don't want to admit it... the Horror genre has actually contributed some of the finest movies ever made: Dracula (1931), Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Excorcist (1973), Halloween (1978), etc. But, soon people didn't want strict fear inducing scenes, and soon horror-comedy was born. Of course to cinema goers in modern times horror-comedy is nothing new, movies like the Scream series and 2004's modern classic Shaun of the Dead have gained widespread popularity that horror movies with campy humor are almost the new status quo, but this new breed of horror movie's was not a recent creation.
In the early 80s there was a movie that challenged what people expected from horror, for example one doesn't expect a horror movie to begin with peaceful shots a a tranquil moor... matched up with a peaceful little diddy like "Blue Moon" sung by velvet tongued crooner Bobby Vinton. The more common place opening usually involves a bloody massacre to get viewers attention, making An American Werewolf in London (1981) all the more unique.
But the camp factor was not the only factor that sets this movie apart. The way David (David Naughton) discovers his condition is amongst the more inventional aspects, Landis beautifully uses dreams, flashbacks, and a chilling and chuckle inducing scene with David's deceased friend, Jack (Griffin Dunne). The script is pretty inventive, not relying solely on Werewolf canon as passed down from such classics as The Wolf Man (1941), instead flexing the mythos a tad here and there to make the movie more modern and appealing. I was also impressed with how Landis (mostly known for his classic comedies and the Thriller music video) was able to craft a very good werewolf based script... leaving behind animals like Bluto to make one of the best were wolf movies ever.
But it's not just the script that Landis got right. The over all vibe of the movie is perfect. All the archetypes are presented in ways that are both traditional and new. The creepy townsfolk provide some of the best town fillers since the robots of Thermostadt in the Futurama episode The Honking. And, although I did say that the Werewolf tale was modernized a bit, the key elements are respected such as only a loved one can kill a lycanthrope, etc. (There are none of those fake Twilight Werewolves here). But one of the true highlights is the Tarantino esque soundtrack, ironically matching songs involving the moon with intense violence and moments that one wouldn't associate with a certain song, adding to diffuse the horror and make the viewer half smile... even while David is writhing in pain during a horrific transformation.
Speaking of that transformation, the movie truly does deserve the praise for it's groundbreaking make up work. Before computers could do everything Baker and his boys put on one heck of a show during the transformations, and when Jack shows up as a decaying corpse. I do have to agree with some critics saying the real star of this movie is Baker and the make up crew.
For a horror movie, the acting is not bad. I do have to use that qualifier because the acting is not amazing by any stretch of the imagination, but compared to many other entries of macabre cinema the acting is pretty good. Naughton plays the eponymous American Werewolf with a like ability that I believe is mostly natural, and he portrays the confused young man very well, but he's not a great actor. The same can be said of Jenny Agutter, for a horror lead she is actually a strong independent woman who doesn't spend the entire movie squealing, which is refreshing. But the best acting performance is probably John Woodvine as the Dr. J.S. Hirsch, a small role, true, but Woodvine does act better than the rest.
All in all this is a very good movie, not just a good horror movie, but a good movie in general. There are some scares and more than one laugh; So if you are looking for a good way to spend an hour and thirty eight minutes pop in An American Werewolf in London, you won't be disappointed.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9/10)
Although many don't want to admit it... the Horror genre has actually contributed some of the finest movies ever made: Dracula (1931), Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Excorcist (1973), Halloween (1978), etc. But, soon people didn't want strict fear inducing scenes, and soon horror-comedy was born. Of course to cinema goers in modern times horror-comedy is nothing new, movies like the Scream series and 2004's modern classic Shaun of the Dead have gained widespread popularity that horror movies with campy humor are almost the new status quo, but this new breed of horror movie's was not a recent creation.
In the early 80s there was a movie that challenged what people expected from horror, for example one doesn't expect a horror movie to begin with peaceful shots a a tranquil moor... matched up with a peaceful little diddy like "Blue Moon" sung by velvet tongued crooner Bobby Vinton. The more common place opening usually involves a bloody massacre to get viewers attention, making An American Werewolf in London (1981) all the more unique.
But the camp factor was not the only factor that sets this movie apart. The way David (David Naughton) discovers his condition is amongst the more inventional aspects, Landis beautifully uses dreams, flashbacks, and a chilling and chuckle inducing scene with David's deceased friend, Jack (Griffin Dunne). The script is pretty inventive, not relying solely on Werewolf canon as passed down from such classics as The Wolf Man (1941), instead flexing the mythos a tad here and there to make the movie more modern and appealing. I was also impressed with how Landis (mostly known for his classic comedies and the Thriller music video) was able to craft a very good werewolf based script... leaving behind animals like Bluto to make one of the best were wolf movies ever.
But it's not just the script that Landis got right. The over all vibe of the movie is perfect. All the archetypes are presented in ways that are both traditional and new. The creepy townsfolk provide some of the best town fillers since the robots of Thermostadt in the Futurama episode The Honking. And, although I did say that the Werewolf tale was modernized a bit, the key elements are respected such as only a loved one can kill a lycanthrope, etc. (There are none of those fake Twilight Werewolves here). But one of the true highlights is the Tarantino esque soundtrack, ironically matching songs involving the moon with intense violence and moments that one wouldn't associate with a certain song, adding to diffuse the horror and make the viewer half smile... even while David is writhing in pain during a horrific transformation.
Speaking of that transformation, the movie truly does deserve the praise for it's groundbreaking make up work. Before computers could do everything Baker and his boys put on one heck of a show during the transformations, and when Jack shows up as a decaying corpse. I do have to agree with some critics saying the real star of this movie is Baker and the make up crew.
For a horror movie, the acting is not bad. I do have to use that qualifier because the acting is not amazing by any stretch of the imagination, but compared to many other entries of macabre cinema the acting is pretty good. Naughton plays the eponymous American Werewolf with a like ability that I believe is mostly natural, and he portrays the confused young man very well, but he's not a great actor. The same can be said of Jenny Agutter, for a horror lead she is actually a strong independent woman who doesn't spend the entire movie squealing, which is refreshing. But the best acting performance is probably John Woodvine as the Dr. J.S. Hirsch, a small role, true, but Woodvine does act better than the rest.
All in all this is a very good movie, not just a good horror movie, but a good movie in general. There are some scares and more than one laugh; So if you are looking for a good way to spend an hour and thirty eight minutes pop in An American Werewolf in London, you won't be disappointed.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9/10)
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Public Review
Alright, I'll admit the title is a stretch (I'll also admit they all are), so to make it a little more understandable I'll inform you what movie I'm reviewing now, the Gangster cinema classic The Public Enemy (1931) starring king of gangster cinema Jimmy Cagney. Completing a gangster double feature for me, as seen by my earlier review of Carlito's Way (1993).
Released four months after Little Caesar (1930), The Public Enemy is credited with many things... but the most influential thing the movie did was to solidify the gangster movie as a profitable genre (spanning nearly the entire run of talkies) but probably more importantly is that the movie gave cinema a young actor names James Cagney, a vaudevillian turned film actor.
Following Little Caesar was a big deal, considering it was one of the truly great crime movies, and as such this movie had some not so little shoes to fill. And, instead of trying to replicate the exact same hood turned boss, this movie creates a different kind of gangster in Tom Powers (Cagney): The Gangster from infancy. Beginning in 1909, the film viewer is introduced to Tom Powers as a little boy, pulling all sorts of shenanigans that aren't to foreign from the opening scenes of Manhattan Melodrama (1934) in which young Blackie is shown to be a criminal from birth.
From there the movie becomes a pretty typical rags to riches to morgue gangster story, with the inevitable end for the central gangster being a maelstrom of lead and blood, but considering that Little Caesar was the only real one to come first, it was pretty original and must be viewed in that context. That being said, the movie is a very good example of the Rags to Riches to Morgue movies, and perhaps among the best I've seen in the sub-genre.
One of the main sources of this movies greatest comes from the daring script. In the pre-code world of cinema the only thing holding back film makers was their own conscience, but Warner Bros. decided to make a movie with tough guys being tough, no holding back (well, swearing was still taboo). The entire plot is risky, tackling Prohibition and it's problems during the whole fiasco, but when you add all sorts of scenes such as real live gangsters being portrayed (although taken out in the 1949 post-code release), and a new use for grapefruit (although improvised) the sum is a tough look at crime that would set the standard for decades to come.
But, the main source is the Man himself... Jimmy Cagney. It's not hard to imagine why this movie made him a star, especially when he edged out the man originally play Powers. Frankly, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role. Cagney is cocky, tough, jovial, and formidable making the perfect cocktail of the archetypal screen hoodlum. The rest of the cast serves as mere props to Cagney's Powers who stands head and shoulders (oh the irony) above the rest of the cast when it comes to acting. They are all good, don't get me wrong, but when matched with a truly great performance, good looks average.
In terms of classic gangster fare this movie ranks amongst Little Caesar (1931), and White Heat (1941) standing out to this day as truly great works of cinema. If you consider yourself a fan of crime fare, this is most definitely a don't miss movie.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.25/10)
Released four months after Little Caesar (1930), The Public Enemy is credited with many things... but the most influential thing the movie did was to solidify the gangster movie as a profitable genre (spanning nearly the entire run of talkies) but probably more importantly is that the movie gave cinema a young actor names James Cagney, a vaudevillian turned film actor.
Following Little Caesar was a big deal, considering it was one of the truly great crime movies, and as such this movie had some not so little shoes to fill. And, instead of trying to replicate the exact same hood turned boss, this movie creates a different kind of gangster in Tom Powers (Cagney): The Gangster from infancy. Beginning in 1909, the film viewer is introduced to Tom Powers as a little boy, pulling all sorts of shenanigans that aren't to foreign from the opening scenes of Manhattan Melodrama (1934) in which young Blackie is shown to be a criminal from birth.
From there the movie becomes a pretty typical rags to riches to morgue gangster story, with the inevitable end for the central gangster being a maelstrom of lead and blood, but considering that Little Caesar was the only real one to come first, it was pretty original and must be viewed in that context. That being said, the movie is a very good example of the Rags to Riches to Morgue movies, and perhaps among the best I've seen in the sub-genre.
One of the main sources of this movies greatest comes from the daring script. In the pre-code world of cinema the only thing holding back film makers was their own conscience, but Warner Bros. decided to make a movie with tough guys being tough, no holding back (well, swearing was still taboo). The entire plot is risky, tackling Prohibition and it's problems during the whole fiasco, but when you add all sorts of scenes such as real live gangsters being portrayed (although taken out in the 1949 post-code release), and a new use for grapefruit (although improvised) the sum is a tough look at crime that would set the standard for decades to come.
But, the main source is the Man himself... Jimmy Cagney. It's not hard to imagine why this movie made him a star, especially when he edged out the man originally play Powers. Frankly, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role. Cagney is cocky, tough, jovial, and formidable making the perfect cocktail of the archetypal screen hoodlum. The rest of the cast serves as mere props to Cagney's Powers who stands head and shoulders (oh the irony) above the rest of the cast when it comes to acting. They are all good, don't get me wrong, but when matched with a truly great performance, good looks average.
In terms of classic gangster fare this movie ranks amongst Little Caesar (1931), and White Heat (1941) standing out to this day as truly great works of cinema. If you consider yourself a fan of crime fare, this is most definitely a don't miss movie.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.25/10)
Carlito's Review
From the violent beginning, to Carlito's speech patterns, right down to the director this movie seems like its trying to be a follow up to the 1983 classic Scarface, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The only possibility of that attempt at becoming a bad thing is that Scarface is one of the greatest crime movies ever made, with classic lines, an iconic poster, and possibly the most bad ass ending of any movie ever... so any attempt at, even a solely thematic one, continuing that movie sounds doomed to fail.
But I won't spoil the fun and tell you here if it was a failure or a success.
Carlito's Way (1993), despite my intro paragraph, is a very different movie (plot wise, at least) from Scarface. Where as the latter is all about the rise of an immigrant from low level hood to kingpin of the Miami drug trade, Carlito's Way is more of a post-rise movie. Admittedly, this is a very interesting take on the genre. Consider, if you will, most of the great gangster movies. Little Ceaser... a hood rises to rule, then falls. Goodfellas... a hood rises to power, then falls. Scarface, a hood rises to rule, then falls. State Property... I did say great didn't I? never mind State Property then... I believe you get the picture now. But this movie is a man who has already fallen, being released from Priosn, Carlito is no longer the drug Kingpin he used to be, but nobody in cinema has ever been able to walk away from the former lifestyle of violence, just ask William Munny.
The cinematography is gorgeous in an almost ironic way. The back ground scenery is shot with a way to show the grimy under belly of society that is being portrayed by the characters in the shots. Furthermore, Stephen H. Burum and Brian de Palma shoot the movie as if following a page from the Sergio Leone guide to Westerns, intense close ups, graphic deaths the film is made that much more of a gripping experience.
The voice overs are interesting, and they do move the story along well... but I feel like the script lacks the punch of Stone's Scarface script or Pileggi and Scorcese's Goodfellas script. Although trying to tell the story of a man seeking redemption, not fame and wealth, there was a certain level of hardened dialogue missing. And when the hardened dialogue was used, it seemed almost forced (e.g. John Leguizamo's first appearance at the club). Although, that doesn't really bog down the movie. There is a lot of great dialogue and exchanges, like when Carlito reunites with Gail, and those scenes really elevate the movie above the average crime fare, but the aforementioned script troubles mixed with some of the key problems keep the movie out of the truly great category.
Al Pacino turns in another great performance, although there seems to be too much Montana seeping into Carlito. Although the character does stand alone, it seems like Pacino slipped into the comfort zone of Latin American born gangster created by the most iconic of the bunch. Furthermore, Sean Penn is (don't stone me) average. He's definitely not bad here, but there's nothing that he does that is really all that inventive/creative/breath taking. There's also Guzman, who is alright in these bit parts (think Boogie Nights) but again not great. Although only briefly in the movie John Leguizamo's Benny Blanco is actually a pretty good performance, but it keeps par for the course, making my biggest complaint the lack of great acting, not just really good acting.
In terms of cinematic experience, Carlito's Way is a very good way to spend 2 hours and 25 minutes, but if you are searching for a truly moving and hard edged gangster film instead pick up Goodfellas, Scarface, or any number of films that do a similar kind of movie, but better.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
But I won't spoil the fun and tell you here if it was a failure or a success.
Carlito's Way (1993), despite my intro paragraph, is a very different movie (plot wise, at least) from Scarface. Where as the latter is all about the rise of an immigrant from low level hood to kingpin of the Miami drug trade, Carlito's Way is more of a post-rise movie. Admittedly, this is a very interesting take on the genre. Consider, if you will, most of the great gangster movies. Little Ceaser... a hood rises to rule, then falls. Goodfellas... a hood rises to power, then falls. Scarface, a hood rises to rule, then falls. State Property... I did say great didn't I? never mind State Property then... I believe you get the picture now. But this movie is a man who has already fallen, being released from Priosn, Carlito is no longer the drug Kingpin he used to be, but nobody in cinema has ever been able to walk away from the former lifestyle of violence, just ask William Munny.
The cinematography is gorgeous in an almost ironic way. The back ground scenery is shot with a way to show the grimy under belly of society that is being portrayed by the characters in the shots. Furthermore, Stephen H. Burum and Brian de Palma shoot the movie as if following a page from the Sergio Leone guide to Westerns, intense close ups, graphic deaths the film is made that much more of a gripping experience.
The voice overs are interesting, and they do move the story along well... but I feel like the script lacks the punch of Stone's Scarface script or Pileggi and Scorcese's Goodfellas script. Although trying to tell the story of a man seeking redemption, not fame and wealth, there was a certain level of hardened dialogue missing. And when the hardened dialogue was used, it seemed almost forced (e.g. John Leguizamo's first appearance at the club). Although, that doesn't really bog down the movie. There is a lot of great dialogue and exchanges, like when Carlito reunites with Gail, and those scenes really elevate the movie above the average crime fare, but the aforementioned script troubles mixed with some of the key problems keep the movie out of the truly great category.
Al Pacino turns in another great performance, although there seems to be too much Montana seeping into Carlito. Although the character does stand alone, it seems like Pacino slipped into the comfort zone of Latin American born gangster created by the most iconic of the bunch. Furthermore, Sean Penn is (don't stone me) average. He's definitely not bad here, but there's nothing that he does that is really all that inventive/creative/breath taking. There's also Guzman, who is alright in these bit parts (think Boogie Nights) but again not great. Although only briefly in the movie John Leguizamo's Benny Blanco is actually a pretty good performance, but it keeps par for the course, making my biggest complaint the lack of great acting, not just really good acting.
In terms of cinematic experience, Carlito's Way is a very good way to spend 2 hours and 25 minutes, but if you are searching for a truly moving and hard edged gangster film instead pick up Goodfellas, Scarface, or any number of films that do a similar kind of movie, but better.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Once Upon a Review in the West
As I'm sure you've figured out , I like Westerns. Although, my dear reader, I don't know if you, knew that my favorite sub genre of the Western genre is the Spaghetti Western, mainly for the unflinching way that this particular sect of movies handles the true violence and degenerate nature of the real west, with that being said, I felt like a bad fan being that I had not seen one of the true classics of not only the sub genre, or even the genre... but instead cinema itself. Of course I'm talking about Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) directed by a true master Sergio Leone.
There is a lot going on in this movie (think Inglorious Basterds in a Stetson). But the movie can be boiled down to three main plots...
1) Frank (Henry Fonda) being hunted by Harmonica (Charles Bronson)
2) Cheyenne (Jason Robards) being accused of the murder of a child
3) Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale) trying to hold onto her land, despite Frank wanting it.
With this much going on, I'm afraid, that there was a high potential for cinematic fat. True, Leone has The Dollars trilogy to support that his movies have all the fat content of an apple... but this movie is more along the lines of a burger, delicious... but not entirely healthy. I know I don't have a film degree or any credentials as a critic, but I feel like West has several scenes that border on unneeded, such as the opening scene on the homestead which continues for several minutes where the only important thing to happen is a fly buzzing around. There are other scenes later on that Leone allows the camera to linger too long, resulting in a movie that has some love handles, but is by no means obese.
The movie is classic Leone, the Monument valley filming location reflects the barren wastelands that the characters call souls, mixing arid desert with bleak horizons. As stated in my reviews of various other westerns I prefer the real desert feel to the panoramic vistas. As would be expected Morricone's score is gorgeous with the true highlight being "The Man with a Harmonica," mixing the haunting harmonica of... Harmonica with an anachronistic electric guitar to create one of the greatest "character" scores of all time.
In terms of the four Leone movies I've seen, this one certainly has the best acting with Bronson, Fonda, and Cardinale being specifically strong. I've seen Charles Bronson in a few movies, all tough guys, but Harmonica stands above the rest of his roles, mixing the revenge themes of Death Wish with the intensity of his role in The Magnificent Seven. But, I don't mean to discredit Fonda who plays the first villain I've seen him play. He plays the role of Frank with a level of sleaze I didn't expect him to be capable of, but I was wrong.
The movie is definitely a classic, changing the Western genre, but the movie seems to be too epic in scope for one movie... not really an insult, I know, but a critique all the same. Perhaps this movie could have been improved (only slightly though) by predating Kill Bill in dividing the movie into two volumes, but it didn't, and as such I can't bring myself to give it a perfect score. The movie receives my recommendation, yes, but a 10/10... no.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.75/10)
There is a lot going on in this movie (think Inglorious Basterds in a Stetson). But the movie can be boiled down to three main plots...
1) Frank (Henry Fonda) being hunted by Harmonica (Charles Bronson)
2) Cheyenne (Jason Robards) being accused of the murder of a child
3) Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale) trying to hold onto her land, despite Frank wanting it.
With this much going on, I'm afraid, that there was a high potential for cinematic fat. True, Leone has The Dollars trilogy to support that his movies have all the fat content of an apple... but this movie is more along the lines of a burger, delicious... but not entirely healthy. I know I don't have a film degree or any credentials as a critic, but I feel like West has several scenes that border on unneeded, such as the opening scene on the homestead which continues for several minutes where the only important thing to happen is a fly buzzing around. There are other scenes later on that Leone allows the camera to linger too long, resulting in a movie that has some love handles, but is by no means obese.
The movie is classic Leone, the Monument valley filming location reflects the barren wastelands that the characters call souls, mixing arid desert with bleak horizons. As stated in my reviews of various other westerns I prefer the real desert feel to the panoramic vistas. As would be expected Morricone's score is gorgeous with the true highlight being "The Man with a Harmonica," mixing the haunting harmonica of... Harmonica with an anachronistic electric guitar to create one of the greatest "character" scores of all time.
In terms of the four Leone movies I've seen, this one certainly has the best acting with Bronson, Fonda, and Cardinale being specifically strong. I've seen Charles Bronson in a few movies, all tough guys, but Harmonica stands above the rest of his roles, mixing the revenge themes of Death Wish with the intensity of his role in The Magnificent Seven. But, I don't mean to discredit Fonda who plays the first villain I've seen him play. He plays the role of Frank with a level of sleaze I didn't expect him to be capable of, but I was wrong.
The movie is definitely a classic, changing the Western genre, but the movie seems to be too epic in scope for one movie... not really an insult, I know, but a critique all the same. Perhaps this movie could have been improved (only slightly though) by predating Kill Bill in dividing the movie into two volumes, but it didn't, and as such I can't bring myself to give it a perfect score. The movie receives my recommendation, yes, but a 10/10... no.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.75/10)
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Review the High Country
If you believe the Leonard Maltin quote on the back of the 2006 DVD Ride the High Country (1962) is "considered by some to be Peckinpah's finest film," and being that this is the man who directed The Wild Bunch (1969) and Straw Dogs (1971) that is a doozy of a claim. I will let you down now, it is not better than the two movies I listed, but being shy of two movies which combine to attain a 20/20 is not an insult by any stretch of the imagination.
Thematically this movie seems more like it should be an adopted child of Peckinpah, surely not his by... blood. (Pun sort of intended). Arguably, that is a true case, being that this movie was not in fact written by Peckinpah as the other movies of his reviewed on this blog have been. Not to try and take away from N.B. Stone, Jr., the writer, but where as TWB and SD circumvent convention and turn stereotypes and formulas on their heads, with TWB changing westerns (and cinema) forever... this movie seems to play more in the conventional sense of both westerns and buddy films. That being said, the movie does succeed in being funnier than the other two combined matching sly zingers with great interactive dialogue the script is stronger than most, but weaker than some.
The storyline is quite straightforward, a few men, trying to make a buck, set out to gold mine to try and bring back some treasure for their employers, inventive yes, but regrettably the men are typical cowboys. Both are aging lawmen with eyes on that final ride into the sunset, but of course there's one more mission they've got to complete before they can meet history on an amber horizon. And as such, one could plug in any cowboy actor of the early sixties (i.e. John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart) and the movie would have progressed the same way, not a bad thing, but not a great thing.
Next is the direction, which is another place where I felt let down by the film again. The Wild Bunch is a brutal western, parched Mexican landscapes matched with vicious men made it feel exciting and new, on par with such classics as The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966) when it comes to an unforgiving west, but this movie in everything from the sprawling vistas to the shots of the characters whilst conversing is just so typical of ever other western at the time.
Although I did say they could be filled by most any veteran western actor, Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott are quite good as the two aging gun men, but there's nothing really done here acting wise that hasn't been done with the character type better else where.
Much of this movie boils down to standard western fare, but luckily there are enough inventional plot devices to make this movie more than an AT LEAST WATCH and into the realm of the LIKE.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9/10)
Thematically this movie seems more like it should be an adopted child of Peckinpah, surely not his by... blood. (Pun sort of intended). Arguably, that is a true case, being that this movie was not in fact written by Peckinpah as the other movies of his reviewed on this blog have been. Not to try and take away from N.B. Stone, Jr., the writer, but where as TWB and SD circumvent convention and turn stereotypes and formulas on their heads, with TWB changing westerns (and cinema) forever... this movie seems to play more in the conventional sense of both westerns and buddy films. That being said, the movie does succeed in being funnier than the other two combined matching sly zingers with great interactive dialogue the script is stronger than most, but weaker than some.
The storyline is quite straightforward, a few men, trying to make a buck, set out to gold mine to try and bring back some treasure for their employers, inventive yes, but regrettably the men are typical cowboys. Both are aging lawmen with eyes on that final ride into the sunset, but of course there's one more mission they've got to complete before they can meet history on an amber horizon. And as such, one could plug in any cowboy actor of the early sixties (i.e. John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart) and the movie would have progressed the same way, not a bad thing, but not a great thing.
Next is the direction, which is another place where I felt let down by the film again. The Wild Bunch is a brutal western, parched Mexican landscapes matched with vicious men made it feel exciting and new, on par with such classics as The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966) when it comes to an unforgiving west, but this movie in everything from the sprawling vistas to the shots of the characters whilst conversing is just so typical of ever other western at the time.
Although I did say they could be filled by most any veteran western actor, Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott are quite good as the two aging gun men, but there's nothing really done here acting wise that hasn't been done with the character type better else where.
Much of this movie boils down to standard western fare, but luckily there are enough inventional plot devices to make this movie more than an AT LEAST WATCH and into the realm of the LIKE.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9/10)
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Straw Dogs: A Review
There's violent cinema, and then there's a Peckinpah movie. You see, the difference between today's violent cinema and Sam Peckipah is all in the mind, where most violent movies just splatter red dye mixed with corn syrup across everything for two hours, Peckinpah takes a different road... a full frontal assault of your mind, one of his most famous cases of this is the 1969 western classic The Wild Bunch, a movie that took westerns, and all cinema for that matter, to a whole new level. But it wasn't until 2 years later that Peckinpah really upped the anti, taking a step beyond blood squibs on Ernest Brognine's chest to show a rape of a woman, that turns mid way into consensual sex, in one of the most controversial movies of recent decades: Straw Dogs (1971).
The plot starts out in a pretty mundane way, newly wed couple moves to a small town, shenanigans ensue, not sounding like a real groundbreaking movie, does it? WRONG! The way the story unfolds shows a tortured underbelly to small towns not seen in any other movie (well, maybe Hot Fuzz). But as a microcosm of the whole town there is an even more central conflict, that of David and Amy (Susan George). Amy and David clash pretty much from the opening credits. And the camera work reflects that, Peckinpah shoots even the most mundane marital conversations like the filmed the train robbery of The Wild Bunch, quick shots and cuts, wide trailing shots, muted colors, all leading to the growing struggles around David, segueing into the themes of masculinity later covered.
And here I shall run my train of thought down the rails laid down by Joshua Clover in the booklet inside the DVD case I rented, Peckinpah makes his first trip away from westerns, but this movie is really not a western in setting only. The character types are all there David Sumner, Played by the ever great Dustin Hoffman, fulfills the classic western role of new guy forced to the gun. Consider Ransom Stoddard in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. A presumably weak man arrives in town in harassed by the local toughs, long story short he turns to a gun and defeats them, after unlocking a previously unseen facet of his personality, in the case of Stoddard it's courage, in the case of Sumner it's rage and brutality. Next is the cause of all woe, as told from the Western genre's perspective: The woman, who entices both sides into violence, culminating in the hero having to rescue her. Then there a the thugs who are desperately clinging to the old violent days before the hero rode to town and "corrupted" it.
But of course Peckinpah can't leave these motifs alone. In his own genius way, Peckinpah twists and corrupts the Western Hero into a bitter man who has hints of pedophilia tendencies, the woman becomes not a dame in distress but a villain in her own right, and the thugs are more brutal than anything Leone or Ford could have dreamed of. And that is where the movie gains it's strength: subliminally telling the audience their heroes are flawed, criticizing and satirizing a different genre with out even uttering the word "Partner."
As I touched on earlier, Hoffman is amazing, blending the personality of Ratso Rizzo with the demeanor of Benjamin Braddock, but worse than either of them. Boiling beneath his sweater is a killer, a subtle comment on the violent nature of man, and Hoffman is able to portray this better than just about anyone.
Also of note is Hoffman's opposite, Susan George. It's not an easy task to go two hours with Hoffman and hold your own. But George, succeeds, providing a balance of equal unlike ability to Hoffman's amoral mathematician. neither character is really like able, but when compared with the rest of the cities rogues gallery Hoffman and George instantly gain like ability points. George is stunning, subtle, passionate, but simple: Truly a great performance.
All in all this is one of the most violent and (dare I say) disturbing movies I've seen. It's not disturbing like the "torture porn" horror genre, but it's believability makes it terrifying. The acting is all top notch, the directing superb, and the script assaults your mind and leaves you hanging like a cat in a closet.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
The plot starts out in a pretty mundane way, newly wed couple moves to a small town, shenanigans ensue, not sounding like a real groundbreaking movie, does it? WRONG! The way the story unfolds shows a tortured underbelly to small towns not seen in any other movie (well, maybe Hot Fuzz). But as a microcosm of the whole town there is an even more central conflict, that of David and Amy (Susan George). Amy and David clash pretty much from the opening credits. And the camera work reflects that, Peckinpah shoots even the most mundane marital conversations like the filmed the train robbery of The Wild Bunch, quick shots and cuts, wide trailing shots, muted colors, all leading to the growing struggles around David, segueing into the themes of masculinity later covered.
And here I shall run my train of thought down the rails laid down by Joshua Clover in the booklet inside the DVD case I rented, Peckinpah makes his first trip away from westerns, but this movie is really not a western in setting only. The character types are all there David Sumner, Played by the ever great Dustin Hoffman, fulfills the classic western role of new guy forced to the gun. Consider Ransom Stoddard in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. A presumably weak man arrives in town in harassed by the local toughs, long story short he turns to a gun and defeats them, after unlocking a previously unseen facet of his personality, in the case of Stoddard it's courage, in the case of Sumner it's rage and brutality. Next is the cause of all woe, as told from the Western genre's perspective: The woman, who entices both sides into violence, culminating in the hero having to rescue her. Then there a the thugs who are desperately clinging to the old violent days before the hero rode to town and "corrupted" it.
But of course Peckinpah can't leave these motifs alone. In his own genius way, Peckinpah twists and corrupts the Western Hero into a bitter man who has hints of pedophilia tendencies, the woman becomes not a dame in distress but a villain in her own right, and the thugs are more brutal than anything Leone or Ford could have dreamed of. And that is where the movie gains it's strength: subliminally telling the audience their heroes are flawed, criticizing and satirizing a different genre with out even uttering the word "Partner."
As I touched on earlier, Hoffman is amazing, blending the personality of Ratso Rizzo with the demeanor of Benjamin Braddock, but worse than either of them. Boiling beneath his sweater is a killer, a subtle comment on the violent nature of man, and Hoffman is able to portray this better than just about anyone.
Also of note is Hoffman's opposite, Susan George. It's not an easy task to go two hours with Hoffman and hold your own. But George, succeeds, providing a balance of equal unlike ability to Hoffman's amoral mathematician. neither character is really like able, but when compared with the rest of the cities rogues gallery Hoffman and George instantly gain like ability points. George is stunning, subtle, passionate, but simple: Truly a great performance.
All in all this is one of the most violent and (dare I say) disturbing movies I've seen. It's not disturbing like the "torture porn" horror genre, but it's believability makes it terrifying. The acting is all top notch, the directing superb, and the script assaults your mind and leaves you hanging like a cat in a closet.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
Friday, November 5, 2010
Bob & Carol & Dr. Brooklyn & Alice
The last few weeks I've been trying to watch generally praised movies, most of them have been serious drama's about man be it failings (Citizen Kane), The strength of the human spirit (Mr. Smith goes to Washington), and the power of memory and the abstract term "The Truth" (Rashomon, not reviewed). So, to change the pace just a tad, I decided to watch a movie also about man, but this time about how they... um... fornicate, hence my film selection for tonight Bob & Carol &Ted & Alice (1969).
Citizen Kane, it's not, but the movie has something that Kane lacked... laughs a whole lot of laughs, admittedly Kane was not about laughs it was about holding a mirror to the life of William Randolph Hearst. Although you might not think of a movie about couples cheating on their respective spouses as humorous. Even by today's the standards the plot is really inventive: Two middle aged couples, one ventures out to a "retreat" and returns... changed. By that I mean sexually free, and what better way to be sexually free than with a couple you know? Bob and Carol (the retreat/returning couple) begin a crusade to get Ted and Alice into the bedroom for shenanigans most foul.
The movie handles the subject matter of affairs and the sexual revolution both maturely and immaturely, the former with the high level of humor and dry wit, and immaturely because... well, they just have free sex. There are moments of drama, and moments of comedy, perfectly blended into a black comedy of tremendous charm and... sex appeal (mainly Natalie Wood).
It's not often I say it in these reviews, but the score is so perfect. Quincy Jones provides a soul tot he movie with his beautifully conductedporn music smooth jazz. It's not a make or break deal, but it does help tremendously to set the mood.
But, all the above is worthless if the four people in the bed had porn quality acting to match the porn quality jazz. Luckily, the movie has three strong performances... for those keeping track at home there are four main characters. Elliot Gould was great: quirky, nerdy, down right like able. He portrays Ted as just the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, he'd be fun but he wouldn't be too much, match that with the chemistry between himself and Dyan Cannon (Alice) their relationship isn't perfect like most comedy marriages, but they really try and because they really love each other they are willing to try anything. Also strong is Natalie Wood, who as I mentioned earlier, is damn sexy in this movie. She balances out nerdy couple Ted and Alice perfectly, by playing a character that would fit in perfectly on Wysteria Lane. (DISCLAIMER: I only watched that show the times I did because of Eva Longoria-Parker).
Which brings me to Robert Culp.
I don't know how to say this without sounding like a nit picker... oh why not. Culp is the weak link because of his physical demeanor and mannerisms. Yeah, that's what brings this movie down, stuff Culp had no control over. Now, dear reader, let me explain. The character of Bob is supposed to be cool, he's a film director, rich, married to a hot woman, he does recreational drugs (not advocating but going into the archetype of 'cool' people in cinema...), he's even seen wearing leather jackets and (at the time) hip clothing and speaking in the parlance of the times. That having been said... Robert Culp is not that guy. To describe his square peg in a cool hole: Imagine if Cyclops got some fake claws and tried to convince everyone he was the best at what he does, but what he does isn't very nice. Nobody would fall for it because that's just not who Cyclops is, the same situation plays itself out here, a tragically unhip guy trying to be the coolest guy in the room... he fails.
Other than that, the movie is pretty solid with a nice (used loosely) story, coupled with great acting, cool music, and nice camerawork. Although not the funniest or most touching movie, it's still better than the drivel that gets released nowadays.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
Citizen Kane, it's not, but the movie has something that Kane lacked... laughs a whole lot of laughs, admittedly Kane was not about laughs it was about holding a mirror to the life of William Randolph Hearst. Although you might not think of a movie about couples cheating on their respective spouses as humorous. Even by today's the standards the plot is really inventive: Two middle aged couples, one ventures out to a "retreat" and returns... changed. By that I mean sexually free, and what better way to be sexually free than with a couple you know? Bob and Carol (the retreat/returning couple) begin a crusade to get Ted and Alice into the bedroom for shenanigans most foul.
The movie handles the subject matter of affairs and the sexual revolution both maturely and immaturely, the former with the high level of humor and dry wit, and immaturely because... well, they just have free sex. There are moments of drama, and moments of comedy, perfectly blended into a black comedy of tremendous charm and... sex appeal (mainly Natalie Wood).
It's not often I say it in these reviews, but the score is so perfect. Quincy Jones provides a soul tot he movie with his beautifully conducted
But, all the above is worthless if the four people in the bed had porn quality acting to match the porn quality jazz. Luckily, the movie has three strong performances... for those keeping track at home there are four main characters. Elliot Gould was great: quirky, nerdy, down right like able. He portrays Ted as just the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, he'd be fun but he wouldn't be too much, match that with the chemistry between himself and Dyan Cannon (Alice) their relationship isn't perfect like most comedy marriages, but they really try and because they really love each other they are willing to try anything. Also strong is Natalie Wood, who as I mentioned earlier, is damn sexy in this movie. She balances out nerdy couple Ted and Alice perfectly, by playing a character that would fit in perfectly on Wysteria Lane. (DISCLAIMER: I only watched that show the times I did because of Eva Longoria-Parker).
Which brings me to Robert Culp.
I don't know how to say this without sounding like a nit picker... oh why not. Culp is the weak link because of his physical demeanor and mannerisms. Yeah, that's what brings this movie down, stuff Culp had no control over. Now, dear reader, let me explain. The character of Bob is supposed to be cool, he's a film director, rich, married to a hot woman, he does recreational drugs (not advocating but going into the archetype of 'cool' people in cinema...), he's even seen wearing leather jackets and (at the time) hip clothing and speaking in the parlance of the times. That having been said... Robert Culp is not that guy. To describe his square peg in a cool hole: Imagine if Cyclops got some fake claws and tried to convince everyone he was the best at what he does, but what he does isn't very nice. Nobody would fall for it because that's just not who Cyclops is, the same situation plays itself out here, a tragically unhip guy trying to be the coolest guy in the room... he fails.
Other than that, the movie is pretty solid with a nice (used loosely) story, coupled with great acting, cool music, and nice camerawork. Although not the funniest or most touching movie, it's still better than the drivel that gets released nowadays.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Dr. Brooklyn goes to Washington
I didn't review it, but a few weeks back I watched All The King's Men (1941) in which a humble small town dreamer turns into a backstabbing Politician... a tad redundant, I know. For decades that movie has been seen as the true face of politics, hearkening back to the old quote "Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely." But, with the elections of last Tuesday (for any Americans reading this) the American public went out and struck down Republicans and Democrats in a manner showing they are tired of the tried and true descent to corruption usually found in politics, and instead said they want men and women like... Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) from the movie which will be reviewed here Mr. Smith goes to Washington (1939).
The movie is surprisingly relevant, with the press being called out for half truths, politicians lying and making back room deals, and the Congressmen forgetting that they were elected by the people to serve the people. And with today's political climate, this movie speaks as loudly now as it does then. There's discussion of over-complicated bills, and the people that write them. As an American this movie speaks to me because it both criticizes and reminds me of all our Legislative branch can be.
Warning: The next paragraph has some political opinions in it, which may be offensive to some readers, proceed at your own choice, or jump to the paragraph after ti for a return to straight up reviewing.
Also, at the risk of alienating some readers, this movie seems like it was advocating The Tea Party before the Tea Party was even a fever dream. Stewart's Smith is the quintessential Tea Partier, a patriotic, Jefferson quoting man who truly believes every word of praise he spouts about the glories of the constitution and believes everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be defended.
The Sidney Buchman screenplay is stunning, painting the career politicians as the ruthless men (at the time they were all men) who care more about lining their pockets and getting under the table favors than serving their constituents. But Buchman also shows Smith as a naive man at first, quickly developing into a politician in his own right, but the kind that Americans want: honest hardworking men who think of their people back home before they think of themselves.
Also of note is Jimmy Stewart, the only man I've ever seen in cinema who could play this role. Stewart made a career for playing folksy down to earth guys (See George Bailey, Ransom Stoddard, Tom Jeffords, etc.) but here he takes it to a new level, in probably his best performance that I've seen him give. His ability to play a "Joe Six-Pack" is unparalleled and his ability to make the audience fall for his characters in each movie is unrivaled as well, the man was truly one of, if not the, greatest American actor.
All that being said, I can see how some people wouldn't like this movie, mainly political insiders and pro-big-government people, especially with the way Buchman and Capra present all the senators except Smith. I personally feel that the reasoning would be the fact that the man in the mirror is sometimes the ugliest person you'll ever see.
Perhaps the greatest political movie of all time, with a high running for greatest American film, Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a beautiful movie with a tight script, great acting, and a truly great look at smoke filled back rooms of Washington.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
The movie is surprisingly relevant, with the press being called out for half truths, politicians lying and making back room deals, and the Congressmen forgetting that they were elected by the people to serve the people. And with today's political climate, this movie speaks as loudly now as it does then. There's discussion of over-complicated bills, and the people that write them. As an American this movie speaks to me because it both criticizes and reminds me of all our Legislative branch can be.
Warning: The next paragraph has some political opinions in it, which may be offensive to some readers, proceed at your own choice, or jump to the paragraph after ti for a return to straight up reviewing.
Also, at the risk of alienating some readers, this movie seems like it was advocating The Tea Party before the Tea Party was even a fever dream. Stewart's Smith is the quintessential Tea Partier, a patriotic, Jefferson quoting man who truly believes every word of praise he spouts about the glories of the constitution and believes everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be defended.
The Sidney Buchman screenplay is stunning, painting the career politicians as the ruthless men (at the time they were all men) who care more about lining their pockets and getting under the table favors than serving their constituents. But Buchman also shows Smith as a naive man at first, quickly developing into a politician in his own right, but the kind that Americans want: honest hardworking men who think of their people back home before they think of themselves.
Also of note is Jimmy Stewart, the only man I've ever seen in cinema who could play this role. Stewart made a career for playing folksy down to earth guys (See George Bailey, Ransom Stoddard, Tom Jeffords, etc.) but here he takes it to a new level, in probably his best performance that I've seen him give. His ability to play a "Joe Six-Pack" is unparalleled and his ability to make the audience fall for his characters in each movie is unrivaled as well, the man was truly one of, if not the, greatest American actor.
All that being said, I can see how some people wouldn't like this movie, mainly political insiders and pro-big-government people, especially with the way Buchman and Capra present all the senators except Smith. I personally feel that the reasoning would be the fact that the man in the mirror is sometimes the ugliest person you'll ever see.
Perhaps the greatest political movie of all time, with a high running for greatest American film, Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a beautiful movie with a tight script, great acting, and a truly great look at smoke filled back rooms of Washington.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Citizen Kane: A review
Some movies are above the standard label of "movie." Yes, even the truly great works like Casablanca (1942) and The Godfather (1972) are at their hearts merely movie pictures, but they are also so much more. Truly, movies such as these have earned their own spots on Movie Olympus where they will be worshipped by the cult of cinephiles for decades to come. Yet if these movies are Hades and Poseidon, there is still a vacancy for the spot of chief Olympian: Zeus... well, any good film buff can tell you what the Zeus of cinema is: Citizen Kane (1941)
I think that objectively the opening seconds of Citizen Kane (1941) may be the most iconic scene in film history, the extreme close up on Kane's lips, the slow whisper mixed with subtle death rattle and the utterance of the first great movie "twist/mystery": "Rosebud."
From there we get a beautiful news reel that relates some of the big events of Charles Foster Kane's life, and Welles dives head first into the plot... and talk about a plot. The movie is mainly flashbacks with a framing device of a group of journalists trying to uncover the meaning of Kane's dying word.
The script is tight as a snare drum. From the very beginning Rosebud is in our face, but Welles hides it under snow, pressed against a man's chest, etc. And despite moving at a rapid pace, the dialogue is sharper than most motion pictures I've ever taken in, and yet it all seems so... not a movie. As bizarre and abnormal as it sounds this movie seems to transcend it's status to become more than a movie, but a slice of culture itself. I know I'm just gushing right now, worse than Chris Matthews the first time he heard Obama speak, but I think anybody who has seen this movie will understand.
Beyond the script, which I truly believe ranks amongst the finest of all time, the direction and Camerawork is riveting. Welles was truly ahead of the curve when it came to converging angles, pans, really everything he does here is among the finest that those techniques have been used, making it hard to believe that Citizen Kane is turning 70 next year. The shots are fresh and bold, exciting and daring. I don't really know if there's anything I can insult.
But scripts and direction are useless unless there are quality actors reading said script and follow said directions and... this movie cornered the market on quality performances. Everyone from Welles as Kane right down to Guy standing on the corner #3 the acting is better than a good chunk of all other movies. But Welles Kane steals this movie, so egotistical, so driven, so charming, and so slimy that you can't help but loather him and respect him. You cheer for him during his rise, but you also smile at his fall. A truly balanced and incredible performance in every sense of the word.
I could prattle on and on like a school girl about this film and it's greatness for multiple posts, but dear readers I won't. I will wrap it up with the following recommendation and all the praise I can heap on this movie. If you haven't seen this movie, rush out and watch it, if you have seen it... watch it again, it'll be worth it.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
I think that objectively the opening seconds of Citizen Kane (1941) may be the most iconic scene in film history, the extreme close up on Kane's lips, the slow whisper mixed with subtle death rattle and the utterance of the first great movie "twist/mystery": "Rosebud."
From there we get a beautiful news reel that relates some of the big events of Charles Foster Kane's life, and Welles dives head first into the plot... and talk about a plot. The movie is mainly flashbacks with a framing device of a group of journalists trying to uncover the meaning of Kane's dying word.
The script is tight as a snare drum. From the very beginning Rosebud is in our face, but Welles hides it under snow, pressed against a man's chest, etc. And despite moving at a rapid pace, the dialogue is sharper than most motion pictures I've ever taken in, and yet it all seems so... not a movie. As bizarre and abnormal as it sounds this movie seems to transcend it's status to become more than a movie, but a slice of culture itself. I know I'm just gushing right now, worse than Chris Matthews the first time he heard Obama speak, but I think anybody who has seen this movie will understand.
Beyond the script, which I truly believe ranks amongst the finest of all time, the direction and Camerawork is riveting. Welles was truly ahead of the curve when it came to converging angles, pans, really everything he does here is among the finest that those techniques have been used, making it hard to believe that Citizen Kane is turning 70 next year. The shots are fresh and bold, exciting and daring. I don't really know if there's anything I can insult.
But scripts and direction are useless unless there are quality actors reading said script and follow said directions and... this movie cornered the market on quality performances. Everyone from Welles as Kane right down to Guy standing on the corner #3 the acting is better than a good chunk of all other movies. But Welles Kane steals this movie, so egotistical, so driven, so charming, and so slimy that you can't help but loather him and respect him. You cheer for him during his rise, but you also smile at his fall. A truly balanced and incredible performance in every sense of the word.
I could prattle on and on like a school girl about this film and it's greatness for multiple posts, but dear readers I won't. I will wrap it up with the following recommendation and all the praise I can heap on this movie. If you haven't seen this movie, rush out and watch it, if you have seen it... watch it again, it'll be worth it.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
Monday, October 25, 2010
Forbidden Review
Sorry dear readers, I know that title writes a check that the rest of this review can't cash, it sounds steamy, sexy, and erotic, three things that have never been said when referring to this blog. For this review I didn't tackle anything that bears an X-Rating, it was instead a classic sci-fi movie entitled Forbidden Planet (1956) another title that is a tad misleading.
But this futuristic take on the Shakespeare play "The Tempest" is lacking nothing.
We find a space captain (played by the [at the time] stoic Leslie Nielsen, but we all know how his career changed) and his crew landing on a planet, distant and uninhabited... or so they think. The Away party soon discovers they aren't alone, and as such the plot develops out of the natives not being entirely altruistic.
The crew meets Dr. Morbius (Walter Pidgeon) and his daughter Alta (Anne Francis), who live in a remote house on the planet. The Dr wears all black and talks in a creepy intelligent manner... obviously he isn't an entirely good guy. For a sci-fi movie from the 50s the plot is pretty inventive, I won't spoil it but if you watch it I'm sure you won't be let down.
As I went into the movie I already knew that the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself (Gene Roddenberry for those of you that have girlfriends) cited this movie as a chief inspiration for Star Trek: TOS, and it's obvious from the beginning. The Captain (Cmdr. John J. Adams) is kind of a Kirk-esque character, charming, heroic, and tough. Also his right hand men are Farman (Jack Kelly), the pilot, and "Doc" (Warren Stevens) the... uh... you know.
For 1956 the effects are breath taking, in some cases this movie could have been seen as the Avatar of it's day with space ships, laser battles, and most importantly Robby the Robot (The star of the movie). I was quite impressed with the way the effects were handled, mainly to enhance the story not try and over shadow (Michael Bay... take some notes). I also must add this, as a fan of Star Trek TOS's ingenuity this is meant as a high compliment, to predate TOS by 10 years the effects were equal to or beyond that of Star Trek, which I find quite impressive, especially when these days ten year old movies seem dated in most cases.
Also of note is the hypnotic, electric score. Everything sounds futury, not contemporary forced on a future time period.
For acting it's all pretty standard, no truly great performances, but nothing worth harassing. But in some cases (especially when there is a strong script like this one) average acting is alright.
This is a short review, I know, but I just have good things to say about this movie, even though it seems like a missing Star Trek Pilot.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9/10)
But this futuristic take on the Shakespeare play "The Tempest" is lacking nothing.
We find a space captain (played by the [at the time] stoic Leslie Nielsen, but we all know how his career changed) and his crew landing on a planet, distant and uninhabited... or so they think. The Away party soon discovers they aren't alone, and as such the plot develops out of the natives not being entirely altruistic.
The crew meets Dr. Morbius (Walter Pidgeon) and his daughter Alta (Anne Francis), who live in a remote house on the planet. The Dr wears all black and talks in a creepy intelligent manner... obviously he isn't an entirely good guy. For a sci-fi movie from the 50s the plot is pretty inventive, I won't spoil it but if you watch it I'm sure you won't be let down.
As I went into the movie I already knew that the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself (Gene Roddenberry for those of you that have girlfriends) cited this movie as a chief inspiration for Star Trek: TOS, and it's obvious from the beginning. The Captain (Cmdr. John J. Adams) is kind of a Kirk-esque character, charming, heroic, and tough. Also his right hand men are Farman (Jack Kelly), the pilot, and "Doc" (Warren Stevens) the... uh... you know.
For 1956 the effects are breath taking, in some cases this movie could have been seen as the Avatar of it's day with space ships, laser battles, and most importantly Robby the Robot (The star of the movie). I was quite impressed with the way the effects were handled, mainly to enhance the story not try and over shadow (Michael Bay... take some notes). I also must add this, as a fan of Star Trek TOS's ingenuity this is meant as a high compliment, to predate TOS by 10 years the effects were equal to or beyond that of Star Trek, which I find quite impressive, especially when these days ten year old movies seem dated in most cases.
Also of note is the hypnotic, electric score. Everything sounds futury, not contemporary forced on a future time period.
For acting it's all pretty standard, no truly great performances, but nothing worth harassing. But in some cases (especially when there is a strong script like this one) average acting is alright.
This is a short review, I know, but I just have good things to say about this movie, even though it seems like a missing Star Trek Pilot.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9/10)
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Panic Review
Remember the other day when I said I was going to watch the complete Fincher catalogue? well tonight I completed the third leg in that race by watching Panic Room (2002) directed by David Fincher and starring Jodie Foster.
I must confess, I might be on the path to Fincherphelia, but not as bad as some people I know. The shots he employs (the zooms through the house) and the slow eerie score couple to add tension to each scene. Like Se7en (1997) none of the scenes are really throw away scenes, Fincher packs every frame with character development and plot and I must give him credit for that.
The plot kicks off quickly (15 minutes into a 112 minute movie the break in occurs) and I appreciate how even though it seems sped up at first, the pacing works itself around and we get a pretty fine film. But there is little action in the Hollywood sense of action. Keeping in line with the other Fincher movie's I've seen the action is all psychological, building a sense of fear inside the panic room and a sense of hostility and aggression on the outside. Also the plot is rather simplistic, the movie takes place in just a few rooms with the only real story being three robbers trying to get into the panic room of two victims.
For the sake of discussion there are really only five characters in this movie, but because they are so beautifully directed and their acting is all top notch the movie gets away with such a minimalist approach to casting.
In the lead role is Jodie Foster, and actress that much is expected of, and she delivers. Unlike the last movie I saw her in (The Silence of the Lambs) Foster does not bring a hardened agent in training angle to this role, but she does bring a perfect amount of concerned mother and panicked individual. If Foster had brought toughness the part would not have worked because so much of the movie hinges on the fear of Foster and Stewart, which brings me to the next actress I intend to discuss.
Kristen Stewart is most famous now for locking lips with "vampires" and hanging out with shirtless men, but she can actually act... even though she chooses to hide it now. She balances Fosters fear with a precocious bravery.
Jared Leto as the leader of the three burglars turns in a good performance as a guy who is sleazy and looking for money, that he could wait to inherit but he decides instead to steal it. There are a few things like this that do negatively impact the movie, although Leto is good, the motivation is flawed: What kind of heir plans a daring robbery of money they'll get anyways? This just struck me in a bad way.
Forest Whitaker is another actor that greatness is just expected of, and like Foster he delivers again. Whitaker's Burnham is the only one of the three who doesn't have malice as a motivation, he instead is looking out for his kids. He is actually like able, even though he's committing a felony.
But, even with all this the movie is stolen by a Country singer... Dwight Yoakam. His performance as Raoul was brilliant, equal parts sadistic and just a total bastard Yoakam holds his own with Foster and Whitaker and gives a strong performance that is one of the best in the movie.
So far I've seen three of Fincher's films, and this one is the worst (but that doesn't make it bad, it's just not as good as Se7en and Fight Club) The movie has a few plot holes (like the above stealing inheritance and other things like the husband knowing where the house was even though the call got cut off, etc.) but the movie is still very enjoyable and a very good movie.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8/10)
I must confess, I might be on the path to Fincherphelia, but not as bad as some people I know. The shots he employs (the zooms through the house) and the slow eerie score couple to add tension to each scene. Like Se7en (1997) none of the scenes are really throw away scenes, Fincher packs every frame with character development and plot and I must give him credit for that.
The plot kicks off quickly (15 minutes into a 112 minute movie the break in occurs) and I appreciate how even though it seems sped up at first, the pacing works itself around and we get a pretty fine film. But there is little action in the Hollywood sense of action. Keeping in line with the other Fincher movie's I've seen the action is all psychological, building a sense of fear inside the panic room and a sense of hostility and aggression on the outside. Also the plot is rather simplistic, the movie takes place in just a few rooms with the only real story being three robbers trying to get into the panic room of two victims.
For the sake of discussion there are really only five characters in this movie, but because they are so beautifully directed and their acting is all top notch the movie gets away with such a minimalist approach to casting.
In the lead role is Jodie Foster, and actress that much is expected of, and she delivers. Unlike the last movie I saw her in (The Silence of the Lambs) Foster does not bring a hardened agent in training angle to this role, but she does bring a perfect amount of concerned mother and panicked individual. If Foster had brought toughness the part would not have worked because so much of the movie hinges on the fear of Foster and Stewart, which brings me to the next actress I intend to discuss.
Kristen Stewart is most famous now for locking lips with "vampires" and hanging out with shirtless men, but she can actually act... even though she chooses to hide it now. She balances Fosters fear with a precocious bravery.
Jared Leto as the leader of the three burglars turns in a good performance as a guy who is sleazy and looking for money, that he could wait to inherit but he decides instead to steal it. There are a few things like this that do negatively impact the movie, although Leto is good, the motivation is flawed: What kind of heir plans a daring robbery of money they'll get anyways? This just struck me in a bad way.
Forest Whitaker is another actor that greatness is just expected of, and like Foster he delivers again. Whitaker's Burnham is the only one of the three who doesn't have malice as a motivation, he instead is looking out for his kids. He is actually like able, even though he's committing a felony.
But, even with all this the movie is stolen by a Country singer... Dwight Yoakam. His performance as Raoul was brilliant, equal parts sadistic and just a total bastard Yoakam holds his own with Foster and Whitaker and gives a strong performance that is one of the best in the movie.
So far I've seen three of Fincher's films, and this one is the worst (but that doesn't make it bad, it's just not as good as Se7en and Fight Club) The movie has a few plot holes (like the above stealing inheritance and other things like the husband knowing where the house was even though the call got cut off, etc.) but the movie is still very enjoyable and a very good movie.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8/10)
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Review of the Lambs
There are few psychological thrillers that have garnered as much acclaim as The Silence of the Lambs (1991). Gaining rave reviews from The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences down to average movie goers who ahve seen this movie in the 20 years that it has been released.
That being said, I had the pleasure of enjoying this movie, joining those masses, for the first time. Fromt he very beginning of the movie, you know Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster fourteen years after inspiring a man to try and kill Reagan) is not your typical female protagonist, instead of seeing her due her hair or prepare breakfast we see her for the first time as she completes a FBI training obstacle course. I was immediately intrigued by this new role of a woman in a movie with a serial killer.
But more on that later, for first I must discuss the movie as a whole before discussing it's parts, and boy is there a lot to discuss. I shall begin with the script a great place to start when discussing any movie. Primarily the moments (all 16 minutes worth of screen time [Yeah, Hannibal Lecter is only on screen for 16 minutes]). The script is sharper than Buffalo Bills blades, cutting with an intensity rarely seen. The movie's source was that of Ed Gein, the Wisconsin madman who made a three piece suit out of female flesh, as well as decorating his home with their bones, tne M.O. of Gein also inspired (albeit loosely) Psycho (1960) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). The similarities with both those movies ends there, as this is a whole new level of fictionalization here, mainly that of the plot. I think that for this movie's script to not walk off with that golden effigy of a man and a sword, would have been the all time Oscar snub.
Next comes the direction from Jonathan Demme. Demme may have created some of the best "across the table" showdown scenes of all time when he filmed the scenes with Starling and Lecter, true cinematic genius. Furthermore, there are all the great scenes in Buffalo Bill's lair, and so on and so forth. The pacing is tremendous, the movie clocks in at just under two hours, yet it seems to move faster than some movies 2/3rds that length, easily making Demme worth his Oscar.
Speaking of Oscars, how about I discuss the other two people to win Oscars for this movie: Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins, and did they earn them. Foster is truly stunning as Starling, she balances the tough facade and the innocent girl buried beneath it. Both fierce and timid, Foster earns her Oscar again and again with every line and every scene. And the same goes for Hopkins, despite his aforementioned lack of screen time. My only problem with this movie is Hopkins "physicality." He nails the part of psychotic intellectual with an unrivaled fervor, and yet they present Hannibal Lecter as able to over power larger and stronger police officers, as well and raising a body and supporting it from the ceiling all by himself. I don't find it hard to believe a man could do that, I find it hard to believe THAT man did it. That minor transgression aside I can't think of anyone I would have rather played Dr. Lecter.
This movie is probably as close to being the perfect psychological thriller as one can imagine: smart, frightening, and insanely well made The Silence of the Lambs delivers on every aspect.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
I might make this a recurring theme when I watch movies with parodies... but here's something a little lighter.
That being said, I had the pleasure of enjoying this movie, joining those masses, for the first time. Fromt he very beginning of the movie, you know Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster fourteen years after inspiring a man to try and kill Reagan) is not your typical female protagonist, instead of seeing her due her hair or prepare breakfast we see her for the first time as she completes a FBI training obstacle course. I was immediately intrigued by this new role of a woman in a movie with a serial killer.
But more on that later, for first I must discuss the movie as a whole before discussing it's parts, and boy is there a lot to discuss. I shall begin with the script a great place to start when discussing any movie. Primarily the moments (all 16 minutes worth of screen time [Yeah, Hannibal Lecter is only on screen for 16 minutes]). The script is sharper than Buffalo Bills blades, cutting with an intensity rarely seen. The movie's source was that of Ed Gein, the Wisconsin madman who made a three piece suit out of female flesh, as well as decorating his home with their bones, tne M.O. of Gein also inspired (albeit loosely) Psycho (1960) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). The similarities with both those movies ends there, as this is a whole new level of fictionalization here, mainly that of the plot. I think that for this movie's script to not walk off with that golden effigy of a man and a sword, would have been the all time Oscar snub.
Next comes the direction from Jonathan Demme. Demme may have created some of the best "across the table" showdown scenes of all time when he filmed the scenes with Starling and Lecter, true cinematic genius. Furthermore, there are all the great scenes in Buffalo Bill's lair, and so on and so forth. The pacing is tremendous, the movie clocks in at just under two hours, yet it seems to move faster than some movies 2/3rds that length, easily making Demme worth his Oscar.
Speaking of Oscars, how about I discuss the other two people to win Oscars for this movie: Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins, and did they earn them. Foster is truly stunning as Starling, she balances the tough facade and the innocent girl buried beneath it. Both fierce and timid, Foster earns her Oscar again and again with every line and every scene. And the same goes for Hopkins, despite his aforementioned lack of screen time. My only problem with this movie is Hopkins "physicality." He nails the part of psychotic intellectual with an unrivaled fervor, and yet they present Hannibal Lecter as able to over power larger and stronger police officers, as well and raising a body and supporting it from the ceiling all by himself. I don't find it hard to believe a man could do that, I find it hard to believe THAT man did it. That minor transgression aside I can't think of anyone I would have rather played Dr. Lecter.
This movie is probably as close to being the perfect psychological thriller as one can imagine: smart, frightening, and insanely well made The Silence of the Lambs delivers on every aspect.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (10/10)
I might make this a recurring theme when I watch movies with parodies... but here's something a little lighter.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
A Mo7ie Re7iew
I hope from the title you were able to infer what movie I'd be discussing in this particular blog post. If you haven't it's the 1995 David Fincher crime movie Se7en. Being that the only Fincher movie I've seen is Fight Club (1999), and some of my friends have chastised me for that *cough*David*cough* and I've decided to now go and master the entire Fincher catalogue, this time with one of his movies I've been meaning to see for years, the aformentioned Se7en.
The movie is obviously from the man who directed Fight Club, the lighting, music, and over all feel just reek of Fight Club, or I should say that Fight Club reeks of this movie due to their respective release dates. The movie reflects the script in a truly dark mirror, with a perfectly matched atmosphere for the dark dialogue and the grotesque imagery, especially during the opening scene portraying the Glutton victim.
I can see why some people would have an (albeit unhealthy) obsession with David Fincher. The movie plays out beautifully, every shot builds tension, and every line of dialogue is vital, no throw away scenes are in the 127 minute run time of this movie. The movie is full of gorgeous scenes, such as Somerset (Morgan Freeman) walking through the library to classical music, a brilliant juxtaposition to the horrors of the two crimes that procede this moment.
The John Doe killer is one of the most inventive I've seen put on screen, where as many killers have motives based on revenge, etc, John Doe doesn't really have a motive, well punishing the wicked is a motive, but the over all randomness of his victims is scary, scarier than a freak in a hockey mask or a tacky sweater.
The Chemistry between the actors also plays a big part of this movie, Morgan Freeman is brilliant (of course) delivering a great performance of a man who is at the end of his rope. He sees a city around him dying of rabies, and he's doing everything he can to whip the flecks from it's mouth. And we also get a strong performance from Brad Pitt, balancing out Freeman's intellectual, cultured, cop that's tired of the city with a young brash detective trying to make a name for himself. The two bounce off eachother quite well and as such create one of the best cop teams of film history.
Over all this movie is one of the best Crime movies and dare I say over all movies I've ever seen. From now on this movie will be one of my "If you liked that, you should see..." reference points. I say Kudos to Andrew Kevin Walker and David Fincher for one hell of a film.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.75/10)
And after such a heavy movie I think we all could use a laugh... don't you?
The movie is obviously from the man who directed Fight Club, the lighting, music, and over all feel just reek of Fight Club, or I should say that Fight Club reeks of this movie due to their respective release dates. The movie reflects the script in a truly dark mirror, with a perfectly matched atmosphere for the dark dialogue and the grotesque imagery, especially during the opening scene portraying the Glutton victim.
I can see why some people would have an (albeit unhealthy) obsession with David Fincher. The movie plays out beautifully, every shot builds tension, and every line of dialogue is vital, no throw away scenes are in the 127 minute run time of this movie. The movie is full of gorgeous scenes, such as Somerset (Morgan Freeman) walking through the library to classical music, a brilliant juxtaposition to the horrors of the two crimes that procede this moment.
The John Doe killer is one of the most inventive I've seen put on screen, where as many killers have motives based on revenge, etc, John Doe doesn't really have a motive, well punishing the wicked is a motive, but the over all randomness of his victims is scary, scarier than a freak in a hockey mask or a tacky sweater.
The Chemistry between the actors also plays a big part of this movie, Morgan Freeman is brilliant (of course) delivering a great performance of a man who is at the end of his rope. He sees a city around him dying of rabies, and he's doing everything he can to whip the flecks from it's mouth. And we also get a strong performance from Brad Pitt, balancing out Freeman's intellectual, cultured, cop that's tired of the city with a young brash detective trying to make a name for himself. The two bounce off eachother quite well and as such create one of the best cop teams of film history.
Over all this movie is one of the best Crime movies and dare I say over all movies I've ever seen. From now on this movie will be one of my "If you liked that, you should see..." reference points. I say Kudos to Andrew Kevin Walker and David Fincher for one hell of a film.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.75/10)
And after such a heavy movie I think we all could use a laugh... don't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)