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) 

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.