The Watercooler: 3/17/08
Happy St. Patrick’s Day everyone.
You know, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when you watch three different movies over the course of a Saturday and the best of the lot is a tepid, cluttered up bastardization of a beloved Dr. Seuss story aimed at an audience 3 decades younger than you are. Such is life at the multiplex I suppose, but I really can’t complain for 6 dollars.
Unlike Ron Howard’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (please note that I’m not referring to it as Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas because it has as much to do with the original Seuss story as a punch in the balls and it’s about as entertaining) which is one of the worst successful movies ever made (yes, I know I’ve made similar Grinch exaggerations 10 or 15 times since LiC began, but one of the underlying missions of LiC is to be a rooftop from which to trash desecrations like The Grinch whenever possible so humor me), Horton Hears a Who! isn’t awful. It’s completely unnecessary, but it’s pretty harmless. Compared to the company it keeps, that’s a high compliment. Based on how it killed at the box office, be prepared for Horton Hatches the Egg coming soon to a theater near you.
Next up was Funny Games (review below). The only reason I went to see this less than 24 hours after hating the original on DVD was because I was curious to see how a paying audience who’d been duped by marketing into thinking it was a traditional thriller would respond. The experience added nothing, though the performances of Naomi Watts and Michael Pitt were pretty good and seeing it in my own language allowed me to pick up on some additional nuances I’d missed in the German language version. Needless to say, I didn’t pay to see it. I bought a ticket to The Bank Job instead then snuck in. Somehow I think the filmmaker would appreciate the dishonesty.
Even Funny Games wasn’t nearly as bad as the third movie I saw on Saturday: Doomsday. It was a complete wreck failing to live up to even my extremely modest expectations of it. Any of the good will writer/director Neil Marshall earned with The Descent has been squandered and I’m already rethinking my positive reaction to that film. One would’ve hoped Doomsday would be an example of a budding talent spreading his wings, but it simply makes Marshall’s success with that film look like a fluke. He hasn’t been at this long enough to accept a simple paycheck movie and I don’t think this is, but that’s how it comes across. It’s lazy, sloppy and stupid. It’s not even entertaining in a mocking Mystery Science Theater 3000 kind of way.
Since I wanted to end the weekend on a note more cinematically nutritious than the junk I’d consumed on Saturday, I caught David Gordon Green’s Snow Angels on Sunday. It was heavy and imperfect, but there’s a lot about it to recommend if you like your personal dramas. Kate Beckinsale proves she’s more than just a pretty face. Sam Rockwell was excellent as always. Youngster Michael Angarano was also good. It’s too bad his next major film is the awful looking The Forbidden Kingdom with Jackie Chan and Jet Li. Although she was one of the more annoying parts of Juno as best friend Leah (”Honest to blog?”), Olivia Thirlby has redeemed herself completely with her turn in Snow Angels. She plays kind of a nerd who has the screaming hots for Michael Angarano, but he’s too thick to realize it. She was very cute.
That’s all there is to tell moviewise. On the trailer front, the only thing interesting to report is that the little rugrats in the Horton audience went batshit crazy for the WALL•E trailer. They were a little less enthusiastic for the perfectly ordinary looking Ice Age 3, but without the dinosaur it wouldn’t even have been close. Am I the only one who thought Ice Age was highly overrated?
Talk amongst yourelves.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - More Awards: The Annies
- Ye Olde Watercooler: 6/2/08
- Review: Horton Hears a Who (2008) ***
- The Watercooler: 3/3/08
- The Watercooler: 3/31/08
I must say that I completely agree with Craig’s estimation of HORTON, but in the end, I must defer to my five young ones, all of whom registered strong favorable responses.
The film is “loosely” based on the Seuss picture book (as my wife, who has used it in her classes attested to while we watched it) but again, in agreeing with Craig, I bet they padded it with an hour of additional footage.
Multiplex fare from January to mid-summer is admittedly pretty awful.
Happy St. Patrick’s Day to Craig and everyone at LIC.
I finally managed to see THE YEAR MY PARENTS WENT ON VACATION, the engaging little Brazilian film about a young boy living among his father’s Jewish family and friends during Brazil’s World Cup soccer championship in 1970. This is hardly a great film, but all things considered a modestly winning on with some subtle observations into small-town life, and how small events can be the guiding force in a situation of emotional deprivation.
THE BANK JOB was modestly entertaining–I think Craig again called this perfectly. You didn’t come out of this like you did when exiting BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD or THE LOOKOUT, but a most acceptable early year multiplex offering.
The biggest winner of the weekend was (in an ultra-rare instance) the first two installments of the HBO “John Adams” aired from 8 til 10:40 P.M. While the jury is still out on Paul Giamatti’s central performance, one can only marvel at Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, David Morse et al, and the period detail, splendid art direction and mesmerizing colonial drama is a most worthy adaptation of the great David McCullough biography. (McCullough himself, in an a subsequent ‘making of’ attests to this.) A definitive judgement on this mini-series must wait until it plays out over 5 or 6 weeks, but it has certainly registered an impressive start. The book may well have been the greatest ‘literary event’ in the US in the past two decades, and deservedly so.
I too caught DOOMSDAY and was a bit more favorable in my reaction. I think the first act is pretty strong, Marshall does good Escape from New York, but from there its obvious that Marshall is too determinted to shoehorn every urban 1980s movie he ever saw into the production. Marshall doesn’t do Mad Max well, and he doesn’t do (not a typo) Arthurian legend well at all. I didn’t hate it though, I kinda dug the schizophrenic nature of the beast.
I admit though that I really wanted to like this thing, maybe I’m letting the fact that I loved his Descent do all the talking. Not sure.
Tried like hell to catch Funny Games, but I was in a city I don’t know well, and one calamity after another prevented me from catching it after trying for the better part of an afternoon to do so. Will probably see that this week.
On DVD I finally caught the William Friedkin Crusing, and, while I know there’s been some re-interpretation of this, I think the critics may have gotten it right the first time. I normally don’t side with groups who protest movies, but I think Cruising is legimately homophobic. Yes, it carefully inserts a line about this not being “mainstream gay life” but the ending seems to imply that gay is contagious, and increases your proclivity for murder ten fold. The ending could’ve been haunting if Friedkin earned it, but he doesn’t. We don’t know anything about Pacino’s detective (who accepts the job without a moment’s hesitation) and the film’s psychology is embarrassing, the killer explained in leftover Norman Bates hogwash. Repellent picture.
Cruising: “repellent picture”
I completely agree with you on that Chuck.
Horton Hatches the Egg was probably my favourite Horton book.
I think you convinced me on Horton Hears A Who, I may just see it after all.
Funny Games I will not, nor will I see Doomsday, but I am jealous you got to see Snow Angels, I am psyched for that one.
I had an uneventful viewing weekend, but I didn’t pay a cent for a single film I went to see, so all is well. I re-watched the films I said I wanted to and saw Charlie Wilson’s War (disappointing) and Sicko (funny as hell) for the first time. As I mentioned somewhere else, my “The 400 Blows” from Criterion arrived, and that was the highlight of my weekend, movie wise.
I can’t wait for you guys/girls in the US to get some really good stuff again, because so far, most of your recent stuff sounds pretty lame. But I shouldn’t talk until I actually see them for myself.
Oh, and I would love to see a Snow Angels review sometime….. :)
Walking out of DOOMSDAY, the first thing I could think of was “when did Neil Marshall turn into Uwe Boll?” That’s not to say that Marshall is that incompetent- for one thing, the film’s too slick to play like a Boll opus. More that the way DOOMSDAY uses completely random plot tangents to cover for the fact that the main storyline is half-baked hearkens back to the good Doctor’s storytelling style.
The highlight of my weekend was finally discovering Bresson’s first feature, LES ANGES DU PÉCHÉ, courtesy of a dub given me my a friend. It’s more conventional than most of his later stuff, but I think it’s a masterpiece all the same. I’m posting a review of it on Screengrab on Tuesday. Now I only have one Bresson film left to see - FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER. Yeah, good luck finding that one.
I spent the weekend catching up on movies many of you have already seen from 2007. Saturday afternoon was Across the Universe. I wanted to give this one a pass simply because of the wonderful production design and period detail, but the movie lost me somewhere around the descent into ABC Afterschool Special psychedlia and never really got me back. The leads were all pretty good but their roles and the entire narrative were all very weakly written. This should have been a movie where someone said, “I’ve got a great script based on the Beatles discography.” Instead, it was obviously much closer to, “We’ve got the rights to the Beatles discography. Wouldn’t that be a great musical? Someone get me a script pronto that ties in as many random Beatles tunes as possible.”
It was an elegant disaster, I suppose. Some of the musical numbers were amazing, some were almost amazing, the rest ranged from boring to embarrassing. The film where’s the 60’s on its sleeve and that got seriously boring after an hour or so, especially when the director is trying to shoehorn every visual touchstone of the entire decade into every scene.
Next I saw Syndromes and a Century, which continues to confound me 24 hours later but I ultimately enjoyed. I’m not sure what exactly it’s all about, but even the venerable A. O. Scott had a similar reaction in his review so I don’t feel like I missed anything. Craig’s review sums it all up fairly well. Safe to say this is a movie that will leave you thinking about it well after it ends. The characters and the curious vignettes they inhabit drew me in, but the wonderfully offbeat little touches from director Apichatpong Weerasethakul are what kept me fully engaged in this odd little film.
I’m not surprised this ended up on Craig’s Ten Best list.
Finally, I ended the weekend with 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days… which may be the most harrowing film I’ve seen in quite some time. I found it very interesting that the film maintains so much tension and intensity throughout most of its running time even though it’s built on a steady framework of very long takes, often over very slowly paced scenes. The tension just never abates in this one.
I came to the conclusion that I hope I am never trapped within a totaletarian state like Nicolae Ceausescu’s Romania, but if I am I will be sure to befriend smarter people than Gabita.
Anyway, it was a pretty good weekend for movie-viewing overall. I’m 2 for 3. Tonight I’m hoping to see Delirious.
Wow Paul–now THAT is exciting. Bresson rivals Bergman for me as teh greatest director of all time, and three of his films, AU HASARD BALTHASAR, DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST and A MAN ESCAPED among the greatest films of all-time, with two others, PICKPOCKET and MOUCHETTE within hailing distance. L’ARGENT, UN FEMME DOUCE and JOAN OF ARC are great films as well.
I would place LES ANGES (and I agree, it is conventional) in the sub-section with PICKPOCKET and MOUCHETTE.
FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER is lesser Bresson (if there is such a thing) but it is quite a debut, at least as formidable as LANCELOT and THE DEVIL PROBABLY.
How can I access your review?
All I saw was In The Valley of Elah on DVD. I liked it. I’ve never been a Paul Haggis fan, but I’d say he’s finally starting to go in a more articstically mature direction. Tommy Lee was good. I was surprised how many of the No Country cast were in it; besides Tommy Lee, I counted also Josh Brolin, Barry Corbin and that woman who was in the NCfOM trailer park with Chigurh. The Roger Deakins cinematography was of course also a huge help to Haggis. Then again, I think even a Michael Bay movie could be lovely and elegiac if Deakins shot it.
We also started watching Sundance’s 2004 6-part series The Staircase on DVD. I was fascinated by it when it originally aired and am introducing my husband to it now.
The other night watched Helvitica on DVD. I wasn’t sure they could really pull off a 90-minute doc on a single font, but it was pretty good. I did get a little yawnish at times, but it was pretty watchable. The best part was watching the typeface pros totally geek out and be passionate about the font, both intense pro-Helvitica admiration and equally intense anti-Helvitica passions on display.
Got The Darjeeling Limited from Netflix, but haven’t started it yet.
Saw Funny Games. If you enjoy being condescended to and toyed with like a marionette, by all means, go. At least the discussion post-film will be interesting.
Curious, your response to Doomsday, Craig. One of my fellow contributers saw it and had what I thought would be the expected reaction - a complete mish-mash of B-movies with copious amounts of red karo syrup sprayed over the landscape. I, too, loved The Descent (and would consider it one of the top 10 horror films of the last decade) and figured this was just a good time ala Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. I’ll have to catch it on DVD to see if its as bad as you say it is (I’m lowering my expectations even as I type this).
David Gordon Green is an odd filmmaker. I’ve only seen Undertow, but that coupled with everything I’ve read leads me to believe he’s either a rising auteur destined to reach Kubrick status or a niche arthouse attraction. I’m still not sure how I feel about Undertow. It certainly felt unique, but it’s one of those films that defies categorization. You need a couple years and a few viewings to make up your mind.
I always find the retellings of your time in the theater funny, Craig. My girlfriend took her nephew to Horton and loved it, but I don’t see myself making time for a trip unless we’re talking an Oscar nomination or something.
Joel, although I’ve said a few times that I enjoyed AtU, you make a pretty strong case against it. I guess I just let myself go a little more than usual and had fun with it. I can be easily distracted by flashing lights and sounds. Kind of like a cat…
Also agree with your take on 4 Months. My body was definitely a little stiff from tension throughout the movie.
As I’ve made clear a few times, I skipped Funny Games on the basis of wanting to sleep comfortably last night. There are enough horror stories happening today that I don’t need to pay to see a manipulative and meaningless (according to your review) one in the theater.
Nevertheless, I saw Chicago 10 and I’m still not entirely sure how to write the review, even with the crutches I’ve built into my review format. Anyway, it was a feast for the eyes but empty calories for the mind. The infamous eight men seemed entirely interested in themselves. They reveled in the attention and overshadowed their own message. Maybe I was just disappointed because the RNC is happening in St. Paul in a few months and it’s hit home that nobody cares about anything anymore.
I talked to the management Samand your typos have been corrected. We’ll just pretend like they never happened.
Doomsday. Well, already we can see there is room for disagreement on this one. While it’s true Chuck may have a stronger initial bias towards Marshall, he’s not a crazy person or a dumb one. I’ll allow that perhaps I was simply cranky after an entire morning with a cineplex audience (there were a couple of old ladies I would’ve murdered during Funny Games if I hadn’t just seen the picture the night before) with the doubleshot of Funny Games and Horton Hears a Who. Luckily I didn’t also sneak into 10,000 BC I guess…
Bresson. I’ve only seen the easily available ones. They’re a perfect example of the kinds of foreign films that tend to make people hate foreign films, but they’re oddly compelling if you let them in. I think I liked Pickpocket and Man Escaped best…perhaps a little more accessible. Country Priest was good, but so grim. I have to admit Balthasar defeated my patience.
Glad you caught Syndromes, Joel. I hope I gave you fair enough warning about it’s inscrutible nature so that you weren’t annoyed. I’m one of those people who tends to approach a movie in an intellectual way rather than an emotional way. It’s something I fight against though and when a movie sneaks past my defenses and shakes me up, I tend to get really excited about it. Inland Empire and Syndromes and a Century were the two most recent movies to do that to me. Not in an emotional way like they made me cry, just…well…I’m not even sure how to explain my reaction any more than I can explain the movie.
I was kind of in the middle on Elah. There was plenty that annoyed me, but Tommy Lee was enough to carry me through. I still don’t buy his character arc at all, but it was necessary for Haggis to make his point.
I’m tempted to catch Helvetica. Stuff like that fascinates me, but then I probably have too much time on my hands.
Evan, I’m not quite sure how to quanfity Snow Angels yet. It put me in the mind of The Sweet Hereafter for some reason, though I’m not suggesting it was as good as that film. I don’t know…maybe it was the snow…
Sam~~
Glad to hear someone else out there has seen it. My review will be running tomorrow afternoon.
That’s too bad about Chicago 10 Daniel. It’s an interesting story and the animated take on it made me curious…ah well, there’s another one in the pipeline.
Based on some of the other things you’ve said, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest Funny Games isn’t your cup of tea, nor is it a lesson you need to be taught.
I still aim to catch AtU before the week is out. I’m predicting my response will fall somewhere between Joel/Matthew and Daniel/Nick. We shall see. I already wish I’d caught it in the theater.
I saw To Have and Have Not again this weekend. Other than that, it was a non-movie weekend.
Happy St. Patrick’s Day, all!
“Was you ever bit by a dead bee?”
I haven’t seen Across the Universe yet either. I have a huge taste for nonsense, but not usally that kind of hippy dippy save the world through love nonsense, which is what the film looks like to me. We’ll see though, I’m still curious.
“Why didn’t you bite him back?”
“I haven’t got a stinger.”
I might have chewed my own arm off out of boredom had I seen AtU in the theater. The second half was pretty tedious for me, even with the Beatles-infused psychedlic musical nonsense of it all.
I don’t mind nonsense or musicals for the sake of musicals, I just wish the movie had something to say other than being a Cliff Notes version of the 60’s. If the script hadn’t been so weak or Taymor’s director so obvious in certain sections, I could have gotten behind. They worked really hard to make this movie work and the sheer audacity of it kind of kept me curious about it through the running time.
Other than that though, it didn’t hold my interest.
Here’s a link for the whole thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSgqrrWyF0Y
:-)
Thanks Craig (again) for your astonishing graciousness.
Paul, I will eagerly look for your review on the Bresson then tomorrow afternoon.
If there is a time during the year to revisit classics like that, Alison, I would say this is it. I don’t have much on my in-theater radar until next weekend. I think we all need a little respite based on the collectively bad reviews that most people are writing about current offerings.
Re: Funny Games, you know me well, Craig.
AtU is definitely “save the world through love nonsense,” Chuck, but it’s a good music video and some of the song interpretations resonated with me in a new way.
Chicago 10 is worth a look at some point before the election, Craig, and I should admit that I don’t think its motive is to rile up another uprising so much as it is to retell the story on its 40th anniversary. The courtroom drama is compelling if not a little overdone (and Roy Scheider is completely unrecognizable in what I assume is his last role), but I found myself and others I was with saying “wow” and not knowing where else to go with it. The parallels between then and now aren’t made explicitly clear, and certainly characters like Abbie Hoffman would get NO media attention in 2008. It’s almost laughable at how different today’s anti-war movement is compared to his crew.
takes a deep breath…
Across the Universe didn’t do a thing for me. There was a recent thread in which many expressed great love and admiration for it, so I decided to stay mum but here there is a more divided playing field, with joel weighing in after seeing it. My reaction is almost precisely shared with joel’s. It has a few highlights, some nice moments, but beyond that it’s got very little emotional force behind it at all and I tend to think joel’s theory of how the script came about is on target. Then again, Julie Taymor hasn’t done anything for me. I was one of the few people I knew who found Frida a sluggish, boring effort and Across the Universe was, while “livelier,” nevertheless flat, at least for me.
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days–one of the most truly tense films I’ve recently seen. Gabita may be the dumbest film character seen in a drama in a long time. I don’t think the film is perfect, but there’s a whole lot to admire.
Syndromes and a Century is a film I love, and I think Craig and I had it in almost the same spot in our respective Top Tens. It’s a film you have to completely surrender yourself to. (Of course, almost all films are fundamentally this way, like the aforementioned Across the Universe, which I didn’t surrender myself to at all, but a film like Syndromes and a Century demands a certain sense of meditative grace when viewing it.)
Having seen all of David Gordon Greene’s films aside from Snow Angels and the soon-to-be-released The Pineapple Express, I definitely think he’s a rising auteur–interestingly, Evan, I think Undertow is by far his most “unrepresentative” film because it’s got at least several toes in the thriller genre, and it plays like a kind of latter day Night of the Hunter. Most of his films are more serene and at ease, and I think the perfect place to start is the beginning with George Washington. It may test your patience, it may frustrate you but I love that film and it’s certainly in my Top Ten for 2000. It may even be #1, though I haven’t honestly thought out the order of a Top Ten for that year because nobody has forced me to, hehe.
Bresson is ceaselessly intriguing because I tend to like or enjoy his films despite the fact that I also think they haven’t all aged as gracefully as many other great directors’ works have. A Man Escaped, Pickpocket and Au Hasard Balthasar are enormous works and I almost love them, but for some reason when I watch Bresson I feel like I’m being more formally “educated” than anything else, which is something I don’t feel from many other filmmakers. That said, I don’t feel entirely qualified to discuss him fully yet, as I still have to see Mouchette, Diary of a Country Priest, though, as well as L’Argent. I’ve actually seen Les Anges, Un Femme Douche and Four Nights of a Dreamer. So, I better get cracking on seen Mouchette, Diary of a Country Priest and L’Argent, since they have superior reputations to other Bresson works I have seen.
I saw the remake of Funny Games, which I detested even more than the original. This weekend I also saw Duel (a close friend who’s leaving today for Phoenix for a month had to see it before he left as he’d never seen it before), Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet (my girlfriend had to see it), Dersu Uzala (I hadn’t seen this in soooo long and I had to see it again), the Kirk Douglas-directed Posse (I had never seen this so I just had to see it).
Duel is always great, no matter how many times I see it, I thought Zeffirelli’s take on Romeo and Juliet was exquisite, I still think Dersu Uzala is a towering masterpiece, and I thought Posse was a good, sturdy Western that took the genre into a somewhat different direction from many other ’70s revisionist Westerns.
So, just because I wrote that someone had to see a certain film, doesn’t mean it was just a hollow homework assignment. That can never be the case!
Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
“I have a huge taste for nonsense, but not usally that kind of hippy dippy save the world through love nonsense” Ahahahahhahaha. That was awesome Chuck. I’ve lost some of my cynical edge, so please allow me to enjoy yours vicariously.
Thanks for that link Alison. That movie rules.
Gotta like the Hoagy Carmichael stuff too, but I think we’ve had this convo. Come on! His name is ‘Cricket’, what’s not to like about that?
Alexander. Surrender is right. If you fight Syndromes, it will fail you. As I said, surrender isn’t something I do easily with a movie, so when one wins me over, I tend to treasure it beyond reason. Thanks to Paul C. I can listen to the crazy ending pop music any time I want, and now you can too: http://www.filmbrain.com/filmbrain/files/neil_iraiza_fez_men_working.mp3
It makes me happy every time I hear it for no particular reason.
Alexander, we’re on the same page regarding Bresson too. I continue to warm up to him, but I still find him a little daunting.
Just out of curiousity, why did you find the FG remake more detestable than the original? I found it almost identical and only more detestable because it wasn’t original.
I was surprised at how much I liked Dersu Uzala. It could almost be a Disney family movie from the 70s without the cloying smarm. Too bad the subtitles will drive most families away becasue it’s a perfect little story and completely G-rated.
R&J. Oh man, I had a huge crush on Olivia Hussey in junior high.
I think we did have this convo, Craig. Here’s the link to “Hong Kong Blues”. This is one of my favorites films of all time. Gotta love Hoagy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDwU7T7uR8A
Olivia Hussey was a stunning woman and the Whiting/Hussey Romeo and Juliet is another true classic. An amazing production.
Olivia Hussey of Romeo and Juliet is quite a bit to take in, particuarly when you see that film for the first time as a 14 year old. She was also, for those who stuck with the series that far, the personifcation of Norman Bates’ mother in Psycho IV.
I believe that Olivia Hussey was just 14 or 15 years old when she made the film, too.
:-)
Off topic: here’s a little take on what Juno might have been like had it been handled by a ‘major’ studio as oppsed to a smaller ‘independent’ studio:
http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-major-studio-gave-notes-on-juno.html
I agree with you both specifically with regards to Syndromes and a Century and in general, Craig: when a film pierces your exterior “shield” and gets to you in a way you can’t quite describe, it should automatically become treasured. Sometimes you just fall in love with a film and others, who don’t share that love, just cannot understand it completely.
I think I found the Funny Games remake even more detestable mainly because this time, I felt like Haneke was directly assaulting what he perceives to be “the American moviegoer,” and I hate being generalized that way because it de facto comes across as a kind of simpleminded bigotry towards filmgoers in the United States, who are painted with the same broad brush by Haneke. Then there’s the hideously smug tone of his take on people who watch it–those who leave don’t need it, those who stay do or something? I’m not altogether against the vague idea of a director being a spiritual doctor in the sense that I sincerely believe cinema can be a wholly healing experience, but Haneke is the kind of doctor who gets off on torturing the patient because it’s amusing to him. Your point about it being even more wretched because it wasn’t original is a good point as well.
I agree that Dersu Uzala would make a profoundly great family film. It’s a beautiful, sensitive tale of friendship. Kurosawa’s melding of the epic and the intimate is a harmonious sight to behold.
I forgot about Chuck’s posting about Cruising. Yeah, it’s “choppy” and awkward and the ending, which strives for ambiguity, felt like it fell flat, but I don’t think the film is as altogether bad as much of its reputation suggests. Friedkin tried to balance the view, making several of the cops look quite bad, while adumbrating a kind of empathy towards at least a few of the “normal homosexuals.” It’s a very flawed movie but I didn’t think it to be thoroughly homophobic; although I have a somewhat different perspective since I saw it at the Castro with a bunch of homosexuals, the majority of whom seemed to like it. Though I wasn’t conducting an actual survey or anything, haha.
After seeing Romeo and Juliet, Craig, I can see your crush on Oliva Hussey being… completely understandable. Phew!!
Hussey actually attended a screening of Romeo and Juliet at the Castro back for St. Valentine’s Day.
Speaking of the Castro, I’m excited because tomorrow night I’ll get to see The Nickel Drive and The Friends of Eddie Coyle, two films that seem impossible to see any other way. Yay, and I’ll pat myself on the back for avoiding the scandalous Jeff Wells spoiling Eddie Coyle for so many people. I can barely even look at his website anymore, it’s so diseased at this point. H-E is the Internet equivalent of Mordor while LiC is the Shire. :-)
“I felt like Haneke was directly assaulting what he perceives to be “the American moviegoer,” Yeah, I sensed this too and I addressed it to a point in my review. I think that was his intention all along, though he was more blatant and successful this time around.
I wish I could join you for Eddie Coyle. It’s cropped up in LA from time to time, but I haven’t caught it yet.
I’m going to guess Wells’ big topic of conversation today, if it’s not Hillary Clinton, is Heather Mills.
Olivia. I still had a crush on her by the time I saw Psycho IV…it’s probably WHY I saw Psycho IV.
Yes Alison, she was 14 or 15 in R&J, but then so was I so it’s kosher. I think.
Thanks for calling me on the “homophobic” claim Alexander, because, as much as a cop-out as this may seem, i regretted using that word almost as soon as i wrote it. I think the film’s lack of focus is probably a dramatic problem, not a prejudice problem, though i think the weaknesses of the film can come across as such.
The picture does have a strange power, but it also has an infuriating lack of clarity, I’m gonna try to give a more sensical workout on my site sometime in the next few days.
Thanks for bringing up Olivia Hussey and the Psycho sequels, Chuck. As much as I hate the idea of a film like Psycho getting remakes, those were kind of enjoyable in a very odd way. At the very least, the casting of the various roles in the sequels was really smart, even if the execution of the films wasn’t exactly perfect.
Am I the only person here who’s secretly happy to see Jeff Fahey getting work again? I enjoyed his scenery-chewing in Planet Terror and he’s been good on Lost this season.
Syndromes and a Century is a movie you have to surrender to, but that’s not really asking a lot of it because the movie exudes a subtle, wry charm that draws you in. As odd as it is, as offbeat as the storytelling is, and as confounding as I found the “narrative” to be, I really enjoyed the movie.
But like David Lynch, director Apichatpong Weerasethakul isn’t going to make the movie simple to codify or digest and I don’t mind that one bit. It’s one thing to make a movie that is mysterious or purposefully obtuse, it’s another thing altogether to make that same movie watchable and engrossing.
My hat is off to Syndromes and a Century for accomplishing that delicate balance. I’ll need to see it again although I doubt I will easily figure it out. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
No movie watching this weekend, we were busy being wine, chocolate, and other food gourmands (in the refined rather than glutton sense) with a visiting Parisian friend, and showing her local and a little more distant tourist sights.
Olivia Hussey is indeed a beautiful woman.
I thought Cruising was really intriguing when I saw it many years ago. And I found the ambiguous ending very daring at the time. I’m certainly not saying people shouldn’t be offended by the film’s politics or messages, intended or not. But I didn’t personally analyze it in such terms or take from it some degrading stereotype of gays. It depicted a subculture, whether highly fictionalized or not, that I’d not been exposed to before and it offered an interesting context for a serial killer procedural. I recall the psycho’s voice being quite chilling, and the little child’s song he sang as part of his killing ritual was particularly creepy. I also remember enjoying Pacino’s performance. It was a disturbing film about a dark subject. I admired its ambition.
I admire the ambition of Cruising too, but I think the film falls way short of its potential. The film never gives us any context for the Pacino character, does he find the lifestyle tempting, disgusting, both? Does the job disrupt his sanity, his perceptions? There’s a scene toward the end where Pacino tells his boss, Paul Sorvino, that the job is “taking a toll” on him, that was news to me, the film never really dramatizes that, the majority of the film just seems to be be Pacino wandering through the various bars. And what of the killer? I found the daddy didn’t love me explanation to be too pat. Either explain more or don’t explain at all. The ending, in theory, is chilling, but why did that happen? I didn’t think Friedkin earned or built to that ending properly.
Chuck, I need to see Cruising again. I only retain general impressions and the odd scene. I seem to recall having some inkling of the assignment taking a deeper toll on the Pacino character, but certainly not its extent and twisted nature. The surprise of this was partly why I found the ambiguity so daring. Perhaps after watching it with fresh eyes I’ll share your reservations, Chuck. Will report back.
Wow, and I was planning to go to bed half an hour ago…but the watercooler is just too tempting.
Allison, I bought To Have and Have Not this saturday, together with another Bogie/Bacall outing, The Big Sleep.
To complete my 3-for-25, I could have gone for Key Largo, too, but notwithstanding the great Edward G. Robinson role in that, I opted for The Lady From Shanghai instead. After seeing that again Sunday afternoon, I can’t say I regret it: it may be “minor Welles”, to use a phrase from the Squid and the Whale, but it’s an almost perfect little noir with a striking finale, and Hayworth has rarely been more alluring. Why almost perfect? Well, I love Welles, even find him oddly attractive, but that Irish brogue is just ridiculous.
I’ll refrain from commenting on Bresson, çause that would just be embarassing for me.
I’m getting more and more curious about Across the Universe. It sounds like a magnificent fiasco, if nothing else.
My weekend otherwise? On Friday, I discovered my mom’s filmclub (named Aladdin because the first time they convened they accidentally marinated shrimp in lamp oil) is really all about good food and lots of wine, and not really about film at all. Luckily, I’d seen the film (Plein Soleil with Alain Delon, a version of The Talented Mr. Ripley) before, so I didn’t mind so much that the TV was tiny and the chatter constant. I couldn’t quite keep up with my mom wine-wise, but that’s probably a good thing.
Saturday I saw Punch-Drunk Love for the first time. I found it very strange, but I kind of liked it. Yesterday night, I revisited I’m Not There, finally out in the cinema here, with my parents, who loved it. I have to say it felt a bit long to me this time around, but I still think it’s a truly original and mesmerizing work of art the likes of which are rarely seen in the cinema. It truly makes you realize how much film can really do.
And tonight, not quite the weekend any more, but still, a nice tie-in with I’m Not There: I watched Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, the ‘88 recovered Turner version (or something like that). It’s meandering and kind of unfocused, with blood so red it could be ketchup, but I enjoyed it a lot. It’s got quite a few parallels with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I thought, but I have to meditate on that some more (I might make that my weekend double feature - to be written tomorrow - or maybe it’ll be Plein Soleil/The Lady From Shanghai, but all those films have in common is scenes of tension on a ship, and that might not quite be enough).
Bah. Really should get to bed. I’m sure the number of comments will have doubled by the time I wake up, but that’ll be tomorrow’s procrastination.
P.S. Happy St. Patrick’s day. Wish we celebrated it here…
Hedwig, if you’re curious about Across the Universe you really should check it out. It’s either going to win you over or turn you off completely, but it’s worth discovering for yourself. I wanted to like it quite a bit actually…but it just kept me at arm’s length the entire running time. It might be friendlier to you.
Wait a while and give Punch-Drunk Love another spin. I think it’s one of those movies that can grow on you over time.
LOL, Hedwig, I’ve got to agree with you on Welles’ Irish Brogue in The Lady from Shanghai - it is just ridiculous. The movie is a real noir classic though. The first time I saw it was at Theater 80 on St. Mark’s Place (which closed sadly) in a double feature with Gilda. It was Rita Hayworth day.
I like The Big Sleep but not as much as To Have and Have Not.
I’ve seen The Lady from Shanghai probably a couple dozen times and most recently saw it last Wednesday evening at the Castro Theatre as a double bill with The Postman Always Rings Twice (with Lana Turner).
The Lady from Shanghai is, I agree, almost perfect. The Irish Brogue was not Welles’s inest acting hour, admittedly.
The monologue about sharks eating each other at that picnic is one of my favorite scenes, and the slam-bang fun-house multiple mirrors finale is one for the books.
Chuck, I more or less agree with you about some of the sloppiness of Crusing. It feels like a film made by a guy who’s so convinced we know the basics of the genre–that, of course the job and case is taking its toll on the Pacino character–that the film doesn’t trouble itself coloring within the lines sufficiently. Yet like sartre I do admire the film’s ambition a great deal nevertheless, sort of despite itself.
I actually think Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is perhaps Peckinpah’s masterpiece; it is, to me, the equal of The Wild Bunch at the very least. I love it. It’s slow-moving but I just love everything about it. Coburn and Kristofferson give, I think, their two best respective performances in the same film, just for starters. Bob Dylan’s Alias. The elegiac moments of brutality coupled with a creeping cloud of fatalism and a loss of the old ways. Knock, Knock, Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door. All the fantastic character actors–practically everyone you could think of shows up. Did I mention that I love it?
Glad you stopped in before bed Hedwig, it wouldn’t be a Watercooler without you.
“the first time they convened they accidentally marinated shrimp in lamp oil” ahahahahah. Along with the wine, it sounds like my kind of club, tentative movie focus not withstanding.
I love Lady from Shanghai, despite Orson’s accent.
Across the Universe is worth seeing on DVD so that you can skip over the (many) bad scenes and just take in the good scenes they way they should be seen - like big music videos.
I own To Have And Have Not. Lauren was pretty damn mesmerizing when she was young. She had a really unique sexual power to her - and it was her film debut. She and Bogie crackle like fresh popcorn in the noonday sun. Blatantly amazing.
Sweet dreams, Hedwig. BTW, Across The Universe IS a fiasco. But there’s nothing magnificent about it.
Miranda: What was Bacall in THaHN? Like 18?
Jeff: If only we knew in advance which was which…
Craig, Bacall was 19 when she made THaHN.
Older than Olivia Hussey, but still…
Tough weekend, trying to hold onto the pieces of a breaking heart amid the war rally in Hollywood.
Ah, Texas women. But I digress.
Still have never seen any Bresson. I know.
As fer Olivia Hussey, just posted my blog recap of Tarantino’s Flm Fest 99 with a review of BLACK CHRISTMAS, a long way from Romeo indeed…
Friedkin did direct the first major American all-gay film THE BOYS IN THE BAND, so I don’t see him as homo-phobic so much as sado-homo-erotic…He digs the pain. CRUISING is too hysterical for me.
Hoagy Carmichael was how Ian Fleming originally described James Bond. But crueler.
I love PAT GARRETT, altho Dylan is a out of place I feel. And ys, every great character pops up and boy, Slim Pickens gets his second great cinema exit.
I watched THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR from 1970 about ten times this weekend. What? You haven’t seen or heard of it? If I have my way, you will…
Across the Universe
As the critics were split down the middle on the film (the NY Times’ Stephen Holden said it was one of the five best films of the year) it all comes down to taste. Yeah, not all the sequences worked, but this did not detract for the splendid ones that came off, like “I Want You,” “Happiness is a Warm Gun,” “Because,” “Across the Universe,” “Hey Jude,” “All You Need is Love,” and more.
It is VERY EASY to dismiss this film, especially since there are others to back you up. But no real passionate Beatles fan could take serious issue with the film.
Taymor exhibited talent in TITUS, and she uses the same abstract, avant garde film techniques to give fresh new interpretations to songs many of us grew up with and hold dear to our hearts. The two leads were most fine, and the simple romance worked in its sociological trappings.
In my opinion, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE was one of the Ten Best Films of 2007.
Christian. Women and war…nyoinks, rough weekend. I”m going to recommend you continue to steer clear of Bresson for the time being. Not exactly emotional pick-me-ups.
Across the Universe. It’s going to be hard for me to weigh in on this one when I finally catch it. So many strong opinions on both sides.
Sam, the sequences you picked as your favorites include some of the ones that I think are skip-worthy. The songs that I liked were “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”, “Blackbird” and “Something”. Too many of the others were painfully literal. And the romance made my eyes roll.
I thought “Let it Be” was fantastic, even if a bit syrupy. Same goes for “Dear Prudence.” Also loved “A Day in the Life.” Jeff, c’mon - “I Want You”? Throw us a bone on this side! Just kidding, I think the debate is great. And I didn’t even like “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”…
Sometime after my original comment about AtU on The Life Before Her Eyes post I realized that, along with a late Juno comment, this is the second incredibly divisive spark I’ve lit on here in the last couple of months. Thanks for the forum, Craig. We’re waiting for you to jump in and take a side…
Sam, I agree with you about Taymor’s unique style, though I didn’t see Titus. She doesn’t lack for ambition, that’s for sure.
Daniel, you rabble rouser!
“But no real passionate Beatles fan could take serious issue with the film.”
I take issue with that statement, Sam. What are you trying to say there, my friend?
Maybe my passion for the Beatles is less than some, but I just didn’t enjoy the film. There were parts I liked (the musical numbers you mentioned among them), but this sucker just didn’t hold my interest. Julie Taymor is a talented woman, but I think she was struggling with this material and it ultimately doesn’t come together (for me, at least).
I am glad I started (or continued) the discussion on Across the Universe. It has been interesting. Movies like this deserve their opportunity for debate. Just wait…one of these watercoolers I’ll be bringing up Southland Tales (once I get to it in my Netflix queue). That one should be interesting.
Jeff, was “I want you” on your skip-worthy list? As much as some bits and pieces of the sequence were fairly derivative of other artists’ work, I thought it was the best, most original interpretation of the entire movie. I never would have imagined the song in that way. It gave it a whole new angle I really appreciated.
“I wanna hold your hand” was interesting as well. I think the musical numbers that worked the best were the ones that found curious ways to turn the meaning of the song around on itself, even if ultimately some of them were a bit contrived. The weakest numbers for me were typically the more literal ones, although I liked the musical (and cultural) juxtaposition of the opening number. That was a great way to introduce the characters.
Well, in defense of myself, I actually kind of wanted to respond to the (in that particular thread) almost universal love for Across the Universe, Sam, but my college professors had other ideas. I can’t wait for these midterms to be over!
Anyway. I really enjoyed “A Day in the Life” and “Blackbird,” with “I Want You” being not too far from them, either. As joel notes, with the latter, it gave that song a peculiar twist that I found just swell.
Overall, though, it didn’t work for me. A friend who works at the best video rental outlet around here really likes the film, and thinks it was a fine return for the rock opera but as someone who likes a number of the old rock operas, I thought Taymor’s film was just too derivative.
Regarding The Beatles, I like them a great deal. I own all their records (which are all… actually records… same for the Rolling Stones, at least until the early ’80s in their case). Can’t say I’m their biggest fan, though, in all honesty. They (Lennon and McCartney) wrote a lot of devastatingly beautiful songs, however–nobody can deny that.
Christian, I love your point about Slim Pickens receiving his second great cinema exit in Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. That scene gives me chills. I also love Jack Elam’s departure.
Yep, I meant to bring up The Boys in the Band in my defense of Friedkin yet somehow managed to leave it out.
Christian, sorry to hear about your personal troubles. Happy St. Patrick’s Day nevertheless, in the last minutes of it, and be of good cheer. I’ll check out Skidoo later this week in your honor.
Thanks Alexander, it’s getter better all the time…speaking of, I’ll check out ATU but boy, do I not like anything I’ve seen of it. The Beatles are rarely “coverable” to me and so the thought of story songs built around characters actually named Prudence or Lovely Rita or Mean Mr. Mustard is too Bee Gees for me…I didn’t care for Titus and Taymor’s style is a little too much. But my brilliant young niece absolutely loves ATU, so who knows.
And just revisited HANNAH AND HER SISTERS tonite, probably my third or fourth favorite Woody. I still think the scene with the camera circling the sisters as they bicker is one of his finest moments. I remember seeing this opening night in the heart of winter, 80’s style. Love this film.
“I Want You” didn’t make a special impact on me, it was like a Forrest Gump scene in the style of Pink Floyd’s The Wall.
Even the critics who didn’t like the film were overwhelmingly positive on “I Want You.” But there is little chance of liking the film, if you reject this sequence, as it is the high point of the film in a satirical and creative sense. The fact that you Jeff, dislike all the sequences I named (the ones most critics praised) does show that we are completely apart on this one.
I am a Beatles fanatic throughout my life. I grew up with them. That is really a central concern here. I have two friends who are extremely difficult to please, and they generally despise musicals. They came in with very strong opinions on the film, surprising me to no end.
But taste comes in predominantly in this particular judgement I must say.
I’ve considered myself a Beatles fan all my life, but I didn’t really care for Across the Universe. Part of the problem is that I found that many of the songs didn’t fit with the outlandish visuals Taymor paired with them. It’s like when you look at bands who cover the Beatles- the Beatles get covered all the time, not just because they’re great and beloved, but also because many of the songs (especially the ones that are frequently covered) are fairly straightforward. This straightforward nature allows musicians to noodle all they want in the margins of the song, but much of the time it doesn’t work, because the simplicity and elemental nature of the song itself was what made it work so well to begin with.
For me, it was the same with Across the Universe, with the added issue that too often Taymor’s style makes the song wayyyyyyyyy too literal. For example, I almost threw something at the screen when I saw the “I Want You” number, especially during the “She’s so heavy” refrain. To quote a friend of mine, that was just too much metaphor for me to take. Bear in mind that “I Want You (She’s So Heavy)” may very well be my favorite Beatles song.
Was I alone in thinking that the best numbers in Across the Universe were the simplest, like Martin Luther McCoy sitting on a coffeehouse stage with a guitar and singing “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” or the gorgeous rendition of “Because” in nine-part harmony. Maybe it’s because in these scenes, unlike so many others in the film, Taymor stays out of the way and lets the songs stand largely on their own merits.
Don’t get me wrong- Across the Universe is a film that should be seen, and I’m certainly glad that Taymor is out there, making films like this with studio cash. I just wish her artistry came with a bit more discipline.
“I’ve considered myself a Beatles fan all my life, but I really didn’t care for Across The Universe.”
This one sentence describes EXACTLY how I feel.
And Paul, I feel the opposite. The metaphors are central to the entire interpretation of this film, the outlandish ‘undisiplined creativity’ is what makes it soar, and the veering off to literal transcriptions…..i.e. the song “Across the Universe,” “Hey Jude” etc. work to assist the flow of the narrative, when the abstract segments work more to define the mood, spirit and hallucinatory essence of the period.
I have spoken to and have shared opinions with a number of filmic intellectuals who love the film. I admit however that a good number of the LIC people don’t agree. But that’s cool, everybody should share their views.
As one of Sam’s “friends” who supposedly doesn’t like musicals - for which read don’t like bilge like Dreamgirls and Chicago, only quality musicals - Across the Universe was a supririse. Aspects of it are a bit much, but in general, it’s a very enjoyable film, one which shows as much visual imagination as any film of its year. It’s not There Will be Blood or Jesse James, but nor does it aim to be. Taymor’s stuff will always split audience - see also Frida and Titus - and I think Across the Universe will be better regarded in the fullness of time. For all its faults - and it has them - that imagination is far more emphatic than the anaemic by the books film-making of Michael Clayton, et al.
It’s one of those films that will grow with time when many others rated better by so-called critics will wither and die, and leave us with no sense of regret.
Paul, you make some excellent points there. The metaphors were a bit on the nose, which worked for me in some respects and completely destroyed other numbers.
“Because” was lovely though, as you pointed out.
LOL!!!
Joel:
I just now read your “issue” with my earlier statement concerning no passionate Beatles fan not liking the film…….Sorry it came out that way, I didn’t mean to sound degrading or condescending. I think what I wanted to say (but uit came out wrong) was that fanatical Beatles fans may well be willing to dismiss some of the film’s excesses in teh spirit of re-interpreting the extraodinary songs that so many of us grew up with and have held dear to our hearts for all these years. That certainly is the case with many people that I know. And yes, Joel, you are indeed a friend, and one I have enjoyed much interesting discourse with.
I think we have now forced Craig to move in as referee, and are cornering him into seeing the film. LOL!!! I do await his judgement here though. This film has polarized audiences and critics from the beginning.
Yeah, I’m pretty much doomed to seeing this thing and pissing off at least half of the commenters. C’est la vie.
I watched Iron Giant last night instead, and I’m not sorry. What a marvelous movie. Head and shoulders above Horton and most so-called family movies.
Aside from the old-school animation which was a treat to watch, I loved how it A) didn’t pander to little kids with overly cutesy crap or fart and barf jokes and B) didn’t pander to adults with irritating pop-culture references. It was simply a sweet story with a simple message, beautifully drawn and well told.
It took about 20 minutes or so to get going for me, but as soon as the giant really started showing personality, it took off. Right about the time Hogarth sat down to read it comic books.
Fantastic stuff. Made me feel like a little kid again.
If only the development people in this town would keep Pixar films on a loop to se how it’s done. I won’t go near HORTON and I try to tell my sister to keep her kids away too, but she no listen to the black sheep.
Anime gags in Dr. Suess? Any American Idol jokes?
Mercifully it was relatively pop-culture free.
As a stand-alone toon, it’s pretty innocuous. Less irritating than Shrek, but probably only because it’s aimed at a younger audience. As Seuss…well, it’s not great, but then my expectations in that area were low going in. The fact that, except for the anime bit, I left the theater without wanting to punch anyone in the neck I take as a good sign.