The Watercooler: 1/19/09
Happy Monday everyone and welcome to another edition of the LiC Watercooler, sort of an open thread to discuss what you’ve been watching lately. As always, I’ll kick things off.
Courtesy of Film Independent, the last couple of weeks I’ve been trying to catch up with a few of the Spirit Award nominees that I haven’t seen.
The Secret of the Grain is a nominee for best foreign film and it arrives with many excellent reviews. It tells the story of Slimane, an aging Tunisian immigrant who dreams of quitting his backbreaking shipyard job to open his own couscous restaurant on a boat in the harbor. Unfortunately, mistakes in Slimane’s past haunt him and threaten to ruin all his plans.
I was really loving this one through most of its running time up until the final 15 or 20 minutes. Is it fair to turn on a film just because it didn’t end the way you wanted it to? Fair or not, I hated the ending and it ruined the film for me. I’ve given it some thought afterwards and I’ve warmed up to it a little bit – the ending is justified, clearly signaled and it makes sense, but I haven’t gotten over the initial disappointment.
Another best foreign film nominee surrounded by glowing critical praise is Carlos Reygadas’ Silent Light and it was even more disappointing. Though the story of a spiritual crisis in a family of Mennonites stemming from a husband’s infidelity is beautifully told with terrific cinematography and sound design, I found it impossible to identify with or relate to the characters. Because the Mennonites discourage divorce, the wife’s lot was an unfortunate one, but to an outsider unencumbered by religious strictures, her situation seems self-imposed and is therefore not very sympathetic. I hate to say something so beautiful and finely crafted is boring but it left me completely cold.While the technique and the glacial pace were mesmerizing, I was left wondering what the point of it all was.
Finally is Sangre de mi Sangre, a nominee for best first film and screenplay. Christopher Zalla’s story of an illegal Mexican immigrant making his way to New York to find his estranged father only to have his identity stolen by a traveling companion starts out as a promising thriller with shades of Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr. Ripley. It’s good stuff for about 90 minutes but then it goes on for far too long and it becomes irritating. Worse, the bleak ending is pointless and unsatisfying. Who knows? Maybe I was just cranky from the earlier disappointments.
That’s the story from Los Angeles. What’s happening with you?
Filed under: Watercooler
Tags: Sangre de Mi Sangre, Silent Light, The Secret of the Grain
Too bad those three films disappointed you in various ways, Craig. I do hope to see these in the near future, because you never know, but as always I’ll bear your thoughts in mind.
I’ll cheat and start on Thursday since that was when I saw The Wrestler in San Rafael, CA. I enjoyed it a great deal, though it is not perfect. I then watched Revolutionary Road that evening, which irritated me and was in my eyes a fairly disastrous adaptation of Richard Yates’ novel–keeping stretches of the book’s most melodramatic dialogue while shaving away almost all of the context. I’m just sitting down to finally write a review.
Friday, I saw nothing as I was quite busy working, until a little before midnight when I watched a Dan Duryea-starring western called The Marauders, a film I had never seen before and which proved to be a sturdy piece of entertainment.
Saturday, I watched Laitakaupungin valot, or, in its English title, Lights in the Dusk, from Finnish filmmaker Aki Kaurismaki, live on the Sundance Channel. Kaurismaki can be a little frustrating, but it’s always interesting to watch him follow his themes from film to film. I then viewed the 1953 Japanese picture Jigokumon, or Gate of Hell, which I hadn’t seen in years. I followed that with one of the only Fritz Lang films I had never seen, Human Desire, his reteaming with The Big Heat costars Glenn Ford and Gloria Grahame, with Broderick Crawford. Although flawed, the film is undeniably highly interesting and may demand significantly more consideration to be fully evaluated–this is Lang, after all. Finally, I took another look at Henry Hathaway’s Kiss of Death, partly because I’m planning to write a review for it.
Sunday, I gave David Cronenberg a spin, with Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone and Dead Ringers all in one afternoon-long trip. I then watched Bill Osco’s Flesh Gordon, which was just about everything I had heard it was. I’m not sure why I never gave it a look before. Then Edgar G. Ulmer’s Ruthless, which I had never seen before. And finally The Limping Man, a decent 1953 grade-B British mystery movie starring Lloyd Bridges.
I did another screening of Vicky Cristina Barcelona, which I think only improves on subsequent viewing. Also El Amor Brujo, the final film in Carlos Saura’s “flamenco trilogy” (and the least of the three) and Rossellini’s The Taking of Power By Louis XIV, which was very interesting, indeed.
I watched Diner and The Edge of Heaven. Of course, both were excellent. It was my first time to watch Diner all the way through–it’s one of those movies I seem to always see in clips and segments. Funny how I didn’t recognize Tim Daly until the credits. What a casting director that film had. The menfolk reminded me very much of the crew of fellas I hovered around in college.
The Edge of Heaven was lovely. I saw it last night and keep thinking about it. I think it’s one of my favorite films of the year.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona is playing here again, but I think I’m going to conserve funds and wait for a new film I haven’t seen. It sure was tempting to go see it a second time, though. I’m just going to wait for the DVD.
Spent an inordinate amount of time reading the Fincher conversation over at HND, which prompted me to spend most of Sat rewatching Seven and The Game. Still love those movies, even if my impressions of them have changed a bit over the last few viewings.
Also saw The Wrestler this weekend, which I liked more for Rourke’s casting and performance than anything else. The script really let me down and stretched my patience. I liked some of the directing choices and felt others were questionable. Overall, the movie was good and I liked it, but it wasn’t exactly what I hoped it would be and that was disappointing.
Oh well. At least I don’t have to rework my Top Ten list yet again, which is pretty much ready to submit now.
“The Edge of Heaven was lovely. I saw it last night and keep thinking about it. I think it’s one of my favorite films of the year.”
You really made my day Jenny Bee with that welcome and agreed with response to that deeply-moving film.
And I can’t disagree with Joel either on his reaction to the Aronofsky. I look forward to seeing your ten-best list, sir, especially since we seem to be largely on the same page this year!
I received the Region 2 DVD of THE SECRET OF THE GRAIN today from site regular Kaleem Hasan, and I am anxious to see it and then react to Craig’s summation, which (up until the late stages) was most favorable.
In the theatres this week I saw:
Moscow, Belgium **** (Sat. Night; Cinema Village)
Hotel For Dogs *** (Sun. Afternoon, multiplex)
Paul Blart: Mall Cop * (Sun. Afternoon, multiplex)
The Dutch/Belgian film we saw at the Cinema Village on Saturday night is the recipient of solid, well-deserved positive reviews. It’s an engaging, humorous and dysfunctional romance, with some sparkling, often inspired dialogue. The two lead characters are psychologically nuanced. Matthew Lucas in his excellent review at “From the Front Row” is saying techinally that the film released in mid-December, so it’s a 2008 offering, making it eligible for year-end lists. It’s a wonderful film, but it dosen’t reach the level of list-revision for me.
Dog lovers (and we own two labs, one a hound-mix, and also a “pug” which is fully living up to the label a friend gave this breed when we took this dog in over the summer–”an indiscriminate urinator”) so our family was excited to see this multiplex fodder, which all things considered was a modest and amusion diversion with a few inspitred touches, but also some lame ones. Lucille and the kinds enjoyed it though.
The “sneak in” movie (hey we need to get some pay-back for blowing about $100 every time we bring the gang to the movies, for tix and refreshments) was MALL COP, which was so inane, preposterous and unfunny that it makes garbage like PE and TT seem like ANNIE HALL or THE PRODUCERS.
I loved The Edge of Heaven. I remember Alexander raising a few points about the overly purposeful structure (correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth Alexander) but the acting and restraint transcends its minor issues for me. The Edge of Heaven is, as others have pointed out, what Babel and Crash wanted so much to be.
I re-watched From Here to Eternity and La Femme Infidel. For the first time I caught Diary of the Dead, Expired, The Last Mistress. I thought Expired was the best of the lot, with terrific performances from Jason Patric and Samantha Morton, the picture could’ve used a sharper sense of humor (its misery threatens to overbear) but the picture is more clear-eyed about its characters than most in the romance-among-the-down-and-out genre.
Diary of the Dead isn’t as embarrassing as Romero’s prior Land of the Dead, and the idea of revisiting Night in new media terms has surprising potential, but Romero has grown to take himself way too seriously – with characters spouting off the subtext in dialogue that’s worse than the movie-within-the-movie. A friend of mine thinks Romero lucked into the subtext of NIGHT and DAWN to begin with, and his recent efforts support that. The gore is better here than in LAND though.
My weekend was filled with a whole lot of foreign. I saw the Turkish Oscar entry “Three Monkeys” the other day, which is a rather somber, contemplative and moody film that I thought was pretty fantastic, especially how expertly crafted each frame of the film was – visually its stunning. I also saw “Waltz with Bashir,” which I also thought was really good. A foreign film I didn’t enjoy this weekend was “Serbis,” which is nasty and ugly and pornographic, with extra dashes of transsexual sex (not exactly my favourite kind of on screen sex…um, yeah) and a gross boil on the ass. I attempted to watch “Still Life” but felt too tired to sit through it at that point in time. I will try watch it again this weekend. Hopefully I will review all of them soon – with school, the only time I can get any real writing done is on the weekends.
And I finally saw “Twilight,” lol, which I liked a bit. Just a bit.
I wish I liked The Edge of Heaven more….for me, Babel was far more successful and Crash was, well, let’s just say I liked it more.
Ari, I am excited about that Rossellini, which i will pick up at Kim’s tonite along with the Rossellini Eclipse set. I bet it really looks great, right?
For the record, I’m not trying to discourage anyone from catching Secret of the Grain or Silent Light. They both have major strong points and are worth seeing. Also, I’m eager to have someone come along and tell me how wrong I am.
VCB replayed as part of the Indie Spirit screenings and I was tempted to catch it a third time, but I figured I’d let folks who hadn’t seen it yet get a crack at it.
I pretty much agree with you on Serbis Nick,though I’ve warmed up to it a teeny bit. What a nasty, unpleasant film.
I have Edge of Heaven sitting on top of my TV…one of these days…
Chuck, what’s you think of Last Mistress? you can be a tie breaker between Me, Ari and Sam (I hated, they loved)
Sam, I almost took a bite of Paul Blart, but I just couldn’t motivate myself to the multiplex. From your summation, I’m guessing it wasn’t even worth my time even as a sneak in
Joel it sounds like your Wrestler experience was very similar to mine. I liked it but didn’t love it. Great acting and a nicely sad portrait of a guy on the downward slide, but…
Alexander, you’ve left me in the uncomfortable position of disagreeing with you regarding Rev Road, but also disagreeing with the many many people who loved it! I can’t compare it to the novel but there was a lot about it I quite liked. A couple of minor character tweaks (diminishing John Givings and being more explicit about Frank Wheeler’s inner life) would’ve gone a long way toward making it a success for me.
I completely agree that the film should have been “more explicit about Frank Wheeler’s inner life,” Craig; but that would demand a drastic change from Haythe’s shallow screenplay, and Mendes’ “look at the pretty mannequins” direction. I haven’t posted my review yet, but perhaps the greatest theme of it–since I consider it the film’s most tragic flaw–is that we aren’t given Richard Yates’ Frank Wheeler, but Haythe and Mendes’ woefully incomplete sketch. And yet if Haythe and Mendes wanted to dial everything down, they should have restructured the story and dialogue, too. As it was, they gave the audience one lengthy verbal battle after another directly from the book with little of the germane context of the characters to support it. And I suspect it is because Haythe and Mendes wanted to make “conformity”/”suburbia”/”society” the terrible villain. (HUGE SPOILER) They take Yates remarkably literal when they want to, like the John Givings character, who gets to point out what Frank is doing–but whereas the book meticulously laid the foundation for that moment, Mendes and Yates excise almost all of the richness out of it. And yet Mendes still makes April the de facto fulcrum of his diminutive empathy while managing to make that choice less sensible! I myself am surprised at how poor an adaptation this turned out to be.
Taking away the point of its source material, I think the film would be terribly flawed, in any case, though Roger Deakins’ cinematography and Kristi Zea’s production design are, by themselves, impeccable.
It will be fun to bat this one around with you, and others, Craig.
Again, I can’t compare it to the Yates novel, but as I said a couple of minor tweaks would’ve worked for me. I accept a certain loss of depth with a screen translation, but I see what you’re saying.
I think if anything it means I need to sit down and read the novel!
Craig, I shouldn’t focus on the novel so heavily, especially when discussing it with you or others who have not read the book. Though it is difficult, because I was continually surprised at how wide the gulf between Yates’ vision and Mendes’ film was.
So, moving away from that… I still didn’t care for it, though Deakins, Zea, and Winslet all acquit themselves. Winslet brings almost too much talent and nobility to the role, though; April should be more pathetic. In a startling way, Haythe and Mendes partly inverted the dynamic. It’s a confused film, as it treats April more sensitively than Frank, but does not supply the context for why she should be seen more sympathetically as it relates to Frank. This is largely based on my reading of the novel, but even taking it away, the film is rendered peculiarly muddled.
Random Watercooler thought only tangentially related to movies: Spike Lee is sure on TV a lot right now.
I don’t know whether I’ve ever been more out of step with critics and cinephiles before. I finally saw WALL-E and although I found no cause to dislike it I seem completely blind to its brilliance. The animation and art direction is top notch. But for me after the initial novelty of the central character and his context the film evidenced a standard family entertainment and related genre template. I didn’t feel its romance (and it doesn’t usually take much to get me on that front). The characters seemed broadly cutesy, gormless, or villainous in a manner likely to engage younger viewers (and it seems in this case the vast majority of older ones), and the green message was delivered with the finesse of a sledgehammer. I know Sam and Craig both love the film dearly, and I wish I did too. I’m capable of adoring children’s literate and verse but Hollywood kidult entertainments for me just have too much kid and not enough ult.
Sartre: thank you! You have eloquently articulated my own apathetic feelings toward Wall-E, which is beloved by many people I greatly like and respect.
You two are just dead inside. :)
Bloody intellectuals
Let’s see, on Friday I watched My Bloody Valentine in 3-D, which was amusing enough for what it was. Saturday I watched the first 3 (of 8) episodes of The Staircase, the made-for-TV documentary about an absurdly twisty murder investigation in North Carolina (Nobody tell me how it ends! I’m watching the other 5 chapters tonight!).
And then Sunday was a double feature of Bedtime Stories and Yes Man as a sort of attempt to catch up with the remnants of 2008. Yes Man was about as good as a Hollywood-popcorn-dimestore-lifestyle philosophy movie starting Jim Carrey can be, Bedtime Stories was at least adequate enough to hold my attention.
Sartre and Alexander, I have to agree with you re: Wall-E although I like the movie a notch more than you do. Watching it a second time, it feels like two different narratives (the Wall-E/Eve love story, which is somewhat unconvincing, and the Captain overcoming the Autopilot conflict) imperfectly grafted together.
Also, Alexander, how can you keep this literally insane number of movies that you see clear in your head? If I see more than three movies in a day they start running together like melted candles, and here you are seeing 7 in one day on a very regular basis. I can’t wrap my head around it.
Re: George Romero and his last couple of movies, I don’t think it’s at all fair to say that he ’stumbled into’ the success of Night and Dawn at all, especially if you’ve seen any significant number of his other movies. I think the fairer observation is that his directing stills have simply gotten a little arthritic and his movies are repeating themselves. Also, I loved Land of the Dead and was amused by Diary so there you go.
Unlike other zombies, we hang around the cineplex rather than the supermarkets and malls.
I’ve never considered myself blessed with a photographic memory, Jeff, but perhaps this is actually true.
I agree completely that Wall-E is fundamentally two different narratives “imperfectly grafted together.”
And I must agree with you, Jeff: Romero’s early genius is not diminished by his “arthritic” directing in more recent years.
The Staircase sounds like a lot of fun.
You “dead inside” intellectuals ain’t going to like Top Ten of 2008 much, but I got no problem with that.
Jeff, how were the effects in MBV? Sounds like you pretty much got from it what you wanted.
As for the imperfect grafting of the two halves of WALL-E, I admit I wasn’t a fan of the 2nd half the first time around. It worked more seamlessly the 2nd time for some reason. All of the stuff with the humans to me was just backdrop anyway and it just happened to overlap with the story between WALL-E and Eve. The stories weave in and out of each other, but they’re not really grafted at all.
And I don’t see how the love story is unconvincing. It certainly wasn’t realistic…instead it was very old fashioned and simple and all the more charming for it.
It was an old fashioned movie romance, the kind that fueled movies for the first 50 years of cinema.
Re: The effects in MBV, they were effective in terms of being gory and all that. I don’t know if they were high-quality effects because the 3-D process makes everything a little blurry and indistinct, from my perspective.
This will probably be controversial, but my biggest problem with the ‘romance’ in Wall-E is Wall-E himself. It’s probably unfair to apply these kind of standards to this type of movie, but if he was a person I think he’d have to be considered deranged (from centuries of isolation), obsessive, and perhaps a little, er, slow. I mean, it’s like if Forrest Gump was matched romantically in a movie with Cyd Charisse or Barbara Stanwyck.
Of course it’s all subjective, but for what it’s worth, my second viewing of WALL-E improved my opinion of it by probably a star and a half. I was much more detached and analytical about it the first time, but when I saw it over Christmas I fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Jeff, The Staircase is fantastic; a screenwriter would never get away with as many twists and turns and backstabbings as that documentary series contains. I’ve seen it twice and recommend it to everyone. No spoilers, but my husband and his mom almost came to fisticuffs over the verdict.
Wow, I actually saw a film (albeit on DVD) before Craig? That never happens!
Alexander’s absurd proportions of writing and analytical talent, combined with his enviable vocabulary, and movie-viewing and reviewing capacity make him the Wesley Crusher of LiC. Except a lot more palatable. Make that the whole dang Next Gen crew combined. There’s nothing he can’t do. I live in awe.
That said, it sounds like your take on the Rev Road novel was very much like my own, Alexander, though I have not yet seen the film. I did read as much of the screenplay as I could stomach, but put it down because it just felt like a palid and unconvincing mimicry of the novel. The dialogue was almost verbatim (how hard is that?) but like you said the context didn’t seem to be there. I was, and to some degree still am hoping that the acting and direction pick up the slack and fill in that void. Craig, do you need me to send you the novel? : )
You surely are far too kind, Jennybee. Wesley Crusher? Ha! I’m much more like Worf.
:-)
Yes, sounds like they used the screenplay you were reading for the film! Palid, unconvincing, lifeless, attenuated… I keep trying to separate it from the novel, but that is just it–if they had simply followed the novel completely, perhaps the film would have worked beautifully. But the dialogue is mimicry, and the context is almost all absent. It made for a fairly scandalous experience, and would be all the more so if you were one who truly revered the book.
“I mean, it’s like if Forrest Gump was matched romantically in a movie with Cyd Charisse or Barbara Stanwyck.”
Haha, I’ll put that more in the time period and say a Jerry Lewis and Cyd Charisse combo (or Barbara Stanwyck…maybe a graft of the two) is *almost* a movie I’d want to see.
I’m thinking Data, Alexander, but with a much better sense of humor.
I trust you to save us all when we get stuck in the time loop.
Haha, Joel, at both your #24 and #25 comments.
Jeff, now you’ve compared both The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Wall-E to Forrest Gump in one way or another. Poor Craig.
It has proven to be a very influential movie.
I should probably also add to my remarks re: Wall-E, that the genre of ‘romantic comedy’ is probably my least favorite of all genres, above only ‘Matthew Barney art-porn thing’.
I watched Double Indemnity for the millionth time. It never gets old. Billy Wilder was amazing and that film is up there as one of the best noir ever made.
I *adore* “Double Indemnity.” It truly gets better and better with each viewing.
Thirds on that. The book is outstanding too.
Wilder was a genius, quite possibly my favorite director ever. I love the intelligence, black humor, social commentary, absence of sentimentality, and humanism of his work.
“The Wesley Crusher of LiC” except I don’t want to punch him in the neck :)
Jennybee, I need you to see Rev Road now because I’m suddenly dying to know what you think. As you know i’m in the middle of the er….road…and your perspective is interesting to me.
ergg…I had more, but then work got in the way. I’ll try to finish my htoughts on the awesomeness that is WALL-E when I get home.
You’ve hit the wall, Craig.
First, I gushed over Revolutionary Road. To me it’s a sort of throwback to the women’s films of the 30s and 40s. The look and mood of the 50s seemed so authentic to me, not just to be there but to support the themes. This was more of a vehicle for Winslet, and I didn’t miss a lack of probing into the DiCaprio character; the film is long enough as is.
Next, The Wrestler, which I feel is a very well written and sensitively directed drama. It wasn’t just about Rourke for me. I was drawn by the portrayals of his relationships, notably the daughter and the stripper. You don’t often see relationships like this, and the issues involved, being portrayed very often onscreen, and that’s a shame. The film is instructive; a happy ending would’ve ruined it.
On WALL-E all I can add is that parts of it were brilliant and I regarded it as constructed to appeal to different demographics — an effect that might be the imperfect grafting Jeff refers to.
Finally, Double Indemnity. Ahhhhh. Quite a few years ago the San Francisco Int’l Film Festival gave Fred MacMurray a lifetime achievement award, prompting snickers by some. Films like this — and a lot of others with this charismatic actor — support my contention that Fred is a lot to write home about.
Okay, so earlier tonight I finished watching the last 5 chapters of The Staircase…
(MAJOR SPOILERS)
And JEEZ did that turn out to be depressing. As the film went along, I found myself more and more firmly in the ‘not guilty’ camp – the filmmaking is biased, but there seem to be plenty of reasonable doubts – and when that verdict came about – and when an internet search revealed that the guy’s still in prison, and has more-or-less exhausted his appeals – it could only feel profoundly sad and disheartening.
Finally watched CARS. Most uninvolving Pixar ever. I’m not sure why.
quickly. Yeah, I was deeply bored by Cars. I like to blame Larry the Cable Guy, but I know it wasn’t really his fault.
I’m not sure what it was either, but it never came to life for me and I’ve even been known to watch NASCAR of a Sunday afternoon. I know I’m not supposed to admit that in LA, but there it is.
Ok, back to WALL-E.
I’ve heard a number of complaints about him as a character. One reviewer even went so far as to call the scene where he tries to hold EVE’s hand date rape.
That’s pushing it. A lot.
I agree that he’s a little odd, but consider that he’s essentially been alone for something like 700 years.
I think of him as having not originally been programmed with feelings or a personality, but it’s something that developed over time. He’s not a complex character, like all of them, he’s drawn (literally) in bold strokes and that’s part of the appeal. This isn’t a Cassavetes film.
I think in some ways, he represents some basic human feelings rather than being a finely honed character. He embodies loneliness and a basic desire to be loved. He’s also industrious and shows a charming aesthetic sense and a joy in simple things. He’s a garbage collector but he has a bit of poetry in his soul. I found him very appealing.
Narratively and thematically, it’s not ground breaking. Technically it is, but the story and characters have been around forever. But I like that. I like the elegant simplicity of it. At times there is almost too much story (the 2nd half threatens to get bogged down with this), but the core story and emotions always shine through, despite the hubbub and the technical razzle dazzle.
I think Sartre has been mainly unmoved by Pixar’s work in general, but I’d like to hear from some of the rest of you if there’s a Pixar film you liked better. As I’ve said before, The Incredibles is my fave. It was the perfect marriage of story, technique and themes for me and it hit all the right notes. I also have a big soft spot for Monsters Inc.
What about the rest of you?
Ok… my weekend was pretty much spent, when I wasn’t playing baseball or watching football, clearing off my DVR, which thanks to the Classic Movies channels, seems to load at a far faster rate than I can watch. :)
I’ll discuss what I’ve seen up until today.
Thursday evening, we actually caught something at the cinemas, as Doubt finally opened here. I loved it, thought it was one of the year’s best, and, futile as it may be, am really pulling for PSH come Oscar-time(assuming Michael Shannon doesn’t get a surprise nomination for RR).
Friday, I watched In the Name of the Father, which I really liked as well. Lewis, in general, and I know this can’t be said enough, is just incredible to watch on the screen. I also rewatched Black Snake Moan with the Mrs., as she’d never seen it before, and it didn’t age as well as I liked, but I still feel it’s SLJ’s best performance.
Saturday, it was SherryBaby, which I didn’t like at all, The Beach, which I’m still kind of sorting out how I feel, and The Age of Innocence, which was gorgeously filmed but I never felt emotionally attached to the film, and come to think about it, outside of After Hours, it might be the worst Scorsese I’ve ever seen.
Sunday I watched the original Italian Job, which was fun enough but also extraordinarily forgettable.
Monday, I watched Houdini, which was entertaining, but I had some major issues with it. Why, when you have someone as interesting as Harry Houdini to make a film about, is 90% of the film fiction? You might as well have changed the name while you’re at it. I also saw What Just Happened? which is how I felt when the 90 minutes were up. I guess, given the recent quality output of both Barry Levinson and Robert DeNiro, I shouldn’t have been shocked, but the premise sounded like something I could get into, and the entire movie, with such a great cast (although I’ll be happy if I never see Kristen Stewart in another film again) just felt so flat.
Today’s been a good one so far, with Billy Wilder’s Ace in the Hole. I loved Kirk Douglas’ performance in this, and, even with the shift in media, it feels like a movie that would be just as important today as it was when it was made.
“I’ve heard a number of complaints about him as a character. One reviewer even went so far as to call the scene where he tries to hold EVE’s hand date rape.
That’s pushing it. A lot.”
Yes, that is a little crazy. I do see all of your points about Wall-E, Craig. I essentially agree that he is a collection of human traits, characteristics and behaviors, despite his being robotic. I can certainly see how the film can be be taken as wonderfully moving by many. It never quite made it there for me, though, for the reasons Sartre discussed here.
Switching gears a little to Pixar in general, I’m a fan of Finding Nemo–which is probably their most underrated–The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Finding Nemo is perhaps their most emotionally vulnerable film, with all of the properties coalescing remarkably well. I agree with your comments about The Incredibles: “It was the perfect marriage of story, technique and themes for me and it hit all the right notes.” And Ratatouille is a picture I thoroughly respect, both as something of a true art film disguised as an animated family movie, and a palpably moving film. So those are my favorites from Pixar, I suppose.
Michael W., I must disagree with you about Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence. It’s not what many immediately associate as ‘quintessential’ in Scorsese’s canon, but I love it as one of his most ambitious, and successful films. And it’s very true to his thematic interests despite the superficially dissimilar trappings from most of his work. And while I think Daniel Day-Lewis is just fine in In the Name of the Father, I find him even better in the same year’s The Age of Innocence, though it’s a subtler, chillier performance.
Ace in the Hole, and the aforementioned Double Indemnity (great Wilder double bill there), are grand.
I think the problem with Wall-E is that the character hit all the emotional beats you were expecting. Less surprising.
The problem with WALL-E was YOU, Christian!
(I KEEEEEEED)
Seriously, I’m not a WALL-E Nazi.
I don’t disagree it was less surprising, but sometimes that’s comforting and sometimes comforting is a good thing.
Great point, Christian. I think I knew just about exactly what to expect from the moment I saw the first teaser for Wall-E in front of Ratatouille a year earlier.
You’ve had an excellent few days of movies Michael. We’re in total agreement on Doubt. I actually like it more and more as time goes by.
I agree that AoI is a difficult film, but there’s something I love about it. I like how Scorsese is pushing his own boundaries while still managing to be uniquely Scorsese. It’s emotionally distant, true, but it suits the era and the subject.
You’re on your own with After Hours. I just dig that movie.
Alexander, I didn’t like Finding Nemo the first time I saw it. The Father/Son thing didn’t do much for me, but it’s improved for me in subsequent viewings. It’s probably the most openly emotional and that’s a good thing.
I love Ratatouille, probably their most adult film. I should’ve inluded that one with my other two picks.
Yes, I’d probably pick The Incredibles (just a perfect blending of elements) and Ratatouille (indeed their most adult film) as my two favorites, with the more openly emotional and delicate Finding Nemo remaining within hailing distance. Those three are sort of like Pixar’s three great samplers, demonstrating their range, like a band’s collection of their most markedly different tracks.
I was highly entertained by all the earlier Pixars I’ve seen – only missed out on Cars. The Invisibles is probably my favorite, a nudge ahead of The Rat. But that said, I’d not own any of them. I didn’t dislike WALL-E, and I understand that within the genre one shouldn’t look for character depth or more complicated concepts. What I fail to discern is what makes this particular example so especially loved and admired (even landed 5th place on Film Comments critics list). I see this as a blindness on my part, not a condemnation of others taste.
I’m of the firm belief that, although I don’t know if it’s the best Pixar, Monsters, Inc. is by far the most overlooked. Often seems like it’s an afterthought in most people’s comments about the films in general, when it shouldn’t be.
I was wrong Sartre in saying I thought you weren’t a Pixar fan. I was just looking for another reason for your take on WALL-E besides not having a soul I guess :)
Michael, I came late to Monsters Inc and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it if it’s overlooked as you say, I don’t know why. It was very charming and “cute” without being cloying.
My absolute favorite Pixar movies are The Incredibles and Toy Story 2 – both of those just give me tears of glee; followed by Toy Story and Ratatouille.
After that are Finding Nemo, followed by Wall-E. I prefer FN’s more streamlined, organically developed narrative and character arcs (also, like I said before, I tend to dislike romances).
After that are the rest, Monsters Inc, Cars, and A Bug’s Life. I might have a better opinion of Monsters if I hadn’t seen it at the El Capitan theater in Hollywood, which was an annoying, overpriced experience.
But even the weakest of these is still a thumbs-up movie for me.
I can’t get behind Cars but I’ve only given it one look and Pixar movies usually improve for me over multiple viewings. Still, there was little I liked about it the first time through.
Otherwise, Incredibles would be at the top of my list, Bugs Life at the bottom but they all score very well for me so it’s almost no contest really. One day I might put Finding Nemo in second place, another it might be Ratatouille, another it might be Toy Story 2, and so on.
In other words, I really kinda heart them all, which is truly surprising for my typical experience with a string of movies like that. I don’t even respond that consistently to the collected works of Studio Ghibli and I used to consider them to be the pinnacle of modern animated features.
As for AoI and After Hours, I’d say give them another look. I agree both keep the viewer at arm’s length emotionally, but they are very well made movies with excellent performances in each. Scorsese has always said he did After Hours as a technical exercise to deal with depression, but I really enjoy its zany, manic energy.
“I’ve heard a number of complaints about him as a character. One reviewer even went so far as to call the scene where he tries to hold EVE’s hand date rape.”
That’s…….effing hilarious, lmao.
Sartre, here’s what I think the critics are seeing, that for whatever perfectly valid reason, you are not.
WALL-E is at its heart a celebration of humanity’s ingenuity, creativity, and capacity to overcome even our worst selfish, slothful impulses and grow into something better, for the sake of something bigger than our own bloated selves. It’s about the power of one, the power of two, the power of many. WALL-E himself is as much a human invention as the mess he was created to clean up; his character traits (resourcefulness, curiosity, loneliness, dilligence, loyalty, friendship, love, rashness, courage, the ability to learn) are a direct reflection of our own. Eve, too, is a product of us, directly or indirectly. It’s a story, not new, but told in new ways, that reminds us through hyperbole and metaphor of how much we, today, now, need to remember to cherish life in all its forms and have the courage to trust and reclaim our own creative spirit.
WALL-E tells this story in a dazzlingly beautiful technical feat of animation that on a somewhat meta level itself makes the same thematic case: Look what beauty we can create, how warm and imaginative this technology can be, bringing us closer together and to our best selves. We mortals cannot be underestimated, and neither can the possibilities of animation. The art direction, animated cinematography, editing, sound, all the technicals are top shelf.
And as a bonus for film critics, WALL-E simultaneously draws from eight decades of cinematic history–most notably, from the dawn of cinema–to quietly honor film’s most powerful and poignant role in our lives, that of sustaining us in the dark times and reminding us, through whatever improbable means (Hello, Dolly, of all films, is the one highlighted), of what’s really important. It’s a film rich in symbolism and layers of meaning that is steeped in film history and makes a strong argument for film’s future.
The screenplay gives equal weight to humanity’s dual talents for destruction and construction, using the current gathering environmental crisis as a trope that grounds the otherwise sci-fi fantasy in relevance to our immediate future. The real villains in the picture aren’t mutinous AI, but the demons within ourselves that compel us to consume more and more and faster and easier and forget what it is that makes us human, that creative spark and need to forge a path ever forward.
Meanwhile, it has a timeless love story between a bumbling but charming and well-intentioned Chaplin-esque male and a fierce and feminist female who connects to her softer core self, each of whom changes and grows better for knowing the other during the course of the film. That’s what real romance does, makes us better people individually and as a couple for discovering that soul-sustaining partnership. It is a love that was never programmed to be, and yet, must be.
It’s a film that like the best of sci-fi asks, “What if?” and then takes us on a bleak path that does not have to be. It’s a film that channels the deep undercurrent of hope, even amidst the darkest of crises–the death of our planet and the devolution of our species–and has a resounding echo of the rallying cry of a very frightening 2008: “Yes we can!”
To top it off, and almost as asides to its other many treasures, WALL-E also contains significant amounts of humor that don’t rely on fart jokes and pop culture allusions, a misshapen band of merry Island-of-Lost-Toys-esque robots who discover they still have value, a prolonged and joyfully magical cinematic sequence of robots in love spiraling through space, and an endearing cockroach who just won’t die.
It’s one heck of a great film, in my opinion.
Amen, sister. Give the lady a prize, because she nailed it. Beautifully written and expressed.
This alone could be the LIC reader submission for Wall-E.
Jennybee owns this thread. Your comment made me kind of misty eyed, but these days I get misty eyed during commercials for Oprah so take that for what it’s worth.
I second Joel’s call – jennybee’s comment has to be the one featured in the 2008 Readers Poll for WALL-E. What an absolutely beautiful piece of impassioned and lucid writing. Completely took my breath away. Ok, I get it now. And next time I see the film I’ll try to bring the same intelligence and open heart to its appraisal as you did. That comment is one for the ages.
Jenny Bee: That piece was utterly phenomenal, fantastic, superlative, deeply-moving, and beautifully written in lyrical prose.
You have entered the gates of heaven with that!
Go WALL-E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jenny Bee: I am very much interested in the publishing rights to that review!
Aw, thanks, guys. As someone who had two very different reactions to it the two times I saw it, I just wanted to convey all the richness and beauty I found in it the second time when I slowed down to appreciate it more. There’s really quite a bit going on in it, all at once. The problems I had with pacing and what I initially thought to be the second half’s less lyrical screenplay simply dissipated on viewing #2. Considering how hard it is to get anything made well in Hollywood, I now consider it an almost perfectly crafted film.
Sartre, I do hope you find more in it next time round, but if you don’t that’s OK, too. Not every film speaks to every person. That’s one reason there are so many (also that aforementioned creative spirit may play a part).
Sam, lol, I don’t know that I have any publishing rights to bestow, but you’re of course welcome to use it. : )
As far as Pixar films go, I have enjoyed them all, though I never saw Monsters, Inc. Finding Nemo is fantastic. Haven’t seen the Toy Stories or A Bug’s Life since they were in the theater, but I have fond memories of being wowed by them. Cars is probably my least favorite, though even it was more engaging than I had expected (I put off seeing it for a long time, convinced I’d be bored stiff). I rate WALL-E as the “best” film they’ve done and The Incredibles as their most entertaining (also the first film I saw with my husband). Because I am also a hobbyist cook with an unrequited love for Paris, Ratatouille ranks right behind WALL-E and is still my sentimental favorite.
Jennie Bee, thanks very much. It will publish at Wonders in the Dark with linkage back to LIC within the next 15 minutes.