Sunset Blvd.

May 31, 2008

Sunset Blvd. (1950) *****

Directed by Billy Wilder

I’ve been avoiding writing this review all day! I’m posting this after my review of Logan’s Run, but I finished watching it before I even started that film. This isn’t my first time seeing Sunset Blvd… it’s my second. It’s staying put at number 13 on my list of my favorite films of all time, nestled right between Oliver! at number 12 and Fargo at number 14. Even writing that last sentence (and this one too) is my way of procrastinating the realization of this review. What’s my problem, you ask? Well, I want to get this review just right.

I spent the months of July 2007-March 2008 watching the films that I hadn’t seen from the American Film Institute’s 2007 list of the 100 Greatest Movies. Watching Citizen Kane, Schindler’s List and Gone with the Wind, I was expecting to love them, and boy did I ever! Yet, I have a list of four films that really surprised me, and that surprise mixed with the exhilaration I received from the films themselves made for an absolutely amazing experience that still continues to elicit butterflies in my stomach and feelings of euphoric giddiness in me. Sunset Blvd. is one of those four films! The others, in case you’re interested, are Best Years of Our Lives, Midnight Cowboy and Double Indemnity.

Sunset Blvd. includes what may be my favorite female performance in film history—Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond. William Holden plays Joe Gillis, a down on his luck second rate screen writer with debts to pay and debtors looking to collect. He escapes from being chased by said debtors only to find himself in the driveway of a dilapidated Hollywood mansion. He goes inside to discover that the owner is Norma Desmond, an icon from the silent film days who seems to be clinging onto her fame and her fans, both of which she thinks are still plentiful. Learning Joe is a screenwriter, she trusts him to read and polish up the script she has been working on for years which she plans to make into her grand comeback picture. What begins as a job that might last a few weeks ends up turning into a bizarre living arrangement which becomes all the more complicated when she declares her love for him during a New Year’s Eve party consisting of only the two of them as guests. Sufficiently freaked out, he runs out to meet his friend Artie Green, played by a shockingly young Jack Webb of Dragnet fame, and his fiancée Betty Schaefer, played wonderfully by Nancy Olsen. It is here where Joe and Nancy begin a discussion of a possible script for a film. Unfortunately, Joe must leave abruptly when he learns that Norma has attempted suicide.

He pities her and agrees to stay with her, all while she lavishes him with gifts of clothes and jewelry. By the way, the synopsis is not complete without mention of the third person who lives in the house, Max von Meyerling, played by the great silent film director Erich von Stroheim whose film Greed I will be watching this summer. Max is the butler and has been with Norma for a long time. Max has driven the script for Norma’s film to MGM Studios, and Joe is amazed when Norma receives a call from MGM. Joe, Max and Norma drive to the studios where Norma is instantly recognized by some of the old timers. She immediately wants to visit Cecil B. DeMille, who plays himself, to discuss the picture. DeMille doesn’t know what she is talking about and learns that MGM called her because they liked the look of the car Max drove in on and wants to rent it from her. Neither DeMille nor Joe is able to break the news to Norma, so they go along with the lie. Max just adds this to his many other deceptions in order to make Norma believe that she is still adored by the public, which includes writing fan letters to her everyday. At the studio, Joe reconnects with Betty and the two of them plan to spend nights working on that script. So, Joe sneaks out and eventually the two fall in love. Norma finds out, which leads to an event we know from the beginning of the film when we see Joe dead floating face down in the pool. Following this event, in one of the saddest ironies in any film in history, Norma is able to be in front of the cameras again.

It was a joy to be able to type up that synopsis, just as it was a joy to watch this movie for a second time. The first time I watched the film, I was astonished at such dark and disturbing subject matter, especially from a film from 1950! In the first twenty minutes, we see a dead monkey, followed by a late-night funeral with the monkey in a coffin made for an infant. From that moment, I knew this film was not going to be a sunny day in the park. Norma is truly frightening in many scenes because she is always on the verge of what seems to be total uninhibited insanity. When she does finally crack, I brought to the scene not only the sadness and recoil from what I was witnessing in the movie itself, but also the tension which colors the film throughout. The brilliance of Billy Wilder to begin the film with a shot of the dead body allows a sense of dread to simmer within every scene between Norma and Joe.

During this viewing, I was struck more with how unlikable and sleazy a character Joe Gillis really is! A better person would never have put himself in the situations which ultimately lead to his murder. Yet, he doesn’t deserve his fate. One of the very best touches within the film is Joe’s narration from what would have been a great book of his had he survived. The writing in that narration is absolutely gorgeous prose, and leads me to say that this film has the very best script in film history. Every line of dialogue drips with the filth of the underbelly of Hollywood which the film so vividly and unflinchingly captures.

Gloria Swanson perfectly embodies the has-been megastarlet who cannot let go of fame’s mythic and fleeting grasp. Norma always had an almost larger than life reputation of being difficult which matched her gargantuan success. Swanson, I’m sure, could relate, having been the biggest box office draw for a number of years in the 1930s and collecting seven husbands in her lifetime, including a French socialite who became an icon in his own right thanks to her. I’m sure there was a little Norma in Swanson’s deepest, darkest core. She must have had a great time with this film, since she was allowed to act with complete abandon, never once giving less than three hundred percent to every line and gesture.

Well, I’ve finally written my review. I had a great time thinking about how much this film means to me. Sunset Blvd. is one of the first films I’d recommend to someone whom I would want to introduce to great classic films. It’s powerful, dark and yet, completely fun to watch! Sunset Blvd. is an example of a Hollywood of old depicting a Hollywood of even older in a way that leaves just about all films of the Hollywood of today in the dust!

Logan's Run

May 31, 2008

Logan’s Run (1976) ****

Directed by Michael Anderson

Logan’s Run is a wonderful science-fiction version of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Actually, I would argue that Plato’s cave made the story easier to tell, and thus, Logan’s Run’s version of the cave presents more challenges to overcome. In Plato’s version, the cave is, well, a cave. In Logan’s Run, it’s a hedonistic paradise giving everyone exactly what they want. There’s a pretty big catch though. At the age of 30, they must go through a ceremony called the Carousel in which participants have been told that they will be “renewed,” yet in reality, they simply die. This is all done to maintain a balance between procreation and death.

It’s the 23^rd century, and the outside world seems to have pretty much wasted away. Even when a sandman named Logan, played by Michael York from Cabaret and more recently the Austin Powers movies, is able to make it to the outside with his new love Jessica, played by Jenny Agutter, he at first despairs that there is no renewal or sanctuary (both of which are apparently utopian realities that supposedly exist for people over 30), but then realizes when he sees an old man, played by the great Peter Ustinov, that the outside world offers them life. Towards the end of the film, Logan and Jessica decide to go back to the city to try and prevent the next Carousel ceremony and convince everyone of the promise of life on the outside. Thinking about the odds Logan had stacked against him, I was not betting on a happy ending. Would you really want to leave a life of pleasure and security, albeit finite, in order to start anew in the often difficult outside world? I’d imagine a Logan’s Run 2 would have to deal with that whole can of worms.

I’m getting ahead of myself here. The film focuses on Logan who is a sandman. A sandman is primarily in charge of hunting down and terminating runners, people that try to escape from the Carousel ceremony when they are about to reach 30. Logan is given a mission to discover the location of the “sanctuary” which is supposedly a place where over one thousand runners have escaped without anyone knowing. He must try to convince them that he is a runner too and alert all of the sandmen to its whereabouts. He reaches out to Jessica, a woman he chose to have sex with him but refused once she found out he was a sandman. She says that she will take him to the sanctuary, but instead plans to have him killed. Eventually, he saves her life and lets a runner go free, which proves to her that he is genuine. So they run both to sanctuary and away from Francis, a sandman buddy of Logan’s who saw him allow a runner to go free and now must terminate him.

Eventually, they do reach runners who are going to try and enter the sanctuary. They want to kill Logan at first, but they do eventually believe his story. He wants Jessica to run away because he has just alerted the sandmen where his location is. It’s too late, and a showdown ensues, leading them to the same place many people fleeing to sanctuary have found themselves. Unfortunately, where they’ve found themselves is a frozen wasteland ruled by a monster robot being named Box. Eventually they make it to the outside and learn about such things as oldness, love and cats!

The special and visual effects in Logan’s Run are eighty percent great! Quite a bit of money and creativity went into the sets, the costumes and the effects. Every once in a while, we would see shots of obvious miniatures or unsatisfactory effects. Still, it wasn’t often and the good greatly outweighs the bad in that aspect. Both York and Agutter do great jobs of playing their characters fairly straight-forward. It almost seemed like the star of the film wasn’t the actors, but the mood and the action. That was a good decision. Just when the chases were about to get repetitive, the film slowed down and brought the characters to the outside world, where they could ponder and discover. Yet, the philosophical elements of the film were modest, allowing Logan’s Run not to be accused of trying to be too clever.

Yet, the film did make me appreciate my freedom just a little bit more. Even in a world where all pleasures can be satisfied, it would be a nightmare if people weren’t free to choose how they want to live their lives. Freedom often involves unpleasant sacrifices for the ones we love and for the betterment of all. Also, if the message, the effects, the acting and the action don’t do it for you, there’s always Farrah Fawcett-Majors to look at. Michael York may have been the only man in the 1970s to actually run away from Farrah. I’m sure she’s happy to know that her feathered hairstyle was so popular that it’s still in fashion in the 23^rd century.

Logan’s Run is the purest example of fun science-fiction that I’ve seen yet in this Filmspotting 70s Sci-Fi Marathon. The Omega Man was cheesy. The Andromeda Strain was a bit clinical. Soylent Green didn’t have all the cool special effects. Silent Running was, well, read my review if you don’t know. Logan’s Run is science-fiction and fun, high-quality science-fiction at that. In a world of pleasure, there would be a room available to show Logan’s Run any time day or night.

Out of Africa

May 30, 2008

Out of Africa (1985) **

Directed by Sydney Pollack

Well there goes my bright idea! When I read a few days ago that Sydney Pollack had died, I came up with the idea that whenever a Hollywood big shot dies, I will choose one of his or her films to review as soon as possible. It was meant to be an homage or a sign of respect. Unfortunately, I didn’t think that maybe I would dislike the film I ended up seeing. Even worse, the possibility that I might have to blame the deceased person for being the one most responsible for the film’s downfall never once entered my mind. No one argues that Pollack is a great director, and I’m sure that I will love other films of his, but I don’t want to patronize the man. Oh man, I’m going to feel guilty when this review is finished.

Out of Africa is so completely shallow, boring and in love with itself. The film depicts a real life woman named Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep) who lives on and brings to life a plantation in Africa. She goes there with her new husband whom she was once friends with and doesn’t love at all. His name is Bror Blixen (Klaus Maria Brandauer), and later in their marriage, he infects Karen with syphilis. For days and sometimes weeks at a time, Bror goes out to hunt (and presumably to do other things as well—hence the syphilis) leaving Karen alone with all the African servants on the plantation. Stranded while horseback riding, Karen comes across Denys Hatton (Robert Redford), a freelance hunter and a seeming loner. She is so lonely herself that she decides to deliver supplies herself in person that Bror requested. During this journey, she comes to know Africa at its core and herself better as well when she helps fight off an attacking lioness.

Eventually, she loses Denys’ hunting partner whom she has feelings for to black water fever. Then, she must return to Denmark where she is from to recover from the syphilis. She longs for Africa while she is away, and is happy to return home and give meaning and purpose to her life. She opens a school for the African children on the plantation. She also gives into her passion for Denys. The two have a heated affair, but major obstacles eventually break the two of them up. Many dramatic occurrences happen at the end of the film, forcing Karen to leave Africa forever.

Meryl Streep returns to an Eastern European accent similar to 1982’s Sophie’s Choice. While in Sophie’s Choice, she is Polish, here her character speaks first with a Danish accent, and in voice over with a bit of African in her voice. Streep in Sophie’s World is one of the best performances in all film. She’s good here, but the accent always felt a little insincere and often drew attention to itself. Still, her performance is strong enough for us to care about her, which is important since she is in virtually every single scene in the film.

Robert Redford gives a monumentally bland performance. It’s almost interesting how boring he is. If Meryl Streep’s performance was the Statue of Liberty, then Redford’s would be a G.I. Joe figure in comparison. Streep and Redford have absolutely no chemistry together.

Pollack overdirects this film from beginning to end. In just about every scene, the camera keeps moving in ways that made no sense and felt totally mechanical. Every once in a while, we would get bizarre images between scenes such as a close up on leaves or the legs of cows. I’m not sure if Pollack was trying to channel Terrence Malick in Days of Heaven or Werner Herzog in Fitzcarraldo, but either way, his shots felt out of place and surprisingly uninteresting.

Okay, Out of Africa was the wrong movie to pick to honor Sydney Pollack’s legacy. I think I’ll keep going until I find a film that shows his importance and talent as a filmmaker—next I’ll attempt 1981’s Absence of Malice. At the very end of Out of Africa, we learn that Karen Black never returned to Africa once she left. Similarly, now that I’ve watched Out of Africa, I will most likely never return to it.

Adam's Rib

May 29, 2008

Adam’s Rib (1949) ****

Directed by George Cukor

Adam’s Rib can be called the precursor to 1967’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Both films star Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn; both films deal with left-leaning causes (Adam’s Rib with women’s rights and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner with interracial marriage); both films are flawed, yet in very different ways. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner too often resorts to corny and sanctimonious speeches, while Adam’s Rib takes its screwball comedy a bit too far. Yet, I absolutely love both films mostly because we see Tracy and Hepburn together on screen. These two are arguably the best on screen team in film history.

Both Tracy’s Adam and Hepburn’s Bonnie are lawyers on different sides of the same case involving a woman on trial for shooting her abusive husband when she finds him in an embrace with another woman. Bonnie, on the defense for the woman, uses this case to promote her cause of equal rights for women. Adam, as assistant district attorney, is prosecuting the case, arguing that the law is the law and this woman broke it. It’s that simple.

The opening scene of the film shows the crime itself. Doris Attinger (Judy Holliday) follows her husband Warren (Tom Ewell) to the apartment of his sleazy mistress Beryl Caighn (played by the great Jean Hagan of Singin’ In the Rain fame). The first huge laugh out loud moment in the film shows Doris right outside the apartment door reaching into her purse to pull out a gun and along with it a little pamphlet she immediately reads which explains how to use a gun. She shoots into the air and ends up hitting her husband on the shoulder without killing him.

Next, we meet Adam as he finds out that he will be prosecuting the case, and we also meet Bonnie who, after reading about it in the newspaper, actively pursues the ability to defend the same case. That evening, we see the two getting ready for a party and discussing their days. From the beginning, it’s obvious that these two really enjoy each other’s company and seem to have a marriage built on true respect and affection for the other. At the party, we meet neighbor Kip Lurie (played obnoxiously by David Wayne), a wisecracking song writer. In front of the guests, Bonnie reveals that she has taken the case which causes Adam to spill a tray of drinks on himself in shock.

The film keeps coming back to the trial, which produces some funny lines and sequences, but also includes some pretty awful attempts at humor such as when two women testify about their accomplishments in order to make Bonnie’s case that women are equal to men. The first woman lists off both her many high level positions and her many degrees in both the U.S. and Europe. The second woman works in a circus lifting up men who are holding 350 pound barbells. Bonnie asks the second woman to prove her skill by lifting up Adam. I’m sorry but I didn’t laugh at all because I felt like those ridiculous exaggerations were being hurled at the audience. Huge attempts at comedy can often lead to huge failures. Also, throughout the entire film, Adam mixes up the first letter of phrases. Is that supposed to make me laugh? You’ve got to try harder than that.

With any screwball comedy, there is a real danger of going too far. While Adam’s Rib does go off the rails at times, when it stays within its own boundaries, the comedy works brilliantly. There are some amazing one-liners in the film including, “No matter what you think you think, you think the same as I think,” and, “Licorice. If there's anything I'm a sucker for, it's licorice.” That second line involves a sight gag that had me laughing as hard as anything else I’ve seen in all film.

Tracy is wonderful here, but Hepburn, as usual, just steals every single shot she is in. She’s one hell of a great comedienne. The performances of the players in the case itself are all solidly funny! When Bonnie asks Doris what she felt after she shot her husband, she replies with complete earnest, “Hungry.” Adam’s Rib also includes a wonderful Cole Porter song throughout—Farewell, Amanda.

Adam’s Rib succeeds brilliantly, not only in its dialogue and performances, but also as a really smart film. On the one hand, I was rooting for Bonnie throughout since her cause was noble. Yet, when Adam loses respect for her because she treated the law like a circus, I absolutely could see his point. Some of the later scenes were flawed, but I forgave them since they ultimately led to two sublime comedic moments—the first involving the licorice and the very last moment in the film involving Tracy thanking God for the “little” difference that separates women from men before closing the curtains on his four poster bed with Bonnie in it. Because of the great and risqué joke at the end, I was smiling big time when the credits rolled. A great comedy simply attempts to make the audience laugh, and Adam’s Rib delivers big time, giving me some of the biggest laughs I’ve had from a film in a long time.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

May 29, 2008

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) ***1/2

Directed by Frank Oz

This summer, one of my movie-watching goals is to check out some of the classic comedies from the 80’s like Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Animal House, Caddyshack and A Fish Called Wanda. I’m not well versed at all on many of the recent classic comedies. In general, I don’t really look forward to seeing a comedy, and if I’m in the mood to watch a movie, nine times out of ten, I’d rather watch a more serious film. Why? I’m not sure exactly, but I am sure that a comedy that’s bad can be excruciating to sit through. Some of the very worst movies I’ve ever seen have been attempts at comedy gone horribly wrong, such as North and Can’t Hardly Wait. Also, on my list of the 100 best films I’ve seen, the highest full-on comedy is About a Boy at number 25, followed by Being John Malkovich at number 26. Therefore, the twenty-four best films I’ve ever seen were not comedic pictures. Since I love great movies more than anything, I tend to shy away from seeking out films from the comedy genre.

I watched Dirty Rotten Scoundrels not expecting too much. The only reason I wanted to see it was because someone recommended it to me and then asked again if I had watched it. When someone repeats a film to me more than once, it usually sticks in my mind. Also, knowing that I had a summer ahead of me where watching comedic films will be a big aspect, I figured Dirty Rotten Scoundrels might be a good way to begin.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is definitely funny, and for the most part, very well conceived and executed. Michael Caine is brilliant as Lawrence Jamieson, a wealthy con-artist whose victims are old rich women who supposedly “deserve it” (according to him anyway). Steve Martin hits and unfortunately misses at times as Freddy Benson, a small time swindler working to get free meals and the like out of anyone by telling the same sad story about his grandmother over and over again.

Lawrence executes elaborate schemes with his accomplice Police Inspector Andre, played by Anton Rogers. He passes himself off as a prince in a country where freedom fighters are staging a revolt. The women he cons donate large sums of money to what in their minds is an almost transcendently noble cause.

Lawrence overhears Freddy’s success at swindling a meal from a passenger on a train. Circumstances occur which ultimately allows Freddy to blackmail Lawrence into teaching him high society etiquette and big time conning. What follows is a pretty dead and clichéd montage of the master teaching the student often with comic results. Lawrence uses Freddy to his advantage to get out of engagements he has agreed to with women he has stolen from. Freddy plays the role of Ruprecht, Lawrence’s horrifying mentally challenged brother. The whole Ruprecht sequence has some memorably funny gags such as when Ruprecht asks permission to go to the bathroom, and sits there for a minute without getting up from his chair, and then says thank you with a look of satisfaction on his face.

The big plot of the film involves a bet over who can con 50,000 dollars out of a woman named Janet Colgate, played by one of my favorite actresses Glenne Headly, who I’m sad to say is pretty awful in this film. She seems to be trying to channel Marilyn Monroe’s voice inflections, while at the same time she seems almost bored in some scenes. Freddy and Lawrence try to sabotage each other’s attempts often with very funny results. Things change, though, when they find out something surprising about Janet which makes Lawrence want out of the bet, but not Freddy. As a matter of fact, Janet seems to be falling in love with Freddy, and he is willing to exploit that to take her money. The end reveals a twist that I did see coming, and yet, the very last scene involves the return of a character we assume would not want to be seen again by Lawrence and Freddy. I hated the final scene because it felt so insincere and tacked on.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels relies quite a bit on ideas and gimmicks we’ve seen a hundred times in film both before and since its 1988 release. Steve Martin sometimes crosses into obnoxious territory. Ultimately, though, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels does work because a good percentage of the jokes are hilarious! I’m glad I watched this film—I had a lot of fun with it. I had high hopes that it would make me excited to see more classic 80’s comedies. It delivered! Now the pressure’s on for the other films to at least live up to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The bar has officially been raised.

2007 Best Short Film Oscar Nominee Awards

May 27, 2008

2007 Best Short Film Oscar Nominee Awards

Here are my choices:

Best Actress- Julie Olgaard- Om natten (At Night)

Best Actor- Richard Morgieve- The Mozart of Pickpockets

Best Live Action Director- Philippe Pollet-Villard- The Mozart of Pickpockets

Best Animated Director- Suzie Templeton- Peter & the Wolf

Best Scene- (tie) The entire film- Even Pigeons Go to Heaven, Opening pickpocket scene- The Mozart of Pickpockets

Best Villian- The Priest- Even Pigeons Go to Heaven (I would have said Death, but he’s not really a villain in the film)

Best Animated Picture- Even Pigeons Go to Heaven

Best Live Action Picture- The Mozart of Pickpockets

Best Short Film Overall- The Mozart of Pickpockets

Even though I gave Even Pigeons Go to Heaven five stars while giving The Mozart of Pickpockets four stars, I still pick The Mozart as my choice for the best film because I think a strong argument can be made that at only nine minutes, Even Pigeons Go to Heaven isn’t even a real movie.

Peter & the Wolf

May 27, 2008

Peter & the Wolf (2007) **1/2

Directed by Suzie Templeton

Short Film (29 min.)

Note: This is from a DVD I rented at Blockbuster containing all of the live action and animated short film Academy Award nominees from 2007. You can rent the DVD on Netflix or at your local Blockbuster. I found it among the S films on the New Releases wall.

I remember watching a Disney version of Peter and the Wolf when I was a kid. It included Prokofiev’s lyrical and haunting music in the background, while a narrator told the story, often times warning or praising Peter and his friends. I loved that cartoon as a kid, and I’d totally be up for revisiting it.

Suzie Templeton’s non-speaking short film sets the story a little close to home. While in the Disney version, Peter journeyed through the woods, here, he only ventures so far as the entrance to the woods right outside of his house. Peter has an uncle that’s fearful of all the dangers in the woods, and thus locks Peter in the yard for his safety with only a pet duck for company. Eventually he breaks out and encounters bullies that throw him into a garbage can. He returns to the locked yard only to find a crow entangled in a balloon string which it can't shake off. Eventually, they all ice skate and while doing so, we are introduced to the comically fat cat. While Peter and his friends are goofing off, the wolf appears in order to make any and all of the four of them his lunch. Of course Peter’s not going to give up without a fight!

Personally, I was disappointed not only by the film itself but also by the fact that this won the Oscar in 2007 for Best Animated Short Film. I realized after watching Madame Tutli Putli that there were actually five nominees, but my DVD only contained three in the animated category. I’ll try to catch the other two films if I can find them.

From the moment that crow gets himself tangled up on the string of the balloon, I kept asking myself why Peter didn’t just cut the balloon off in the first place. Of course if he did do this, then there would be no movie. Also, I was flabbergasted by the final scene that the duck and the wolf are in together. It was absolutely disturbing—the stuff of nightmares even. Also, Peter himself comes off very creepy, almost as if he is Marilyn Manson’s secret offspring.

You have to give credit (and the Academy did) to Templeton’s use of old school clay animation utilizing still camera photographs. Both Tutli and Even Pigeons Go to Heaven used computer graphics all the way through. Templeton did it the hard way and the result is visually impressive. Simply watch how the cat is realized in this film. That character alone shows you the talent the filmmakers have to offer to cinema. Despite serious flaws in the plot, I suppose this film is worth seeing, but I definitely recommend seeking out the old Disney version as well (or instead). It’s a much better film!

Even Pigeons Go to Heaven

May 27, 2008

Even Pigeons Go to Heaven (2007) *****

Directed by Samuel Torneux

Short Film (9 min.)

Note: This is from a DVD I rented at Blockbuster containing all of the live action and animated short film Academy Award nominees from 2007. You can rent the DVD on Netflix or at your local Blockbuster. I found it among the S films on the New Releases wall.

How in the world can someone give a star rating to an animated short film that lasts only nine minutes? I decided to give Even Pigeons Go to Heaven five stars because I found it absolutely hilarious and simply perfect, even though it’s barely a film. The very last image before cutting to the first screen of credits had me screaming in laughter.

Instead of spending any more time reviewing the film, I’ll simply post the YouTube link where you can watch it for yourself. It’s absolutely worth it!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=agRX7w-2xRE

Madame Tutli-Putli

May 27, 2008

Madame Tutli-Putli (2007) **

Directed by Chris Lavis and Maciek Szczerbowski

Short Film (17 min.)

Note: This is from a DVD I rented at Blockbuster containing all of the live action and animated short film Academy Award nominees from 2007. You can rent the DVD on Netflix or at your local Blockbuster. I found it among the S films on the New Releases wall.

French-Canadian short animated film Madame Tutli-Putli contains an incomprehensible plot that looked like it may have been constructed by two very angry high school students wearing long black trench coats. The entire film takes place on a train, focusing on the uncomfortable and eventually horrifying journey of the title character. In 17 minutes, we see a game of chess with pretty strange rules, a sexual gesture that turns the stomach, green gas seeping into the train cars, a vision of someone having their internal organs stolen and a moth which may actually be Madame Tutli-Putli reincarnated… or something. The visuals are creepy and the camera work is technically impressive. Yet, the entire film felt recycled from worn out ideas without anything new to say or show. The chess game for instance is not clever, but comes across as if the filmmakers thought it was brilliant. After watching this film, I felt like I needed a shower or a beer. Bottom line--it’s not a terrible film. Truth be told, it’s not really all that much of anything at all.

Jerry Maguire

May 27, 2008

Jerry Maguire (1996) ****1/2

Directed by Cameron Crowe

I never thought I would have loved Jerry Maguire as much as I did! This film came out when I was in high school and along with the film came Springsteen’s gorgeous song Secret Garden. At the time, every once in a while a song from a film’s soundtrack would intermingle dialogue within the song itself. So, within Springsteen’s song, we hear lines like, “You complete me,” and, “You had me at hello.”

These lines are pretty cheesy, so I figured that the film was probably going to be a bit cornball. Tom Cruise, who has the potential to be terrible, began this film with such broad Cruise-isms that I felt dread imagining an entire movie with the character of Jerry Maguire played so unpleasantly self-indulgent.

At first, the film felt cliché and overacted. Then, one detail began to make me think that Crowe knew exactly what he’s doing—Ray’s glasses. Ray is the eight year old son of Dorothy Boyd (Renee Zellweger), a single mother who quits her job to join Jerry after he is fired for writing a memo saying that sports agents should worry less about money and more about integrity. Ray’s glasses are simply too big for his face—they look ridiculous. Suddenly, the film began making sense. I understood that the whole thing was going to be exaggerated from beginning to end.

Jerry’s rival Bob Sugar (Jay Mohr) isn’t just mean, he’s MEAN. Roy isn’t just cute, he’s CUTE. Jerry’s client Rod (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) isn’t loud, he’s LOUD. Jerry’s fiancée isn’t just mad when Jerry breaks off the engagement, she’s PISSED and actually punches him hard in the face. The love story between Jerry and Dorothy would have been unbearable in a different movie, because their love is so completely melodramatic. Yet, the broadest scene in the entire film, which is the living room scene right before the end, works perfectly within the paradigm of the entire picture.

Tom Cruise often overacts and has the tendency to come across as very mannered. Yet, here, his performance sets the tone for the rest of the film, and he is absolutely perfect. He’s allowed to embrace his natural ability to be downright irritating. Cuba Gooding, Jr. won an Oscar for this film. It’s easy to see why, because he embraces the larger than life acting required for this role. So, why has Gooding’s career gone pretty much down the toilet? Because he’s not a good actor. I haven’t seen too many other movies with him in it, but I read all the time that Gooding over and over again seems to want to prove that giving him an Oscar wasn’t a fluke. Unfortunately, in trying to prove himself, he simply gives bad performances. Rod Tidwell in Jerry Maguire was the role Gooding was born to play. Truth be told, his range as an actor is limited, but he does have an Oscar and this performance to be proud of.

The casting choices were pitch perfect except for maybe Renee Zellweger. This was her breakout film, and she has since gone on to be one of the great actresses of our time, eventually winning an Oscar for Cold Mountain. Her performance as Dorothy isn’t broad enough especially when judged next to Gooding or Cruise. Without a doubt, she’s extremely likable, but ultimately I was bored by her character. Zellweger has the capability to play larger than life as we’ve seen in both Chicago and Cold Mountain. Even her kid gets the exaggeration just right, especially in one of the funniest scenes in the film where Roy is talking to Rod on the phone.

Entertainment Tonight called this the best date movie of all time. I can see their point. I’ve never seen melodrama work this well in a film made after 1990. Jerry Maguire isn’t as funny as I thought it would be, but it was much more entertaining than I ever could have imagined. Much of the success of the film should go to Cameron Crowe, who directs it to be over the top. While I loved Springsteen’s song, I wish he hadn’t included the clips from the film. Any part taken out of context has the potential to turn people off. One might not realize how risky making Jerry Maguire was, since it could have easily become irritating. Instead, everything works on the same elevated level, giving us one of the most satisfying screen romances of the last twenty years.

Tribute to Sydney Pollack

May 27, 2008

Tribute to Sydney Pollack

Iconic film director and occasional actor Syndey Pollack died of cancer yesterday at the age of 73. The following are some of the great films he has directed:

The Firm (1993), Out of Africa (1985), Tootsie (1982), Absence of Malice (1981), Three Days of the Condor (1975), The Way We Were (1973) and They Shoot Horses, Don’t They (1969).

In the past few years, he has executive produced films such as Michael Clayton and Leatherheads. He was also a reliable go-to guy to play roles of wisdom and integrity. His last film appearance was in Made of Honor with Patrick Dempsey. He has also appeared in such films as Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut and Michael Clayton.

His great directorial achievement has to be Tootsie. Often seen as one of the three or four funniest movies ever made, it was number 69 on the American Film Institute’s 2007 list of the hundred greatest films. Personally, I didn’t like Tootsie at all, but I’m pretty much alone in that sentiment. The only other film he directed that I’ve seen was The Firm, which I remember as being well-made and interesting.

Pollack is a revered Hollywood icon and the movie world has lost a real treasure. Rest in peace Sydney.

Note: In honor of Pollack, look for a review of Out of Africa coming soon.

Zodiac

May 26, 2008

Zodiac (2007) ****1/2

Directed by David Fincher

No single director in Hollywood has more momentum and a larger teenage male following than David Fincher. He may very well be on the road to becoming one of the very great directors of our time. After Se7en, Panic Room and Fight Club, his body of work is solid and his fan base is huge. Therefore, every project he makes is met with eager anticipation. Why, then, didn’t Zodiac do better at the box office?

I have a theory, but it’s not the nicest theory in the world. I’ve never seen Se7en or Panic Room, but I’ve read a lot about them. I have seen Fight Club which is extremely violent and gorgeously shot. Yet, its story lacks depth and consistency. Zodiac may very well be Fincher’s first film that tells an intricate and fully realized story. Therefore, some of his younger fan base may have had expectations that were different than what the film delivers. That’s too bad because now I’m afraid that Fincher might play more to his more showy side as a director and less to his intelligence as a filmmaker.

Zodiac is dark and disturbing, but most of that is out of the way in the first forty-five minutes. The rest of the film becomes a police procedural surrounding the still unsolved cases of the Zodiac killings in and near San Francisco in the late 60’s and early 70’s. While there are moments of suspense and tension, it’s much less testosterone pumping than the fight scenes and the bizarre ending of Fight Club. Also, the film is close to two hours and forty minutes. It takes patience and some kind of an attention span over two minutes to really grasp this film as a whole. I can imagine many Fight Clubbers walking out of the theater bored and mad. Hopefully, they won’t take their anger out on each other.

For the rest of us who don’t hold Fincher on too high a pedestal, we can appreciate a film like Zodiac for its great performances, its engrossing investigation and especially for its top notch direction. This movie looks gorgeous. There’s a real sense of danger and grittiness that fills the screens throughout, adding to the tension and keeping the viewer unsettled from beginning to end. Take for example a shot involving the construction of a building in order to emphasize the passage of time (the film spans 22 years). I’m not sure if that was done through CGI or special effects or if it was actual film of construction, but it was absolutely amazing—shot at just the right speed to make it clear and yet impressive. I loved that sequence.

After the initial murders, the film focuses on the investigation into the Zodiac killer which is led by Inspectors Toschi and Armstrong (played by Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards). Most of the evidence comes from the killer himself in the form of handwritten letters and pieces of bloody fabric. He kills infrequently and doesn’t always follow through with his threats. The story of the killings gains quite a bit of press attention and public interest, but there’s not really a sense of ultimate terror since the murders are so sporadic. The suspect list contains up to 2500 names, but their prime suspect is a man named Arthur Leigh Allen, a suspected pedophile. Handwriting analysis first concludes that Allen isn’t the Zodiac killer, and then deemed inconclusive by a second opinion.

The Zodiac killer stops communicating and killing for three years, but San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist and puzzle lover Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) becomes obsessed with the case, much to the annoyance of his wife Melanie (Chloe Sevigny). His investigation leads him into danger when we believe more than once that he may be in the presence of the Zodiac killer.

Robert Downey Jr. plays chronicle reporter Paul Avery who follows the case as the murders are happening and knows more about it than anyone. Downey is one of today’s great actors, and he is spectacular in this role. It’s great to see that drugs didn’t kill him because he is really turning into the most interesting actor working today appearing in films like The Iron Man.

All the performances are excellent throughout, including Ruffalo and Dr. Greene himself Anthony Edwards who I’d love to see in more films. There’s been a lot of disagreement over Gyllenhaal’s acting not just in Zodiac but in all his films. While I was watching him, I came to a guess as to why so many think he is a bad actor. Gyllenhaal maybe doesn’t know his natural strengths. His puppy dog eyes and boyishness make him instantly likeable and because of these qualities, he also comes across as innocent. In a film like this, where his character starts off eager and straight edge, he overplays the wide-eyed awe-shucks nice guy shtick. I think underplaying the role would have worked better since he naturally brings a naivety to the screen. You can see that he slouches and waddles in some of the earlier scenes which do not come across as natural and actually make him almost unlikable. In my opinion, later in the film when the crime really eats away at him, he is excellent because he reaches for his darker side in his performance and since he comes across naturally good natured, it’s smart that he decided to go all out to show obsession and aggression.

The end of the story may be a letdown to some, but I think it works great with what the film is—a police investigation thriller. Since it’s based on a legendary real event, had the film gone for more graphic violence, the entire plot would seem inauthentic. Yet, Fincher really tells and shows this story exquisitely. If he wants, Fincher can continue to make ultra-violent, simple-minded films which will all but guarantee box office gold among teenage boys, or he can make films like Zodiac—dark and violent but with a real head on its shoulders. A smart David Fincher film will definitely have me running to the theater!

Lars and the Real Girl

May 26, 2008

Lars and the Real Girl (2007) ***

Directed by Craig Gillespie

Going into Lars and the Real Girl, I was intrigued by the premise and also by the general positive response audiences have had to this film. It’s about a sex doll who works as a “missionary” (he he he), and yet it has been described as an off-beat Frank Capra fable. Sex doll and Frank Capra are two things I never expected to see in the same sentence. The Real Girl, which is the general name of mix and match sex dolls available over the internet, teaches us how important it is to open ourselves up to the people around us. That’s a sweet message, and I did feel moved by the end. My problem with the film is that I believe it expects the viewer to care about Bianca the Real Girl sex doll in a similar way as the people in Lars’ life believe in her. I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t get past the fact that it was an inanimate object even as the townspeople in the film began committing to the notion that she is important because she is important to Lars.

Ryan Gosling gives an effective if not mannered performance as Lars, a deeply shy and seemingly depressed young man living in the garage of the home that was left in a will to both he and his brother Gus (Paul Schneider). Gus’ wife Karin (Emily Mortimer), newly pregnant, makes a strong effort to invite Lars more into their life and hopefully to break him out of his rut. At work, Lars shares a cubicle with a crude porn addict who tells him about this website where you can custom make a sex doll called a Real Girl. Six weeks later, we see a package delivered to Lars which is, yep, his own Real Girl named Bianca. While Lars has been petrified to go over to his brother’s house before, this time he confidently and excitedly knocks on their door to introduce them to his new girlfriend whom he met on the internet. Before they meet Bianca, Gus and Karin are thrilled because maybe this is just what Lars needs. They offer to let her sleep in their house.

Cut to one of the more awkward first conversations in film history when we see the doll for the first time. Lars is grinning, saying that she is shy, but he whispers to her and apparently hears her talking back to him. Gus and Karin are understandably freaked out and believe that Lars is insane. They decide to bring Lars (and Bianca) to the town physician/psychologist named Dagmar (Patricia Clarkson). Dagmar diagnoses Bianca with an illness which involves weekly treatments followed by a rest for an hour during which she will counsel Lars without him realizing the plan. She assures Gus and Karin that Lars is simply having a delusion and is no danger to himself or others. Her advice—go along with it.

We get a few funny scenes involving the townspeople reacting to Bianca for the first time. A laugh out loud hilarious sequence shows Bianca at church holding a hymnal. There are just about no laughs at all once everyone gets used to and accepts Bianca, since the film now turns poignant and saccharine. Tragedy strikes Bianca and Lars must begin the process of letting go. Has his delusion of Bianca helped him to realize the goodness of people, and will his relationship with her open up the possibility of Lars finding a real girl rather than a “Real Girl”?

With the exception of the inclusion of a sex doll (whom Lars presumably never actually engages in sex with), this film is all too familiar as a feel good, inspirational story of the frailty of a person won over by the love of the people around him. The movie is well-written and simple, which is refreshing. Though I didn’t laugh too often, it could easily have gone in a crude direction in order to get cheap laughs. Still, I began creeped out by Bianca and also by Lars whenever he appears on screen with it or her or whatever! By the end, I wasn’t as uncomfortable with Bianca or Lars, but I wasn’t choked up or in tears. Actually, I felt a sense of relief that Lars’ demented delusion was finally over. Unfortunately, just when I was getting comfortable with Lars again, the film ends.

Lars and the Real Girl is a good movie with an interesting premise that I think dug holes for itself that it couldn’t quite climb out of. If you cry at the end over the sex doll’s tragedy, then in one sense I’m happy for you because the movie worked on your emotions. On the other hand, you did cry over the loss of a sex doll.

Fantasia

May 26, 2008

Fantasia (1940) **1/2

Various Directors

Bottom line—Fantasia does not hold up as acceptable entertainment for today’s average filmgoer. Most Disney films will live forever because they present stories that transcend any single generation. I predict that Fantasia will become less and less significant as the years pass. In general, most children now do not have the attention span to appreciate a classical music concert lasting two hours. Because of television, the internet and yes, even movies, the attention span and memories of kids today are vastly inferior to those of children from 1940. I would even bet money that most adults today do not have the ability to focus as well as a child from back then. Since it does not have one plot connecting the entire movie, a film like Fantasia can only work if the visuals and the vignettes can capture and hold our attention.

Fantasia is a one of a kind. I can’t think of any other film (except maybe Fantasia 2000) that accompanies great music with provocative visual interpretation. This movie was made for grown up lovers of classical music. I’m certain that many children were enchanted by the film as well. If you loved Fantasia as a kid, then I argue that you must have been one exceptional youngster, because it was a chore for me to sit through.

The film is narrated by Deems Taylor in a similar way to how a classical concert introduces each song and perhaps gives either a history of the song or the plot meant to accompany it. None of these songs are presented on a literal level. Instead original stories and classic legends become animated and executed according to the style, mood and emphases within the music itself. The movie really believes that it is a concert, complete with an intermission where we get to watch the black silhouettes of the musicians warming up their instruments. If one were looking for a way to spend ten minutes pointlessly, then he or she might consider skipping right to the intermission.

My biggest problem with Fantasia was the introductions themselves. Especially in the opening number, Taylor gives away what we are supposed to look forward to and be impressed by. If I watched the opening number on my own, I would have seen that they began with the orchestra and transitioned into a pure and organic fantasy. It’s a brilliant thing to do with the song, and yet I wasn’t really impressed while watching it since I already knew what was going to be great before actually seeing the greatness myself. Fantasia would be much better had it trusted the audience to understand each visual story. Later, Taylor tells us about a battle between Satan and goodness. Watching this segment, it is so obvious that we are watching a battle between Satan and goodness—so why did the film have to tell us something we were sure to know anyway? I can understand the explanation of a song in a concert in order to help guide the imagination while listening to the music. In Fantasia, our imagination is unnecessary since the interpretation was completed by the animators and storytellers and we are forced to watch the creative results. It’s frustrating and almost oppressive that these are the images that are REQUIRED to be seen with the music.

Three songs seem to go on forever! In reality, they are all probably around twenty-five minutes long. One involves a quick history of life from its origins to the end of the dinosaurs. Another visually interprets Greek mythology complete with gods, unicorns and topless female centaurs. The third gives us a dance based on the hours in a day. Maybe a day in the world of that third song lasts 48 hours, because I felt time going very very slow watching that one. The music chosen for these were all in at least three movements, and often with classical music, the middle movements are meant to slow down in order to build up the climactic ending. The songs themselves bored me, and the images on the screen did nothing to help keep me interested.

An absolutely magical sequence, and the film’s most famous, involves Mickey Mouse using power received from a sorcerer’s hat to order broomsticks to bring water down to wash the basement for him. He falls asleep since the brooms can do the work for him, but he wakes up to find that they carried out the order to bring water non-stop which flooded the entire room. How wonderful is Mickey Mouse? From what I know, I believe this is the only feature length Disney cartoon with Mickey as a character. That scene was brilliant and funny. I hope it’s on YouTube or something, because I’d love to return to that scene and I don’t want to buy the entire movie.

Fantasia without question is an innovative movie and a singular achievement in both animation and imagination. Had I been in the mood for two hours of classical music and had I not watched this film in my apartment where there were a million other things I could be doing or watching, maybe I really could have gone along for the ride. Instead, I felt stuck in neutral, trapped in a locked car with the radio stuck on the classical station while my eyes were forced open Clockwork Orange-style in order to watch bright colorful things do stuff of really no significance.

I'm Not There

May 25, 2008

I’m Not There (2007) ****

Directed by Todd Haynes

Bob Dylan is one of a handful of living legends that continue to work and whose present accomplishments do not hold a candle to their past legacies. It would seem almost odd to have a straightforward bio-pic about Dylan’s life for two reasons. First of all, his life isn’t over yet and second, he’s led a pretty odd life. So director and co-screenwriter Todd Haynes (along with co-screenwriter Oren Moverman) decided instead to come up with a deconstructed and artsy film which never actually mentions Dylan by name. Instead, the film argues that we can get the essence of this man by splitting him up into a number of characters, each with an almost mythic quality. None of these characters alone capture who Dylan was and is, and all of the characters together probably paint too broad of a picture. The real Dylan is probably somewhere within this film, and exactly where seems up to the viewer to decide.

I’m Not There is ambitious and beautiful, though it’s kind of confusing and a little long at over two hours. We see Dylan played by an African-American boy, an old cowpoke and a woman as well as by young white male actors. His names, which I’m sure were not picked randomly and say something about each part of Dylan’s life, are Jude Quinn (Cate Blanchett), Arthur Rimbaud (Ben Whishaw), Jack Rollins (Christian Bale), Billy the Kid (Richard Gere), Woodie Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin) and Robbie Clark (the late Heath Ledger in one of his final movie roles).

The film doesn’t follow in a chronological order, and come to think of it, I’m not sure what kind of order connects all these characters, but for the most part, the film feels focused, so I’m sure the placement of scenes make some kind of sense. As you can tell, there’s a lot about the film that I did not fully grasp, and yet, I enjoyed it quite a bit. First of all, I am a Bob Dylan fan. His greatest hits album is one of my all-time favorites. While I am not extremely well versed in his life story, I do recognize him as the greatest lyrical genius in the history of Rock and Roll. His songs often feel like they are about real people and real situations, and yet they all maintain a poetic quality which allows them to be interpreted in countless ways.

Sometimes, Dylan, through the characters in I’m Not There, comes off as idealistic and other times, he comes off as superior to everyone and everything else around him. At times, the character shapes public debate, but often he is seen as almost transcending and rejecting the public forum of ideas. On the one hand, the character is the voice of a generation, and yet too often he seems like a man ravaged by addiction. One thing is consistent all the way through… none of these characters feel fulfilled and none feel a sense of true belonging.

I’m Not There varies between different styles matching each different character, making the film feel like it may have had different directors for each segment. This works brilliantly evoking the varied personas of a complicated and troubled icon. The performances throughout are impressive, though some feel more imitations of Dylan rather than embodiments.

The very best performance in the film is given by Cate Blanchett, who lost the Best Supporting Actress Oscar to Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton. Swinton’s performance isn’t in the same galaxy as Blanchett’s. As I continue to see more and more of her films, I am beginning to believe that Blanchett may be the very best living actress of our time. Therefore, I’m not too mad about her loss here. She will be nominated for and will win countless awards in the future. While her performance is one for the ages, I do have a problem with casting Blanchett in the first place. Why have a woman play the role of Jude Quinn, especially when her character is male? Dylan as a child is played by Frankiln, a black actor. This makes perfect sense because Dylan was influenced by blues music from the Deep South, so the choice of a black actor emphasizes Dylan’s soul roots. While Blanchett absolutely realizes and embodies the role, the character is referred to as a man, and Blanchett plays it like a man, and his body in his clothes looks like a man’s body. There’s no real reason to cast a woman in that role, which was distracting and makes the film and Haynes himself seem a little self-indulgent.

Some storylines and performances were more entertaining than others, which is always a danger for films that try to unify what are ultimately autonomous fragments. Also, seeing Heath Ledger really come alive in his role adds a melancholy note to the entire movie experience. I’m Not There wants desperately to be important and effective, which can also be argued were Dylan’s motives as well. Without a doubt, Dylan is a living legend, much more interesting than any film probably can be. Ultimately, I’m Not There is a very good and extremely brave homage to one of the most unique personalities of our time.

The Tonto Woman

May 25, 2008

The Tonto Woman (2007) *1/2

Directed by Daniel Barber

Short Film (35 min.)

Note: This is from a DVD I rented at Blockbuster containing all of the live action and animated short film Academy Award nominees from 2007. You can rent the DVD on Netflix or at your local Blockbuster. I found it among the S films on the New Releases wall.

With the exception of the pretty good cinematography, The Tonto Woman is pure amateur hour from beginning to end. The screenplay was adapted from a story by Elmore Leonard, and judging by the synopsis given on imdb.com, there’s a lot more backstory to Leonard’s work than shown in this film.

One of the stupidest images I’ve seen lately involves the chin of outcast Sarah Isham, who has tattoos on her face given to her by Native Americans kidnappers. An outlaw with all the charisma of a yet to be lit firelog named Ruben Vega sees her gathering water topless and approaches only to be ordered by her to leave. He instead walks up to her, puts his hand on her shoulders and whispers sweet barely anythings into her ear. I guess the scene is supposed to contain sexual tension. Well, I’m sorry, but how much sexual tension can you have when a woman looks the whole time like she just waited on line for face painting at a carnival?

Three bad guys show up, and to prove they’re bad, one of them spits. Only bad people spit right? Oooo, he must be a villain. Another character seems overly interested in Ruben’s clothes. He’s a villain too because he says lines like, “You better take off your hat. It might get dirty.” I’m laughing right now as I think back to the scene where Sarah shows Ruben that she’s interested in him by walking nude out of a lake. Following her approach, we see her standing naked with that stupid ink on her face. That’s an image worth a thousand words, or maybe just a few—HA HA HA!. The film garners into even stupider territory when her husband confronts the two of them drinking wine together.

Cornball dialogue and terrible acting make The Tonto Woman worthless. The story simply doesn’t fit into 35 minutes well at all. There’s too much happening in too little time. While I think the short film genre doesn’t work for this story, I absolutely do not advocate making this into a feature length movie with this director and these actors.

By the way, I just laughed again thinking about that facial tattoo.