Change Your Image
bartholomewrichards
Reviews
American Gangster (2007)
The Business Model of a Gangster
At one point during Ridley Scott's new film, Denzel as the titular gangster has to inform one of his middle-men of the importance of a brand name. The brand name in question is "Blue Magic". Heroin smuggled into New York straight from Thailand in the coffins of dead American soldiers. By cutting out the transporters, Denzel's Frank Lucas can sell this product at half the price of regular street heroin and ensure its purity at the same time. "Blue Magic, that's a brand name. Like Pepsi." This scene shows why Lucas is able to become so successful with the drug trade, it's just business.
It's not right to call this film a "Black Godfather" as some have, it would be more accurate to call it "Gangster CEO". Lucas realizes its better to sell things with a brand name rather than being a celebrity like his competitors. He skips the politics of trying to work with the mafia and goes into business on his own, which suits him. Frank Lucas isn't a politician, he's a business man. If someone owes Lucas money, he's gonna collect, and if they don't pay, they'll face the consequences; it doesn't matter if they're made men.
Lucas does his business and he stays quiet. The cops don't even know who he is or what his connections are until they see him wearing a ridonkulous fur coat to the Ali-Frazier boxing match. When they do notice him, its the beginning of his downfall. Before that, Lucas was the invisible man, he wore suits that were nice, but inconspicuous. Nobody would attack a man they can't see.
On the flip side of the coin, we got Russell Crowe (If your movie's set in the past, you best get Russell's ___). It's not nearly as interesting watching Crowe's Richie Roberts home life as it is watching Denzel's. In fact, the storyline concerning him and his wife is completely extraneous. But the sting operation he sets up with his group of honest cops makes a compelling parallel to the Rise and fall of Denzel. They both stay on the outside of their respective professions. Denzel doesn't deal with the mafia, and Roberts doesn't deal with dirty cops. In fact, Roberts is so clean, he turned in $1 million as evidence, only to become the pariah of the police station.
The film may go over the same rise-and-fall scenario as most gangster flicks, but it does it in a way that is refreshing. Frank Lucas is the "American Gangster" because he does things the American way. He takes advantage of the capitalist nature of Americans, even with illegal substances. If he had taken over Wall Street, he would have been just as successful. Plus, Denzel is the man in this film. Now how can you deny the appeal of that? My man.
bartholomewrichards.blogspot.com
Atonement (2007)
To Successfully Have A Cake And Eat It Too
Judging by the trailer for Atonement, as well as its reviews, I had this film pegged as one of those stuffy British period pieces in the Merchant/Ivory vein. Those films don't usually get awards coverage, but this one had something to do with World War II, and as we all know, awards people love World War II. Upon finally seeing the film, I was greatly surprised, not only is it captivating, but it has all sorts of narrative tricks up it's sleeve to keep the proceedings moving.
The movie begins on a bourgeois estate in England. On it live the sisters, Briony (Saoirse Ronan) and Cecilia (Keira Knightley). Robbie works on the farm as a hired hand. He does the work while the owner of the estate pays for his education. Between Cecilia and Robbie, there is a romance occurring unbeknownst to the other residents of the estate. When Briony sees something occur between them outside the window, she assumes that something occurred which did not.
This section of the film carries within it a lot of tension. Director Joe Wright fleshes out characters efficiently and makes us feel for Robbie when the police take him away. There are two events in particular that are shown separately from the perspectives of the different characters involved. Instead of crosscutting as most directors would, Wright shows these scenes one after another, building the level of suspense in each of them.
When certain further events occur, it leads to Briony to tell a lie which results in Robbie being sent to prison. The second portion of the film follows Robbie in France as he attempts to cross the English Isle to get back to Cecilia. He is given a choice between serving in France or serving his prison sentence. Upon reaching the coast of France, there is a magnificent long take which follows Robbie walk along the beach before focusing on the chaos of the moment and returning to Robbie. It lasts a few minutes and is destined to be remembered for years to come.
One thing I noticed about this film is that most of the reviews I have read seem to snub the involvement of Joe Wright as the Director. This is most recently seen in the Oscar nominations, Atonement was nominated for Best Picture, but Wright was not nominated for Best Director. What happens in this act of the film is very director driven, as are certain decisions in the first and third acts of the film regarding how the narrative develops. I was not expecting this level of maturity and style going into the film, considering Wright's only other film was the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice that I never saw (srsly, I have to read Jane Austen's Persuasion in English this year and I am not looking forward to it). If anything, this film owes more of a debt to its director than the script or any of the actors, all of which are fine, but would have failed with with a less sure hand at the helm.
The third act of the film follows Briony (now played by Romola Garai), as she faces her guilt and realizes that she was wrong. The film follows her as she tries to right about her experience and she tries to contact her sister, who estranged herself from the family after Robbie was arrested. Following this, Vanessa Redgrave makes a heartbreaking cameo as the elderly Briony, now a celebrated author.
This portion of the film also features a narrative format that is unconventional. I would be guilty of spoiling the surprise if I told you what it was now. For now, all I will say is that the film manages to have its cake, and then proceed to eat it as well. I would never have thought that an ending like this would work, but somehow, it does. I highly recommend this movie, even for people with penises. It is much better than the coverage would let you know.
Cloverfield (2008)
I'll Clover Your Field...In Bed
So I walked down to a free preview screening of Cloverfield last night. I predicted a few weeks ago that it would be a disappointment both critically and financially, but I was wrong on both accounts. The reviews at Rotten Tomatoes are quite enthusiastic, although there are more than a few detractors, and the preview screening last night had a rush line that would have filled a theatre and a half on its own, meaning it will probably be huge. In comparison, the screening for Lions For Lambs was only three quarters full, even though it was free. While there are many things to praise about this movie, I can't give it a recommendation. Beyond the gimmick of being told entirely in point of view of one of the characters camcorders, there is not much in this move that would be different from conventional monster movie, and there-in lies its faults.
The movie covers the travails of a group of 20-somethings after a Godzilla-like monster attacks Manhattan. The logical improbability of our camera-man, "Hud"(T.J. Miller) carrying around a camera for the entire night is surprisingly not as intrusive as it could be. Thankfully, the footage is regular film quality, despite the fact that it would really look more like a home video. At a few points, the other characters tell him to stop being an idiot and to put the camera down. Fortunately, he never does, or we wouldn't have a movie. This gimmick brings a sense of urgency to the film that greatly helps the proceedings. In particular, there is one scene where our heroes are stuck in the middle of an army attack that is absolutely harrowing. The gimmick also allows for a neat visual trick whilst our heroes are traveling in the pitch black of a subway tunnel and they learn how to use the night vision feature. Unfortunately, the human elements of the film don't work nearly as well as the visual.
The film begins at a party full of impossibly good-looking 20-somethings who are there to surprise, Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is going to Japan for a job. "Hud" is put in charge of getting testimonials with the camera, and he is possibly the worst camera man of all time, barely able to get anyones face on the camera. The film begins with a little self-conscious John Hughesian drama between Rob and Beth (Odette Yustman), a good friend whom he slept with about a month earlier (footage of "the morning after" from that particular event is spliced in throughout the film). Also, our cameraman has a little crush on Marlena (Lizzy Caplan, who has more than a little resemblance to Zooey Deschanel) and starts embarrassing himself as he keeps drinking. I know that this wasn't a great treatise on human nature, but it was executed with humour and the leads were suitably bland in a way that we didn't feel bad laughing at them.
Once the monster attacks the city, however, the humour feels forced as does the drama. "Hud" is the token annoying fat guy used as comic relief. He's not very funny, it's kinda like if Hurley from "Lost" was filming everything on a camcorder, if Hurley was just a little bit skinnier. When Rob decides to go back into the city to save Beth, which is the prime motivation of the plot, it just feels stupid, not heroic. It might have worked better in a conventional film, but by emulating reality, the filmmakers should have known not to try this. It immediately reveals how scripted the whole situation is. I would have liked the film better if it had just focused on the characters escape from Manhattan. It doesn't help the situation that these characters are so thinly developed that they can all be described in one sentence.
The film does have a lot of good conceptual ideas, however, including the little monsters that fall off the big guy. It never reveals where the monster came from, although "Hud" does his share of conspirasizing. Another high point of the film is when one character gets bit by one of the little monsters, it has some very interesting results. The monster, once shown, is suitably impressive, but I still wish they had shown less of it, a la Jaws.
J.J. Abrams is capable of making good entertainment, but I think he does better in a television setting. I know he's not the director, but I think he probably had a good deal of input on the film. My expectations for the new Star Trek are tempered after this and Mission Impossible: III. Mr. Abrams also seems to have a fetish for lean brunettes...with stubble. Michael Stahl-David could easily be a younger version of Michael Vartan from "Alias" or Matthew Fox from "Lost". He is also just as bland as either of them.
Still, if you're hankering for a good action movie, Cloverfield is better than most. It's only 80-odd minutes long and contains more than enough excitement for the average action-fiend. "Hud" is remarkably good at editing, often in the middle of running away from gunfire. He keeps things interesting in that away, and thankfully, the camera battery doesn't run out either.
bartholomewrichards.blogspot.com
The Darjeeling Limited (2007)
The Film Anderson
So I went out and saw The Darjeeling Limited tonight. I realize that I'm about 3 months late on this one, but it came out in Toronto around the same time as awesome looking movies like Eastern Promises and Into The Wild, so it kinda got shifted to the bottom of my list. Anyways, I liked the film, but it wasn't great. I think I liked it better than The Life Aquatic, but I can't really remember that one too well, it came out a while ago.
The film focuses on three brothers played by Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzmann, and Adrien Brody that take a trip into the middle of India on a train called The Darjeeling Limited. Wilson's character, Francis, reunites the brothers after an almost fatal motorcycle accident in order to take a "spiritual journey".
Anyways, this film is entertaining, so I would recommend it on that alone, but I think the thing that holds it back is Anderson's unwillingness to show the character's emotions. It seems almost as though he's scared of turning the film into one of those manipulative dramas, so every time the character's get into an argument, he forgoes the emotional consequences and plays it for laughs. At one point, two brothers begin to fight over who was loved by their father the most, the scene only ends when the other brother sprays them with pepper spray and the crash into the hallway of the train they are moving on.
Another problem with the film is its quirkiness for no reason. What reason is there for Jason Schwartzmann's character not to wear shoes? This particular example shows a logistical error in that there is no way Schwartzmann could have wandered India barefoot without hurting himself. Why does Adrien Brody's character, Peter, buy a poisonous snake except as a plot contrivance? Why does the luggage need to be designer Louis Vuitton in which each bag has a number from 1 to 10 on it? We do not need to see each bag in a prominent shot to tell us where we are in the plot.
The best scenes of the film are the ones where Anderson does allow the character's to show their emotions. A flashback to a scene that takes place before the brother's father's (!) funeral is a good example of this, as is the short film ("Hotel Chevalier") that serves as a prequel to this. Anderson should have more confidence in his writing, these scenes don't come across as manipulative because Anderson's writing isn't manipulative.
Beyond these qualms, the film is quite good. The music selection is awesome, as I remember it being for The Life Aquatic, and the set design of the train is spectacular. I just wish that Anderson would give that little extra oomph with the story and characters to turn the film from good to great.
bartholomewrichards.blogspot.com
I'm Not There (2007)
The Man Behind The Songs
So I illegally downloaded Todd Haynes' new film, I'm Not There, the other day. I kinda wish I had seen it in a theatre, cuz there is some amazing music at play here. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the film. The buzz around the film has mostly surrounded the fact that Cate Blanchett plays Bob Dylan, or rather, a version of Bob Dylan. But while her performance is one of the best parts of the film, it is only a portion of the film. But the buzz has been so overwhelming that I didn't realize Christian Bale was in the film until I saw him in the credits.
The point of the film, I guess, is to show the different sides of Bob Dylan through different character that each represent some part of his personality and a different phase of his life in the spotlight. Each segment has its own unique style and take on the artist. Some segments and actors are better than others. Overall, I'd say the film is worth seeing on the strength of the better segments and on the strength of the music, which is amazing. But it could've done with a shorter edit and less pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble.
The earliest incarnation of Dylan is shown through a young black boy who calls himself Woody Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin). We see him traveling the south on a box car and interacting with various hobos and families that take him in. I suppose that this represents his life before fame, where he seems to be a fake. He talks about losing his true love and losing his career to the bottle before joining the union cause, despite it being 1959. During this segment, Woody learns to "sing about his own time", which leads us into the next segment.
Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins, the introverted political "finger-pointer" who takes the folk music world by storm in the early 1960's. This segment is done in an faux 1980's documentary with Julianne Moore giving interviews as Rollins friend and fellow singer/songwriter. While Moore nails the part of grown up hippie, Bale is a little less sure. His scenes feel awkward at first as he hunches over his guitar and imitates Dylan's trademark mumble. He grows into the role and it seems less like acting later on, but I can't help but feel he was miscast. He has too much confidence and presence as an actor, it just doesn't feel right.
The "documentary" follows Rollins as he becomes disillusioned with the music business and with politics after JFK's assassination. The last we see of Rollins, he's an ordained pastor who denounces his old music as work of "the devil" and puts his songwriting skills to work singing for God.
The next incarnation of Dylan is Robbie Clark (Heath Ledger, RIP), the bad boy movie star who plays Rollins in one of his films. This segment covers his 9-year marriage to Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), which begins well and ends badly after Clark gets entangled with a co-star on one of his movies. This segment of the film is obliquely entangled to the Vietnam War, the marriage ends when the war ends. While Gainsbourg's performance is wonderful, Ledger's Clark doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to Dylan, who was never a real movie star, and never that charismatic. I suppose this sequence was meant to be seen as the era where Dylan entered the mainstream, where he was "cool". But if this is the case, I don't see why so much time is spent on the relationship with Claire.
The Blanchett sequence is the best sequence. Blanchett plays with the sexuality and gender of her character, Jude Quinn. This version of Dylan resembles the post-electric Dylan who angered his fans to the point where they threw things at him on a regular basis. Blanchett's portrayal of Quinn is not sympathetic at all. He is a cynical, drug-addled, mess of a human being, but still a great artist. This segment covers Quinn's interview with Keenan Jones(Bruce Greenwood), a British TV personality who effectively "kills" Quinn by inciting the anger of his fans who wanted the traditional folk songs and are angered by his not being the same as he was before.
This segment also covers the psychedelia of the era by having Quinn get so high as to insult all of his friends and puke at a party from too many drugs. In this state, he befriends the nihilistic poet, Allen Ginsberg (David Cross), who suggests that Quinn will never recover from passing out because dying is the "in" thing to do.
It's unfortunate that the last sequence is one in which Dylan is imagined as an older Billy the Kid(Richard Gere). One who wasn't actually killed by Pat Garrett, but remains in hiding. This is an obvious reference to Sam Peckinpah's film Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, in which Dylan co-starred as neither Pat Garrett nor Billy the Kid. There's nothing wrong with Gere's performance, but it bears little resemblance to any of the previous Dylan's and little resemblance to Dylan himself.
Bruce Greenwood returns, but this time as Pat Garrett, who represents the establishment that pisses Billy the Kid off enough to return to work. This whole sequence is too metaphorical, Marcus Carl Franklin even appears as if to complete the "circle". It especially feels false coming off the wonderful Cate Blanchett/Jude Quinn sequence.
I still give the film a thumbs up, however. The is music is all Dylan, and as you would expect, it's all wonderful. The strength of the Guthrie/Rollins/Quinn sequences make up for the shortcomings. When you have 6 actors up against each other like this, it's almost unfair. One is obviously going to come across as better than the others. In this case, it's Blanchett. saying that Blanchett is the best actor is unfair, however, as she also has the most showy character and the best dialogue.
bartholomewrichards.blogspot.com
Lions for Lambs (2007)
More Liberal BS, and I'm Not Even A Conservative
Now, I know I've been bashing Tom Cruise a lot considering I've only had this post for less than 2 weeks. I don't mean to, I actually like a lot of his films and I think we should be judging the films rather than the actor. Now, I derided this flick a few weeks ago, and I wasn't going to see it, mostly because it looked pretty bad. But, it did have a good cast and there was a free preview screening today at Innis College. I must say, this is the worst movie I've seen since being coerced into seeing Wild Hogs.
Lions for Lambs is one of the most preachy and misinformed movies I have ever seen. The writing is on a level with a Grade 11 Social Studies presentation and the actors do the best they can do with it, but even they can't save this mess. I know it sounds like I'm just saying this is bunch of left-wing liberal bullshit, but it really is a bunch of left-wing liberal bullshit. The War in Iraq is bad, oooooooh! The film has three interweaving story lines (somebody saw Crash...). One is Meryl Streep as a stereotypical liberal reporter for a fake network (CNN) interviewing a stereotypical conservative Senator of a non-specified party (Republican) played by Tom Cruise. Another is Robert Redford as an optimistically liberal professor of "A California University" (Berkeley) trying to convince one of his cynically liberal students (Andrew Garfield) to show up to class. Apparently, some universities take attendance. The other storyline is two former students (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) of said professor who enlisted and end up jumping out of a helicopter in the middle of a surprisingly snowy gunfight Afghanistan, breaking legs and arms in the process.
Considering how smart these characters are, the words that come out of their mouth are highly unbelievable. These are the sort of arguments I heard when I was working a construction job during the summer with people who hadn't read a full book since they quit high school. The conservative side of the story is supposedly presented fairly because Tom Cruise's Senator Irving admits to having made mistakes in the past. The liberal side of the story is supposedly sufficiently criticized because Meryl Streep's reporter admits that the media is a corporate business more interested in ratings than news.
Redford's Professor Miller is probably the least believable character, as a professor of political science, he apparently believes that one of the most interesting debates in his classroom was an argument over safe injection sites. Andrew Garfield's student is one of the more irritating movie character's in recent memory, but according to Miller, he's a genius because he figured out that handing out clean needles for drug users was a bad idea without doing the reading.
Matthew Michael Carnahan's writing stoops to its lowest when Ernest and Arian (the soldiers played by Pena and Luke) do an incredibly silly presentation in Miller's class in which they suggest mandatory military service after high school. The classroom then mocks them as hypocrites until Ernest and Arian oh-so-matter-of-factly show the class their orders to appear for duty. According to Miller, this ridiculous presentation was worth a B+.
The heart of the story is supposed to be Ernest and Arian's situation in Iraq under the new military plan. At least this part of the story isn't stupidly political, but we don't get to know the characters other than as pawns, so there really is no emotional stock in that story either. This film is worse than I possibly could have imagined, its unintelligent, preachy, and boring as hell. By the time the camera panned over Irving's office to show pictures of Cruise posing with Condoleeza Rice and George Bush and some promotional material from TAPS, the audience was laughing and I was as close as I've ever been to walking out on a movie.