Change Your Image
cutsman-2
Reviews
Chung Hing sam lam (1994)
Wonderful Little Film
I wasn't really sure what I was going to get before I watched the Chungking Express. The things I had read about it made it seem like a sort of Pulp Fiction in Hong Kong. The trailer cut my Miramax showed a film and was full of life and apparently dancing. But that really doesn't explain the movie in the least. Express is a film about connections and it follows two particularly baring connected connections. The first connection is between a heart broken police officer and a blonde wing wear, cocaine dealing, woman. He is struggling to get over his girlfriend whom he has been broken up with for a month. From there he meets the vigilante woman at a bar and ends up taking her room, she is in need of some good R&R. Nothing happens and she leaves his life. At the food stand he frequents a new girl has started and he is immediately enamored with her. But as we find out, she is in love with another police officer.
The story goes in a bit of weird direction here, delving into the lives of these two very lonely, sad, strange people. The police officer sits at home personifying his home attempting to connect with it on an emotional level, hoping it feels as empty as he does without a woman in his life. He talks to stuffed animals to get his feelings out and to cope. The woman, who works at the diner, becomes infatuated with him and visits his house regularly when he isn't home. There she cleans and brightens up the place. He has absolutely no idea, further proving that he is merely floating through life without a woman.
The characters are fascinating and really make the film. The young woman who works at the diner has this strange Yoko Ono look and is obsessed with American music constantly playing the Mamas and the Papas. The interactions use Hong Kong as a sort of background; each of these connections is a chance encounter for the people involved, which seem significant in the most populated city in the world. It makes the connections seem more like fate and therefore heavier. The movie has a fair bit of comedy to it but could of completely stood on it's on from the second act on. The first act isn't completely useless but is never touched on again once it concludes. Feels a bit like an anthology film at times but nevertheless a great film.
Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922)
THE Vampire Film
Vampires have come along way since the days of Nosferatu. Now they are our friends, they sparkle, and are the object of female desire. I can't imagine anyone in the film wanting to be with Max Schreck, or see him as some sort of object of sexual desire. Anyway, that is a bit of an aside, but it means that Schreck is quite effective. Actually more than effective he is terrifying. He lumbers around slowing, with his long arms hanging by his side, not speaking, praying on the living. The story follows a young man, Thomas Hutter, as he visits the castle of Nosferatu, after leaving bringing the vampire hot on his heels.
The look of the film is really eerie. It was a foggy feel to it and a camera that lingers on the subjects as they are subjected to impended doom. The lighting is rather beautiful; Schreck's shadow is cast on walls with a certain foreboding. Nosferatu's arrival brings the black plague, which sweeps through the town, wiping it out. The filmmakers do a bang up job of making the town seem empty. There are later shots of coffins at dawn slowly crawling down the streets, the dead being carried away from the town. Hutter and his wife figure out, by reading the book of Vampires how to kill Nosferatu and succeed in doing so.
This is how you make a horror film, there are no modern day jump scares, it is completely atmospheric. The viewer is placed into a town and left to watch the vampire as he wreaks havoc. There is no wink, nod to the audience. He moves slows and doesn't present much a threat but at the same time does, he is unpredictable and while he is terrifying looking, it is hard to draw your attention away from him. Horror films don't scare me and this didn't scare me either. But I can appreciate the atmosphere of the film and what the filmmakers were attempting to accomplish.
True Heart Susie (1919)
A Little Masterpiece
Usually when directors choose to make more "intimate" films, from their usual spectacles, the results are usually mixed at best. Sometimes you get something as wonderful as Punch- Drunk-Love, but other times you can get something as bad as "A Good Year" from Ridley Scott or something as hated (I differ) as the Terminal from Spielberg. D.W. Griffith best known for his huge epics takes breather here with True Heart Susie, something that is known as a Pastoral. Instead of his usual spectacles, Griffith directs an intimate script here with the precision of a master. The story follows the young love that blossoms between Susie and the boy of her dreams, William. Lillian Gish who perfectly portrays the heart brokenness wonderfully plays Susie that Susie experiences throughout the story. She sells her prize cow so that William may go to college, and while he is away reminisces about a near kiss that occurred before he left. When he returns she is ready to marry, but he is less than interested in her, instead taking to a Chicago socialite. This is where the film really picks up, Like I stated before Gish perfectly portrays the turmoil of the heart broken lover, she is doleful, always waiting for William, refusing to make a move. He is an idiot. William is introduced as a sort of humble to have what he has kind of fellow, who can't afford college without outside help. But while sympathizing with his poorer upbringing, his character is quite annoying and in the end really doesn't deserve someone as serving as Susie. There isn't a mean bone in her body, so much so that at one point in the movie she takes in William's socialite wife, after being caught in the rain. This particular instance shows the depth at which Susie's character goes, willing to risk happiness for him. Which thus brings me to another nitpick, the fact that Susie is the only developed character in the whole movie. The rest of the characters are given little to no time to blossom, most especially William and his wife. What motivates William to be so irrational and fall in love with someone who is clearly not his type? While I realize that it happens in real life, I say again, what are his motivations? He wasn't hard up to find a wife, why take to this one so fast? In speaking of his wife, the socialite who just can't seem to stop partying, is seen as just that, someone who is a party animal and not much else. D.W. doesn't take the time nor care to develop these characters, but amazingly it is rather a nitpick as it doesn't take away from the film as a whole. I love this movie and would find myself watching it again. Griffith has created a masterpiece on a small scale, backed by a fantastic performance by Lillian Gish.
Hypocrites (1915)
Heavy Handed Goodness
In the current age of cinema heavy handed, message a dozen. Usually being released right around awards season; it mixes melodrama and message into something that after watching should make us reevaluate our lives. Sometimes these can be successful to an extent, Crash, and other times completely fail, like the illegal immigrant movie Crossing Over. Both can't quite escape their own heavy-handed message. What is surprising is that Hypocrites, nearly escapes the fate, an early example of truly thought provoking cinema. Directed by Lois Weber and released to much critical rave in 1915, Hypocrites follows the parallel stories of a monk in the eighteenth century and a modern day priest as they struggle to find truth and combat the hypocrisy of society. A beautiful nude see-through woman represents truth and is the desire of the monk. He follows her around and attempts to make art out of her. It goes without saying that them monk finds God's truth in the beauty of humans, which after all we were created in his image. Once the monk finishes the sculpture of the nude woman he wishes to present it to society. Once presented the society of the day are outraged by the nudeness, afraid to see the real truth, and chose to cover it up with cloth. Discouraged the monk makes the pound statement that the hypocrisy of society covers up the truth. And there in lies the problem of the film with me. While I really enjoyed the film and especially the work of the lead Courteney Foote, I felt that it was too blatant, the imagery alone should have been powerful enough for the audience to see the hypocrisy of the truth but instead Weber chooses to explain to the audience instead of interpret. While I understand that the medium was relatively new, modern filmmakers fall into the same problems, saying to much instead of leaving anything to the interpretation of the audience. In face I would argue that it is more common today where the studios make movies for the lowest common demeanor. That problem I found with the film is a quibble I would say instead of a real problem. The cinematography is gorgeous as are the sets. The message of the movie and imagery was enough to get it banned in some places, perhaps that is why the filmmaker felt the need to particle hit the audience over the head with the message, however nearly 100 years later it is still a message that resonates. Despite the heavy handedness of it all, Hypocrites is hard not to recommend to the film buff.
Oktyabr (1927)
Even the Russians had a Montage
October by Sergei Eisenstein is one of the first films in the Russian Montage movement but neither as good nor memorable as his other Russian propaganda film, Battleship Potempkin. It shows in a sort of stylish documentary style way, the fall of the monarchy and the rise of the Bolsheviks. It is a really interesting movie to watch, mainly because it is 80 year old propaganda, but also because it is something that Americans probably don't look back fondly at. But this is painted in such a light that it is easy to support the cause, to cheer on the Bolsheviks as they raid the castle and kill those that stand in their way. The performances from the lead are all good or I guess so, it's a bit hard to gauge, as most of the extras were people actually there. Are they acting or merely just being themselves? Anyway, the movie looks beautiful and can be enjoyed on a surface level.
The problem with the film is that it would be difficult to take it in on a much deeper than surface level. A lot of the famed montage shots, where you show one thing and then another quickly as if they are related, are too specific to the time I was completely lost on nearly all the references. Also the film doesn't do the best job introducing characters as if the film was made almost entirely for a set of people that will cheer when an unnamed character is shown because they get the reference. Which I'm not sure is a fault, was Eisenstein even thinking this film would be distributed, or even still available 80 years later? October isn't the best Russian propaganda film, but I'm sure it isn't the worst. It is likely best viewed by the huge cinephiles that are studying film movements.
Nashville (1975)
A Brilliant Character Study
Nashville is most assuredly a movie you should see twice. Altman, who specializes in these wonderful character driven epics, is in top form here. Nashville follows around 20 characters as their lives intersect over a course of five days in the country music capital of the world. Some characters are only on the screen a few moments, others like Barbara Jean (Ronee Blakley), a very famous singer dealing with emotional issues, are the emotion core of the movie. Nashville doesn't sugar coat the hypocrisy of the city or the music that it creates. But at the same time, it doesn't feel like Altman is picking on Nashville, it is just a bit less clichéd than to look at Hollywood with the same film.
Which in itself is another way that Nashville is brilliant, it takes place there but the message is universal to politics as well as pop culture. We are the entertained of this nation and we are subject to only the best of the stars, not the seediness of their personal lives. Altman wants to expose the darkness that goes hand in hand with popularity but does so in a way that isn't obvious. One of the singers in the film, Haval Hamilton, sings about family when at the same time he ignores his son and cheats on his wife. The hypocrisy is subtle but still there and still revelant today as our culture is at the brink of celebrity obsession.
The movie takes all different aspects of stardom and displays them on the screen for this us to cringe at, but at the same time he isn't preaching to us. Altman isn't saying "look at these people whom you idolize" no he is establishing characters and letting the audience deal with each individually. Nashville is one of those movies that doesn't live in the era it was filmed. It will remain culturally realvant as long as there is pop culture and politics.
The Whole Shootin' Match (1978)
A Great Entry into the Regional Film Market
It's a shame that Eagle Pennell only directed two films. After watching The Whole Shootin' Match his talent is nearly palpable. The film follows two extremely likable main characters, Lloyd (Lou Perryman) and Frank (Sonny Carl Davis) who use the day to try and make money to survive. Frank is married to Paulette (Doris Hargave) who is by far my favorite character of the movie. But not to short everyone else, the main characters of the film are really well developed. Frank and Lloyd strive to rise above the life they seemed destined to lead ever since the end of high school, living the past out one beer at a time in run down bars in Austin. Paulette is a woman who knows that she deserves more but love holds her back. In a role that could really be secondary to the main characters, Pennell writes her plenty of depth, when she gets the option to cheat you can see on her face the inner turmoil and writhing that her conscience goes through.
Pennell let's the camera linger when need be, but never for too long, you get the sense that the audience is getting a peek into the life, everything is subtle. At times the script is brilliant though, but I strangely hesitated in praising it. I didn't want to assume anything was done on purpose which I realize is a slap in the face of the filmmaker, but the movie is so raw it feels like these are real people, therefore their isn't going to be symbolism in what they do. Which I would say is the ultimate compliment to Eagle.
In the end however, Shootin' Match isn't perfect. It goes on a bit long and some scenes are absolutely pointless, but that doesn't take too much away from the overall narrative. As it stands The Whole Shootin' Match is a film that stands the test of time and is a great, nearly eerily realistic character study.
Simón del desierto (1965)
The Best Half of a Film Ever Made.
Simon of the Desert is a brilliant film. I am in the minority for sure. But I live in the minority as I find little gems like this much more worth while than any mainstream movie. The director Luis Bunuel found fame early with his short film Un chien andalou, but Simon isn't that in the least. Simon finds the director much more subdued, there are no shocking scenes of violence to behold, rather he uses a moving camera and some brilliant cinematography to get his point across.
First it should be noted that this can be taken as an atheist film, but not being an atheist I find it that Luis didn't want to alienate his audience and straddles a line where both sides of the "argument" could appreciate it. Simon is a religious zealot more or less, we are introduced to him as he is standing atop a pillar, a place he has been going on six years. Why is he on the pillar? To praise God of course, and in doing so spark the faith in the townspeople around him. But the townspeople aren't as pure as dear Simon and while praising him, the townspeople are worth mocking for their ignorance. Besides the folks around him, Simon is met with the greater problem of the devil. Incarnated in a beautiful woman, Simon is tempted to give up on his practice and therefore God. This is where Bunuel balances the line so well. At one point Simon chooses to further glorify God by standing on one foot on top of the pillar, one that seems noble and above all a middle finger to Satan. But really when looking at Simon atop that pillar, on one leg, Bunuel is mocking him. Standing on one leg is completely pointless to his cause as he gets no extra "help" from God and the devil returns.
That is the message of the film, man glorifies God for what? There are no real signs that God is with Simon, although he prays to him and in the end the Devil ultimately wins. Why do something so stressful for so long if the end result is that you lose? Buneuel questions this but in doing so paints a picture of an extremely pious man that could be the poster child for any fundamentalist Christian movement. I find myself somewhere in the middle. As a devout Catholic, Simon's courage is respectable, never giving into the devil. But I can see the opposition on Bunuel's side, what is the point of it all?
8½ (1963)
The Film about Films
I'm attempting to write a review of 8 1/2 and really no words come to mind. I could go over the basic plot, but is there one? Guido is a brilliant Italian director that is struggling for inspiration for his next project. He escapes from the city, which he feels suffocates him, he escapes from his wife, whom he loves but cheats on. The escapes his producer, who is just looking out of his own interest, all while he is dealing with flashbacks to his childhood. Guido is Fellini. There is really no doubt. But while I will say I loved it and do believe it is one of the finest films ever made, I find it hard to put my finger on just what it is about the film that is so brilliant.
The story flows like a stream of consciousness, interweaving fantasy and reality. Guido attempts suicide at one point, but you don't take him seriously, not only because it is a fantasy sequence but also because Fellini doesn't present him as someone who would commit suicide, more it is Guido being over-dramatic. Which in itself is 8 1/2, a exercise in the over dramatics. Guido's life would be complete and less stressful if he could just handle himself. But he can't, he cheats on his wife, lies to everyone around him, and reminisces about childhood, apparently a time when he could just be himself and happy. But isn't that how everyone feels? I feel that way most times, remember an easier time, and this is that film. 8 1/2 reminds us of where we have been and where we are going. For the record though, the original ending on the train is a hundred times better than the tacked on trailer ending. It would have a much more organic flow to it as the finally feeling of success as you look upon everyone who has been a part of your life. I'm not sure exactly what Fellini wanted to make with 8 1/2, but he succeeded greatly in whatever it is he succeeded in.
Le quai des brumes (1938)
Oh, Noir.
I'm a rather big fan of noir. Outside of westerns it is my preferred genre of film. Maybe it's the hardboiled detective stories or the damsel in distress, Port of Shadows is a film that fills my carnal need for the darkness of cinema. The film follows Jean, a deserter from the military who arrives in a sleepy town La Havre. His goal is to leave the country but first he needs to find some civilian clothes among other things. Along the way he meets Nelly, a beautiful young woman whom he seems to fall in love with rather quick. Which is his biggest downfall and sort of a typical theme running through noir films, men who love too much too fast. Nelly is completely surrounded by men in her life. She has a boyfriend, a protector, and has interest from a local gangster. Well Jean has a something to say to all of them and doesn't waste time. Jean gets rid of the boyfriend, he hilariously rids her of the local gangster through a few slapping fights. This is a noir, but don't get me wrong, try not to laugh when Jean slaps Lucien the Gangster like a little girl. They come up with a plan to leave the country together. But of course this is noir, so the likely hood of this film ending happy isn't much of a spoiler.
The visual look of the film is really what makes it so memorable. It is a beautiful dreary port town, the fog hovers over the city with weight. The fog hides the sins of Jean and Nelly alike but adds to the mystery. Jean's character is one who is easy to sympathize with but is also quite unique from the norm noir character. He like I mentioned is quick to love. He buys a gift for Nelly shortly after meeting her and wants to be with her enough to leave asking her to escape with him. But he also is quite a tough man ready to defend her a moment's notice. His strange psyche and personality really elevates the movie to something extraordinary.
Baby Face (1933)
By God, I'll Sleep My Way to the Top
Baby Face is a unique film. It came out in the pre-code days of Hollywood where the censors were a little more lax. It follows a woman who gets just some really super advice to sleep her way to the top. She starts out I presume as a prostitute working for a speak easy, but is told by her Nietzsche reading friend to not work and rather have a man take care of her, cool. She moves to New York and the first building she sees she wants to work at the top of it. Of course you can't when you're a woman during this era, so she decides to follow the advice of her elite friend and sleep her way on up. I wonder if the building she sees, long and erect is how she sees success, that she must conquer it to be successful, a phallic symbol of sorts, but I digress. She starts fast; to even get an interview at the business she must sleep with a recruiter I suppose. From then on she encounters different men, including a young John Wayne, on her way to the top. Literally.
Enough with the double entrendres I suppose, anyway the movie takes a bit of a dark turn towards the end, where there is a suicide but at that point it's just kind of silly. Barbara Stenwyck is pretty good in the title role of Baby Face, but the script doesn't do her justice. The story it is trying to tell isn't really one that deserves to be told. The characters are all one-dimensional and not that much happens once her legs open. It's a bit shocking to see all the references to sex in a movie from the 30s but it would be a soft PG-13 to today's audience. As it stands the film is an interesting look at pre-code Hollywood, but not that much else. But innuendo is fun and so is the film.
Lost Boundaries (1949)
Could be the First Wayans' Brothers Comedy
Oh my. Where to start with this one? This isn't really a terrible movie by any means. I would say it is well acted. Sure, it's well acted. But it is completely ridiculous. Apparently there was a family that lived up North that was very light colored African Americans. To get ahead in life they passed themselves off as whites. I should establish now I suppose that my main problem with the movie would have been the premise if it wasn't a true story but as it stands my fall back is that it is much too heavy handed. Mel Ferrer plays the father of this particular group of outsiders (is that racist?) he sets the standard for the lie. Upon graduating from medical school, he can't seem to get a job; he is neither white enough, nor black enough. What a pickle. After a chance encounter with an old white man to prove how good of a doctor he is, he gets a job in a sleepy northern town. It isn't long before the whole town loves the man (despite the creamy white color of his skin) and they accept his family. He has two, by God, perfect children, good in school, popular, blah blah. No one can apparently see that they are black, even themselves for the young girl is a racist.
That last paragraph was a bit sarcastic. It is probably due to the casting. This story could have been one ripe for the screen but since they cast white actors it stands as completely unbelievable. I could not wrap my head around the fact that these people were supposed to be African American. It only gets worse when the son, attempting to find his new "identity" ventures to BROOKLYN and witnesses a brawl WITH A KNIFE between two fellow African Americans. I capitalized there because of the stupidity of it all. What was going through the characters mind, "let's go to the concrete jungle and experience my heritage"? No, go visit an older African American and get his perspective. The movie culminates at a church where the pastor speaks of acceptance to the horrible shock that the family is black. I know that you should put yourself into the time period to appreciate the film, watching 60s sci-fi, don't judge the special effects. But Lost Boundaries doesn't hold up, whatsoever, as it stands it's a time capsule to a movie past, not worth revisiting.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
THE Action Epic.
Is there any movie more epic than this? Clocking in at three and a half hours, Kurosawa's tale of Samurais assisting a "helpless" village is a masterpiece. The story itself is rather simple but doesn't lack depth. It serves as an entrance into the lives of the people you will spend the next 3 and 1/2 hours with. A village of farmers is continually attacked by a group of bandits, robbing them of their crops. The villagers get the idea to hire Samurai to protect them from the bandits. They cannot pay much, a place to stay and a bowl of rice a day, but a group of Samurai still go to help the village, seven to be exact. There they create plans of attack and train the villagers. When the bandits do finally show up it is a battle to the death. Now there is a bit more going on here, but if you're going to invest in the film you don't want to be spoiled.
The story is like a classic western, which of course we all know it was remade into The Magnificent Seven, but unlike earlier Westerns during Hollywood's golden age, this Samurai's have depth. Each individual warrior has his own motivations, personalities, and outlooks on life. Which is important because this film is rather pessimistic. There is an air of distrust that lingers throughout the movie, a feeling of unwelcome from both the villagers and the Samurai. This was probably on purpose as Kurosawa was likely showing the strains in class during that era.
The action sequences in the film are outstanding; they have a kinetic energy to them but flow. Flow like poetry, unlike the jarring jump cuts of today's films, Kurosawa lets the camera linger and you get the sense of training and mastery of the Samurai. One slight problem is that the film's best action sequence is in the first thirty minutes, leaving you waiting the rest of the film for a sequence that matches it. Overall, there really shouldn't be any doubt that you need to see this movie. If you love film, you must watch Seven Samurai.
North by Northwest (1959)
The Best Hitchcock Film?
It's touch to pick a best Hitchcock, because you have to look at the whole spectrum of films and categorize them. You have your thriller films, smaller films, and mainstream ones. Or at least that is how I could divide them. North by Northwest would most certainly belong in his mainstream films category and would most certainly be his best easily within that respective category and possibly his best film period.
NXNW finds Hitchcock at the top of his form. No doubt he showed early technically impressive signs, most especially with the film Rope, which was made up entirely of two takes. Here though Hitchcock is at this most confident, his most steady. It's had to imagine the story came from the idea to use a bunch of different set pieces because the story is one of the best parts of the movie. Again he uses his staple of mistaken identity, but Cary Grant goes above and beyond the call of duty being particular awesome as Roger O. Thornhill a New York Mad Man. A run though of the plot would be a little dumb at this point, but just know that Grant gets framed as a murderer and has to track down the killers and clear his name. Along the way we runs into Eva Marie Saint, who may or may not be someone to trust. The two share some real chemistry, which sort of grounds a film that is a bit ridiculous (in a good way). Some may say that it is a little long, but the pacing is perfect, there is never really a dull moment, plus wasn't that abomination Transformers 2 longer, and everyone seen that.
The film is full of iconic scenes, the crop duster scene, Mount Rushmore, etc. What is most interesting is that I've heard of comparisons of this to James Bond, but the first Bond film didn't come out till the following year. North by Northwest may very well be Hitchcock's best film, if not it is right up there with Vertigo and Rear Window. I think the fact that he made those three brilliant films alone amazing enough.