So, back in April or thereabouts, Quinten Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez released their homage to the old grindhouse movies of the 70s, playfully called Grindhouse. Designed as a double bill, Tarantino's car chase flick Death Proof was preceeded by Rodriguez's apocalyptic zombie movie Planet Terror. As a whole, Grindhouse was well reviewed and did poor box office. But, here's the thing: Tarantino and Rodriguez are very talented filmmakers, whereas the makers of the real 70s grindhouse pictures were not.
So, when studios decided, in the wake of this year's Grindhouse, to release en masse the grindhouse pictures of the 70s on DVD, audiences had already received a poor introduction to the actual product. Obviously, these films are not well made- acting, directing, writing, it all goes out the window. The problem is that audiences who rent these movies have likely seen the modern Grindhouse and expect something similar.
I rented a grindhouse double feature yesterday. Very prominently displayed across the front of the box was a warning, taped on by employees at the video store: "NOT THE TARANTINO MOVIE". There is glitch number one. Number two: the movies (more accurately, the filmmakers) don't know they're supposed to be bad. So, there are a lot of people trying really hard and falling really flat. It's actually a bit depressing.
The features themselves are good for laughs, but they're not funny. They are, in point of fact, quite ludicrous. But, it's okay. We have a way in this country of looking back fondly at times that probably weren't that good. In the 40s, everyone came together and supported FDR and the war. In the 50s, families stayed together and no one got past second base without a ring. In the 60s, an entire generation stopped a war (never mind that the war ended in '73). So, it's okay. We can look back at these ridiculous B-movies from the 70s and say, "they were really only meant to be fun, not serious."
Monday, November 26, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
New Movie Review: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Sidney Lumet has directed some of the finest films of all time, among them 12 Angry Men, Network, and Dog Day Afternoon. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead may not be of the same caliber as these other movies, but it is still a damn fine film. Tense and claustrophobic in all the right ways, Lumet's crime thriller hearkens back to the kind of non-linear heist movie that Tarantino popularized with Reservoir Dogs.
Kelly Masterson's script, her first, is a masterclass, intricately weaving the details of a heist, an affair, and a dysfunctional family all into one seamless plot that never seems to wander despite taking many detours. Beginning with the ending, Masterson gives us the story of two brothers, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, who plan to rob their parent's jewelery store, but things go terribly wrong when they discover their mother working there. Marissa Tomei plays Hoffman's wife and Hawke's girlfriend. As the film builds to its bloody climax, hidden motives are unearthed and old wounds are reopened.
Hoffman is as brilliant as ever playing the smarter, more successful, more confident of the brothers. Hawke is, at times, overmatched, but there are glimpses of the potential we've known about since Training Day. However, most impressive here is Albert Finney as the boys' father and the owner of the jewelery store in question. His relentless pursuit of the robbers is heartbreaking, made all the more sad because we know how it must end.
The plot moves back and forth with details of the robbery and its aftermath shown from every possible point of view. The lightning fast edits contrast nicely with the calm steady camerawork, both of which give the film an authentic documentary style feel. The devestation we experience as an audience is enhanced by this realism and by the fact that, perhaps save for all the blood, the story could be the story of any family, even our own, that must struggle with lost hopes and shattered dreams.
See it.
Yes.
Kelly Masterson's script, her first, is a masterclass, intricately weaving the details of a heist, an affair, and a dysfunctional family all into one seamless plot that never seems to wander despite taking many detours. Beginning with the ending, Masterson gives us the story of two brothers, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, who plan to rob their parent's jewelery store, but things go terribly wrong when they discover their mother working there. Marissa Tomei plays Hoffman's wife and Hawke's girlfriend. As the film builds to its bloody climax, hidden motives are unearthed and old wounds are reopened.
Hoffman is as brilliant as ever playing the smarter, more successful, more confident of the brothers. Hawke is, at times, overmatched, but there are glimpses of the potential we've known about since Training Day. However, most impressive here is Albert Finney as the boys' father and the owner of the jewelery store in question. His relentless pursuit of the robbers is heartbreaking, made all the more sad because we know how it must end.
The plot moves back and forth with details of the robbery and its aftermath shown from every possible point of view. The lightning fast edits contrast nicely with the calm steady camerawork, both of which give the film an authentic documentary style feel. The devestation we experience as an audience is enhanced by this realism and by the fact that, perhaps save for all the blood, the story could be the story of any family, even our own, that must struggle with lost hopes and shattered dreams.
See it.
Yes.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
New Movie Review: Lions for Lambs
Redacted. Rendition. In the Valley of Elah. The Kingdom. Lions for Lambs. Grace is Gone. This year seems determined to be the year of the Iraq War film, and Robert Redford's new political "thriller" is the perfect example of what separates a good film, such as Paul Haggis' Elah, from a mediocre film. And, make no mistake, Lions for Lambs is a fantastically mediocre film.
The triple story revolves mostly around Meryl Streep as a journalist interviewing a U.S. senator played by Tom Cruise. They discuss the senator's new plan of action in Afghanistan as we the audience watch the effects of that strategy on two young soldiers trapped on a mountain top. Redford shows up as a professor lecturing an intelligent but lazy student with misplaced values. It is all handled very matter-of-factly, which is a nice way of saying that it is boring beyond belief. What we have is a story of political intrigue that forgets to be intriguing or even entertaining. And, in the absence of the former, the absence of the latter is unforgivable.
Writer Matthew Michael Carnahan takes the easy way out at every opportunity, and instead of engaging the audience in an intelligent, important conversation, he gives us a one sided lecture on righteousness and morality. The complexity of the issue is completely sapped away, and we are left with good guys on white horses and bad guys so simply drawn that they may as well be wearing funny hats. The writing in this film is so terribly pointed that no one in the audience gets to have a thought. Every idea is hammered home so incessantly that any subtlety or intelligence that may have been there is bled completely dry.
This is the first film for the new Tom Cruise-helmed United Artists, and for his first feature, Cruise picked the kind of high-minded, liberal (not usually a dirty word but here a slur), prestige picture that seems meant only to win awards. That is not necessarily a bad thing, depending upon your perspective, and this film had every chance to prove itself worthy of winning those oh-so coveted awards. However, it seems like a lot of talented people brought their B-game to a C-movie.
Robert Redford does what he can with the little he is given, but there is a problem when the best thing about a movie is that it clocks in at under an hour and a half. This picture is truly cringe-worthy. It plays like a Berkeley film student's senior thesis: pseudo-radical ideology made blatantly obvious by a lack of interesting set pieces and a lot of people shouting without saying anything. Sadly, what the whole endeavor boils down to is ham-handed propagandizing that seeks not to understand and interpret but to proselytise and convert.
See it?
No.
The triple story revolves mostly around Meryl Streep as a journalist interviewing a U.S. senator played by Tom Cruise. They discuss the senator's new plan of action in Afghanistan as we the audience watch the effects of that strategy on two young soldiers trapped on a mountain top. Redford shows up as a professor lecturing an intelligent but lazy student with misplaced values. It is all handled very matter-of-factly, which is a nice way of saying that it is boring beyond belief. What we have is a story of political intrigue that forgets to be intriguing or even entertaining. And, in the absence of the former, the absence of the latter is unforgivable.
Writer Matthew Michael Carnahan takes the easy way out at every opportunity, and instead of engaging the audience in an intelligent, important conversation, he gives us a one sided lecture on righteousness and morality. The complexity of the issue is completely sapped away, and we are left with good guys on white horses and bad guys so simply drawn that they may as well be wearing funny hats. The writing in this film is so terribly pointed that no one in the audience gets to have a thought. Every idea is hammered home so incessantly that any subtlety or intelligence that may have been there is bled completely dry.
This is the first film for the new Tom Cruise-helmed United Artists, and for his first feature, Cruise picked the kind of high-minded, liberal (not usually a dirty word but here a slur), prestige picture that seems meant only to win awards. That is not necessarily a bad thing, depending upon your perspective, and this film had every chance to prove itself worthy of winning those oh-so coveted awards. However, it seems like a lot of talented people brought their B-game to a C-movie.
Robert Redford does what he can with the little he is given, but there is a problem when the best thing about a movie is that it clocks in at under an hour and a half. This picture is truly cringe-worthy. It plays like a Berkeley film student's senior thesis: pseudo-radical ideology made blatantly obvious by a lack of interesting set pieces and a lot of people shouting without saying anything. Sadly, what the whole endeavor boils down to is ham-handed propagandizing that seeks not to understand and interpret but to proselytise and convert.
See it?
No.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)