Since I wasn't blogging when my Movies 2002 list was put together, I'm including it now:
The annual self-indulgence, moved back several months due to a computer crash that wiped out the original file and then, uh, something or another. Usual rules: anything seen for the first time from January 1 to December 31, 2002 is eligible. For a variety of reasons, my moviegoing was pretty limited so films that likely could have made the front list that I hadn't yet seen include: Far From Heaven, Spirited Away, 8 Mile, Audition, In Praise of Love, ABC Africa, Fast Runner, I'm Going Home, Kandahar, Russian Ark, Solaris, Adaptation, What Time Is It There, Bowling for Columbine, Esther Kahn, Punch-Drunk Love, 24 Hour Party People, CQ and the Yasuzo Masamura DVDs.
1. Ghost World (Terry Zwigoff 2000)
2. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron 2001)
3. Code Unknown (Michael Haenke 2000)
4. Gosford Park (Robert Altman 2001)
5. Unbreakable (M. Night Shyamalan 2000)
6. George Washington (David Gordon Green 2000)
7. Femme Fatale (Brian De Palma 2002)
8. A Cloud-Capped Star (Ritwik Ghatak 1960)
9. The Heart of the World (Guy Maddin 2000)
10. About a Boy (Chris & Paul Weitz 2002)
11. Kill Bill trailer (Quentin Tarrantino & anonymous 2002)
12. City of Lost Souls (Takashi Miike 2000)
Worthy: American Pimp (Hughes Brothers 1999), Baise Moi (Coralie, Virginie Despentes 2000), Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku 2000), Blind Swordsman: The Tale of Zatoichi (Kenji Misumi 1962), Changing Lanes (Roger Michell 2002), Die Another Day (Lee Tamahori 2002), The End of Violence (Wem Wenders 1997), Gods & Monsters (Bill Condon 1998), Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton 1964), Haxan (Benjamin Christensen 1922), Heist (David Mamet 2001), Ichi the Killer (Takashi Miike 2001), The Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky 1975), Reign of Fire (Rob Bowman 2002), Replicant (Ringo Lam 2001), Resident Evil (Paul W.S. Anderson 2002), last hour of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (George Lucas 2002), The Sum of All Fears (Phil Alden Robinson 2002), The Tailor of Panama (John Boorman 2001).
Crimes Against Humanity: Analyze That (Harold Ramis 2002), Auto Focus (Paul Schrader 2002), Bad Company (Joel Schumacher 2002), Big Trouble (Barry Sonnenfeld 2002), Black Knight (Gil Junger 2001), The Blackout (Abel Ferrara 1997), Clockwatchers (Jill Sprecher 1997), Cold Eyes of Fear (Enzo G. Castellari 1971), Collateral Damage (Andrew Davis 2002), Comic Book Villains (James Robinson 2002), Death to Smoochy (Danny DeVito 2002), Document of the Dead (Roy Frumkes 1989), Dracula 2000 (Patrick Lussier 2000), The General (John Boorman ), Lies (Jang Sun-Woo 1999), Men in Black II (Barry Sonnenfeld 2002), Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky 2000), The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson 2001), The Score (Frank Oz 2001), Showtime (Tom Dey 2002), Small Time Crooks (Woody Allen 2000), Spy Game (Tony Scott 2001), first hour of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (George Lucas 2002), Stealing Harvard (Bruce McCulloch 2002), Stiff Upper Lips (Gary Sinyor 1998), The Straight Story (David Lynch 1999), Thunderball (Terence Young 1965), The Transporter (Corey Yuen 2002), Under the Sand (Francois Ozon 2000), We Were Soldiers (Randall Wallace 2002), Windtalkers (John Woo 2002).
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Expectations: The new Entertainment Weekly (12/19) has a quote from Anthony Minghella on Cold Mountain that it thought worthy enough to pull into a large-case photo caption: "I feel like Michael Cimino must have felt making Heaven's Gate. I can only hope the results aren't the same."
My first thought was: Minghella wants to make a bad movie? No, really. Then it occured to me that maybe he thinks Heaven's Gate itself is bad (which it's not) and therefore he's saying he wants to make a better movie. Typing this out, I wondered if maybe he's saying hopes his film doesn't drive the studio to the brink of bankruptcy. Perhaps reading the article would clear this up but if that's what's required then this was a bad choice for a pull quote, and anyway I have next to zero interest in any of this.
My first thought was: Minghella wants to make a bad movie? No, really. Then it occured to me that maybe he thinks Heaven's Gate itself is bad (which it's not) and therefore he's saying he wants to make a better movie. Typing this out, I wondered if maybe he's saying hopes his film doesn't drive the studio to the brink of bankruptcy. Perhaps reading the article would clear this up but if that's what's required then this was a bad choice for a pull quote, and anyway I have next to zero interest in any of this.
Saturday, December 20, 2003
Bad Santa (Terry Zwigoff 2003) – This should have been right up my alley: A scurrilous black comedy with a great cast and a director with a perfect track record. But it’s hampered by a haphazard script, even worse a script with the kind of problems that could have been fixed by another draft, a script doctor, what have you. Just take the problems with the set-up. How is it that the duo have been running this scam for seven years? You’d think somebody would remember a news item about a department store robbed by a black midget, not to mention a drunken Santa. Which only brings up the question of how Willie is able to keep the Santa jobs. In the film, this one instance is explained by a weak manager and a dishonest mall security chief but even then you’d think there would have been parent complaints. And though this starts to get nitpicky, I can’t help but wonder about the elf stopping the security alarm. If there’s a 30 second window, how does he know when to start? In the opening he’s too far away to hear or see the guard enter the code.
Every film has its little goofs and whether or not they add up to what might “really� happen is pretty much irrelevant. But in Bad Santa so many other problems come up that it’s harder to ignore or justify the lapses. For instance, the bartender who is given a few lines of backstory (she has a Santa fetish because she’s Jewish?) but is otherwise purely decorative. What attracts her to a sleazeball like Willie? Apparently the answer is “just because.� Or the ending that looks like there was a desperate re-do to make it more redemptive or at least happier. Willie dying on the front lawn has a sense of closure consistent with the rest of the film but there’s a pretty unbelievable coda where he lives and goes completely unprosecuted, all done with a Billy Bob Thornton voice-over which suggests that the whole sequence was an afterthought and he wasn’t available for actual filming. (Speaking of which, the voice-over at the start of the film is an odd, beginning-writer mistake since it provides no information that’s not given elsewhere—and more logically—in the film.) What about Marcus the elf suddenly developing a bloodthirst? It comes pretty much out of nowhere and one instance relies on the security chief behaving so naively that it borders on self-parody.
A quick check of the IMDB shows that the film was written by the duo responsible for Cats & Dogs, a film phenomenally dumb and almost completely humorless even for a kids movie. So I’m guessing that there was a passable script to start but nobody took the time to make it better; there’s already enough evidence of rushed production in the finished film that suggests the whole project was hurried, possibly to meet a Christmas release date. There is some good stuff here and it’s certainly funnier than, say, The Haunted Mansion or heck most sitcoms. Which only makes the film more frustrating.
Every film has its little goofs and whether or not they add up to what might “really� happen is pretty much irrelevant. But in Bad Santa so many other problems come up that it’s harder to ignore or justify the lapses. For instance, the bartender who is given a few lines of backstory (she has a Santa fetish because she’s Jewish?) but is otherwise purely decorative. What attracts her to a sleazeball like Willie? Apparently the answer is “just because.� Or the ending that looks like there was a desperate re-do to make it more redemptive or at least happier. Willie dying on the front lawn has a sense of closure consistent with the rest of the film but there’s a pretty unbelievable coda where he lives and goes completely unprosecuted, all done with a Billy Bob Thornton voice-over which suggests that the whole sequence was an afterthought and he wasn’t available for actual filming. (Speaking of which, the voice-over at the start of the film is an odd, beginning-writer mistake since it provides no information that’s not given elsewhere—and more logically—in the film.) What about Marcus the elf suddenly developing a bloodthirst? It comes pretty much out of nowhere and one instance relies on the security chief behaving so naively that it borders on self-parody.
A quick check of the IMDB shows that the film was written by the duo responsible for Cats & Dogs, a film phenomenally dumb and almost completely humorless even for a kids movie. So I’m guessing that there was a passable script to start but nobody took the time to make it better; there’s already enough evidence of rushed production in the finished film that suggests the whole project was hurried, possibly to meet a Christmas release date. There is some good stuff here and it’s certainly funnier than, say, The Haunted Mansion or heck most sitcoms. Which only makes the film more frustrating.
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (Peter Weir 2003) - I guess the double title is for somebody thinking, "Well, I've read the first book so there's no reason to see the movie but y'know I haven't gotten to The Far Side of the World so maybe this is worth a look." At any event, it's no surprise that the film watered down the book but it is a surprise that it was to this extent. Admittedly, it's a bit tough to get much of the historical detail into a movie (and to be honest much of the detail in the novels is just decorative anyway) but the film ends up as merely a decent action film, not even as good as the barely passable Hornblower film with Gregory Peck. The characters jump this way and that, generally the way you'd expect and with the slightest hints of what's in the books. Jack is merely the stern but just commander, worldly but sentimental, while there's nothing left of Stephen's espionage activities. Inexplicably, the film has gathered rave reviews which says more about the quality of America's film critics than the film itself.
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
General Idi Amin Dada: Autoportrait (Barbet Schroeder 1974) - Given the full Criterion DVD treatment and supposedly playing in Paris for a full year, this film only raises the question "why�" Perhaps at the time there was some fascination with watching a dictator discourse on crocodiles or watch soldiers in endless parades and training exercises but, uh, so what? Someday this should be raw material for a Bruce Conner-ish exercise.
The Ring (Hideo Nakata 1998) - I'd avoided the iffy bootleg tapes for a few years and then we got a nice US DVD to cash in on the remake (at least they didn�t try to bury the original). Hard to tell exactly how this got to be so huge since it is intermittently spooky--though the video within the film is easily the best part--but director Nakata seems to stumble way too often with unnecessary shock edits (you get bigger jumps with objects entering the frame than on an edit: see Halloween or Jaws), a few severe pacing lapses and some awkward compositions. It does sort of hold together in a rickety way and the ending is a nice twist but don't ask "why" about anything or the whole structure falls down.
The Ring (Hideo Nakata 1998) - I'd avoided the iffy bootleg tapes for a few years and then we got a nice US DVD to cash in on the remake (at least they didn�t try to bury the original). Hard to tell exactly how this got to be so huge since it is intermittently spooky--though the video within the film is easily the best part--but director Nakata seems to stumble way too often with unnecessary shock edits (you get bigger jumps with objects entering the frame than on an edit: see Halloween or Jaws), a few severe pacing lapses and some awkward compositions. It does sort of hold together in a rickety way and the ending is a nice twist but don't ask "why" about anything or the whole structure falls down.
Thursday, November 7, 2002
Off to a bad start: Shari Roman's book Digital Babylon: Hollywood, Indiewood & Dogme 95 (2001). Looked like an interesting topic (well not Dogme 95) but right at the start is a "highly partisan" list of what's "influenced today's filmmakers." The problem isn't that it's predictable so much as whether any of this is really influential. Singin' in the Rain? The Foreigner? But the descriptions give no faith in Roman's abilities. A big HUH? goes to "Before Blair Witch, there was Robert Mitchum's fanatical preacher with LOVE/HATE tattooed on his knuckles." Did I miss the fanatical preacher in Blair Witch? Or the conceptual element of Night of the Hunter? But then comes "Nashville is the consummate Cinemascope movie." A neat trick since it was filmed in Panavision. Ditto for Shoot the Piano Player which is Dyaliscope not Cinemascope; possibly a minor distinction given that the aspect ratio is the same but even a low-level journalist should get the facts right. Or what about when she claims Robert Rodriguez "picked up a few tips" from Seijun Suzuki when Suzuki was practically unknown in the West at the time of El Mariachi? (Doesn't mean it's not true, just that suppositions are meaningless.) And why introduce Kurosawa by saying "George Lucas thinks the world of this legendary auteur"? Is that supposed to be revolutionary?
The rest of the book shows not only writing that aspires to be even mediocre but an editor that snoozed through the whole process. That's why chunks of text are repeated almost verbatim a few pages later or why entire sentences barely make any sense. Or why she says there are six official Dogme films about 20 pages after a list of 24 official ones. It doesn't help that Roman appears to know little about film. Why else think mentioning Murnau is "a confusing, ironic counterpoint" to name-dropping Cassavetes and the French New Wave? But then this is just a few lines after saying "No one who has a life other than the cinema [...] can even pronounce, Cahiers du Cinema." [sic to that comma.] Well I can and so presumably can millions of people in France. She also fails to point out--probably because she didn't know--Peter Greenaway misattributing a Lautreamont quote to Maupassant.
The rest of the book shows not only writing that aspires to be even mediocre but an editor that snoozed through the whole process. That's why chunks of text are repeated almost verbatim a few pages later or why entire sentences barely make any sense. Or why she says there are six official Dogme films about 20 pages after a list of 24 official ones. It doesn't help that Roman appears to know little about film. Why else think mentioning Murnau is "a confusing, ironic counterpoint" to name-dropping Cassavetes and the French New Wave? But then this is just a few lines after saying "No one who has a life other than the cinema [...] can even pronounce, Cahiers du Cinema." [sic to that comma.] Well I can and so presumably can millions of people in France. She also fails to point out--probably because she didn't know--Peter Greenaway misattributing a Lautreamont quote to Maupassant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)