Entry#197: Burn After Reading

Trailer

Back when I first got into film, I used to idolize the Coen brothers. They were the epitome of cinema, to me, and could do virtually no wrong. It wasn't until later, when I became familiar with great directors like Kubrick or Bergman, that I realized that the Coens weren't exactly fantastic. They've made plenty of great films, but they've also made their share of mediocre to average stuff. Burn After Reading would have to fall under the category of their lesser films. It's still pretty decent, thanks to the Coens' masterful writing skills, but the characters are only viewed from a cold distance.

The film follows an ensemble cast of middle-aged morons that all come from completely different backgrounds. Some are womanizers, some are shallow fitness trainers, and some are ex-government agents. Under normal circumstances, these people would have never met each other. However, as this a film, a MacGuffin arrives to unite our cast - the former agent's encoded memoir. When the disc containing this memoir is found in a local gym, trainers Lynn and Chad believe that the disc contains classified government secrets. The two decide to use the disc as blackmail while Cox, the former agent, can only wonder what's going on. There are plenty of other plot threads as well, such as Mrs. Cox's affair with a bumbling treasurer and Lynn's plans to re-invent her body through several expensive cosmetic surgeries.

The film's best feature is its well-written screenplay. The Coens have always been known to write fascinating characters and sharp dialogue, and this film is no exception. The dialogue is clever in its humor and showcases the personality of each character. Not only that, but the dialogue is also very realistic and gives a sense of depth to the film. Each cast member certainly has a vibrant persona and the Coens know how to display that with their well-crafted and eccentric dialogue.

Now, while the characters are original and fascinating, we don't really get to connect with any of them. The film views its characters and plot very coldly. So coldly, in fact, that it feels like the entire film is trying to be distant from the audience. We see these characters interact with each other and their environment, but it's the equivalent of watching bizarre strangers at the airport. They look and sound interesting, but we don't know them at all.

The cinematography makes up for it (a little bit). The camerawork is smooth and transitional, as a good film should be, and the Coens' typical talent can be seen quite clearly. The image looks nice as well, though I'm unsure how I feel about the use of the RedEye camera. The quality is very high, yes, but it seems to lack a colorful lifeness to it. This could've come in handy in a film that feels as distant as this one. Regardless, the cinematography is impressive and is visually-pleasing.

It should be noted, however, that the film might be the Coens' smuggest movie to date. They came off as slightly smug in films like Raising Arizona and Fargo (to an extent), but this film takes the cake. It took me a few days to realize this, but it's obvious when you give the matter a bit of thought. According to the film, everyone is an idiot. That's the basic premise and theme of the movie. Government officials, fitness gurus, middle-class citizens - you name it. The Coens are capable of poking fun at everybody except themselves. Women are only focused on physical beauty, apparently, but the intellectual isn't ever wrong? I call shenanigans. The film's smugness is off-putting and really dampers the film. It doesn't make much sense to me either, as the Coens' succeeding film - A Serious Man - is very emotionally raw and thought-provoking.

There are some good elements in Burn After Reading - clever writing, good cinematography, fascinating characters, etc. However, the film's lack of warmth and smugness really hurts the overall film and it lowers the film's quality to a status of "decent".

Entry#196: The Other Guys

Trailer

2010 hasn't been a good year for movies. We've gotten a few gems (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Toy Story 3, etc.), but the majority of the films that have been released this year have ranged from poor to absolutely terrible. The constant barrage of terrible comedies has been even worse; I can't tell you how many times I've heard people talk about the latest star-driven comedy and then forget about it in the next month or so. It's irritating that terrible and forgettable comedies can make so much money while original and creative films, such as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, are left to virtually bomb at the box-office. I could spew a list of the worst offenders, but I'm not that angsty and I know that there are some good sleeper hits out there. The Hangover and Date Night, for instance, would be two great examples of a sleeper-hit comedy (or a comedy that's better than it's made out to be). The Other Guys, directed by the man who brought us Talladega Nights and Step Brothers, however, lies in-between the forgettable and the sleeper-hit. While it's not a *terrible* movie, The Other Guys is still a pretty lame and formulaic comedy.

The film follows two paper-pushers in the NYPD, Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz, that have completely opposite personalities. Whereas Gamble's content and satisfied with his small work as an "other guy", Hoitz has bigger dreams of becoming a great 'action cop' like his superiors, Danson and Highsmith. However, due to an incident during the 2003 World Series, it's not likely that Hoitz will be getting any action anytime soon. Instead, the partners are constantly ridiculed and pranked by their co-workers and neither of their opinions are taken that seriously. Just when things seem hopeless for the duo, they stumble upon a mysterious conspiracy involving a prominent multi-billionaire and a variety of large-scale criminals. As nobody in the NYPD believes their story, it's up to the clumsy duo to take matters into their own hands.

It's an interesting take on the 'buddy-cop' genre, but the writing's just too poor to carry the subject matter. The humor, like in many of Ferrell's films, feels very forced. Nothing feels natural or clever - the film shoves its jokes down its audience's throats. "Get it? Peacocks can't really fly!" That was just embarrassing to watch. Not ALL of the jokes are bad, but most of them are either forgettable or just bland. It's like watching the class-clown play around with jokes until he finds something funny to work with. Maybe I'm just biased against Will Ferrell, but the humor in this film is very hit-and-miss and the misses happen quite frequently.

Don't even bother expecting characterization. The characters are just huge caricatures of the various roles of the 'buddy-cop' genre and only serve to crank out as many jokes as possible. They're shallow, bland, forgettable, and are completely overshadowed by the the actors that portray them. I'm not saying that comedies should put characterization at the top of their priorities, but films like The Big Lebowski and Duck Soup have proven that character-driven comedies can be quite great. Even the smaller roles in those films added to the overall quality (Donny in The Big Lebowski or Mrs. Teasdale in Duck Soup). Sadly, though, most comedies these days only seem concerned with making money and cranking out lowbrow humor for the masses.

Still, I suppose this isn't a *terrible* film. While most of the humor's either forced or bland, there are some humorous sequences or running jokes within the film. The running joke with TLC songs/lyrics, for instance, had me chuckling in amusement. There were a few other funny lines in the film as well, but none of them were uproariously hilarious. Just mildly amusing. Not only that, but the production values in the film look pretty nice. The cinematography looks slick, the costume design is decent, and some of the action sequences in the film look pretty tight. The shootout at the business meeting, for instance, looked really sharp on the big screen.

There isn't too much else to say about The Other Guys. It's got some funny moments in it, but it's still a subpar comedy with bland characters and forgettable jokes.

Entry#195: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Trailer

Shane Black probably isn't a name that most movie-goers know about. His most well-known script, Lethal Weapon, however, is a gemstone in any "macho guy"'s movie-watching. While Lethal Weapon brought a lot of attention to Black, along with his script for the cult classic Monster Squad, his later films would prove to be quite poor, both critically and financially. As Black slipped into obscurity, he continued to pour out various screenplays in hopes of achieving his previous success. After multiple turndowns, though, it looked like things wouldn't ever turn up for him. It was when Black was pitching for his latest script, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, that he was able to get the attention of producer Joel Silver. Ironically enough, Silver was the producer who gave the thumbs-up for Black's earlier success, Lethal Weapon. This time around, however, Black was allowed to direct his own screenplay. The result? A hilarious and fun film that balances both an interesting narrative and a clever satire of the noir genre.

The film follow a petty thief, Harry Lockhart, who's just escaped the scene of his latest robbery. On the run from the police, Harry ducks into a movie audition for a hardboiled crime film and, quite humorously, ends up impressing the film producers. The producers hire him as the lead and fly him to Hollywood to shadow Detective Perry van Shrike, a gay private investigator who's been enlisted to help Harry prepare for his role. Things get complicated, however, once Harry meets up with his highschool sweetheart, Harmony Lane, and accidentally becomes involved in a conspiracy of murder and kidnapping. As the events of the film twist and interweave, Harry, Perry, and Harmony team up to investigate the hidden conspiracy.

First off, the film definitely has a wicked sense of humor. The jokes are clever, the dialogue's very witty, and the film seems to be nothing but non-stop hilarity. The writing's top-notch and boosts the hilarious interactions between the main characters of the film, Harry and Perry. It's hard to really describe the humor behind the relationship, as most of it derives from situational comedy, but I can guarantee that it's a treat. It's so fast-paced and electric that, at points, it's difficult to fully appreciate how rich the humor is. Not only that, but the film perfectly balances an interesting narrative while subverting the cliches within its' narrative's genre. The film pokes fun at the 'typical mystery' story and isn't afraid to point out the sillier aspects of mystery stories. For instance, why would a lone henchman shove a gun at someone's back when that person, usually the protagonist, could turn around and whip away the gun? Or, why does a main character always seem to survive a shootout? The film doesn't mess around with any gags or cheap laughs - it's completely fresh and the characters are so well-written that it only enhances the humor.

Speaking of which, the characters are really well-rounded in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. They're interesting, likable, and we're given plenty of time to get to know their quirks, styles of humor, etc. While the film is concerned with story, its characters are the true focal point of the film. Harry, for instance, is the lovable (yet bumbling) rogue and constantly screws up Perry's investigation by trying to act like the 'cool guy'. Accidentally shooting people in the face, claiming to be a real-life detective, and urinating on corpses are all examples of Harry's hilarious actions. I could talk about the other characters, but the film exists for a reason. The point is, though, that the characters are the highlight of the film.

In terms of cinematography, the film looks really nice. The camerawork's aesthetically pleasing and definitely captures that noir/neo-noir feel that the film's going for. Not too much else to say about this aspect. It looks great and the use of lighting is particularly stylish - what more could you ask for?

If I had any problems with the film, though, they'd lie with the film's opening. It was a nice introduction, but it seemed to be a bit clumsy in its execution. Perhaps if the narration wasn't so heavy-handed then I might have liked the opening of the film a bit more.

Still, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a hilarious film. It's got great characters, a sharp sense of humor, and plenty of memorable moments. A very fun film for both noir-fans and people who just like entertainment.

Entry#194: I Sell the Dead

Trailer

Ya know, I've always found comedies to be pretty difficult to write about. Unlike most films, which usually require some form of analysis and thought, comedies are very simple and very easy-to-read. In other words, there isn't usually too much to say about comedies other than "that was funny" or "that wasn't funny". Even then, everyone has a different style or taste in humor, so you're very rarely going to find a comedic movie that everyone loves or that everyone loathes. Not only that, but it's even more difficult to write about the background of a film that contains very little background to begin with. The only interesting thing that I can think of is that the film's the directorial debut of Glenn McQuaid, who previously worked as a production specialist on Ti West's indie-horror flicks. Still, I'll try my best to write about this unique horror-comedy, I Sell the Dead, that blends together a wry sense of humor with gothic-horror imagery.

The film follows the lovable scoundrel and local "ghoul", Arthur Blake, as he's awaiting his impending death sentence at the guillotine. With only a few hours to spare before his execution, Blake recounts his life story to an inquiring mind, Father Francis Duffy. Beginning with his start in graverobbing and ending with how he became sentenced, the film follows Blake and his fellow "ghoul", Willie, as they encounter various supernatural creatures in 19th century Ireland.

As a fan of old-fashioned horror, I really enjoyed the creativity and nods toward the old gothic-horror stories that I love. Unfortunately, we don't really see too many filmmakers exploring this kind of horror anymore as it, sadly, sells quite poorly. Instead, we're given nothing but terrible remakes, choppy sequels, and films that rely solely on either the gore factor or the "jump" factor. Though the film's far from perfect, I was impressed with how the filmmakers were able to blend a wry sense of humor with the dark and forboding lore of gothic-horror. I don't wish to spoil any of the humor, but I will say that the sequence involving the vampire was a treat to a horror aficionado such as myself. It's a very creative film and it should definitely please any fans of old-school horror.

As far as characters go, the film's pretty good. Though the supporting cast contains nothing but flat characters, our leading characters - Blake and Willie - are a likable pair of protagonists. They're the deepest or the most well-rounded characters, but I've found that comedies deserve a bit of slack in this department. I'm not excusing poor writing, mind you, but a creative and a funny film doesn't necessarily need "great" characters. Either way, Blake and Willie are pretty well-written and they're definitely very fun characters. Whether they're fighting over alien corpses or making a few subtle jokes, the main characters are interesting and provide a source of  entertainment and fun.

My major gripes with the film, however, lie with the ending. The last twenty minutes of the film, to me, just go completely downhill. It's nowhere near the level of humor and creativity as the film's first act and it seems the screenwriter had no idea how to finish his concept. I slightly blame the poor ending on the introduction of a useless romantic interest, but I digress.  The ending's gimmicky and just plain unenjoyable when compared with the rest of the film.

Also, though the cinematography looks pretty good for the most part, there are some instances that just kill the verisimilitude  of the film. A cinematographer's job is to 'be invisible' or to make everything onscreen look natural. However, there are literally moments in the film where *anyone* could point out the green screen or the CGI - it's that obvious.Overall, it's a bit iffy. It looks good at some points, but it looks downright awful at others...

All in all, though, I Sell the Dead is a fun little film. If you can overlook the bad ending and skecthy visuals, you'll find yourself with a quirky and creative comedy that successfully combines the macabre with the humorous. It's not a great film, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in order to be a fun film.

Entry#193: Letters from Iwo Jima

Trailer

Though the film, along with its companion piece, Flags of Our Fathers, was released waaaayyyy before I was into film, I certainly remember the amount of hype surrounding the release of Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. The film became acclaimed and popular for a variety of reasons, one of which was the fact that it was one of the few films to portray WWII-era Japanese soldiers in a sympathetic light. Beforehand, most films either downplayed or demonized the Japanese during World War II due to events such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor and, frankly, because it was an age that most people would like to forget. Especially when considering Japan's current friendly relationship with the United States. Regardless, Clint Eastwood surprised audiences everywhere when he released two films that showcased both sides of the battle of Iwo Jima. Flags of Our Fathers, which showcased the American side, only got mixed-to-average reviews while the fresh Letters from Iwo Jima, which showcased the Japanese side, got glorifying reviews. Does this mean that Letters from Iwo Jima is truly a fantastic film? Or, did most critics praise it simply for the fact that it showed a new side of World War II? I'd say it's probably a mixture of both. While it's not great, Letters from Iwo Jima proves to be a really good film with a great sense of atmosphere and cinematography.

The film follows two Japanese officers, Lt. General Kuribayashi and Private First Class Saigo,  as they prepare for a virtually impossible battle against the Americans at the island of Iwo Jima. Without naval or air support, morale is low among the soldiers and many believe that the battle will end up being a suicide mission. Regardless, though, Lt. General Kuribayashi is determined to fight to the death in order to protect the innocent lives of Japan for as long as possible. During the 'silence before the storm', we follow the Lt. General and Saigo, a simple baker enlisted into the army, as they mentally prepare themselves for the upcoming violence by thinking and writing to their respective families. Once the Americans arrive, however, the film becomes much darker, bleaker, and filled with a sense of futility and despair.

First off, the cinematography looks great. The film has a nice sepia-like tone, giving it a historic feel to it while simultaneously not diluting the emotions of the characters and the mood of the film. It's not *exactly* sepia, but it's a sort of mixture between dark green-lenses and brown-lenses. That's not important, though, as it's the look of the film that really matters. It's got smooth camerawork and, as an aspiring filmmaker, it was cool to notice the techniques that Eastwood used when shooting the film. They're standard issue, more or less, but they're effective when used correctly. The multiple suicide sequence, for instance, was really heavy-hitting thanks to the dark subject matter of that scene and the use of cinematography. Overall, it's definitely a sharp-looking film.

As for atmosphere, the film's just as good. Due to the use of dark colors and landscape, the film gives off a feeling of isolation and entrapment as we watch characters run through caves, brush, and other enclosed spaces to fight a 'faceless' enemy. It's definitely suspenseful and really adds to that feeling of hopelessness, especially when we see the American freighters closing in on the island of Iwo Jima. To add to the suspense of the incoming danger, we're subjected to witnessing many Japanese soldiers commit suicide out of a misguided sense of honor. It's some pretty intense stuff, and the first time we see it may be the most haunting moment in the entire film. Though the film's not perfect, I can say that I relished in the film's dark and tense atmosphere.

It's the characterization, though, that proves to be the film's major flaw. Though the characters are relatable and emotionally-investable, we're detached from their overall existence. We see the characters' actions, yes, but we never really get to know any of the characters on a deeper level. They exist for the sole purpose of showcasing the story of Iwo Jima and the historical events that connected it with the results of World War II. Saigo, for instance, was a likable lead, but I can honestly say that he didn't really have any outstanding character traits. He was just...there. He's decent enough to keep me interested, but he's an otherwise fairly forgettable character. The same can be said of virtually the entire cast. The dialogue's pretty well-written, though, and the script is able to churn out a few heartfelt speeches from the Japanese officers. However, the overall characterization is only "decent" at best.

Though some parts of the film are a mixed bag, such as the characters and the stagnant ending, Letters from Iwo Jima is still a really good movie. The visuals, atmosphere, and historic connections definitely make it worth watching at least once.

Entry#192: Breathless

Trailer

Man, people aren't kidding when they talk about the greatness of Jean-Luc Goddard's Breathless (or A bout de souffle in its original French). I'm only just becoming familiar with French New Wave, having previously seen François Truffaut's Jules et Jim, but I'm always intrigued and fascinated by the style whenever I watch films of this nature. There's a definite sense of realism and humanity behind these films but, at the same time, the "unreality" and "magic" of cinema is just as important to the themes and characters. Realism and "cinematic magic" are, somehow, able to co-exist and mingle together very well in these stylish and well-made films. So far, I haven't seen a French New Wave film that I haven't loved. Jules et Jim was a great film and Breathless was, frankly, a tremendous film. Not only that, but many of these types of films (especially Breathless) helped pave the way for filmmaking as we know it. This film, for instance, introduced "jump-cutting" into film editing and reinvigorated a sense of humanity and emotion in mainstream films. The list of influences and those who were influenced is countless. To this day, the films still ring with a creative sense of style and a reverberating method of storytelling.
  
Breathless certainly doesn't waste any time with introduction. From the get-go, we're thrown into the lives of Michel Poiccard, a petty young criminal and Humphrey Bogart wanna-be, and his American girlfriend, Patricia Franchini. Both individuals are amoral, self-seeking, and bohemian figures in a degrading society that has a very low opinion on...well, virtually everything. They exist to steal, trick, and simply enjoy their lives. They're both hedonistic yet charming, in a scoundrel-like sort of way, characters. Their usual on-again-off-again relationship is affected, however, once Michel kills a police officer that was trailing him. With the authorities hot on his trail, Michel spends the rest of the film trying to convince Patricia to run away with him to Italy while attempting to collect on a large amount of money that'll allow the characters to flee the country.

If anything can be said of the film, it's that it's got a great sense of character and style. The characters and the script in the film are just fantastic. Despite the lack of an introduction, we get to know the main characters of this film very well thanks to the many sequences we spend with them. Whether they're hiding from the police or just talking about overly-dramatic facial expressions, these are two characters that seem like real people. At the same time, though, they still have the surreality and charm that most great fictional characters have. Michel may be a petty criminal, but he's definitely not without a sense of class. Capped with a fedora and always accompanied with a cigarette, Michel evokes the nature of the characters of the noir films he loves so much. The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, They Both Fell Together, Casablanca, etc - all are Humphrey Bogart films that are slyly referenced to in the film, and their recollection allows us to connect these mysterious detective/criminal types with Michel's character. At the same time, though, the film's so deep that it's hinted that this "badboy" persona is just a facade. That, in actuality, Michel is just a frightened youth in Paris that uses the style of his hero to make himself feel secure. Whether or not you believe that, though, depends on how you view this incredible and entertaining film. Patricia's just as deadly, if not more so, than her French boyfriend. She uses her co-workers and bosses to gain a higher place in her work, admits to sleeping around with plenty of men, and isn't afraid to take dangerous risks with her life and her relationships. Not only that, but she does all of these things in the guise of a "sweet, little American girl". Again, whether or not she's evil or confused solely depends on the viewer. Either way, though, the script and characters are so fantastic that it's simply fun to delve into and evaluate the characters.

Moving on, though, the film has an excellent sense of style and cinematography. It’s ironic as well, as Jean-Luc Goddard actually didn’t intend for these visual cues and styles to become popular or innovative. The fluid and fast-moving camera, for instance, is actually a result of the fact that the crew couldn’t afford a film dolly. Because of this, Goddard instead used a wheelchair to maneuver the camera and cameraman around during shooting. It looks great, though, as the camera still looks slick to this day and the framing looks wonderful. As for the jump-cuts, those weren’t intended to be experimental either. Because the film went over the time it was allotted, Goddard was asked to cut the film down a bit. Instead of cutting whole sequences, however, Goddard cut bits and pieces to create shots that “jumped” from place to place. This was a great decision on Goddard’s part as cutting out a sequence of this film would be the equivalent of sin. The jump-cuts add to the experience and the look of the film. Speaking of looks, I’m convinced that the film was going for a sort of neo-noir style. It didn’t use the dark shadows or silhouettes that previous film noirs were known for, but the character types and themes are all there. The cynical outlook on life, the femme fatale, the focus on crime and the police, the style of clothing – it fits the bill of a noir film.

The film’s nearly perfect as it’s so artistic yet entertaining at the same time. Sadly, though, it’s not as perfect as I’d hoped it been. The one flaw that deters this film for me – the *one* flaw – is Patricia’s involvement in setting up the very ending of the film. I understood and appreciated how the film ended down to the last frame, but how it got there was kinda iffy. I won’t reveal spoilers, but it just seems like a cop-out as Patricia’s actions never suggest what she’s going to do that moment. Her explanation, if it is a cry of confusion, just felt uneven to me. Still, that’s nitpicking when compared to the rest of the film.

Breathless is a simple yet superb film. Its great characters, wonderful sense of style, and terrific writing make it a fantastic landmark in cinematic history.

Entry#191: Kick-Ass

Trailer

I'll admit that, when the trailer was first released, I was pretty interested in seeing Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Stardust)'s adaptation of Frank Miller's Kick-Ass. Though I wasn't familiar with the comics at all, I'd heard that the series was meant to be a satire of Generation Y and our current love for the "realistic" superhero genre. It's an interesting concept, that's granted, so I had planned on seeing it once it was released in theaters. For many reasons, though, I never got around to watching it in theaters. I mostly blame my loads of schoolwork and plans, but I digress as it didn't really bother me that I missed the film. Now that it's out on DVD, though, I finally got a chance to sit down and watch this 'satire'. Based on my controlled sense of hype for the film, it's only ironic that I actually ended up disliking Kick-Ass.

The film follows a comic book geek, Dave Lizewski, who wonders why nobody's ever tried becoming a "real-life superhero". Deciding to give a shot at it, Dave dons a green leotard and calls himself "Kick-Ass", a crimefighter-for-hire who takes "requests" through his Myspace profile. His first attempt proves to be bittersweet, though, as Dave gets completely beaten up by two local thugs but, after being hospitalized, is provided with enough metal in his skeleton that he can barely feel pain. With his new endurance, Kick-Ass soon becomes an internet phenomenon that catches the attention of both crime lords and the older "real superheroes", Big Daddy and Hit-Girl. The rest of the film follows Dave as he's pulled into a convoluted tale of vengeance and violence.

The concept's pretty interesting so it's a real shame that the characters are so poorly developed and written. Because of the poor dialogue and screenwriting, we barely get to know any of these characters on a deeper level and, thusly, they become very predictable and flat characters. Dave's geekiness is displayed as part of his character, yes, but that's only a character *trait*. What separates him from the likes of other geeky characters in fiction? Virtually nothing. He's flat and generic, and those are words that shouldn't be describing main characters. Heck, the entire cast is pretty flat. They're entertaining to watch, I suppose, but we only get to know people like Chris (Red Mist) or Damon (Big Daddy) on a shallow level. In fact, the only decently-written character in this whole movie is Hit-Girl. I won't give away any spoilers, but her character is intricately complex when compared to the likes of the rest of the cast. Not only that, but the actress that portrays her (Chloe Moretz) arguably gives the best performance of the film. It's kinda sad that a child would be the driving force behind a film that's as adult as Kick-Ass.

The cinematography is decent at best. When the camera's focused on the action, the camerawork is pretty tight. The editing's quick and flashy, the gunplay and violence is nicely stylized, and it really gets the aderaline pumping in terms of balls-to-the-wall action. When the camera's *not* focused on the action, though, the camerawork seems pretty lost at points. It doesn't know what to focus on and continously skips from shot to shot in a seeminlgy desperate attempt to find something to focus on. It still gets the story across but anyone who knows the basics of editing should understand that the film's only doing the minimum amount of work in this department.

I promose to give as few spoilers as possible - the ending to this film is simply awful. Not only does the film end with the most ridicoulous death scene I've ever seen, but the message of the film seems to glorify nihilism and vigilante justice. I understand that one doesn't need to agree with a film in order for the film to be good - just look at Birth of a Nation - but Kick-Ass is just deplorable. According to the film's themes (implicit and explicit), violence is the only effective means and that killing a person means absolutely nothing if it gets the job done. These "superheros" often brutally murder henchman and criminals without remorse. I've heard various arguments that state this is merely a "warning" against these sorts of behaviour, but with Joan Jett songs and Ennio Morricone music playing during these violent seqeunces, I can't help but wodner if this film actually believed that viglante justice and murder were sweet.

The soundtrack's iffy for me. While the film contains a generic and uninspired score, the soundtrack is pretty enjoyable for what it is. I'ts got some good songs in it and the inclusion of music by the likes of Ennio Morricone are a nice throwback to the violent films of Sergio Leone.

All in all, Kick-Ass is a poor film. It's got a nice concept and some impressive action sequences and camerawork, but the characters are flat and badly written and the overall message promotes some very controversial subject matter.

Entry#190: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Trailer

Edgar Wright is one of the most creative and hilarious directors out there right now. His previous films, Shaun of The Dead and Hot Fuzz, combined completely opposite genres (romantic-comedy/zombie horror and "cop-flick"/comedy) while creating films that were fresh, witty, and downright fun. Wright's third film, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, is no exception to the formula of his previous films and it may be his most ambitious work to date. It's still filled with Wright's brilliant sense of humor, but the mash-up consists of a larger number of genres and the cinematography is much more inventive and creative this time around.

Based on the comic-book series of the same name, the film follows the geeky Scott Pilgrim, bass guitarist of the garage band "Sex Bob-omb", as he begins to date a high-school student, Knives, despite his friends' and bandmates' protests. Not much later, though, Scott meets the mysterious Ramona Flowers and begins to gain interest in her after their initial meeting. As Scott begins dating Ramona, cheating on Knives in the process, he's soon introduced - in a violent way - to the "League of Evil Exes". The group was formed by Gideon Graves, Ramona's seventh previous boyfriend, and its sole purpose is to defeat anyone that's romantically interested in Ramona. The rest of the film follows Scott as he battles Ramona's evil exes in a visually stylish romp of action and wit.

First off, I loved the characters in this movie. From the leading role to the smallest cameo, every role in this cast is simply fantastic. The characters are all well-written and interesting, with each having his/her own backstory and sense of place in this absolutely fun, imaginative, and nostalgic film. Most movie-goers may, at first, believe that Michael Cera (who plays Scott Pilgrim) is simply playing the same character that he always does, but he's really not. Thanks to the immense amount of talent from both Edgar Wright and Bryan Lee O'Malley, the writing's so great that the film, in a way, deconstructs the "hipster" type of characters that Cera's known for playing. It is, however, an admiring deconstruction as Pilgrim is still portrayed as an endearing and heartfelt character. I could literally go on and on about this film's cast because they were just that wonderful. Wallace Wells, Scott Pilgrim's gay roommate, would be a perfect example of the brilliant supporting cast. His dialogue's clever, the delivery is spot-on perfect, and he's just as interesting and lovable as the film's major characters. Even Ramona's exes have an interesting sense of style and personality. Todd, for instance, is a vegan whose veganism gives him telepathic and superhuman powers and he's a bit of a hilarious moron to boot. As the film is going for a retro-comic book/video game/anime feel, the over-the-top villains are hilarious, creative, and each one fits the mood of the film. There are so many more characters I could talk about - such as Kim, Stacey, or even Ramona herself - but the film exists for a reason. Out of all the films I've seen this year, this one is probably the most character-orientated and for that I'm grateful.

The visuals look spectacular as well. Using new and creative styles, Wright has been able to do something that few films have ever done before - bring a comic book to life. There have been plenty of "superhero" movies, mind you, but very, very, very few have actually felt like a live-action comic book or graphic novel. The only film that's succeeded in creating this atmosphere, besides this one, would be Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill. That's not even based on previously existing material. The action sequences, for instance, look animated and just superb. The image is crisp and fresh while the interesting Dragon Ball Z-like fights are delightfully over-the-top and incredibly entertaining. Even if you're not mentioning the action sequences, the film still looks great. The editing techniques are highly impressive and the combination with the aesthetically-pleasing cinematography creates a visual treat that compliments the film's lovable cast of characters.

The humor's just as top-notch as Wright's previous films as well. The dialogue's very witty and the humor is virtually non-stop thanks to the film's frantic pacing. Just as one joke's ended, another one's more than likely started. Also, there are plenty of quotable moments from Scott Pilgrim that prove to be just as effective and hilarious as Wright's other two films. I won't spoil any, but I can assure any readers that they're really funny. Even the few moments of physical humor prove to be pretty funny, which is saying something for me as I can't stand slapstick.

Part of what makes the film so enjoyable is the fact that it connects with its major audiences' nostalgia and music taste. If you've ever been into video games or comic books, for example, there'll be plenty of subtle references to pick up on - from the Legend of Zelda theme music to the Street Fighter-like start of matches. In many ways, this film is to Generation Y as films like Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club were to Generation X. The film knows exactly who its audience is and lets us know, through satire and admitted charm, about the pros and cons of this current generation. Even the music is catered to Generation Y's taste, as the film's soundtrack is filled with enough indie bands and tracks to make any "hipster" blush. From well-known indie musicians such as Beck and Metric to some lesser-known singers and bands, the film's music is just as enjoyable as the rest of the film. My personal favorite song, though, would have to be Metric's/Clash at the Demonhead's "Black Sheep". I could listen to that song for hours and never get tired of it.

If the film does have a harrowing flaw, however, it'd lie within the film's introduction. The characters don't seem as open or lovable in the first few minutes of the film, and it takes awhile before they open up enough for us to actually enjoy (or detest, as opinions vary) their company. Despite this smallish error within the first 15 - 20 minutes, I still loved this movie.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World has to be one of the best movies to come out this year. It's original, filled with memorable and likable characters, and has a wicked and nostalgic sense of humor that's sure to please younger and older audiences.

Entry#189: Jack

Trailer

Is it possible for a film to be "bad" but still have a good message? If so, Jack would be the perfect example of such a film. Its humor is juvenile and forced, its characters are one-dimensional, and it only seems to exist for the sole purpose of pleasing mainstream audiences. However, at the end of the day (so to speak), it can't be denied that the film has a smart and emotional message. Does disliking the film mean that I disagree with the message or think that it's stupid? No, not at all. I do, however, think that this film - along with Bram Stoker's Dracula - proves that Francis Ford Coppola doesn't have a spotless career.

The film follows the titular Jack - a boy who grows four times faster than the rest of the world. By age ten, Jack appears to be a fully-grown 40-year-old man. Because of his condition and his parents' concern, Jack has spent his entire life being tutored at home. After his tutor recommends public schooling, though, Jack must try to fit in with his fellow fifth-graders despite his much older appearance.

The concept is decent, at best, but the film's characters are shallow and utterly annoying. There's no depth or sense of purpose in any of them, including our main character, Jack. They exist only to spout off terrible jokes and to advance the plot points of the film. Not only are the characters completely dull and lifeless, but they're very stereotypical as well. The "tough" kids are tough for the sake of the plot, the geeky kids exist to represent the "other" side of life in elementary school, etc. and so forth. The same can be said for literally all of the characters in this film - they're one-dimensional, boring, and painfully cliche.

Speaking of pain, the humor in this movie is utterly stupid. It relies on physical and schoolboy humor that gets insanely old before it's barely even introduced. There's nothing clever or witty about the script at all, as it's virtually nothing but slapstick and "fart jokes". There's even a sequence that tries for laughs with a "gross-out" food moment. It's not even remotely funny and I can't imagine how someone like Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather, Apocalypse Now) could've directed something this awful. There is literally not one or even slightly humorous moment in the entire movie. It was just two hours of torture...

One other big flaw is that the film doesn't know who its audience is. Is it a movie aimed at children or adults? If it's adults, movie-goers may find themselves annoyed at the film's childish sense of humor. If it's for kids, the whole message and the sexual references will just fly over their heads while they laugh at jokes that call people "butt-breath". Not only that, but the budding flirtation between Jack and his friend's mother is just weird and completely out-of-place. I know that Jack LOOKS 40, but he's MEANT to be a ten-year-old. What ten-year-old tries to cop a feel, flirt with his friend's mom, or contemplate about the meaning of life? It's out-of-character and dreadfully forced.

Are there any good things about Jack? Slightly, yes. It's far from being a great performance, but Robin Williams is able to bring his usual charm to the bland role of Jack. The ending speech, by far, had to be his best moment in the film. The editing's decent enough, from what I recall, and the film knows how to manipulate a scene into an emotionally gut-wrenching moment. Finally, I did appreciate the film's overall message - stay young at heart and don't let the world take your soul. "Look to the stars", Jack says, and everything will be alright.

The film's got a great message, but Jack's pathetic characters and awful humor keep it in the category of a bad movie.

Entry#188: The Fall

Trailer

One of the biggest compliments to a filmmaker, besides an Oscar nomination, would be an endorsement by a recognized and acclaimed director. Plenty of directors have gotten their start this way and the tradition continues to this day. Recently, for example, Peter Jackson (Lord of The Rings, Heavenly Creatures) kick-started Neil Blomkamp's career by backing Neil's directorial debut, District 9. To have someone support your work like that is truly an honor and an easy jump-start for a film career. Because of how prestigious a director/sponser is, I was quite surprised to find out that The Fall had TWO well-known directors backing it up. Both David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac) and Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation.), apparently, helped finance the film because they believed in it so much. That's saying something for an otherwise unknown filmmaker.

The Fall chronicles the relationship between a hospitalized young girl, Alexandria, and her new acquaintance and storyteller, Roy Walker. After a harsh fall, Roy finds himself bedridden, with his only company consisting of seemingly angry friends and an imaginative Romanian girl (aka Alexandria). As times passes and Alexandria visits more often, Roy discovers that he's slowly becoming addicted to the morphine that's been prescribed to him. With the addiction growing, Roy uses Alexandria to bring him more "sleeping pills" in exchange for a creative and lushious fairy tale. Reality and fantasy blur, though, as Roy's state of mind and Alexandria's imagination interweave with one another in the fairy tale.

The cinematography of the film is very well-done and artistic. Thanks to the use of color and conventional film methods, the director is able to create two distinct worlds with differing visual styles. The 'real' world, for example, relies on orange and gray coloring to portray the reality of 1920's America. Menawhile, the fantasy world is filled with every color imaginable to show off the power of imagination. Both worlds are visually-appealing and showcase the hard work that went into this film. The best sequence, though, has to be the film's opening credits. Those moments are so well-structured and so perfectly compositied that it feels like watching a living painting. Sharp, chiche, and creative, the visuals are a great component of the film.

The characters, though, are only decent to pretty good. We get to know Roy and Alexandria, but only on a limited basis. For instance, Alexandria is naive and charming, as virtually all little girls are, but we don't really get to know her character. If we compared the film with Pan's Labyrinth, a film with similar fairy-tale themes, we'd see that Alexandria feels flat while Ofelia, the main character of Pan's Labyrinth, is a more well-rounded and interesting character. The same can pretty much be said of Roy. However, I'm a bit iffy on the fairy tale characters. They're supposed to be simle, that's granted, but they can feel very generic in this film; almost like a cast from a below-average JRPG (Japanese Role-Playing Game) video game. All in all, the characters are interesting but only half-developed.

That said, the film still retains a fascinating narrative and a stylish and emotional atmosphere. The story flows quite smoothly and the interweaving of reality and fantasy proves to be just as interesting as it is emotionally-investing. Heck, I thought the characters were only "pretty good" but found myself in tears during the last twenty minutes of the film. The atmosphere really nailed that wodner that comes with fairy tales AND the harsh realities of life - and that isn't an easy task by any means.

I really liked The Fall. The characters were only decent but the atmosphere and lovely visuals definitely make up for it.

Entry#187: The Puffy Chair

Trailer

With Cyrus being hailed as one of the better comedies to come out in 2010, I thought I'd check out what else the directors, the Duplass brothers, created before their success with this latest film. According to the IMDB, Cyrus is only the directors' third film and it's the first one to have a large-ish budget. Before that, the directors had made two "mumblecore" films called The Puffy Chair and Baghead, both of which were made on an incredibly-low budget and utilized a variety of minimalist techniques to enhance the film. "Mumblecore", for those unaware, is a new style of film that tends to focus on realistic characters, usually twentysomethings in college, that are placed in realistic situations with natural-sounding dialogue. In short, realism is very important to the "mumblecore" genre and it is, admittedly, an interesting style of filmmaking. For instance, things like texting and teenage slang are typically common in these types of films and are considered a major component of the realism. Regardless, this would be my first time watching a "mumblecore" film and, while it was creative, I'm not sure if I'd call The Puffy Chair a "good film".

The film follows the laid-back Josh, his brother, Rhett, and his girlfriend, Emily, as they drive cross-country to pick up Josh's father's birthday gift - a giant purple LazyBoy chair. Though the gift seems random, it's actually very sentimental as Josh's father used to own an identical chair when the family was much younger. As the group travels from New York to Virginia, Josh must come to terms with his crumbling relationship while surviving the bizarre events that take place along the way.

In terms of characterization and dialogue, the film's pretty snappy. Because of the focus on realism, the film's characters feel all the more human, relateable, and likable. Josh, Emily, and Rhett make for some goofy, albeit lovable, characters and it's easy to care for them because of how real and genuine they feel. The dialogue, as I said before, is also very realistic thanks to the slang, long pauses, and use of "filler" phrases such as "Um" or "Well, I dunno...". The dialogue furthers the authentic feeling of the film and its characters, making it truly feel like a film that's heavily based in reality. There's a specific sequence in the film that really showcases the realism that I'm talking about. Taking place in Rhett's apartment, we see the trio enjoying some fresh pizza while discussing Rhett's interest in nature and film.  It's very minimalist and the scene is mostly comprised of "Yeah, man"s and repetitive dialogue. It feels very much like an actual conversation and, to me, is the best example of the film's realism.

 That said, though, The Puffy Chair certinaly seems to break its focus on realism for the sake of dramatic tension. For example, there's a sequence where Rhett confesses to wanting to marry a girl that he's only known for less than 24 hours. He isn't kidding either - he's completely serious. You'll hear stories like these on rare occasions, but it's far from something common in life. It's because of events like these that the film feels just as realisitc as it does unrealistic. It's as if the screenwriters realized that real life can't make a well-structured film and added some random events to kick some life into the film. The flip-flopping between randomness and realism makes the narrative feel indecisiive and confused.

The cinematography's decent for an independent film. While the camera is of a nice quality and the editing's fair, the lack of composition and structure really shows. The camera's all over the place and doesn't feel cinematic or contemplative at all. Frankly, it's only a step above home movies. There isn't too much to say - the visuals are decent but they could've been much, much better.

Overall, The Puffy Chair is only a decent film. While the characters are likable and the dialogue's realisitc, the rest of the film is pretty lacking.

Entry#186: Mary and Max

Trailer

Oftentimes, people overlook the small gems that surface in film festivals like the Sundance Film Festival or the Cannes' Film Festival. They're content with watching mainstream and Hollywood-produced films, that frankly end up sucking, but, for some reason, can't seem to give smaller films such as Mary and Max a chance. Whether this is due to the common misconception that independent films are "overly artsy" or because the mainstream film industry is more accessible, films like Mary and Max go unheard of. Meanwhile, trashy flicks likes Transformers 2 and Twilight are making millions of dollars despite their very low quality. It's just a shame, as filmmakers like Adam Elliot (Harvie Krumpet, Mary and Max) have more talent than half of the mainstream industry. Regardless, though, Mary and Max proves to be a touching and darkly comedic film.

The film stars the titular Mary and Max, one of whom is a lonely eight-year-old girl in Australia and the other an atheistic Jew from New York with Asperger's, as they form a friendship as pen pals. After many more letters, and plenty of strange conversations, the two develop a very close friendship and prove to be the only friends they have in the world. The rest of the film follows the duo as their friendship soars and wanes over the next twenty-two years.

The film's great in terms of characterization. The characters are well-written, lovable, and genuinely interesting. Max, for instance, is just as hilarious as he is pitiful. I felt a deep sense of sadness for his situation but, at the same time, enjoyed his hilarious dialogue and sense of unintentional humor. He was just such a great character and Phillip Seymour Hoffman gave a fantastic performance to compliment Max's character. Mary was also a naive, yet charming, little girl and I really felt her presence in the film as well. She's just as well-written and depressed, yet hopeful, as Max is.These two characters interact with each other lovingly in a way that's very human, very real, and very heart-felt.


The claymation of the film is simply splendid. It gives the film a nice look and the lighting used in the film, from the artificial light of Australia to the darkly-lit streets of New York, provides just as much symbolism as it does atmosphere. Loneliness is a key theme to the film, and it can be felt through the film's visuals. The dilapidated and black look of New York, for example, shows the coldness and sadness inhabited by Max's world. It isn't actually until Mary sends him a gift, a rubber ball, that some color shows up in his world. It's well-animated, framed, edited, and is pure eye-candy.


Also, I'm not usually a big fan of narration, but the narrator in this film (Barry Humphries) was just superb. Not only did he deliver his lines with a strong sense of meaning and storytelling, but it furthered the feel of a nighttime story that the film has. It's somewhat tragic, somewhat poetic, and somewhat fairy tale-like. All in all, though, it's a film that has a big heart and a love for lonely people.


If I did have a problem with the film, though, it lies in the some of the more unbelievable aspects of the story. I don't believe, for example, that Mary would've continued writing Max after an eight-month hiatus. Not only that, but some of the plot events felt like unneeded reasons to create drama or tension in a narrative that really didn't need it. The film's about Mary and Max - that's it. I don't think the asylum sequences or the hiatus were really that necessary, as they really seemed to drag out during the film's narrative. Regardless, it's not a huge flaw.


It may not be perfect, but it doesn't need to be. Mary and Max is a sweet, smart, and very emotional film. Sometimes the plot seems to take precedence because it feels like "nothing's happening" - which isn't a bad thing - but the characters are truly the focus. With a witty sense of black humor and wonderful visuals, the film's a treat in all aspects.

Entry#185: The Birth of a Nation

Trailer

The Birth of a Nation is both famous and infamous within film history.  From critics to Woodrow Wilson, the film has garnered plenty of attention due to its sheer invention and innovation of cinematic language and its uncompromising racist overtones. In fact, the film glorifies the KKK as "heroic knights" during the film's long third act.  It's uncomforting, to say the least, but not all films have to be "right" in order to be great.  The Triumph of the Will, for example, is a very well-made film that happens to promote Nazi ideals and makes a god out of Adolph Hitler. It's despicable, but to completely dismiss the film is disrespectful to the technical achievements and landmarks of the film. The same applies to The Birth of a Nation. D.W. Griffith, the director of the film, may have displayed a shocking amount of racism (even in an age where racism was common), but he made up for it by virtually creating the cinematic techniques that filmmakers still use to this day. Fading out, fading in, split-screen, flashbacks, and wide-angle shots are only a handful of Griffith's very important contributions. Regardless of its racism, the film's still a great landmark in film history.

The film follows two families, the Northern Stonemans and the Southern Camerons, before, during, and after the American Civil War. Before the South's secession and the ensuing violence, the two families were quite close and the sons, especially Benjamin Cameron, found themselves attracted to the daughters of the other family.  They often visited, wrote to, and shared long hours with each other during their carefree days. Once the war broke out, though, the families grew apart as their sons were sent out to kill one another. The rest of the film follows the eldest sons of the families as they go through the Civil War, the Reconstruction, and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.

Before going any further, it's best to acknowledge the film's racism before anything else. From the start, the racism is quite blatant as all of the blacks are portrayed as simpletons, idiots, hooligans, thieves, dishonest workers, lazy men, and overall 'animal-like'. It's sad, really, that anyone could truly believe that their fellow man could actually behave like this. At the same time, however, it's a dark side of history that we need to face. The racism, though obvious, is only present in the background of the first half of the film. It wouldn't be too difficult to ignore the racism in the first half by completely focusing on the sentimental and human stories of the Stoneman and Cameron families. After the first half, however, the film takes a dramatic shift and brings its racist agenda to the forefront of the film. Portraying an equal rights Senator as misguided, and possibly "tricked" by his mulatto servant, the film states that blacks are trying to "take over" the South for their "Black Empire". It's ridiculous. Even if the film didn't have a racist agenda, the film's politically-charged second half seems nowhere near as powerful as the first half's emotional and heart-felt story. The characters are still focused on during the second half, but it seems more like propaganda than anything else. The sheer shock of the sights in the second half, such as an animal-like black man's attempted rape and Christ appearing before the world to "congratulate" the KKK, are both unsettling and depressing. Still, the film's still technically impressive during these moments and the editing and cinematography remains ground-breaking.

Moving on, though, the film's storytelling methods and characters are amazing and way ahead of their time. Griffith created a complex narrative in a cinematic world where the most complicated films beforehand were A Day in the Life of a Fireman and The Great Train Robbery. The characters and the setting feel like something out a richly-written and thoughtful novel, thanks to the well-developed characters and the fluid style of editing. This film marks the creation of the typical American epic that everyone's become so accustomed to. The editing and characters proved that films could go beyond simple and remedial shorts - that films could tell epic stories such as the ones found in popular or classic novels. The characters are interesting and very likable, allowing for complex characters that we can relate to and care about. Yet another innovative success on the film's part.

It's insane to think that a film crew in 1915 could create such visual accomplishments such as the renowned battle sequence during the film's second act. The fighting spanned for miles and the action felt just as dream-like as it did realistic. The flowing nature of the editing makes the film go by quickly despite the film's three-hour runtime. This editing allowed for the narrative to never seem stagnant or disjointed - it was meant to create a storyline that both enticed and thrilled audiences and to show the birth of a new "nation" of art. The cinematography's very impressive as well, as the camerawork was fantastic and the cinematic techniques felt fresh due to their recent creation within the film world.

It's sad, though, that the film promotes plenty of great messages while simultaneously promoting racism. The film speaks of the horrors of war, the nurturing of family, the importance of forgiveness, etc. and so forth. The Birth of a Nation paved the way for cinema as we know it, but its racist overtones are difficult to ignore. Other than those overtones and an iffy introduction, the film's a great landmark and is a "must-see" for anyone who's interested in film.

Entry#184: A Night in Casablanca

Though many consider A Night at the Opera to be one of the Marx Brothers' best films, I actually think it's one of their weaker films (out of the few that I've seen). It's still great, don't get me wrong, but MGM's strict ethical code forced the brothers to "clean up their act" in order to appease a larger audience. This meant that the relentlessness and anarchic nature of their humor was completely thrown out the window. Most of the sequences were still funny, yes, such as the state room scene in A Night at the Opera, but it lacked the sharpness and utter freedom that made the Marx Brothers so funny to begin with. They'd been tamed, leashed, and stripped of their ability to do whatever they wanted. They could only make fun of certain individuals, had to have motivations behind their jokes, and always had to help out their fellow man. It was too tame and this lasted for another four films until the brothers' contract with MGM ran out. After that, United Artists picked up the brothers' act and restored much of their previously-vanquished freedom. In this indirect parody of the blockbuster classic Casablanca, the Marx Brothers were able to bring a sense of chaos back to their wicked sense of humor.

Following the murders of two managers of a hotel, Groucho is hired to replace them. What Groucho doesn't realize, though, is that Count Pfefferman - a resident of the hotel and undercover Nazi - has been killing off the hotel managers to keep suspicion away from his secret life and his horde of gold hidden within the hotel's elevator shaft. Eventually joining up with Chico, a merchant, and Harpo, Pfefferman's former servant, the comedic team must maintain "order", if you will, at the hotel while aiding a young French soldier in his quest to clear his name.

Thanks to United Artists' looser rules, the Marx Brothers are able to return to their relentless style of humor. Groucho, for instance, is free to humilate the upper class, the poltical, and the undeserving once again as of this film. With the exception of the French soldier and his lover, nobody's safe from any of the brothers' ridicule and it's a wonderful return to style. The humor's as freash as ever in this film as well. There are plenty of memorable quotes and moments, mostly coming from the group's loud-mouth (and my personal favorite of the bunch) Groucho. Chico and Harpo are great as well, and there are plenty of humorous moments coming from their characters. The charades scene between those two, for instance, has to be one of the film's highlighted moments.

What separates the Marx Brothers' films from other comedies, though, are their focus on character. The brothers, along with the usually theatrical supporting cast, aren't exactly landmark-making, but they're very cartoon-like which gives them an instant sense of likalbiltiy. In other words, the Marx Brothers are almost like the live-action versions of Mickey, Donald, and Goofy from Disney - they're silly yet very lovable. Every minute spent with these hilarious and clever comedians is a minute of laughs, charm, and appreciation.

However, I wouldn't say that A Night in Casablanca is perfect. Firstly, the film takes *way* too long to start. I don't mind waiting for the brothers to make their entrance, but fifteen minutes of an expositional opening feels like too much and it drags itself out before we meet any of the Marx brothers. It's not a major flaw, mind you, but those fifteen minutes feel like an etenrity. Next, despite moving over to United Artists, brothers were still expected to put on a few musical numbers in order to please crowds. These musical numbers feel like pointless filler, though, as the only served to meet major auidences' expectations. They exist simply for crowd-pleasure and, by this point in time, the random vaudeville piano performances feel random. They'd work onstage, no question about that, but there's no excuse for them to be present in a film.

As far as cinematograhpy goes, there isn't much to say. The camerawork's nice and the editing is fairly decent and gets the job done. There are moments when the editing aids in the joke-telling, but these moments don't happen often.

A Night in Casablanca, though, proves to be a fresh comedy. It's got a few flaws, but it's otherwise charming, witty, hilarious, and just plain fun.

Entry#183: Pale Rider

 

Trailer

Clint Eastwood is, by no means, a bad director. When he's at the top of his game, he's making great films like Unforigven and The Outlaw Joesy Wales. However, Eastwood has made plenty of sub-par to "just plain bad" films during the long expanse of his career - Pale Rider would fall under this category. It's not as if Eastwood didn't put any thought or work into this film, it's just that the generic and shoddy script brought the film down in a major way. Seriously, with a script like Pale Rider's, I'm not sure who could've had the ability to "save" this film. What really shocks me, though, is that the film would go on to be nominated for a Palme d'Or, which is the highest prize awarded to films competing at the Cannes Film Festival. That just blows my mind; how on earth could anyone see something great in this poor film? I digress, though, and shall proceed to actually explaining my contempt for this cliched film.

 

The plot follows a small mining community during the late era of the American Old West. The community may be simple and quite poor, but the people making up this community have big hearts and simply want to make an honest living during an age where dishonesty brings violence, immorality, and quick cash. Speaking of dishonesty, though, Coy LaHood - the richest man in the next town over - is the boss of a hydraulic mining company and wishes to take the small mining community's land. After multiple turndowns, LaHood soon resorts to raids and intimidation in order for the community to turn over their land. Just when things seem bleak, a drifter rides into town and singehandedly defends Hull Barret, a member of the miners, from a group of LaHood's ruffians. Dubbed only as "Preacher", due to his attire, the stranger helps defend the small community from the violent and greedy underlings of LaHood.

The concept's a bit lackluster, admittedly, but this film could've been decent, at best. However, the poor scripting, inherent lack of character, and the sloppy editing make this film's characters virtually impossible to get to know or like. I feel bad that the miners and their families are threatened, that really sucks, but the film gives me no reason to care about these characters. They're all cookie-cutter cliches that can be found in dozens of dozens of Westerns. They're not characters at all - they simply exist to give this film *some* sort of life and purpose. Sadly, because we don't any of these people, it's like watching a bunch of uninteresting strangers converse at an airport. It's boring. It doesn't help that the dialogue is completely expositional. There's no character development or focus, as the dialogue simply exists to get the film from one point to the next. In other words, I saw the characters' lips moving but I couldn't feel what they were saying. It was dull, trite, and lifeless. Even Clint Eastwood's character seems a bit cliche. Sure, everybody loves a cool gunslinger character, but we've seen elements of this character in a plethora of films like Shane or High Plains Drifter. 

Speaking of cliches, this film rips off a catalogue of classic films. Seven Samurai, Shane, Leone's Dollars trilogy, etc. and so forth. It's virtually a hodgepodge of cliches from other - and far better - films. The nameless gunslinger, for instance, can be seen in films like The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, Yojimbo, High Plains Drifter, Once Upon a Time in the West, and more. The village in trouble? Seven Samurai along with a bunch of films that tried to homage the aforementioned film - such as The Magnificent Seven - but failed. Greedy corporate leader? Too many films to list. 'Nuff said. Pale Rider is derivative and can't seem to come up with anything remotely original.

It's not all bad, though, as the cinematopgrahy's quite impressive and Clint Eastwood, despite a low quality script, is able to, as always, entice audiences with a great performance. The visuals, I thought, really showed off the beauty of the film's landscape and looked really nice in terms of old-fashioned style and taste. The best scene, for me, has to be when LaHood's men kill the man with the large shard of gold. The camerawork's great and the snow really blends in with the utter violence that's depicted onscreen. There's something morbidly aesthetic about the combination of blood and snow... Anyway, as I was saying, Clint Eastwood also proves his worth as an actor in this film. He's haunting, understated, and performs greatly in his role. It's virtually the same role he's always played, though, but that's not too big of a problem.

Pale Rider's just a poor film. It's got a great leading performance and decent visuals, but those elements are virtually the only good things about the film. It's got a nice story structure but that's useless without good characters. Cliche, dull, and filled with forgettable characters, the film has very little to offer.

Entry#182: Suspiria

Trailer

I hadn't ever seen any of Dario Argento's films until Suspiria, but I can totally understand his appeal after watching this film. It's not a perfect film, let alone a fantastic one, but it's certainly very effective and haunting. In all aspects, Suspiria assaults the senses with its unrelenting nightmarish qualities until you're on the edge of your seat in both suspense and shock. Argento doesn't pull any cheap tricks or gimmicky 'jump scares' - the film's completely built on atmosphere, slow-building terror, and a soundtrack that's both shaking and darkly beautiful. I'm unsure if I want to view more of his films, though, as many filmgoers (including Argento's biggest fans) claim that Suspiria is Argento's best work. Suspiria was a great horror film and all but, at the same time, it had some very obvious flaws in its framework. If this flawed yet atmospheric film is his best, I'm not sure if I want to be disappointed by Argento's weaker films. Regardless, though, this film's fascinating and lingering enough to definitely be worth your time.

The film follows a young American girl, Suzy, who's just arrived in Germany to study ballet at a prestigious dance academy. After a long ride on a dark and stormy night, Suzy arrives at the academy to discover a student fleeing for her life and a voice from inside telling her to leave the area and never come back. Suzy's frightened and leaves as instructed, but not before getting one last glimpse of the fleeing student in the nearby woods. The next day, Suzy returns and, surprisingly, is entered into the academy with a warm welcome from the school board. News soon breaks out that fellow student, Pat Hingle, was murdered the night before. It doesn't take Suzy too long to realize that this girl was the fleeing student from the night before. Along with her roommate, Suzy begins to investigate the mysterious academy and its apparent background with witchcraft.

The soundtrack is, without a doubt, amazing. I'm a fan of plenty of horror films, and the soundtracks in films like Psycho and The Exorcist work brilliantly, but this may be the best soundtrack I've ever heard in a horror film. It's perfect and it's one of the few soundtracks I've actually considered purchasing. It's so deathly haunting and harrowing, leading the viewer in with soft music and then just pulverizing them with this quick-paced music with horrific chanting in the background. It's like a scarier version of the soundtrack from The Exorcist! It's just so effective and creepy that I can't help but enjoy it and fear it.

Visually, the film's very stylish. Argento uses primary colors often, especially red, to give the film this horrific nightmarish quality to it. The murder of Pat Hingle, for instance, is so dream-like and brutal that it captures a feeling of dread that's found only in nightmares and grim fairy tales. I don't want to spoil the scene, as it's possibly the darkest moment of the film, but the sheer usage of color and darkness contained within that sequence is simply shocking. Along with the rest of the film, the visuals prove to be just as stylish as they are haunting.

As far as characterization goes, the film's only decent. We get to know Suzy, our leading character, but only on a limited basis. The rest of the cast simply exists to further the plot of the film; we never get to know any of them. The cook, for instance, starts out with a role and seems to lose virtually all significance by the second half of the film. Why? Because she only existed to further plot points. That's it. Still, as the film is more concerned with atmosphere, I can't say the lack of characterization is devastating. The characters serve their purpose and the concept is very fascinating. It's a big flaw, but not a terrible one...

As the film is directed by a "horror aficionado" from the 70's, you can expect to see some over-the-top moments and dated gore. The bat scene, for example, looks horrible because of the poor effects. The reason that older films like Psycho and The Exorcist work are because of their use of suspense over effects. Unless you can get something wicked onscreen, it's best to stick your monsters in the shadows.

Suspiria may flawed but it's still a great horror film. With a chilling soundtrack, nightmarish visuals, and a great sense of atmosphere, the film's an underrated work that's worth looking for.