 Was trying to find a cool Gotham City/Chicago hybrid image, but its slim pickings on the Google front Director: Christopher Nolan Writer: Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer Producer: Charles Roven, Emma Thomas, and Larry Franco Cinematographer: Wally Pfister by Jon Cvack Throughout junior high and during the first couple years of high school I use to kick off most summers with the Indiana Jones trilogy, starting the series in June and ending before the fourth of July. I recall hot summer mornings, with the air conditioner running high, and my mom coming in and out of the house, refilling her water as she floated in the pool (she was a special ed teacher). Before Indiana Jones it was Star Wars, inspiring to me to head straight to my toys and act out stories from its universe. And of course Back to the Future (1985) was a movie I remember from my earliest days of cinema, going so far as to provide a very distinct melancholy when I initially finished the trilogy, knowing that the story had concluded and that I could no longer live in the world; distinctly sad that such a story could never be possible. The thing all of the great trilogies have in common is their ability to transport the viewer across approximately nine hours of time, all of which should be new and thrilling to watch - a limitation that relatively low budget television is simply unable to accomplish. A great summertime trilogy is filmmaking of the highest order, creating content that is loved by all - both lovers of cinema and the general moviegoing public. There are of course single films that provide the same - Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Goonies, Stand by Me, etc. - but an entire action/adventure trilogy where the worst film is one of the greatest compared to most of its peers, is an incredibly rare accomplishment. Having craved these types of films over the last few summers, The Dark Knight Trilogy has earned an equal position on the pedestal. I don’t rush to these films as I’m now so precious about over watching certain classic movies that, like a fine bottle of whiskey, I take them in small doses; often years apart. Having just seen Dunkirk and catching Interstellar in the theater for a second time, I’ve admired Nolan’s commitment to realism, as it functions almost as a foil to Spielberg, with the pair both achieving equally impressive work with complete different styles. Nolan’s Batman is someone who took on a Christ-like story of returning after a long period of meditation, hardship, and training, ready to live his mission in life. I was surprised to see Christopher Nolan was only thirty years old at the time of production, as I swear the guy looks to be in his forties. Christian Bale embodies the spirit of who I consider Batman (though I do hope Michael Fassbinder one day gets the chance to try it out). I think of all the other ways it could have gone, getting a more traditional dark and attractive man, and how easily the story could have become gaudy. The same goes for the rest of the cast - Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson all take on relatively supporting roles, sinking into them with such ease that I forgot how incredible the ensemble was. Like Nolan, Katie Holmes embodies the spirit of Rachel Dawes, providing my one major criticism of the trilogy when she was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal. Growing up with Dawson’s Creek, which I still think is her best work, this role was a close second. Like any great film the story takes on political significance, serving as a harbinger, if not a looking glass self to its Chicago setting. Gotham City has been overrun with corruption and crime, controlled primarily by mob boss Carmine Falcone (Wilkinson) who’s got the majority of police and the court on his payroll. Rachel Dawes watches as power is increasingly grasped and exploited, especially in the courts as they once again allow psychologist Jonathan Crane (Murphy) to send another murderer to the psychiatric hospital, pleading insanity. While it’s never specifically mentioned (not even in the comic book from what I recall), there’s an impression that Bruce Wayne’s father had a significant/informal role in managing the city, leaving me wondering why he wasn’t just the mayor, kind of like an altruistic version of Donald Trump. Thus when murdered and Wayne Enterprises is controlled by the Board of Directors, it’s clear that their commitment to the community is displaced by a determination to make themselves rich by making the company public. Bruce’s return comes amidst the chaos, as he hopes to take all he learned about the criminal underworld in order to apply it toward battling the enemy. He utilizes the Military R&D department with the help Lucius Fox (Freeman) in order to gain access to the equipment he requires, assembling his bodysuit, tools, weapons, and of course, the batmobile, all while preparing a base with the help of Alfred (Caine) in the underground cave system beneath Wayne Manor. While Alfred is wary of the risk, he demands that Bruce at the very least make public appearances; to which Bruce abandons his charm in favor of a lewd persona in order to curtail any suspicions that he might be Batman. We learn that Jonathan Crane is the Scarecrow after he betrays his arrangement with Falcone, putting on the mask and giving us a first taste of the absolute fear it commands. While I had once been turned off by the VFX, knowing their position in the complex plot, I now found Nolan’s balance between artificial and practical effects incredible; especially when Batman turns the poison on the Scarecrow who sees the Batman as a charred skin demon, expectorating black sludge with every word. It’s assisted by the fact that Nolan seemed to have known that this film was all about setting up the universe in order to provide us one of cinema’s greatest sequel by drifting from exposition and into character, all before moving onto the relatively weakest final film of the series (though still a great movie), which also had the greatest action sequences (brought about by its ~$250 million budget; $100 million more than Batman Begins). We learn that Crane had worked with Falcone’s men to steal a shipment off a barge that was due for Wayne Enterprises - the military division specifically - which was able to convert all water to steam across miles of piping, allowing the Scarecrow to pour hundreds of gallons of his fear potion into the water supply and take the weapon to the middle of Gotham’s lower class denizens whilst releasing Arkham Asylum’s most dangerous and psychotic criminals. WIth repeated viewings allowing me to recall more details from the other films, the idea of chaos versus purpose extends across all of the films. While I’d have to watch The Dark Knight Rises (2012) again to retrieve the proper details, The Dark Knight’s (2008) Joker simply wanted to watch the world burn. Scarecrow gives the same impression, until we learn that it was Bruce Wayne’s instructor Ra’s al Ghul’s (who trained him to join the vigilante League of Shadows) intention to destroy Gotham in order to put an end to all of the crime and corruption. Similar to his demand for Bruce to behead a convicted murderer, Ra’s al Ghul wants Batman to understand that his city is past saving. Just as Bruce refused to kill the convict, he also refuses to watch Gotham destroy itself. Unfortunately I can’t recall and cannot find exactly what Ra’s wanted from Scarecrow, but Scarecrow gets away while Ra’s is killed in an absolutely brilliant El-train sequence - which is all the more impressive having been from Chicago and watching the ways Nolan’s utilized the city. One of the greatest features of Batman is his stoicism combined with absence of superpowers. We never get the impression that he actually likes people other than Alfred, Gordon, and Rachel. His commitment is toward eradicating the evil that led to his parent’s death, not necessarily because it’ll keep Gotham safe (though he might say it), but mostly because it'd make him feel vindicated. In some ways the film plays as a nightmare (or maybe Hell, in sticking with the biblical structure) - looking at one man’s life of pain and alienation whilst endlessly battling against great forces of evil; unable to ever fully escape his fate. It’s the reason I don’t want to get into the comics, as the seemingly infinite scope would never end, and yet it’s what makes Nolan’s trilogy so perfect. It’s a novel length version of the rise and fall of Batman. BELOW: An incredible Chicago/Gotham City hybrid Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 Crazy how in a matter of about two years this went from being one of the most terrifying images to one of the cheesiest Director: Gore Verbinski Writer: Ehren Kruger; based on Ring by Hiroshi Takahashi and Ring by Koji Suzuki Cinematographer: Bojan Bazelli Producer: Walter F. Parkes and Laurie MacDonald by Jon Cvack Now that we’re less than a couple years away from finishing out this decade, popular movies from the 00s are starting to take on a more distinctive style. I hadn’t seen The Ring since high school, where it’s terror spread by word of mouth, with many agreeing it was one of the scariest movies they’d ever seen. Still a coward to horror at the time, heading to the theater to avoid missing out on the event took a bit more motivation than usual. While I couldn’t remember my reaction or any specific details, like most I was horrified and kept awake long into the night by the image of the contortionist girl crawling out of the television. I tried returning to the film back in college, unable to finish it, as by then the film had become parodied and replicated ad nauseam that it fell victim to what happens when transitioning out of any filmic phase - it felt boring and uninspired. The Matrix-like, desaturated greens and blues were adopted by countless other films, across a range of genres, and by the middle of the decade the look was completely played out. Fifteen years later, the look is now associated with the decade. While the film isn’t perfect, it’s also far from what I remembered and expected, serving as much more a surrealistic mystery film than countdown murder movie. Remembering it as cheap and shallow, I found it smart and complex, whose flaws were apparent, but in no way diminished the narrative. Only able to watch the first half I had that rare experience of wanting to fight through Sunday’s bedtime and my exhaustion in order to see where it was going. The story involves a mysterious videotape whose origin I didn’t fully understand, discovering that the Wikipedia page doesn’t have an explanation either, forcing me to a Wiki page which explained that in the original film the tape was made by Samara, who after being thrown in a well by her mother and dying after seven days, possessed or developed the power of nensha (aka thoughtography), which allows a person to burn images from one’s mind onto photographs, canvasses, or film. It was a particularly big idea in Japan during the 20th century. It therefore makes sense that The Ring would have such difficulty conveying this fact (if it even tried at all; as I don’t recall any explanation). Unfortunately, when you really think about this shortcoming, you realize how big of a plot hole it is, as we do not in any way understand what brought all this about. It opens on the film’s most terrifying and popular sequence, involving two girls at a sleepover discussing an urban legend about a mysterious tape made years ago that kills the person seven days after they watch it. One then admits she watched the tape seven days prior, soon getting killed and driving the other girl insane. A Seattle Journalist Rachel (Naomi Watts) is hired to investigate the strange death, soon coming across the tape, watches it, learns about the seven day limit, and enters into a journey to discover how it came about and who's involved. Similar to The Blair Witch Project released just three days prior, though arguably beginning with Haneke’s Benny’s Video in 1992, the story provides a fascinating examination of analog versus digital formats. Now that VHS tapes have officially entered into the vintage category, this film captures the format’s death nail. By 2004, VHS sales would essentially be void, dominated by the rise of the DVD. In 2002, they were fractions of home video sales, providing a fitting tool for where an apparition would render their thoughtographies. Aided in the discussion is Rachel’s ex-boyfriend Noah (Martin Henderson) who has his own “A/V” business - which is cheesy to say, but it’s never specified what he exactly does, though he does know how to slow down the playback and print freeze frames, perhaps even speaking to the medium’s overall limitations, both in quality and durability. It also speaks to the film’s reliance on imagery. Expanding beyond Samara’s infamous crawl from the well is that of the Rachel’s determination to unravel each of the shots from the film, all in an effort to track down the truth and learn about the tape’s origin. The images transcend the infamous Samras crawling from the well, including a black horse, a randomly placed ladder, a shot aimed directly into an old mirror, a strange woman, and a fly that seems to bounce in and out of the frame. While playing like a pretentious student film (and offering the movie's most poorly aged element), each of these images eventually makes it way into Rachel’s reality, with the horse offering the most thrilling sequence, minus a bad CGI effect of it falling off the ferry and into the bay. While I’ve had problems with surrealists like Alain Resnais and Luis Buñuel, The Ring skirts the limits of patience, providing just enough explanation before heading into meaningless frustration (minus failing to explain how the tape got made). It was exciting to anticipate when and how the elements from the tape would arise in the film, abandoning the sepia tone in favor a the dreary Seattle streets and seasides. My largest problem involved Rachel’s peculiar son Aidan (David Dorfman), with the filmmakers appearing to be far more concerned with providing their own rendition of the Creepy Kid than plausibility. Looking up his peers, I was shocked to see Aidan topping out Buzzfeed’s ranking of the "Creepiest Kids in Horror Films", beating out everyone from The Omen’s ('76) Damien to Poltergeist’s ('82) Carol Anne. The complete lack of explanation as to why this kid acts so strange toward his mother makes the entire character seem unnecessary, serving no purpose than fitting the archetype. This isn’t to disparage Dorfman’s performance, who seems to deliver each line without a single blink of an eye. Rather, his inclusion seemed based entirely on the eerie concluding scene, in which Aidan reveals that he had watched a copy of the tape, forcing Rachel to make a copy of a copy to start an ostensible chain letter, in which the seven day death is foregone should someone else watch it. The ending seems deliberately designed for a sequel, foregoing reason and explanation and diminishing The Ring’s position in the horror pantheon. Between the lack of explanation for the tape and strange rules which apply, while creepy in the immediate sense, upon further reflection it makes you all the more frustrated; wishing they could have foregone a few sequences in order to provide some - any - information as to why and how. Nevertheless, it’s a fun film that captures the essence of the decade, and just as other popular horror films from their respective periods didn’t necessarily make complete sense, these shortcoming - while glaring - are easy to ignore in favor of a pretty fun mystery/horror film hybrid. BELOW: A great surrealistic which I wish they cut out of before showing the horse floating Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  One the greatest use of frame in a horror film Director: Bryan Bertino Writer: Bryan Bertino Producer: Doug Davison, Roy Lee, Nathan Kahane, and Sonny Mallhi Cinematographer: Peter Sova by Jon Cvack I haven’t seen this movie since it first came out in 2008. It was one of the first films from the “Home Invasion” subgenre, fresh off the heels off the torture porn of Saw, Hostel, etc. which was fading fast. Similar to The Blair Witch Project ('99) - where eight years later Paranormal Activity would pick up the genre, sparking a fusillade of found footage films - The Purge ('13) would arrive five years later to staggering success (pulling in ~$90 million against the film’s $3 million budget). It would utilize what would become tropes of the genre: creepy, yet innocuous-in-themselves masks which, when placed upon a bunch of killers that are hoping to slaughter the people inside a home, would even prove effective. It continued the tradition kicked off by Scream ('97) nearly two decades ago; abandoning the supernatural in favor of the actual; abandoning the exotic locations and instead turning to the suburban home where a group of lunatics harass and then murder whoever’s inside. Cloverfield had actually arrived the same year as The Strangers, offering an equally strong first act. In Cloverfield’s case about a going away party thrown by a guy who wants to confess his love for the girl going away. In The Strangers’ case it’s about a guy who proposes to a girl who rejects him for reasons unknown. And while neither is that interesting, they’re both well made enough to distract you from the fact that you’re watching a horror film. In both films, I recall sitting there, taken away by the two love stories before any of the thrills begin which then snapped me back to the story’s purpose. The Strangers opens with James (Scott Speedman) and his girlfriend Kristen (Liv Tyler) who’ve just returned from a wedding (not their own), where through the power of showing rather than telling (a rare accomplishment for a genre which, beyond the exposition, relies entirely on this fact and yet somehow fails to “show” the exposition time and time again). Granted, The Strangers relies on a few flashbacks, but they’re so subtle it’s excusable. One is particularly great, in which you see the power of framing to make an event feel larger. Although the pair is at a wedding, there is tight medium shot of Kristen at a wedding, sitting at the table where we’re unable to see who she’s talking to. She laughs and laughs while we don’t hear a word, until James comes up, feeling awkward for being excluded from the joke. Later he proposes, breaking what seems like an unspoken rule at a wedding (that is, don’t propose at another’s wedding). James had a whole night planned for Kristen back at his parent’s place where he had champagne on ice and roses leading up to the bathtub. Why James thought the most romantic place to take his hopeful fiancé was his parent’s house in the suburbs is beyond me. The best I can do is say maybe that’s a point to be made about James and why Kristen had rejected him. Why would she ever marry a man who on one of the most consequential nights of a romantic relationship, the guy takes her to his parents house in the burbs? Luckily this didn’t really hit me until I was thinking about the film much later, and while not as powerful as the first time, again I was swept away by the narrative until that first pound at the door arrived. I had recently upgraded my setup and realized in the process that my Roku player doesn’t offer anything beyond 1080p and can’t provide 5.1 audio, and for a 4k television with a 5.1 setup, I was excited to see how it played out. Unfortunately, my television’s Amazon app wasn’t working, forcing me to have to go back to the Roku and not just forfeit the image, but far more tragically, the surround sound; as once these knocks started happening I couldn’t stop thinking how much cooler it could have been. In the middle of this fairly heartbreaking end to a relationship, James leaves to go buy Kristen some cigarettes and she’s left alone, where moments before they received a strange visit from a girl asking if someone was at the house. This is based off director Bryan Bertino’s own past experience, where a person came to his house once when he was young and home alone, asking if someone was home that Bryan didn’t know. The next day him and his family learned there were a series of robberies in the area. In this case, after James leaves, the girl returns, pounding the front door in what is one of the greatest horror movie sounds ever created. In the film’s greatest shot, we see Kristen standing in the foreground of the kitchen with a dark, soft muddied background behind her as another figure with a burlap sack mask eases into frame, to the point where you wonder how long he was there before you noticed. James eventually returns, with Kristen thinking he’s one of The Strangers who’ve broken into the house, and of course he then wants to handle it, failing to grasp the extremity of the situation. The movie culminates at the moment when James grab his dad’s gun, hiding in the guest bedroom with Kristen, waiting to kill whoever’s entered. Earlier James had called his best friend and explained the situation, and when the friend’s car has a rock thrown through the windshield when he’s calling James to come out, the friend heads in, featuring the song “Mama Tried” playing high, where we know exactly where it’s going. However, this time around, I realized it could have worked a bit better a different way. The problem is that we know that the friend is going to get shot, leaving me to imagine if the camera followed the stranger walking down the hallway, with the cell phone ringing across the room, the audience having no clue the friend even arrived, leading James to shoot who he and we think is the stranger, but in fact, is his friend. Instead of the tension falling on when the gun will go off into what would happen if the stranger gets killed. The movie drops off a bit after the scene and keeps falling until leveling just above average by the end. A bit confused, I had to look up what happened after, which includes James telling Kristen about a HAM radio in the shed outback, which even to type out feels kind of absurd. Again, the problem isn’t even the idea of using a HAM radio so much as never including the audience in on that fact, and therefore feeling very much like “...and then” plot device. Even if there was a mention about how the dad was an air force and/or amateur radio operator could have made it at least fit (albeit not that well, but better). The last twenty five minutes become kind of muddy at the point, and it’s only when we see the two Mormon boys riding their bikes, with the strangers asking for one of their brochures, declaring that it’ll be easier next time that I was left feeling satisfied. In terms of the longest delay to a sequel, especially for a movie that made 9x it’s budget, this has to be a record as the sequel hasn’t come out until this year; though unfortunately it looks like a straight to Redbox. I’ve been considering what these films mean in the grand scheme of things; in which a group of masked strangers, often white and seemingly middle class, decide to break into a house to torture and murder a bunch of innocent people. Perhaps it’s the Tea Party and the fear of the other, yet the ethnicities behind the masks don’t line up. Maybe it’s the increasing amount of pro-gun laws, such as Stand Your Ground or Man Your Castle, in which the contradiction of the two seems to be missed by those who demanded them, as though they’re anxious to finally get to use their toys. Another version is that the films reflected an increasingly connected world. It’s a fascinating movement that seemed to have lasted only for a flash compared to so many others. BELOW: A spectacular scene which has the rare ability to be just as effective from another perspective Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Next to Night and Fog, the best Resnais I've seen (which is a strange comparison) Director: Alain Resnais Writer: Jean-Michel Ribes Cinematographer: Éric Gautier Producer: Bruno Pésery by Jon Cvack I catch a lot of heat when I say that I think Hiroshima, Mon Amour (1959) and Last Year at Marienbad (1961) are two extremely overrated movies. I’ve seen Hiroshima twice now, possibly three times, and it doesn’t get any more enjoyable (or less low). And although I’m bored by many of Buñuel films, Marienbad was like watching paint dry, epitomizing the B&W foreign art house stereotype (as 500 Days of Summer does a great job of satirizing). Though in saying that I think Night and Fog (1956) is phenomenal, and one of the most haunting documentaries I’ve ever seen. While I haven’t even come close to working my way through his filmography, I probably won’t as most of his films are rated at around three stars. Suffice it to say I wasn’t exactly thrilled when I realized who made this film. I was expecting an eccentric experimental story all taking place at a dinner party. Instead I discovered a wonderful and relatively light hearted multi-narrative, straight from the period when movies like Magnolia (1999), 21 Grams (2003), and Crash (2004) were running strong. The film follows six characters, involving a secretary Charlotte (Sabine Azema) and her boss Therrly (André Dussollier) who work at a real estate office, showing apartments to a middle aged engaged and beautiful couple Nicole (Laura Morante) and Dan (Lambert Wilson). Dan’s out of work, spending most of his time at the bar where he talks to bartender Lionel (Pierre Arditi). Meanwhile, during the night Charlotte takes care of Lionel’s bedridden and foul mouthed father. Charlotte is also a Christian, trying her best to honor its tenants. At the real estate office, she lends Thierry a VHS tape she recorded of a music program. However, when Therrly puts it on, after his daughter Gaelle (Isabelle Carre) leaves, the tape suddenly cuts to a neck down homemade strip show. Suspecting that Charlotte was giving him a message, he then makes a move on her, realizing that Charlotte had no clue about the porn section. Dan and Nicole are struggling to find an apartment, with Dan demanding that it have two bedrooms and a study. Nicole doesn’t see the point, as Dan doesn’t do anything requiring study, let alone have a job to pay for such a large apartment. Their relationship quickly disintegrates in one of the best scenes of the film, as Dan comes home wasted once again, to find Nicole equally tanked, ready to call it quits. Dan goes on to meet Nicole, and for awhile we’re left wondering if he simply wants another conquest, or another person to take care of him. Nicole then later gets mad when she discovers Thierry watching the porn tape, and so all these characters lives connect. Looking at the film on IMDb I see that the original titles was “Coeurs”, which translates to “Hearts.” It was only after I read Philip French’s review on Wikipedia that I realized how sad the movie kind of is - “All of them are in search of love and companionship. They're deeply lonely, though none is a natural loner, and their individual backgrounds, and in some cases the nature of their sexuality, are only hinted at.” The saddest couple is obviously Dan and Nicole, especially as we piece together their relationship. Dan was a former soldier, struggling in many ways with a return to civilian life, refusing to work and drinking himself stupid every night, though clearly, once upon a time, the two were happy, with Nicole hoping for its return, and Dan slowly learning that it’s far too late. Other characters like Thierry and Charlotte demonstrate varying degrees of loneliness, with Thierry finding solace in his daughter, and Charlotte finding insight from Lionel. Neither is as strong as Nicole and Dan, and while they were fun to watch, it at times felt like it just didn’t go as far as you’d hope. While the lighthearted vibe was perfect for most of the material, it seemed to prevent more somber moments from really coming across. Perhaps it was a case of low expectations leading to a great time, but I really enjoyed seeing Resnais’ take on the multi-narrative format, providing us with fascinating characters, and some photography that makes the BluRay worth seeking. BELOW: Resnais didn't make the cleanest jump to color, but there's still a couple cinematic moments Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Solid performances from Jamal Udin Torabi and Enayatullah Director: Michael Winterbottom Writer: Tony Grisoni Cinematography: Marcel Zyskind Producer: Andrew Eaton and Anita Overland by Jon Cvack I’m fairly certain that In This World has been in my Netflix queue for at least ten years, holding the record by probably eight years compared to the next one. I believe it was placed into the lineup while I was writing a research paper back in college, possibly even while reading one of David Kellner’s book. I recall the discussion about how as affordable digital cameras began to arrive in the late 90s/early 00s there was a proliferation of independent documentaries. Filmmaker Michael Winterbottom took influence and created a series of “docu-dramas” in which the movies were filmed with the same cheap digital cameras, using the natural environment and resources in order to craft a story that feels and looks very much like a documentary. The movie embodies the 00s video aesthetic, reflecting a period in which the decent looking video technology began creeping into affordability, but still far from catching up to professional standards. What we get is a film whose look demonstrates its exact age, no different than classic film noir, most popular 1950s black and white film, or the crime movies from the 1970s. In This World makes us feel that we are the middle of the Iraq War, during those first few years after the Iraq War. Winterbottom transports us, in which similar The Lady in the Lake (1947), the entire story feels as though its through the eyes of a cameraman; a documentarian who was assigned the story and got to share his wild journey. The story involves two Afghani refugees, Jamal (Jamal Ubin Torabi) and Enayat (Enayatullah), as they escape a refugee camp in Pakistan and sneak to London. They scrape together whatever money they have and pay smugglers to sneak across the borders using any means necessary - hiding in vegetable trucks, container ships, and beneath semis, making their way across Iran, Turkey, and France. While some might be quick to criticize the use of those horrible early 00s digital effects, it was during these moments that the film’s precise year began to show. What I enjoyed about the story was its preservation of history - serving as a fine example of how technology and story can work create a historical document. The film reflects not just where the world was politically, but technically as well, creating the unique experience of *feeling* like that period time (as any great film achieves). To have made this film any other way - while preserving the intimate and assumedly real moments we got to experience - would have been near impossible. The story was simple, feeling as though it was improvised throughout production, as the crew tried to find ways to incorporate the environment they were exploring. If not, it’s all the more impressive. Of course, as with any mockumentary, it’s that improvisation that creates such a vivid portrait. Yet having watched a lot of Cassavetes, with Mikey and Nicky (1976) just a few weeks prior to this, I think the story fell a bit short of where it could, at times relying too much on dramatic moments, rather than providing us intimate glimpses into these characters - what they cared about, what provided their determination and courage. Add the special effects, and for as much as much I can appreciate them, I think the story would have been better served to in focusing on the smaller moments. BELOW: Taking some cameras and shooting at an actual refugee camp Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Even the prop had CGI Director: Steven Spielberg Writer: David Koepp; story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson; based on Characters by George Lucas Philip Kaufman Cinematographer: Janusz Kamiński Producer: Frank Marshall by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... I was surprised to see Spielberg abandon his roots, forfeiting what had worked three films in a row, all becoming modern classics of the highest caliber, simply in order to try and wow audiences by a bunch of the generic CGI shots. And the thing is, this might have worked if Spielberg didn’t abandon his ability to have the characters pull us in. Take a look at the intro to Raiders of the Lost Arc or The Last Crusade (it’s also been about a decade since I’ve seen Temple of Doom), and what we get is a very clear goal - get the item and escape alive. In the case of Crystal Skull, Indy is taken prisoner, forced to lead them to what they’re looking for, and then attempting to retrieve the alien corpse that he wasn’t even looking for in the first place. While the escape sequence is kind of cool in that he ends up in a creepy life size model town used for nuclear weapon testing, it falls into trope as, naturally they’re about to test a nuclear bomb while he's there, leading Indy to hide in a refrigerator while the bomb explodes, and regardless of nuclear fallout, radiation, or how hot it’d be seconds after the explosion, Indiana just walks away. I honestly sat in disbelief that this was the world we were expected to believe. While TCL took me away into another world, within seconds of Crystal Skull I was aware I was watching an absurd film that had completely abandoned any sense of logic. The fact that this was made by Spielberg honestly breaks my heart, as this film almost seems like a pre-teenage boys overly caffeinated fantasy of what a cool Indiana Jones sequel could be. But it actually gets worse. From this ridiculous sequence and skipping ahead about an hour, we enter into one of the most ridiculous uses of CGI I’ve ever seen, in which there’s an initial deep jungle car chase that leads to a fire ant attack. It honestly felt as though Spielberg was the fox who found his way into the henhouse, as he unrelentingly depends on CGI for nearly every shot in this entire sequence. In a high speed chase through the middle of the jungle - not on a road in the middle of the jungle, but the middle of the jungle - in which somehow the cars fail to encounter the slightest impediment - not a log, puddle, or tree stump ever stands in their way, as they cruise forward. As if that’s not enough, Shia LeBouf somehow jumps off one of the racing jeeps and grabs one of the vines, climbing or being pulled up, to which he finds a group of monkeys, who then lead him swinging through the lianas as they return to the speeding jeeps. This finally ends when they crash into a fire ant mound, which pour out and start attacking some people, but not others, like when Indiana Jones pulls out the Crystal Skull, or when they for some reason skip Irina, going for her Soviet partner instead, even though there were more than enough ants to kill everyone. It was clear that any canon had been completely discarded, looking to The Mummy and Pirates of the Caribbean series for the extent of logical impossibility. By this point I couldn’t even grow nostalgic, wondering how Spielberg could have done this with his old style. It would have been impossible - the moment there was a car chase in the jungle with monkeys and thousands of fire ants attacking humans we were past any imaginings. I started to become confused, feeling a sense of betrayal, as though the character I had grown up with and loved abandoned all it stood for. I then remembered that Spielberg made Bridge of Spies last year - one of the greatest films of this decade and I calmed down. The film continues on this path, never really topping the jungle scene’s absurdity. It culminates in some type of CGI smorgus borge, involving aliens and old ancient ruins, where a Crystal Skull is put on a different alien corpse, allowing them to hypnotize people and then destroy the place with some of gravity-defying power that soon sends the entire cast up through a water well to watch a space ship launch. Except for the concluding epic CGI shot that was only kind of cool and the diner scene about thirty minutes into the film I don’t think I enjoyed any of this. For it to conclude on Mary and Indy’s wedding only reminded me how ridiculous her inclusion was - where in the middle of a South American jungle she just so happens to appear. And then in lightening fashion, the two look past the fact that Mary kept Mutt a secret and that they haven’t talked in over twenty years, suddenly rekindling their romance - where aside from how little sense that makes, leaves you wondering why they didn’t just get together sooner. I don’t know why this was made. I think if a fourth was made even in the 90s it could have better, as it couldn’t have relied entirely on artificial worlds. It left me disappointed and sad. While I was once excited for Chris Pratt’s possible revival of the role, if it’s told like this - and it likely will be - I’ll just stick to the originals. And it leaves me in disbelief. Relying on modern CGI is like buying a cool and expensive car that’s going to break in a few years versus a really cool and slightly more expensive car that could last forever. Films like this do not have a shelf life. Movies like the original trilogy have proven to last forever. BELOW: The last shot is infuriating Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Everything looks fake (except the diner) Director: Steven Spielberg Writer: David Koepp; story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson; based on Characters by George Lucas Philip Kaufman Cinematographer: Janusz Kamiński Producer: Frank Marshall by Jon Cvack I had put on this film immediately after I finished The Last Crusade ('89). I hadn’t seen TLC in nearly a decade, and the film was even better than I remembered, epitomizing Spielberg’s ability to converge craft of highest order with popular storytelling. Having always heard Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was terrible and made close to zero sense, I took my time getting to this one; not wanting to tarnish the first trilogy. But with TLC giving me hope that Spielberg’s prowess would at least provide some mildly entertaining sequences, I figured I’d put this on and give it go. What I experienced was one of the most heartbreaking moments I’ve experienced with cinema - as this is not just Spielberg’s worst film, but one of the worst sequels ever made, making Lucas’ Eps. I-III feel like Lord of the Rings. This film serves as the antithesis of what Spielberg stands for - relying on a barrage of computer graphics for extraordinarily illogical sequences, and obvious throwback elements to help try and relieve these problems. While with the original trilogy we dealt with magic and religion, this round we’re introduced to aliens, in which Spielberg forfeits any insight into any interesting questions whatsoever in order to provide us with a gaudy CGI fest that only leaves you more upset for how much better Spielberg is when he abandons the practice. The story follows a Golden Yeared Indiana Jones, whose hair has gone gray, and whose aging body has forced him to slow down. We open in the middle of the desert near Area 51 as a caravan of Russian spies dress as American soldiers in order to invade a warehouse where a strongly magnetized box exists. It was from nearly the opening shot, when we see the two actual American soldiers ask the Soviet spies to forfeit their weapons, when Spielberg cuts to a shot of the commanding officer who then dips to a knee, revealing the half dozen spies with guns behind them, opening fire, as though the American soldiers wouldn’t have seen the strange formation these soldiers were taking while getting out of the cars. I always resent this type of logical forfeiture in order to try and accomplish a cool shot, which it isn’t is. As happens when you watch enough movies for a long enough time, I knew I was in for the long haul on this one. Indy is then revealed and so is the evil Irina Spaiko (Cate Blanchett) who’s one of the most boring villains ever created, adopting the stolid Russian personality placed within Mia Wallace’s body. I can’t tell you one unique thing Irina does or says, and given what I mentioned in my TLC essay, in which a fucking tank driver was able to become a memorable character, I couldn’t help getting annoyed and fast. Still, I figured maybe this was a slow burn and Spielberg would surprise us. We then enter the warehouse, using gunpowder to try and find a heavily magnetized package, where they throw it up into the air and follow the direction it drifts toward. Eventually they find the box, which contains an alien corpse, and then Indiana attempts to escape and we get our first taste of Spielberg’s dependence on CGI rather than expanding on what he has demonstrably done with highest quality three times before. Let me pause to state that the primary problem with CGI is that, and the reason I would rather watch old films than many of these VFX-diarrhea machines is because I know that it’s not real. I know that Irina is not really driving a jeep through this warehouse that suddenly is about two miles long, even though it’s supposed to be the warehouse from The Temple of Doom. Time and again we cut to these great wide shots, showing the tens of thousands of boxes, as the car speeds the aisle, while Indiana Jones literally sprints across narrow rafters up across the ceiling, using his whip to swing down onto Irina, who’s still driving. None of this is real. It doesn’t look real, it doesn’t feel real. It’s like a video game or cartoon, in which case I rather just pick up a video game or watch an animated film. I honestly cannot comprehend how filmmakers today still refuse to understand that part of the spectacle for action-adventure films - and what makes them so effective - is that what we’re seeing looks as though it’s actually happening. Time and again, all we get is as much CGI as they can cram into each and every shot, rendering the whole thing completely unbelievable. Case in point is The Last Crusade, where not once in the entire film was I pulled out because something didn’t look real - with maybe the exception of the blimp’s establishing shot, which looked more like a matte painting and not trying to be the coolest, most amazing complex shot of a blimp ever possibly conceived! The story transports you because we’re seeing Harrison Ford actually hanging from a gun turret cutting into a mountain, or his face being pushed into a tire tread, or an actual tank - even if a model - actually falling down the mountain. There is no magic to seeing an ornate CGI shot. I don’t imagine what the crew must have done to achieve it, or what the actor risked to perform it, or how the director decided to capture it. I just see a bunch of people in a room on their computers working complex software. BELOW: Somehow driving unimpeded through the middle of a jungle, and it only gets worse Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  With an Irish brogue, Julianne Moore is the best part of the film Director: Lasse Hallström Writer:Robert Nelson Jacobs; based on the novel The Shipping News by Annie Proulx Cinematographer: Oliver Stapleton Producer: Rob Cowan, Leslie Holleran, and Irwin Winkler by Jon Cvack There was a movement between the late 90s and early 00s that provided such incredible mid-budgeted Domestic Dramas as In the Bedroom (‘01), You Can Count on Me (‘00), and The Ice Storm (‘97), typically taking place in small towns, featuring a broken family attempting to repair their severed or severing ties, with filmmakers like Ang Lee and Kenneth Lonergan going onto bigger and better things, and Todd Field looking to become one of the all time greats, though failing to provide another project since 2009’s Tom Perotta adaptation Little Children. I had never read the Pulitzer Price winning The Shipping News, but heard amazing things. Lasse Hallstrom directs the story, who provided the wonderful coming of age John Irving adaptation The Cider House Rules (‘99) only a couple years prior. The Shipping News is equally impressive in craft and photography, but the story seems far too large for its two hour running time, introducing so many characters and plots that by the end it races to catch up and resolve them, leaving you with far more questions than answers, making you want to read the book in order to fill in the blanks, knowing that some of the more fantastical elements simply failed to translate. The story stars Quoyle (Kevin Spacey) as a pathetically passive middle aged man who suddenly (within minutes) meets the trashy, though sexy Petal (Cate Blanchett), who declares within seconds that within a few hours she would fuck him. In a brilliant montage, we witness the rise and quick fall of their relationship, delivering a baby name Bunny (played by three actresses) along the way. Petal’s interest in Quoyle fades as fast it arrived, with her heading off to local dive bars and hooking up with whatever hunk of meat she happened to seduce, leaving you wondering what she saw in Quoyle to begin with, other than the obvious and easy exploitable man who could give her… something of which I’m not really sure. She takes off with one of the men, taking Bunny and selling her into sexual slavery (or as they call it a “Black Market Orphanage”). If things couldn’t get worse, Quoyle’s parents both kill themselves, though not before leaving a voicemail explaining their action and how disappointed they are in what Quoyle became. As things appear incapable of getting any bleaker, a long lost relative of Quolyle’s, Agnis Hamm (Judi Dench), shows up and invites him to start anew in Newfoundland. It’s around this point where the movie attempts to condense far too many characters and plots into the remaining 90 minutes, with Quoyle learning he’s descended from barbaric pirates who use to pillage ships and assault women; Hamm putting Quolyle and Bunny up in a rundown house that’s held up against the strong gales by thick cables; a love interest, Wavey Prowse (Julianne Moore), and her handicapped son; ghosts showing up at the house, and really pushing the limits of story by not really providing any clarity other than it’s not really a ghost, but a man who ties knots in ropes to help relieve a strange curse on the house; Quolyle’s job at a newspaper where he works with the film’s strongest cast, involving Pete Postlethwaite, Scott Glenn, and Rhys Ifans, with Scott Glenn’s character Jake Buggit drowning in a boating accident, laid down at a wake days later, where right as someone provides the final words, he coughs up water, alive, further pushing into the movie into nonsense; a brother who raped his sister Hamm, who she later killed; and even more absurdities that I’m leaving out. If I had only read the synopsis, I'd consider it a parody of the subgenre. What’s most disappointing is that, for all these elements, the moral of the story (the film version, that is) seems to be that you can’t escape your past, you can only change it, so try and change for the better. Or something. It’s a beautiful movie, and it left me wondering what ever happened to Lasse Hallstrom who, other than a few Nicholas Sparks adaptations and The Hoax ('06), hasn’t really made a movie I’ve heard of since. The camerawork and imagery are so strong, the performances fairly incredible, and yet it all added up into nothing much. Compared to The Cider House Rules or My Life as a Dog, both incredible coming of age stories, this left me hoping he’d return back to these smaller, more intimate dramas, rather than continuing the foray into colorful romance novels. It’s always a disappointment to see such incredible talent fall. BELOW: Spacey's character is too pathetic to be believable Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  McConaughey in a role way ahead of his time; worth revisiting for his performance alone Director: Jonathan Mostow Writer: Jonathan Mostow, Sam Montgomery, and David Ayer Cinematographer: Oliver Wood Producer: Dino De Laurentiis and Martha De Laurentiis by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... Being away on location for a film shoot and confined to a bedroom with nothing other than my laptop, I watched the film with my studio headphones and had an absolute blast. Whatever you think about this story, the film has absolutely incredible sound design, going on to take the Oscar for Best Sound Editing. I’ve watched the movie many times, but it was only with headphones that I truly got to experience its glory, where you can hear every tiny squeak and breath which creates the highly claustrophobic atmosphere. The impact of Das Boot is abundantly clear, though falls far short of the Wolfgang’s masterpiece. Steadicams follow with the sailors as they race down the corridors, working their way between compartments, closing doors and opening them. Shot wide, there’s depth to the frame, with focus pulling between sweaty close ups, complementing each sound we hear as they are left ever wondering whether the next explosions will be the last. And it’s here that McConaughey really shines, as again, while during the last time I watched the film he was perceived as the Rom Com lead, now that I’ve seen him steal the show in Mud, Interstellar, and Dallas Buyers Club - I came with fresh eyes. His performance has such subtle nuances and flavors, as he attempts to maintain calmness, searching to make the right decisions within seconds, hoping it’s the right one. Opposite Harvey Keitel as Chief Gunner’s Mate Henry Klough, the pair’s dynamic is powerful. Klough’s honor demands that he abides by each order, knowing that it’s not about whether he agrees or not, so much that discipline's vital in maintaining the crew’s morale. Keitel finds such a delicate balance, in which we’re never really wondering why he’s never moved up to Captain. It’s clear that he doesn’t at all want the role, finding his greatest strength in building up and encouraging the men. Counter to his often bad boy persona, Keitel’s prowess makes it believable; serving as the type of mentor you’d want if enlisted, knowing he’s always acting in the best interest of the crew. It’s a film where once you accept the heavy embellishment, you can sit back and enjoy the show. This isn’t to be celebrated for his historical inaccuracies like Saving Private Ryan, When Trumpets Fade, or The Thin Red Line that’s trying to portray the horrors and realities of war. It’s a popcorn movie with big action scenes and excellent sound, kind of about duty and - if pressing just a tad - sacrifice. It’s the type of WWII film by the likes of Guns of Navarone or Where Eagles Dare, taking place beneath the water rather than on land. It’s not perfect, but it’s a fun one. And if you got headphones, it provides a nearly brand new viewing experience. Turn it up loud. BELOW: McConaughey shines as a WWII Submarine Captain action star Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  I've seen this movie at least half a dozen times, had a bunch of discussions about the film ever since it came out, wrote this, and and still had no idea Jon Bon Jovi was in this film until today Director: Jonathan Mostow Writer: Jonathan Mostow, Sam Montgomery, and David Ayer Cinematographer: Oliver Wood Producer: Dino De Laurentiis and Martha De Laurentiis by Jon Cvack I’ve seen this movie more times than I can remember. It arrived amidst the WWII revival, as Saving Private Ryan kicked off the genre’s return, and films like Enemy At the Gates, Pearl Harbor, and When Trumpets Fade followed into the new millennium. It was ripped to pieces for its historical embellishment, with a former U-Boat Captain stating that the only thing this film and actual U-Boat histories have in common is that they both contain U-Boats. For the longest time I never really enjoyed it, thinking that by comparison to other WWII films it fell far short. I probably hadn’t seen it in over six or seven years since the last viewing, during which time Matthew McConaughey’s rose from Rom Com Stoner to a premiere talent. My perspective shifted, seeing McConaughey’s performance with fresh eyes as an energetic powerhouse, rather than a failed attempt by Hollywood’s Hottest. Perhaps it’s the endless crop of remake garbage that’s punching up these older films, as we realize perhaps, comparatively speaking, they weren’t all that bad; or perhaps their peers were so good, that the reverse equation made them play poorly. One thing I love about revisiting films I grew up with is their ability to shift your focus. While before I imagined serving as the lowly private, forced to make decisions without fully grasping the implications, now I empathized with Lt. Andrew Tyler’s (McConaughey) struggle with getting overlooked for promotion. He wants to command his own ship, and his Commanding Officer Mike Dahlgren (Bill Paxton) doesn’t think he’s ready. Given that I’m around Tyler’s age, the disappointment struck home - I’ve been rejected from jobs, promotions, raises, film festivals; where it all looked good and then crashed and burned. It was strange how I never even recalled this subplot, which is as classic as it gets in that the young and upcoming prodigy fails to get the opportunity he’s been waiting for, then finding himself suddenly facing the responsibility when disaster strikes. Dahlgren doesn’t think that Tyler’s ready to make the tough decisions a commander is responsible for; namely, the willingness to sacrifice lives when it’s for the greater good of the country or crew. As all of this is being discussed, they get word of a Top Secret mission, in which an American Submarine crew is to take over a German U-Boat in order to rescue the ailing crew which has a sophisticated encryption machine (as seen in the Medal of Honor video game series) that could turn the tides of war, if retrieved. The mission is led by the formidable Major Matthew Coonan, Navy Intelligence (James Gammon; who I just saw in Major League II, playing the most intimidating characters in both films). Tyler will act as Dahlgren’s 2nd in Command, leading the crew to the ship, where one of the lowly privates who speaks perfect German will help to work their way past the guards, kill the crew, and take the machine. Of course the mission goes wrong, as we’re left wondering why a Coonan thinks it’d be easier to train the entire submarine crew to engage in close quarters combat, rather than bringing aboard a small team of his own to execute the mission. They retrieve the encryption machine, but in the distance is a German Battleship that launches a torpedo toward the actual American U-Boat, killing most of the crew, including Dahlgren, who in a final farewell before sinking into the water, instructs Tyler to take charge, providing him with the coveted opportunity to command a ship. Of course the mission goes wrong, as we’re left wondering why Coonan thinks it’d be easier to train the entire submarine crew to engage in close quarters combat, rather than bringing aboard a small team of his own to execute the mission. They retrieve the encryption machine, but in the distance is a German Battleship that launches a torpedo toward the actual American U-Boat, killing most of the crew, including Dahlgren, who in a final farewell before sinking into the water, instructs Tyler to take charge, providing him with the coveted opportunity to command a ship. Continue on for Part 2... BELOW: Strap on some headphones for a taste of some Oscar-winning sound design Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed