(1951, Dir. Billy Wilder)
In Short: A washed-up reporter goes to far trying to get his big break. There's something awful about knowing how a movie is going to end. I've had a lot of movies with famously twisty endings spoiled for me before I saw them. I still enjoyed them, nonetheless, but it's not quite the same. (Mega Spoilers) Ace in the Hole doesn't have a twist ending, exactly, but it does have an interesting one. I didn't know the ending going into watching the film--in fact, I knew almost nothing about the movie whatsoever. But as the story raced towards its upsetting conclusion, I realized that I knew not how it would end, but how it had to end. Leo Spinosa has to die for the story to work. It's awful, and it's heartbreaking, but that's what drives the point home. Nothing is learned if Leo Spinosa makes it out all right, because then Chuck Tatum has gotten exactly the story he wants with no repercussions. That's the exact opposite of the point. Tatum did an awful thing in trying to get the story he wanted, and for him to learn that, Leo Spinosa had to die. Is that fair to Leo Spinosa? Absolutely not. Is it even fair to the audience, who's invested in what seems like his probable survival? No way! (End spoilers) The end, of course, isn't the only part of this movie. This film is great at turning expectations on their heads. Leo Spinosa's wife is not the worried, doting, sweet type of a woman who an audience would expect to see in this kind of a disaster set-up. She's uncaring and selfish--much like Tatum himself. Even though he's the protagonist, he's no hero. In reading about this film, I was surprised to learn that it was a critical and commercial failure--director Wilder's first real flop. I can see where it might lack entertainment value for some--it's a little slow on the action in parts, and sometimes, unlikable characters simply repel audiences--but the writing, acting, and technical aspects of the film all stand out as very good to me (but I'm no expert). It's an interestingly shot movie with a messed-up plot that features complex characters. Though a huge departure from the typically sugar-coated world found in most of Hollywood's films in the 1950s, it's real food for thought, and I liked it a lot.
1 Comment
(1999, Dir. Gil Junger)
In Short: This is Taming of the Shrew, only a whole lot more '90s. This is one of those movies that I should've seen ages ago that I'm just seeing now. It's a freshman/sophomore year movie, so I thought I would have outgrown it or been disappointed with it. Nope. I didn't know much about it going in--I knew Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger starred, I knew it was based on The Taming of the Shrew, I knew it was known for being a quintessential 1990s high school movie. I quickly realized that this is THE quintessential 1990s high school movie. Every trope I think of when I think "'90s high school movie" is present here in its purest form--the sarcastic feminist, the annoying and prissy little sister, the rumored teen convict, the crazy house party, the prom breakup, all of it. As soon as I noticed this, I was shocked that I wasn't bored out of my skull or just plain annoyed. I was really enjoying it! Every beat, every bit, no matter how typical of the genre, was executed so well that it didn't feel contrived. The screenplay was written by the good people who would bring us Legally Blonde a couple of years later, and it shows. The dialogue is witty ("It's just a party." "And hell is just a sauna.") and the plot is fun to follow but not overly-complicated. The characters (especially Heath Ledger's angsty delinquent) go through interesting and well-developed arcs, too, which is always appreciated. Overall, this was the kind of sit back and relax comedy that I really needed, and it was even better than I expected. I'm glad I took the time to give it the chance it deserved! (2011, Dir. Woody Allen)
In Short: Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a nostalgic Hollywood screenwriter working on a novel in Paris with his fiancee's family, where he finds himself transported to the 1920s every night at midnight, during which time he meets his artistic idols. First of all: The good stuff. I thought the opening series of shots was really gorgeous--establishing shots of the city with very little camera movement and really saturated colors and jazz music in the background. I thought that was great! It set a great tone for a movie that was so much about the city of Paris itself as a living, breathing sort of entity. The costumes and sets in the past were gorgeous, too. So was the cinematography! The shot of the two couples in the art gallery looking at the Monets was stunning and very memorable. And yet.... I would have been obsessed with this movie when I was a freshman. I was definitely living under the impression that I was born in the wrong generation, just like Gil thinks he is. I would have loved the idea of going back in time and getting to live in the past for even a little while. I still thought I would at least like this movie. I didn't. I liked the stuff that I talked about before. Unfortunately, there was a lot more I didn't like. The plot felt very gimmicky and predictable. I knew exactly when Gil would try to show Inez what had happened to him, I knew that she wouldn't believe him, etc. It's the same old song and dance. Speaking of the same old song and dance, Woody Allen wrote my least favorite kind of joke into this screenplay. It's the joke you get in time travel movies where the person who has traveled back in time meets a famous person and gives the famous person the idea for their great famous work. It happens in Midnight in Paris with Bunuel. This type of joke never makes me laugh, it just makes me irrationally mad. Another issue I had was the disconnect between the present and the past stories. And, yes, I get it. They're two different things, they're Gil's two different lives, etc. You don't have to tell me. But too many elements were changed. The tone, the color palette, the performances, the style of cinematography, everything was different. It was too big a jump to make. The unity of the film was lost on me. There were a lot of other reasons why I didn't like this movie. And maybe I'm just tired and angry and giving Woody Allen a hard time (but, I mean, he deserves it). I wanted to love Midnight in Paris. I didn't. Oh well. (1939, Dir. Jean Renoir)
In Short: A dozen or so horribly selfish aristocrats and servants all stay together in one house. Things go terribly wrong. There is not one entirely likable character in this whole movie. Even with an enormous and well-developed ensemble of main characters, it just turns out that each and every one of them is kind of awful. The thing is, however, that none of them are really evil. They're not actively malicious. In fact, almost all of them go out of their way to maintain decorum and propriety and not upset the status quo as they ruin one another's lives. The main conflicts center around marriage and infidelity--no one is happy with his or her spouse, or lack thereof, but they're all unable to figure out the right way to make things work. Christine (Nora Gregor) is especially confused on this front and changes her mind on the subject many times throughout the film. The plot of the film culminates in a great, though swift, disaster at the end. It's unsurprising given the immense tension that has been built up leading to that point. The chateau where all the action takes place serves as an enormous emotional pressure cooker full of a group of entirely selfish individuals. Hardly ever does anyone think about someone other than himself or herself. This is why nothing works out--these self-obsessed people make no progress because they are unwilling to look at the big picture. Despite its somewhat slow start, The Rules of the Game is really worth the payoff. Jean Renoir, the director, also plays a major acting role (and he's fantastic). In fact, all the acting is really brilliant, and the writing balances the talented ensemble cast very well. It's also a very interesting film visually (though I did quickly tire of the hunting sequences). If you like slow-burning conflict and mounting tension, this one's for you. (2016, Dir. Roger Ross Williams)
In Short: In the past, an autistic child named Owen learns to communicate with his family through Disney animated films. In the present, Owen navigates the world. Last week with The Umbrellas of Cherbourg we talked about Beautiful Bummers. Life, Animated is no bummer, but it sure is a tearjerker. It's uplifting and sweet and given the nature of pretty much every other Oscar-nominated film this year, I wanted uplifting and sweet. For a movie that could have been in danger of glorifying Disney to the high heavens, Life, Animated does very well in keeping things controlled. Yes, Disney is a big focus, and yes, it's discussed a lot. But it doesn't feel like the main point of the movie, and it doesn't feel like Disney is in control. It's a movie about Owen, and he comes first and foremost, and that's important to selling it (or not selling it, hahaha). That's not to say that I don't love the Disney stuff. The Disney stuff really got me. I grew up on those movies, and seeing something so integral to myself be so affecting really affected me. A theme I love in literature, film, etc. is the idea of art is important, and let me tell you why! It's compelling to me, and that's what Life, Animated is all about. It's not about Disney movies. It's about a person, and a family, and how Disney movies are important in their lives. I love that. I really like documentaries. (I need to watch more of them, I guess.) Even if you don't like documentaries, though, if you have any past positive experience with Disney animated films, Life, Animated will probably make you cry. Or it will at least make you happy to be alive in a world where children's films can make a child's life better. That's good stuff. (1964, Dir. Jacques Demy)
In Short: A young woman named Genevieve works in her mother's umbrella shop and falls in love with a mechanic who is drafted into military service. I went into this movie knowing absolutely nothing about it. Consequently, I was stunned by two things: 1) This movie is French and entirely in French, and 2) It is entirely sung through, opera-style. Between the foreign language and the constant singing it took some getting used to, but once I recovered from the shock, I was able to get really into it. Another aspect of this film I noticed immediately was the meticulously crafted color palette. Wes Anderson who? The confectionary color scheme of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is hard to beat, and Catherine Deneuve's outfits are to die for. Despite its colorful and musical world, though, this movie is pretty much a bummer. (A beautiful bummer.) Although the movie's main couple (Guy and Genevieve) is separated very early on, one expects a joyous reunion for them. Sorry, folks, it never comes. Guy and Genevieve go their separate ways and have very separate stories. Director Jacques Demy brilliantly highlights this separation by blocking out the plot in such a way that the stories of Guy and Genevieve do not interlock or cut back and forth to one another. The beginning of the film shows us Guy and Genevieve together, then it's just Genevieve, then it's just Guy, then, briefly, we see their lives intersect once again at the end of the film. That final intersection takes place at a gas station, which, in my mind, is the perfect location for such a transient, terse meeting. Stopping for gas is a short errand, a stop along the way. That's the way Guy and Genevieve's meeting happens--it doesn't change the course of their lives. It happens, and they both just keep going along. It's sad in the way that it's heartwrenchingly real. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is a simple, realistic bummer of a story in a fanciful, pastel-tinted musical world, and that's what makes it really work. The idealism of the characters is reflected in the look of the film, but the sad realism of their story comes through in the plot. I love that! I loved this movie and I think more people should see it. The characters are interesting (though not necessarily sympathetic) and they interact in fascinating ways. (Fans of Gilmore Girls will like this one.) Also, have I mentioned that this movie is gorgeously gloomy? A lovely letdown? A delectable downer? I can't recommend it enough. (1996, Dir. Tom Hanks)
In Short: Beatles-esque band from Eerie, PA, skyrockets to stardom when appliance store employee and jazzy drummer Guy Patterson (Tom Everett Scott) joins the group. This movie is La La Land meets Quiz Show meets something else I can't quite put my finger on--something that accounts for the lighthearted goofiness that That Thing You Do! possesses. It's all about achieving your dreams and dealing with stardom and still having fun, and all of the characters do that in different ways. (It doesn't seem like Jimmy ever has much fun, though.) The montages and colorful costumes and sets and the music lend the whimsy that makes this movie so delightful. Tom Hanks! You can do no wrong! This is such a fun, funny movie and I enjoyed it a lot. The performances are all great, especially Tom Everett Scott as the adorable drummer Guy Patterson and Steve Zahn as wisecracking guitarist Lenny. The Song (which according to IMDb is heard eleven times in the movie) is going to be stuck in my head forever. And I'm okay with that. (1940, Dir. Howard Hawks)
In Short: Newspaper editor Walter Burns (Cary Grant) tries to win back his ex-wife and former star reporter Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) by getting her to cover one last story before she gets married to a boring insurance man the next day. His Girl Friday is based on a play called The Front Page that had been adapted for the screen in 1931, following the same screwball plot of an escaped convicted murderer hiding in a newspaper office, but in The Front Page, all the reporters are men! His Girl Friday has the fantastic (and necessary) extra layer of Hildy Johnson being the only woman in the office--but also the best reporter out of everyone. It's such a fun, interesting twist. This is a tremendously funny movie! Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell have fantastic comedic chemistry that plays into the whirlwind, screwball plot really, really well. Their characters are independently strong and funny, but their combined talents for comedy are unbeatable. (2011, Dir. Glenn Ficarra and John Requa)
In Short: When his wife (Julianne Moore) asks for a divorce, 40-something dad Cal Weaver (Steve Carrell) seeks to reinvent himself with the help of bar-frequenting cool-guy Jacob (Ryan Gosling). And also a million other things are going on. There's no guesswork as to what this movie is about. It's spelled out clearly, mostly by a thirteen-year-old boy who never stops spouting weird tween wisdom about soulmates and fighting for the love of your life. Or something like that. Which is all well and good. But also, there's a lot to be said for the fact that there's comedy to be found in even upsetting situations that's not necessarily insensitive. So-called "romcoms" constantly forget to be funny! The same is not true for Crazy, Stupid, Love. There are some really supremely funny moments. Also I was surprised that there was sort of a twist towards the end and it super worked. There were a few of things I didn't love--the weird pacing with Emma Stone's storyline, all the babysitter stuff--but I hate to say that I kind of liked this movie a lot! It was shot beautifully and cleverly and I was super impressed and surprised. (Low expectations pay off?) I'd recommend watching this with friends. I watched it by myself but I'm sure it's even more fun with company! (1954, Dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
In Short: Fashion consultant Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) helps her photographer boyfriend L. B. Jefferies (James Stewart) and his nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter) investigate the possibility that a murder was committed across the way, to which bored, window-watching, temporarily wheelchair-bound Jeff might have been a witness. I'm always writing about Big Lessons in this section. There's no big lesson. It's a murder mystery. The lesson, I suppose, is that sometimes you ought to be a little too involved in everyone else's business because who knows, you might end up being able to solve a mystery. But they couldn't save the dog, so what's the point? The other lesson is that men are helpless without the women in their lives. So I guess there is a lesson after all! Mazel tov, Alfred. I liked this one! It was slow, though. I wasn't thrilled by it like I was thrilled by other Hitchcocks I've seen. It took a really long time before anybody got murdered, which was okay, and it sure picked up the pace at the end to make up for it. I definitely don't mind slow, but if you're looking for a consistently fast-paced thriller, this isn't it. I loved the premise of it, though, and it made for a visually interesting film, looking through all those windows. Grace Kelly was really, really great! Jimmy Stewart was swell! Thelma Ritter was hilarious! Overall, it was just good to be watching Hitchcock again. |
AuthorEileen here, writing reviews for film class. Archives
April 2018
Categories |