The important thing is, I'm meeting new people

#11 - The Big Gundown (1966) Sergio Sollima - 1/14/2013

A smart spaghetti western; maybe too smart for its own good.

Morricone seems to be the only one involved going totally balls-to-the-wall. That theme and end music is fucking insane. Everything else feels clean and controlled. Very good, yes, but almost sterile feeling.

#6 - Django (1966) Sergio Corbucci - 1/7/2013

I don’t know if I can say anything coherent about Django, I’m too caught up staring into Franco Nero’s eyes (seriously, that man is soooo fine). The camera loves his eyes too, using them judiciously, withholding them until the most effective moments.

Django starts with an incredible image - the lone figure trudging across empty land, dragging a heavy coffin behind him, bringing death with him. That figure is an enigma, but the film gives just the right amount of information about him, at the right times.

The energy in the film is raw and explosive. There is a slow simmer that kept me intrigued. The villain is so bad, but not comically bad; rather, pure evil bad. A ballet of bullets, a Suspiria-like use of blood. More mud than in Deadwood.

Django has a killer theme song, familiar to those who have seen Django Unchained, plus an outstanding score, familiar to those who have seen Kill Bill. Interestingly, the musical motifs used for the Mexican revolutionaries reminded me of parts of the West Side Story score, making me wonder if Luis Bacalov was a Leonard Bernstein fan.

It also looked absolutely incredible on the big screen - the sheen of sweat, the expanses of mud, the texture of the hats, the color of Franco Nero’s eyes (sorry). I will be ordering this Blu-ray posthaste.

Apocalypse Now (1979) Francis Ford Coppola

I wasn’t expecting to be quite as disturbed as I was - I know, that’s a pretty ludicrous statement. As my husband said as we walked away, “what were you expecting, that this would be one of those fun Vietnam movies?”

Viewing what was supposedly the only 70mm print in existence, a viewing that we were told Coppola himself had to sign off on, surrounded by a bunch of true fans of the film, it was a pretty special experience.

As a first viewing, I was fairly blown away. It was interesting to see the genesis of so many things that have seeped over into the collective consciousness - the “smell of napalm in the morning” quote, use of Wagner (OK, so basically Robert Duvall’s entire character), the rest of the soundtrack, the entire feel of the film. I hadn’t seen the film before, but I still *knew* it.

Being a war movie that guys tend to obsess over, I thought it would be one that doesn’t necessarily glorify war, but at least one that doesn’t paint such a grim and horrifying portrait of war. The atmosphere and worldview of the rest of the film are so horrifying to me that I am unable to find the glorious moments truly glorious. But what a gloriously excellent film this is.

#231 - 12/9/2012

Silver Linings Playbook (2012) David O. Russell

I’m still working out how I feel about this film, but the things I like are overshadowing any misgivings I have, leading me to say - I think I really liked it. It handles mental illness and unlikable behaviors in a refreshing way (I don’t know how accurately it depicts bipolarity, but it didn’t seem false), addresses stigmas, and mostly challenges them.

First, the negatives. Mostly, all throughout I kept thinking, “this is a first-time screenwriter, right?” It’s a bit overwritten and the dialogue is a bit much at times, so I was surprised to see that David O. Russell wrote the screenplay in addition to having directed the film. Obviously I don’t know a whole lot about David O. Russell, who I have since found has written most of his projects, except for The Fighter. I also didn’t like the cinematographer, who was DP on Warrior, another film where the cinematography annoyed me. Something about Jennifer Lawrence rubs me the wrong way, but whether it’s her or the character, I’m not sure. The character is certainly interesting and strong, but I think I would have to go for a second viewing to really solidify my thoughts.

Anyway. I’ve made my thoughts on romance movies clear, I don’t tend to like them. But somehow, this one I liked. It teeters on the edge, coming dangerously close to toppling over into cloying and annoying. And yes, there’s the ending, but by then it had won me over, and I’m as susceptible to that stuff as anyone. (And if you think that’s a spoiler, for an American rom-com, go fuck yourself.) But there are parts that are genuinely funny, and there are parts that ring true, and there’s enough darkness to cut it all, and that was enough for me.

The real key here is the details, mostly Pennsylvania and the supporting characters. The film takes place in Philly, and the rabidity of Eagles fandom is a big plot point. Having lived in Pittsburgh for almost ten years, of course I got converted into a Steelers fan, so I can relate to that. My sister-in-law still holds a grudge against the person who moved the position of her Terrible Towel during the playoffs one year, causing the Steelers to lose. etc. etc. But moreso, the film really captures the essence of Pennsylvania suburbs, in a way that I hadn’t seen before - it was comfortable and familiar, rich with detail, but not depressing. I absolutely loved that aspect of the film.

Real care was taken in creating excellent supporting characters, and the actors really embody them. Robert DeNiro in particular, has not been this good in…I don’t know how long? But even the rest of the minor supporting characters are real and interesting and add to the story. I especially loved the psychiatrist, Chris Tucker’s character, and the main character’s friend Ronnie.

Silver Linings Playbook portrays flawed, but ultimately human characters, who are no less human because of their mental shit. They can make mistakes and do unlikable things without being unlikable themselves. The film does not punish them for these things, and instead asks us to accept and love them for it. Ultimately a feel-good film, but one that made me genuinely feel good.

#226 - 12/4/2012

Killer Joe (2011) William Friedkin

I went into Killer Joe not knowing much, and I’m glad I did. It’s not often that I end a film not having any idea of what I thought or if I even liked it, so I think it’s worthy for that experience alone.

The film is a bit messy and confused, but that’s OK; it’s also refreshing. I left the theatre kind of thinking “what the fuck did I just watch”, went to a bar and talked it over for an hour, and then ultimately ended up liking it. This movie is confrontational and aggressive, requiring the viewer to make adjustments and just take it all in.

Matthew McConaughey is entirely convincing (ick) as the absolutely corrupt titular character, and Thomas Haden Church provides the best laughs. I’m not as enamored by Juno Temple as some were, but I thought she did a very good job.

Anybody want some K Fry C?

#186 - 9/8/2012

The Ambassador (2011) Mads Brügger

I don’t normally like this type of documentary that seems like a stunt, but I did like The Ambassador, very much.

The Ambassador is a documentary by Danish filmmaker Mads Brügger, in which he buys diplomatic credentials to become Liberia’s ambassador to the Central African Republic, and goes about setting up a match factory as a front for his efforts to buy blood diamonds. Much of the film is footage from hidden cameras, showing conversations held with various high-level government officials, and the owner of a diamond mine.

I think a key to whether or not you like this film is how fully you buy into the reality of his situation, and whether you think he really would have been in mortal peril if discovered. I, for one, wholeheartedly bought into it; my jaw was dropped throughout with just the wild notion of it all.

As an on-screen presence, Brügger somehow manages to convey the absurdity of the situation while still staying in character. You never forget the precariousness of his situation. There were scenes that were hilarious and also frightening, at the same time.

And as a documentary, it had a lot of ground to cover - a history of the Central African Republic, the business of selling diplomatic credentials, Brügger’s journeys to actually get to the CAR, his experience while there. While it didn’t always succeed (I left with a ton of unanswered questions), I thought it did admirably well. And while the narrative structure didn’t always work, and the temporal switches not always made clear, I chose to read that as mimicking the disorientation of that actual experience.

One of the most interesting things to me, which was really only touched on the surface, was the exploration of what post-colonialism in Africa really looks like today. I would like to watch a whole documentary just exploring that topic.

In a Q&A after the film, Brügger said that putting on that costume every day for two and a half months helped him to stay in character, because he needed to be in character at every moment. And that he thought, what better way to hide than by being overly ostentatious? No one would expect someone dressed so crazy and sticking out like a sore thumb to be doing something like he was. Although I obviously noticed his flashy style, it hadn’t really clicked with me how different and out of place it was, something I’m glad I learned.

#179 - 8/28/2012

West Side Story (1961) Jerome Robbins, Robert Wise

It is the personal and humble opinion of this writer that West Side Story is the best movie musical (I know these things get contentious). AFI (and many people) would disagree, in favor of Singin’ in the Rain, but I am going to let my opinion fly and say this one, this one is the greatest.

It has the pedigree - a story based on Romeo and Juliet and written by Arthur Laurents, a score from Leonard Bernstein, lyrics from Stephen Sondheim, choreography by Jerome Robbins, and visual consulting from Saul Bass. It has the performers - yes, Natalie Wood and even Richard Beymer (although I had a hard time getting Benjamin Horne out of my head), but ESPECIALLY Rita Moreno and George Chakiris. It has the visuals - the perfect cinematography that immediately draws us in and turns the universal into the personal, and the rich use of colors that were at their best in 70mm. And it has the emotional impact that comes from good storytelling - a story of love and loss and the immigrant experience.

But what really solidifies this for me as the best musical are the songs and the dancing. Prior to this viewing, I had probably seen Singin’ in the Rain more recently, but other than the titular number, I cannot recall any of the songs, and only very little of the dancing (Donald O’Connor’s scene with the props, the cabaret scene). Whereas I know almost every West Side Story song by heart, and some of the choreography too. I can’t even name a favorite scene - the Mambo at the dance? The skewering of America on the rooftop? The absolutely exhilarating medley of Tonight after intermission? The biting commentary of Officer Krupke? The bitter desperation of Cool? All of them, all favorites.

And I could go on for paragraphs more about Rita Moreno and her character, Anita. That perfect, perfect woman with her flawless facial expressions and flawless acting and flawless dancing and her tragic, tragic character. Rita/Anita is what stood out to me most this time, the tragedy of the character, and the tragedy of the sorry fact that this amazing woman was largely unable to get more films and more roles good enough for her, a situation that has not improved greatly for women and especially women of color.

The end still somehow moved me close to tears, which left me feeling somewhat embarrassed. Aren’t I supposed to be past musicals, past seeing them as anything but a slightly ridiculous means of expressing emotions? But no, not when the emotion is so real and the story not much different in the America of the 2010s as it was in the America of the 1960s.

#176 - 8/25/2012

The Master (2012) Paul Thomas Anderson

I’m not sure at this point that I can actually separate the circumstances under which I saw this film with the film itself.

When I got to the theatre, I wasn’t expecting to see The Master. I had bought tickets to see Baraka in 70mm; I knew that there was a sneak peek going on that day, but I had assumed it was happening later, after Baraka. It wasn’t until I picked up my tickets and the ticket lady asked if I was excited or bummed out, that I found out that I was about to get to see The Master.

Sitting in the audience, I wondered, how crazy would it be if PTA were there?

IT WAS REALLY FUCKING CRAZY YALL. Paul Thomas Anderson WAS there, he was like six feet from me for a while, I could have reached out and touched him.

It’s silly how much that meant. I know that. But to be in the same room as the person who created what I’ve recently recognized as being my favorite film and the one that means the most to me (Magnolia), I was just totally overwhelmed. I was so overwhelmed that I may have cried just a little bit (not proud).

So with that, watching the film…

It is beautiful. And in 70mm… breathtaking, really. The most beautiful lighting, the most beautiful images of the water. I was riveted by the film. And the performances were wonderful; Philip Seymour Hoffman obvs, Joaquin Phoenix and his fascinating face, and especially Amy Adams - she was absolutely perfect, perfect, perfect for that role.

The comparisons to There Will Be Blood are inevitable, and on first watch, it does seem to pale in comparison. But I think maybe only slightly, or maybe it will grow brighter over time. It don’t think that there’s less going on, it’s just quieter, subtler, more layered, more understated, more subdued.

But I’m still stuck thinking about this, both alone and within PTA’s larger body of work, trying to organize thoughts and work through themes and make things fit in some way. And I’m also stuck with this thought that it’s actually quite apt, this study of the personal worship of the master, and what could easily be my personal worship of PTA. How it’s really all bullshit; but despite that, I couldn’t even dream of trying to talk to him, because of the feeling that even my presence in the same space is somehow offensive for being on a different plane of existence.

I recognize that this is crazy talk, and so with that, I’m done.

#185 - 9/10/2012

I don’t brag often, but

tonight I thought I was going to see Baraka in 70mm, and when I picked up my tickets, the lady at the counter asked if I was excited or bummed out. Apparently, her reason for asking was that instead of Baraka, we were being treated to an early showing of The Master. An email had been sent, but I did not get it!

And Paul Thomas Anderson was in attendance, and was standing about 6 feet away from me for a little while, and I couldn’t really even look at him, and I was so overwhelmed I cried a little (that part is more embarrassing than boastful).

I’m still overwhelmed.

Everything’s pretty cool sometimes.

Spellbound (1945) Spellbound

A little more than halfway through Hitchcock’s filmography, and Spellbound was probably my most anticipated of what’s left. I was not disappointed.

Visually, Spellbound is stunning. Setting the Dali sequence aside for a moment, Hitch really works some magic with the camera. Oh, I wish I had taken some notes earlier, because I’m forgetting so much. But it’s not just the trick shots, the interesting POV shots, or the visual motifs (I feel like it must have been somewhat difficult to get “white lines” to show on film, right?), but simple things, like the light falling on Bergman in her room. Of course, when working with Bergman and Peck, it could not have been too challenging to make them look beautiful.

The dream sequence, with artwork by Salvador Dali, was exactly how the psychoanalysis should have been represented on film. While the film’s treatment of psychoanalysis is quite laughable now, it works within the film, which is the only logic that matters for Hitchcock. It’s a shame the sequence was note longer, as Dali had much more planned, including a statue breaking apart, and underneath, Ingrid Bergman lying on the ground, with ants crawling all over her.

But because the picture deals so heavily with psychoanalysis, and the performance of psychoanalysis is the subject of the film, it sticks too close to (questionable) logic and too far from emotion. There is a lot of explaining to do, and a lot of wordiness - I always prefer the ones that could almost be silent films. I think it’s telling that Spellbound was adapted to a radio play.

Ingrid Bergman was wonderful, and Michael Chekhov as Bergman’s mentor was fabulously funny. Although Gregory Peck was beautiful, I’m not sure I loved him - I found myself wishing for the expressiveness of Anthony Perkins.

All in all, a good Hitchcock, a really good film by any other measure, and one that I heartily enjoyed.

#170 - 7/30/2012

The Mission (1999) Johnnie To

Maybe I’ve talked about my nascent love for Johnnie To a bit before… =)

The Mission was fantastic, I loved it. Despite being made without a script (!), it holds together, even with its somewhat awkward plot development toward the end. Additionally, since it’s not so dependent on a narrative, it doesn’t have quite the same pacing weirdness of Exiled or Vengeance.

But whereas Exiled and Vengeance are super slick and mostly serious, and Election and Triad Election super dark and serious, The Mission is fun. The tone of The Mission is the lightest of any of the To films I’ve seen, with some really good funny moments.

And the music! It’s cheesy, but I loved it, and I can still hear it in my head (in a good way). It sort of reminds me of something that would be in Sam & Max. A great scene, and a great example: the waiting game.

The five characters hired to protect the big boss are just really fun to watch; great characters and great actors, especially my To favorites Anthony Wong, Suet Lam, and Simon Yam. These Triad guys want to see some action, but most of their time is spent waiting. Still, there are some crazy stylish action scenes, and when they happen, they are welcome.

Great characters and great actors, especially my To favorites Anthony Wong, Suet Lam, and Simon Yam.

This one is definitely a watch, and one I will be looking to own.

#128 - 6/10/2012

OMG, I am the luckiest girl in the world.

This week at the Paramount - Hitchcock week. I got to see The 39 Steps on Thursday night, which was the only one they’re showing that I haven’t seen. It was delightful and excellent. This weekend is North by Northwest and Strangers on a Train, both of which I have only seen once, and am looking forward to seeing again.

Next month at the Alamo - Hitchcock month! They are showing 5 films, 4 of which (4! count em!) I have NOT seen, including Spellbound, which I am SO EXCITED about. They are showing Notorious (seen), I Confess, Lifeboat, The Wrong Man, and Spellbound.

My love for Hitchcock knows no bounds. At the end of July, I will have seen 27 of his 48 sound-era films.

The Avengers (2012) Joss Whedon

The Avengers is not a perfect movie, but it is a great instance of its type of movie, and I still loved it.

I could probably watch endless iterations with this cast and Joss Whedon. It definitely had its problems, but I had such great fun while I was watching that it was quite a long time before I could recognize its faults - the post-movie aura was really strong. From the little I’ve heard, it seems like a real feat that it turned out as well as it did given the circumstances. It would have been neat if Whedon had had the reins from the start (the real start). I’d love to see him do another.

And I, like every other person, now want a Ruffalo Hulk stand-alone.

Now I wish there were an easy way to go back and look at four weeks worth of reviews and tumblr posts I so successfully ignored for four weeks.

#98 - 5/19/2012

John Carter (2012) Andrew Stanton

I went to see this because fuck you, Disney, girls won’t go to see a movie about Mars.

I think this movie had a really good chance. I really liked it overall, I was surprised by how funny it was, I loved that alien dog thing, and I was a fan of the strong smart warrior princess character. They did a good job of world-building, and the special effects looked good. I could sort of take or leave the two leads, they were alright. Overall it was a good, fun, Sunday matinee.

But I could see how maybe it was overly focus grouped; I’m not wise in the ways of romance movies, but the love story didn’t need so much labor. It also seemed like there was additional exposition added for those confused focus groupees.

#66 - 3/25/2012

Bullhead (2011) Michael R. Roskam

What does it mean to be a man? Is it one’s actions? One’s interests? Who you want to fuck? One’s deeds, good or bad? Is it physical? Is it natural or artificial?

Bullhead is difficult to watch, but Matthias Schoenaerts as Jacky Vanmarsenille gives a really perfect performance - intense, simmering, massive. Schoenaerts has a commanding physical presence, and it is noticeable when absent. In some of his most threatening movements, he is absent from the frame, and it’s an effective technique.

The cinematography is overall excellent (a slight over-reliance on slow-mo), and the sound is wonderful. But the crime-plot is weaker than the Jacky-plot, and the supporting characters pale in comparison. Its as if Jacky is so strong, the effort to create this character so great, that the other narrative elements can’t compete.

This one is a bummer though. I think that out of my group of four, only I left feeling energized instead of completely terrible. A pair of mechanics add some much needed levity, but overall it’s pretty bleak. Worth watching for Schoenaerts.

#62 - 3/22/2012