Laws of physics dictate that there must at least be one star, but let it be known this is a zero-star movie. If the constant acoustic strumming over every piece of dialogue isn't enough to drive you batty, literally every other component of this movie is as terrible as it could possibly be. Just name it, whatever it is, the answer is "unforgivable". There is a rifftrax, if you must watch it, that's the way to watch it.
Reviews
5 Reviews
On the Waterfront
(1954)
Classic for a reason.
19 July 2010
As a man who is pushing 33, who was a confused child in the 80's and a tentative avatar of generation X throughout the 90's and up until now, my perspective of older films is going to be different than of those who lived during that time. Many period pieces have been made "after the fact", that require the audience to trust that the research has been done and that what they are watching is a plausible representation of that era. It takes a special kind of film to effortlessly appear legitimate to any generation that would be exposed to it, and any kind of social or political commentary it was trying to make can be easily swallowed. I insist that On The Waterfront exemplifies that analogy.
Anyone who is new to Marlon Brando and is curious to know why he is universally considered a great American actor will benefit from starting with this film. Brando is "coulda-been a contender" prize fighter Terry Malloy, who is a product of his upbringing in the NY slums. Having flushed his career by taking a dive to satisfy the pockets of local gang figureheads - specifically a Johnny Friendly played seamlessly by an intimidating Lee J.Cobb - he has long since settled into a blue color job at the docks as provided by his benefactor.
The well oiled machine of underground criminal activity motors along, until Terry is confronted by a moral dilemma. His conscious is awakened by the the naive and beautiful Edie Doyle, sister of a recently eliminated snitch, whom Terry unintentionally had a significant part in murdering. Her brother was a stand up kid who everybody liked, and Edie lingers around the crime scene desperate for someone to help her learn the truth. While the locals generally sympathize, no one is dumb enough to point in Johnny Friendly's direction lest they meet a similar fate.
Terry doesn't care much about the gang or street politics; he is a simple man with a simple instinct for survival. Its unfortunate that these cats get away with extortion and murder, but what is he supposed to do about it, right? Terry tries to adhere to the unspoken code that keeps him alive and working. His empathy for this pretty little fish out of water wears away at him, as do the righteous, fiery speeches of catholic priest Father Barry (Karl Malden) who boldly dedicates himself to abolishing gang oppression in his part of town once and for all. The priest implores people to do the right thing and go to the authorities with any knowledge they have of this young man's unfortunate passing. Terry's dilemma is made all the more difficult because his own brother Charlie is bookkeeper to the devil.
Terry has his own reasons for despising Johnny Friendly for the loss of his promising career as a boxer, but it takes the distress of a lovely blond girl to ignite the fire within him. In a fantastic, memorable third act, Terry takes a stand and a beating in front of his fellow co-workers. Though battered to a pulp, he gathers himself and limps his way to the warehouse to do his job, proving that Johnny Friendly is only as powerful as the people allow him to be.
On the Waterfront is an uncomplicated film that truly captures the essence of post war late 1940s, where corrupt union officials ran rampant and the city streets were brimming with downtrodden, luckless civilians that lived to work and worked to live. We see very little of the politics, rather we live the side effects along with Terry.
There are still many classic movies I have to catch up on; and certainly classics by the same director Elia Kazan such as "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Face In The Crowd". I am more eager to do so knowing that this director, as proved in On The Waterfront, appreciates his subject matter, and elicits strong performances from his actors. Most importantly, when I watched this film it never made me consider how old I was, or how old the film was; it spoke to me the very same way it spoke to audiences in the 50's, and thus truly deserving of the label "timeless classic".
Anyone who is new to Marlon Brando and is curious to know why he is universally considered a great American actor will benefit from starting with this film. Brando is "coulda-been a contender" prize fighter Terry Malloy, who is a product of his upbringing in the NY slums. Having flushed his career by taking a dive to satisfy the pockets of local gang figureheads - specifically a Johnny Friendly played seamlessly by an intimidating Lee J.Cobb - he has long since settled into a blue color job at the docks as provided by his benefactor.
The well oiled machine of underground criminal activity motors along, until Terry is confronted by a moral dilemma. His conscious is awakened by the the naive and beautiful Edie Doyle, sister of a recently eliminated snitch, whom Terry unintentionally had a significant part in murdering. Her brother was a stand up kid who everybody liked, and Edie lingers around the crime scene desperate for someone to help her learn the truth. While the locals generally sympathize, no one is dumb enough to point in Johnny Friendly's direction lest they meet a similar fate.
Terry doesn't care much about the gang or street politics; he is a simple man with a simple instinct for survival. Its unfortunate that these cats get away with extortion and murder, but what is he supposed to do about it, right? Terry tries to adhere to the unspoken code that keeps him alive and working. His empathy for this pretty little fish out of water wears away at him, as do the righteous, fiery speeches of catholic priest Father Barry (Karl Malden) who boldly dedicates himself to abolishing gang oppression in his part of town once and for all. The priest implores people to do the right thing and go to the authorities with any knowledge they have of this young man's unfortunate passing. Terry's dilemma is made all the more difficult because his own brother Charlie is bookkeeper to the devil.
Terry has his own reasons for despising Johnny Friendly for the loss of his promising career as a boxer, but it takes the distress of a lovely blond girl to ignite the fire within him. In a fantastic, memorable third act, Terry takes a stand and a beating in front of his fellow co-workers. Though battered to a pulp, he gathers himself and limps his way to the warehouse to do his job, proving that Johnny Friendly is only as powerful as the people allow him to be.
On the Waterfront is an uncomplicated film that truly captures the essence of post war late 1940s, where corrupt union officials ran rampant and the city streets were brimming with downtrodden, luckless civilians that lived to work and worked to live. We see very little of the politics, rather we live the side effects along with Terry.
There are still many classic movies I have to catch up on; and certainly classics by the same director Elia Kazan such as "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Face In The Crowd". I am more eager to do so knowing that this director, as proved in On The Waterfront, appreciates his subject matter, and elicits strong performances from his actors. Most importantly, when I watched this film it never made me consider how old I was, or how old the film was; it spoke to me the very same way it spoke to audiences in the 50's, and thus truly deserving of the label "timeless classic".
The Crazies
(2010)
This again...
19 July 2010
I have to straight away that I expected a bit more out of this film, even while aware that it was being generally described as serviceable to the genre. Its a remake of George Romero's film in the 70's of the same name that I have yet to see in order to compare the two.
Now, I have a respect for George Romero, and god knows I love a good zombie flick, but the sad truth is that the same damn plot devices aren't going to do it for me anymore. I realize that if a large portion of a population becomes biologically enraged or rendered undead and psychopathic, you'll expect the trademark "Lets get the hell outta here" and "We're surrounded we have to fight" and all that rot. Yes, there are going to be human beings that may not be infected but are already predisposed to go haywire at the promise of certain horrible death. Yes, there are bound to be zealous militants and ethical power points abound.
The reason this film passes as fresh in my mind comes down to the casting; I believe that Timothy Olyphant is one of todays most underutilized leading men as he projects humility and competence especially when charged with enforcing the law. Perhaps he's in danger of being type-casted as "the Sheriff with a heart of gold" (as in the short lived HBO series Deadwood), but its a role he plays well and we would are better off for it. In "The Crazies" he is the badge carrier of a typical close knit small mid west town; Ogden Marsh IA. Oh, and his name is David Dutten.
Relatively unknown Radha Mitchell plays his wife, Judy Dutten, the town physician. These are the only two characters we should even care about, because every other character is stock. Victims of a government mishap; a plane carrying a virus meant to destabilize populations crash lands nearby and If your familiar with these scenarios, its easy to envision what happens next. Slowly at first, then more rapidly, the unsuspecting townspeople are infected with the biological weapon and turn on each other in random and sometimes overly playful acts of violence.
The government is good at ruining everything, and here it manages to ruin the film. At times when it seems the suspense is building nicely and the implication of an apocalypse settles in, we are bombarded with loud, tension shattering montages of the military stomping around and barking orders as they attempt to contain the virus. The way they treat civilians you wonder why they even bother at all and don't just bomb the whole region like they (spoiler alert) end up doing anyways. We never get to hate them as much as we'd like, because there is no clear villainous figure acting as their voice. I would have rather have spent more time trapped in close quarters with our two leads and allowed them to develop further reasons for me to care about their survival. Olyphant and Mitchell seem to have a chemistry, but the movie is too busy propelling them into danger, and robbing us of much needed dialogue.
In the end, "The Crazies" is better fare than much of what passes for horror these days, but falls short as a shining example of its genre. It restrains itself where it shouldn't, and goes a too far with certain elements that should have taken a back seat, if not only to strengthen the kind of dread inherent in a film like this. Breck Eisner is a director still coming into his own, and this film doesn't say anything definitive about his promise beyond technical ability and perhaps an appreciation for subtlety that is lacking in the torture porn arena.
Still, its worth a single viewing and a bag of popcorn.
Now, I have a respect for George Romero, and god knows I love a good zombie flick, but the sad truth is that the same damn plot devices aren't going to do it for me anymore. I realize that if a large portion of a population becomes biologically enraged or rendered undead and psychopathic, you'll expect the trademark "Lets get the hell outta here" and "We're surrounded we have to fight" and all that rot. Yes, there are going to be human beings that may not be infected but are already predisposed to go haywire at the promise of certain horrible death. Yes, there are bound to be zealous militants and ethical power points abound.
The reason this film passes as fresh in my mind comes down to the casting; I believe that Timothy Olyphant is one of todays most underutilized leading men as he projects humility and competence especially when charged with enforcing the law. Perhaps he's in danger of being type-casted as "the Sheriff with a heart of gold" (as in the short lived HBO series Deadwood), but its a role he plays well and we would are better off for it. In "The Crazies" he is the badge carrier of a typical close knit small mid west town; Ogden Marsh IA. Oh, and his name is David Dutten.
Relatively unknown Radha Mitchell plays his wife, Judy Dutten, the town physician. These are the only two characters we should even care about, because every other character is stock. Victims of a government mishap; a plane carrying a virus meant to destabilize populations crash lands nearby and If your familiar with these scenarios, its easy to envision what happens next. Slowly at first, then more rapidly, the unsuspecting townspeople are infected with the biological weapon and turn on each other in random and sometimes overly playful acts of violence.
The government is good at ruining everything, and here it manages to ruin the film. At times when it seems the suspense is building nicely and the implication of an apocalypse settles in, we are bombarded with loud, tension shattering montages of the military stomping around and barking orders as they attempt to contain the virus. The way they treat civilians you wonder why they even bother at all and don't just bomb the whole region like they (spoiler alert) end up doing anyways. We never get to hate them as much as we'd like, because there is no clear villainous figure acting as their voice. I would have rather have spent more time trapped in close quarters with our two leads and allowed them to develop further reasons for me to care about their survival. Olyphant and Mitchell seem to have a chemistry, but the movie is too busy propelling them into danger, and robbing us of much needed dialogue.
In the end, "The Crazies" is better fare than much of what passes for horror these days, but falls short as a shining example of its genre. It restrains itself where it shouldn't, and goes a too far with certain elements that should have taken a back seat, if not only to strengthen the kind of dread inherent in a film like this. Breck Eisner is a director still coming into his own, and this film doesn't say anything definitive about his promise beyond technical ability and perhaps an appreciation for subtlety that is lacking in the torture porn arena.
Still, its worth a single viewing and a bag of popcorn.
Valhalla Rising
(2009)
A Savage Memory
19 July 2010
Valhalla Rising is a mood piece, first and foremost. The narrative is like an incorporeal creature comprised of primal metaphors swimming just beneath the surface of a cold, murky lake. With the artful application of doom laden sound and stunning organic imagery, Nicholas Winding Refn (the Director that brought us the very odd and engaging biopic "Bronson") meditates on pure savagery in contrast to promise of salvation.
Ambiguously taking place during the crusades, we are introduced to a silent warrior known only as "One Eye", who carries the war scar to warrant that title. His remaining eye communicates with haunted, calculating glares, while his body is mechanically poised for any eventual violence. Mads Mikkelsen embodies this man gloriously, providing a muscular catalyst for the brooding nature of the soundtrack and claustrophobic landscapes. All we know of "One Eye" by way of this story is that he is held captive by a pagan tribe that exploits his fighting abilities for profit. He is kept caged like an animal, and treated with the same regard. When the opportunity finally presents itself, he escapes with the first of many brutal displays that will have the most jaded moviegoers squirming. The violence is frank, and unapologetic for the sake of accuracy.
By default, "One Eye" becomes an unlikely guardian for a young boy who survives his ferocious escape. The boy follows "One Eye", who walks with purpose despite having no where to go. They come across a haggard band of Viking Christian crusaders who lay down their swords and accept them into their camp. These Crusaders are on a mission to find the Holy Land and fight to claim it from the non-believers. Some of them are interested in glory and riches, others are dedicated to planting crosses in service to their lord.
There is no telling if "One Eye" comprehends their language or understands their intentions, but we get the impression he is aware of his own purpose. At one point a knight asks the boy of "One Eye's" origins, and the boy replies simply "He is from hell", a statement that could mean a few things; none of them good.
While the crusaders appear largely uncertain of their fate, or their beliefs, "One Eye" remains unaffected and completely in his element. If a member of their party becomes too hysterical or aggressive, he eliminates them, as if they are "the weakest link" of a nightmarish vision quest through unexplored territory.
This review may seem overly poetic and pretentious, but its a fitting way to present this particular film. Perhaps it could have been thickened with more of a narrative, but then again, I don't presume it would have improved upon what the film was trying to accomplish. There is no real beginning or end, there is only this short moment of a history most of us have forgotten, where instinct and capacity for violence forged a man's destiny. The atmosphere, as Refn films it, is drained of warm, inviting colors, and as grand as the vistas may be; the forested mountains and broad bodies of water, we feel imprisoned by the ambient paranoia and uncertainty. This is why the film succeeds. Clarity is kept just out of reach, which brings us closer to the characters than we might suspect. Sometimes, if properly executed, a film with very little dialogue can inspire important conversations.
Valhalla Rising plays out like the fading memory of an old god, shrouded in the fog that separates the earth from other realms. If that sounds like your cup of tea, then drink deeply and be viscerally rewarded.
Ambiguously taking place during the crusades, we are introduced to a silent warrior known only as "One Eye", who carries the war scar to warrant that title. His remaining eye communicates with haunted, calculating glares, while his body is mechanically poised for any eventual violence. Mads Mikkelsen embodies this man gloriously, providing a muscular catalyst for the brooding nature of the soundtrack and claustrophobic landscapes. All we know of "One Eye" by way of this story is that he is held captive by a pagan tribe that exploits his fighting abilities for profit. He is kept caged like an animal, and treated with the same regard. When the opportunity finally presents itself, he escapes with the first of many brutal displays that will have the most jaded moviegoers squirming. The violence is frank, and unapologetic for the sake of accuracy.
By default, "One Eye" becomes an unlikely guardian for a young boy who survives his ferocious escape. The boy follows "One Eye", who walks with purpose despite having no where to go. They come across a haggard band of Viking Christian crusaders who lay down their swords and accept them into their camp. These Crusaders are on a mission to find the Holy Land and fight to claim it from the non-believers. Some of them are interested in glory and riches, others are dedicated to planting crosses in service to their lord.
There is no telling if "One Eye" comprehends their language or understands their intentions, but we get the impression he is aware of his own purpose. At one point a knight asks the boy of "One Eye's" origins, and the boy replies simply "He is from hell", a statement that could mean a few things; none of them good.
While the crusaders appear largely uncertain of their fate, or their beliefs, "One Eye" remains unaffected and completely in his element. If a member of their party becomes too hysterical or aggressive, he eliminates them, as if they are "the weakest link" of a nightmarish vision quest through unexplored territory.
This review may seem overly poetic and pretentious, but its a fitting way to present this particular film. Perhaps it could have been thickened with more of a narrative, but then again, I don't presume it would have improved upon what the film was trying to accomplish. There is no real beginning or end, there is only this short moment of a history most of us have forgotten, where instinct and capacity for violence forged a man's destiny. The atmosphere, as Refn films it, is drained of warm, inviting colors, and as grand as the vistas may be; the forested mountains and broad bodies of water, we feel imprisoned by the ambient paranoia and uncertainty. This is why the film succeeds. Clarity is kept just out of reach, which brings us closer to the characters than we might suspect. Sometimes, if properly executed, a film with very little dialogue can inspire important conversations.
Valhalla Rising plays out like the fading memory of an old god, shrouded in the fog that separates the earth from other realms. If that sounds like your cup of tea, then drink deeply and be viscerally rewarded.
Inception
(2010)
Inception
19 July 2010
Am I guilty of being a Chris Nolan "fanboy" as some forum stalkers would accuse the overly excited in this instance? Yes I am. Except how can that be a bad thing when he keeps on deserving it. I was confident before going in that this movie would stand up to objectivity, and It may take a few more viewings just to discover if there are actually any significant flaws that could subtract from what Nolan wanted us to experience. From my side of the looking glass, Inception was not only a great film, but the kind of film that deeply satisfies on multiple levels long after the credits roll. As an avid reader of Phillip K. Dick and similar authors who pioneered subversive, subconscious fiction for a future generation, I enjoyed every minute crawling through the labyrinthine narrative. As an illustrator who often pondered what it would be like to see the world through the eyes of MC Escher, I was doubly satisfied.
Lets start with the amazing cast. If I could get personal for a moment, each of the actors Nolan chose to participate in his vision are on my top 10 list of current favorites. Leo Decaprio earns a spot among them this with his turn as Cobb, the man with a haunted past who made an art form of steeling secrets from peoples minds, the up and coming Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whom I have championed since the remarkable homage to crime noir "Brick", is Arthur, Cobb's closest associate. Levitt adds another notch on his belt, and will certainly not be forgotten after carrying out what is easily one of the most astounding sequences ever put on the big screen. Tom Hardy, who wildly impressed with his off kilter portrayal of Britain's most notorious criminal "Bronson" is the charming master of disguise Eames. Ellen Page proves once again she has talent to burn as the architect of dreams in a role that serves to keep Cobb grounded just enough to finish the mission. Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Sir Michael Caine... we needn't dwell on the obvious.
So what is the mission? What is the method and motivations of entering each others dreams? What is at stake? I'm not going to get into it. If you want details of the plot there are plenty of other reviewers who were happy to impart them.
I would rather use this time to make two important points. Firstly, this movie is not for everyone. Please forgive any condensation when I say that if you are the kind that prefers paint by numbers, low brow fare; if you have little to no attentions span; if you get bewildered or alienated by concepts that brazenly reach over your head, than avoid this movie. If you hate having to concentrate on details and aren't willing to invest more than your retinas to any given experience, don't waste your time.
Secondly, Nolan has created a meticulous, substantial piece of cinema. I couldn't fathom anyone exclaiming otherwise, because for me this movie inspires my own lofty ambitions with the medium and reassures me that Hollywood can not always successfully suck the blood out of its true alchemists. You can't complain that this story has no emotional center. It may be as cool as a cucumber in its execution, but there is clearly a tragedy. Its difficult to grasp without much consideration, but there is a heart beating at the center of this story.
I imagine that after repeated viewings, the critics who weren't certain will come around, and those that dismiss it as drivel will continue to walk their straight and narrow paths, as traditionalists do, content with redundancy. There are some ambiguities in this script, but there is a piece of population that Nolan is catering to; people who love open ended discussions and solving puzzles, and learning things about themselves along the way.
I can't wait to see what Chris Nolan cooks up for us next. He's been working on this script for a decade and having given the world a Dark Knight we could all appreciate, flexed his resources for something more daring and original than anyone could predict. This was his dream, and now its ours, and generations to come will appreciate this layered, neo-noir masterpiece and be inspired by it. I know I will be.
Bradley J. Timm
Lets start with the amazing cast. If I could get personal for a moment, each of the actors Nolan chose to participate in his vision are on my top 10 list of current favorites. Leo Decaprio earns a spot among them this with his turn as Cobb, the man with a haunted past who made an art form of steeling secrets from peoples minds, the up and coming Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whom I have championed since the remarkable homage to crime noir "Brick", is Arthur, Cobb's closest associate. Levitt adds another notch on his belt, and will certainly not be forgotten after carrying out what is easily one of the most astounding sequences ever put on the big screen. Tom Hardy, who wildly impressed with his off kilter portrayal of Britain's most notorious criminal "Bronson" is the charming master of disguise Eames. Ellen Page proves once again she has talent to burn as the architect of dreams in a role that serves to keep Cobb grounded just enough to finish the mission. Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Sir Michael Caine... we needn't dwell on the obvious.
So what is the mission? What is the method and motivations of entering each others dreams? What is at stake? I'm not going to get into it. If you want details of the plot there are plenty of other reviewers who were happy to impart them.
I would rather use this time to make two important points. Firstly, this movie is not for everyone. Please forgive any condensation when I say that if you are the kind that prefers paint by numbers, low brow fare; if you have little to no attentions span; if you get bewildered or alienated by concepts that brazenly reach over your head, than avoid this movie. If you hate having to concentrate on details and aren't willing to invest more than your retinas to any given experience, don't waste your time.
Secondly, Nolan has created a meticulous, substantial piece of cinema. I couldn't fathom anyone exclaiming otherwise, because for me this movie inspires my own lofty ambitions with the medium and reassures me that Hollywood can not always successfully suck the blood out of its true alchemists. You can't complain that this story has no emotional center. It may be as cool as a cucumber in its execution, but there is clearly a tragedy. Its difficult to grasp without much consideration, but there is a heart beating at the center of this story.
I imagine that after repeated viewings, the critics who weren't certain will come around, and those that dismiss it as drivel will continue to walk their straight and narrow paths, as traditionalists do, content with redundancy. There are some ambiguities in this script, but there is a piece of population that Nolan is catering to; people who love open ended discussions and solving puzzles, and learning things about themselves along the way.
I can't wait to see what Chris Nolan cooks up for us next. He's been working on this script for a decade and having given the world a Dark Knight we could all appreciate, flexed his resources for something more daring and original than anyone could predict. This was his dream, and now its ours, and generations to come will appreciate this layered, neo-noir masterpiece and be inspired by it. I know I will be.
Bradley J. Timm
Tell Your Friends