Author: Chris

Short French Takes: 5 x 2

There may already be a posting about this movie, but if so, I can’t find it using the search function.

Not a great movie by any means, actually pretty mediocre, but a clever conceit. The movie traces the relationship between a couple in five episodes that take place backwards. It begins with the divorce, after which the couple retire to a hotel room to have sex, though it is far closer to rape than consensual sex. Then the next four episodes uncover the infidelities and angst of the relationship, before ending when the couple meet (which involves the first infidelity).

It doesn’t ultimately work, primarily because the episodes don’t build to anything or explain the nature of the relationship. The third episode appears to be about the Gilles’ reluctance to be a father, or to be in a relationship, but it is hard to tell since it plays out mostly with him sitting in a car smoking. Still, the movie is French, so it can’t be all bad.

December Short Takes

‘Aeon Flux’ is not as much fun as it should be. The action sequences are OK, but it takes itself far too seriously, and I’m getting tired of these “dangers of cloning” movies. ‘The Island’ was bad enough, but this one also tries to sell the joys of nature, in all its wildness and unpredictability. It ends with the leads turning their backs on eternal life and heading out into the forbidden forest to live “only once, but for real.” Didn’t these people watch the Harry Potter movies? Anyway, this movie is a waste of CGI and real actors. Frances McDormand has a thankless part. And Pete Postlethwaite has an absolutely horrible cameo. He must be desperate for ‘Usual Suspects II.’

The preview for ‘Underworld II: The Evolution’ on the other hand, looks super. Kate Beckinsale wears skin-tight leather far better than Charlize Theron. And Derek Jacobi is in it. ‘I, Claudius II’ must also be in production.

Jarhead

I was hoping to see ‘Syriana’ today but it turns out that there are no “selected movie theaters” in Ohio, so I watched ‘Jarhead’ instead. It was much better than I expected, given the way the trailer is cut and the New York Times review. ‘Three Kings’ is the obvious comparison, and it lacks the absurdism of that movie and its emotional detachment from either war or the main characters. ‘Jarhead’ is not as good a movie as ‘Three Kings.’ But it is trying to do different things, and it ends up being a pretty damn good movie.

A few random thoughts. First, its subversiveness is more clumsy and obvious than ‘Three Kings,’ but it is nonetheless devastating. The failed equipment, the charred bodies on the Highway of Death, the way the first Gulf War was oversold, the stupidity of the military commanders, all add up to an indictment of the war, and the connections to what is happening today are made quite clear.
Continue reading Jarhead

Movie Critics

Pondering Frisoli’s comments about movie critics. Presumably an obvious defense for movie critics would be that they cannot take advantage of the conversational nature of a blog. A.O. Scott cannot assume that the average reader of his review this week, read his review of a different movie three months ago. So it is next to impossible to develop an argument, still less to circle back to modify an argument or admit that you wrong the first time around. And of course the whole thing is monological so the movie critic has no particular reason for modifying his/her views. The value of the blog is that it is dialogical, and it has a history of shared understandings (or disagreements) to which we can continually return.

That said, and having got to use the words ‘monological’ and ‘dialogical’ outside of class, it is still hard to understand why most movie critics are so bad. I have a particular dislike of David Denby, who seems to suck the life and enjoyment out of every movie he reviews – a veritable Dementor among movie critics – and simply doesn’t appear to actually like movies. But he is scarcely alone. So, which movie critics do people on this blog read/listen to and what do you think of them? For me it is Denby and Lane at the New Yorker, whoever is reviewing at the New York Times, and David Edelstein. Anyone I should be reading?

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I would guess that Harry Potter is an awkward franchise for this blog; the bloggers are too old and their kids are too young to have to pay attention to the movies. Still, I thought it was worth a quick post.

The fourth Harry Potter movie does some things effectively. There are some fine action sequences, particularly the three tests. The claustrophobic underwater scenes of the second test, and the broad expanse of mist hanging over the maze for the third test build tension and give the whole movie a darker feel than the earlier ones. The teenage romance scenes are pretty horrible, but not quite as cloying as I anticipated. You get a good sense of the disgust felt by 14 year old boys at the prospect of having to deal with girls (or at least you get a good sense of the disgust that adults think 14 year old boys will feel). And the adult acting is superb. Brendan Gleeson is excellent, and Ralph Fiennes manages to be menacing without going completely over the top. His nose is the perfect replica of a snake’s.
Continue reading Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Warriors come out to play

Spike TV is showing ‘Warriors’ at the moment. Presumably in the build up to the re-make of ‘Warriors.’ I watch this again, though for the first time in almost a decade, and I can’t figure out exactly why this movie has the appeal that it does. It seems so cheesy, but there is a certain charisma around the central gang members that transcends the cheesiness. Or maybe it just reminds me of an earlier, simpler era.

Riffs, yeah!

Serenity

Just saw ‘Serenity’ with the kids. Too gory for my eight year-old, but otherwise a good old-fashioned adventure movie. Part Star Trek, part Indiana Jones, part Matrix and lots of Buffy. Witty, great special effects, and even a plot, though the “secret” is a bit of a letdown. Still, to see Summer Glau in the Buffy role, whirling and slicing in her two fight scenes, and Chiwetel Ejiofor as the polite but deadly assassin is a lot of fun.

Before Sunset

I was watching ‘Alien vs Predator’ on HBO last night (disappointing: neither as frightening and clever as the Alien movies nor as funny and explosive as the Predator movies).

In any case, right after ‘AVP’ HBO showed ‘Before Sunset’ and I kept watching. This must be the third time I’ve seen it in the space of a year, and each time I’m enthralled. The quality of the dialogue between Hawke and Delpy is remarkable. Even the mis-steps somehow seem to work, to make it more realistic. When Delpy is lecturing Hawke on all that’s wrong with the world, it shows her lack of confidence yet that she and Hawke will connect as they did before in Vienna. When she uses American colloquialisms she should not know, even having lived in NY, it shows her relaxing around Hawke. And the manner in which the conversation evolves, from the trivial and the humorous, to the heartbreaking revelations they both make about their current relationships near the end, just seems utterly natural. It is also interesting to see Linklater and Hawke give the bulk of the dialogue to Delpy. Hawke plays off her superbly, but it is Delphy who has most of the crucial moments.

The simplicity of the camera work as it just backs away from the couple as they walk around Paris lends just enough structure to the movie without detracting at all from the dialogue. Hawke’s repeated movement to touch Delpy on the shoulder before resisting, and countless tiny gestures, capture the mixture of tentativeness and familiarity. I very much liked ‘Before Sunrise’ and in a lot of ways it is a better movie. But it is easier to craft a movie around discovery, and the first moments of a new relationship, than rediscovery, and the rekindling of an old relationship.

Curb Your Enthusiasm/Extras

I’m wondering what people with HBO thought of the first episodes last night. I have always enjoyed CYE, primarily because it has this ur-Seinfeld quality of being downright painful to watch. Pairing it with Ricky Gervais ought to be inspired because that was the main quality of ‘The Office,” along with offering serious satire of what passes for employee relations and management-speak today. On the basis of the first episodes, I thought CYE was the weaker of the two. Perhaps familiarity is the problem. Larry David seemed to be going through the motions, with the storylines of scalping tickets for the synagogue and the squabble over the sandwich being a bit more contrived than usual. He may be setting something up for the rest of the season. The running gag about ‘The Producers’ climaxed perfectly at the end of the last season, so maybe the adoption storyline is heading in the same direction.

‘Extras’ was pitch-perfect. Gervais’s ability to alternate between being the life of the party and being an embarrassed git is as strong as ever. The material on religion was hysterical, and Kate Winslett nailed all her lines. It is interesting that, despite the fact that Gervais and the BBC must have known that ‘Extras’ would be shown in the US, a number of the references ought to be bewildering to any but a British audience. Who, outside of England, knows who Jeremy Clarkson is, or cares, for that matter? I sort of like that parochialism. It is early days, but the series is low-key enough that it should be able to survive on the limited premise of sitting around a film studio every week and commenting sarcastically on the star.