Category: likey

kinsey

another film recommended by well-known deviant james kincaid. and it is easy to see why kinky mcperv likes it so much: it takes the salacious, sex-mongering of a deviant and presents it as valid “research”. which, of course, is what kincaid himself does (once again see comment #4 here).

actually, “kinsey” is an excellent movie and i recommend it highly. directed by bill condon, who made the excellent “gods and monsters” some years ago, this is what every biopic should aspire to: an adult presentation of a complicated subject that neither canonizes him nor shoehorns his story into some existing template of well-meaning saint/savant triumphing against conventional morality. i don’t want to say too much about the content until more people have seen it, but i will say that i have not seen so many strong perfomances in one movie in a while. there isn’t a false note here: laura linney and peter saarsgard are excellent in the main supporting performances; in the smaller parts, timothy hutton and chris o’donnell do a lot with little; and even tim curry and the tragically underemployed oliver platt restrain themselves. at the center of all of this is a great performance by liam neeson–this is the kind of performance that makes you forget that there is “acting” going on.

watch it.

Scenes, more than films

In the last week, I’ve been catching up. (School’s ended.) Saw three flicks–oddly similar, in terms of content–that I’d recommend, but primarily because they offer up two, three scenes apiece that… well, in terms of acting and dramatic complexity, astonish. The films then often go a bit awry, but why quibble when there’s some unexpected perfection, midway through?

The films: P.S., Birth, The Woodsman. I’ll handle ’em in that order: Continue reading Scenes, more than films

Kung Fu Hustle

I saw this, and I recommend it thus: funny, eccentric, energetic, Sith-free fun.

There are some beautiful moments, some fantastically funny shtick, some repetitive fighting (a must in most any Kung Fu film), and more gee-whiz pizzazz to the pleasures of its CGI than any filmmaker outside of Pixar’s stable.

I want to emphasize: the writer/director/star Chow has a real eye–not just Jackie Chan’s or Sammo Hung’s, for choreography, but for the look of film. There’s a loving homage to “Top Hat” (of all films!) midway through, and it never settles into some kind of fight-shot/edit groove, instead consistently altering the manner in which the big showdowns get put together. Very fun.

And maybe it’d be worth stepping back to unpack the film’s smorgasbord of generic influences, or to compare it to the local talent doing the same thing (primarily Tarantino), but… someone else can do all that.

Hitchhiker

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that there are at least a few fans of Adams among us, many of whom may be avoiding the potential misfire of this film version. Don’t; it’s well worth seeing, and amazingly good at capturing that precise Adams tone–somehow merging Spike Jones’ ceaseless ADD-led invention, Alec Guinness’ best sad-faced winsomeness, and Doctor Who’s ludicrous sci-fi noodling. (There: I wrote a cap review without mentioning Monty Python.)

I particularly loved the ‘throwaway’ bits–unlike an American counterpart, like “Airplane,” which spitfires punchlines, “Hitchhiker” offers up an endless array of wonderful set-ups. The movie’s best bits are an inventive stream of “guy walks into…” scenarios; who needs to play to the cheap seats with big yuks? From its opening credits, a bad ballad sung by dolphins, with a bad montage of jumping swimming chittering dolphins, you realize that the film is profoundly silly. Just like Adams.

When it gets “funny,” it loses a little luster. Sam Rockwell’s kind of fun, as George Bush. Mos Def is very fine, but subtle to the point of barely relevant for much of the movie. And Zooey Deschanel is about 1/3 as charming as in “All the Real Girls,” but that’s still pretty good. Even Martin Freeman–who’s good–doesn’t blow one away. Which is as it should be; the film (like the novel) is about supporting players, backgrounds, settings–the extras normally not visible in space opera. Bill Nighy walks in, late-movie, and steals the thing.

I got nothing much more to say than: it’s fun.

kingdom of heaven

we watched this last night. i went in expecting to dislike it–the previews and reviews mostly made it seem like a whitewashing of the crusades and i thought its politics would offend me. to my surprise i quite liked it. in a way this is scott’s “anti-gladiator”. that film was far more stirring cinematically and narratively–i enjoyed it tremendously in the theater–and it wasn’t until i thought about it later that i realized that i found its “strength and honor” politics quite repellent. “kingdom of heaven” on the other hand doesn’t provide the visceral jolts or narrative releases that “gladiator” does–there’s no great revenge or other motivational plot and the action sequences are often confusing (as in “blackhawk down” i had trouble keeping track of people during the fighting)–but it is a more thoughtful film.

(some spoilers ahead)
Continue reading kingdom of heaven

Birth

When I first watched this film in the cinema, I admired the Kubrickian grandeur of Harris Savides’ cinematography and Kevin Thompson’s production design, and I found the dramatic narrative to be compelling if, at times, farfetched. In the end, I drove away from the cineplex ambivalent about its merits and confused by the filmmakers’ unwillingness to provide “proper” narrative closure. In an earlier post on this blog I even suggested Birth to contain moments best defined as ludicrous. But I popped the DVD in the other night and found myself even more glued to the screen—more compelled to watch the actions unfold without the need to define them. I found myself held captive by the taut, sexually menacing and ominous atmosphere (shades of Pinter?). Perhaps I was too caught up in solving the film’s many mysteries the first time around. Continue reading Birth

the incredibles

watched last night. doubtless some threshold in animation has been crossed but after the “sin city” backlash i am hesitant to praise technical innovation and cartoony violence (even if it is cool when the dad rams two hover-craft with men in them together, causing them to explode, in front of his adoring kids). the underlying premise seems to be to attack the cult of mediocrity/self-esteem pandemic in the u.s: the superheroes have to pretend not to have powers and not show that they are really special, because now everyone is special (which, one of them grumbles, means “no one is”). the problem with the film is that it hasn’t really thought this through in the social context it is placing its characters in: the everyday. the superheroes have done nothing to earn their powers, which are entirely physical. against these lucky freaks is a young man who is spurned by the naturally powerful and responds by applying his brain and becoming a technological whiz. the jocks vs. the nerd–but it turns out we’re supposed to root for the jocks. perhaps it is my long conditioning as a nerd that makes this a problem for me

Elephant

Gus Van Sant – Well, he does have a style of his own, though it got watered down in Good Will Hunting and – I’m not even sure what he’s made since then…

But against what I’d have thought, that “detactched youth” look works well here: Random teens getting through their day at school, interacting or terribly lonely, with long, long takes, sometimes of the same scene from different points of view. The only difference in this day is that two of the teens have made a plan to blow up the school and shoot as many students as they can. Continue reading Elephant

Millions

Whimsical, delightfully sentimental (I looked it up and it’s not such a bad word), visually stylish, and sophisticated about childhood, consumerism and global economics; Millions was pleasurable without feeling “important.” It’s the kind of film you always felt Spielberg was capable of if he just didn’t feel the need to try so damn hard.