- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
The movie Hugo has been marketed as some sort of fantasy film for the whole family. But I can’t see how any kid could be truly entertained by this film. Boring is the word that comes to mind when I think of it, and I’m an adult; imagine how bored a young child would be trying to get through such a long dragged out movie which takes place in a train station. It’s about a child whose father has passed away and now his drunk uncle who keeps the clocks running in a train station has taken custody of him. The uncle is always passed out and never there for him so the kid just runs around the station all day changing clocks and trying to steal food. He gets caught stealing by an old man who works at one of the stores in the station. That old man then takes something from him and eventually makes him work at the store in order to get it back. The boy becomes friends with the man’s goddaughter and eventually learns some secret things about him, all while trying to avoid the train station inspector who knows that he’s a thief. Sacha Baron Cohen, who’s known to most people for playing the characters Borat and Bruno, as the inspector is the only slightly interesting person in the movie. That still doesn’t make the movie any less dull though. I’m getting pretty bored just describing it. Anyway, the film then becomes this sermon on the wonders of filmmaking and how movies began in the first place. Most people have already seen early film footage and have a pretty basic idea of how they were made, so it’s no big revelation to see. Even to those who may not have any idea of what early filmmaking was like, it may still come off rather bland and unexciting to watch. It’s rather strange how a movie about a child trying to survive in a train station without his father morphs into a history of filmmaking. I imagine any kid who was looking forward to seeing a fantasy adventure (as the commercials seem to imply) is going to be pretty bummed out to watch film reels from the early 1900’s. As someone who loves movies and reviews them, I sure was. It didn’t help matters that it’s yet another movie shot in 3D, especially since there aren’t too many scenes where things are jumping out at you or that would need the technology anyway. There wasn’t much to be enhanced. It’s not like watching Avatar where you’re discovering a whole new world. You’re just watching the ongoings inside an old train station. Most critics seem to like this movie and I believe it’s only because it’s made by Martin Scorsese who is considered one of the greatest directors of all time. So I think they feel obliged to find reasons to appreciate the film or hail it as something original. But it’s really just a plain old boring movie like many others. Scorsese should stick to the gangster movies he’s best known for. Leave the kids alone.
I always wanted to go Hawaii but somehow never managed to do so. Until today. While the truth is that I didn't actually board a plane, cross the skies of the USA, and then fly about halfway across the Pacific Ocean; instead I went to see the new George Clooney film called The Descendants which is set in Hawaii. Just to set the record straight, this wasn't the Hawaii that you always see in the travel videos, or the brochures, or the travel magazines. Well it was - but just not in the way you expected. You see The Descendants isn't about vacationing in Paradise, or about an idyllic life. Rather it is about living in 'Paradise', or as Clooney's character Matt King says at the end of his introductory voice-over in the film: "Paradise? Paradise can go fuck itself." Clooney's Matt King is a practicing attorney in Ohau - where there are traffic jams on the highway, crime, dirt, cloudy days with torrential rains, and life with all of its issues, problems, and confounding situations with all the warts showing - just like we see all around us here in mainland USA. Matt King has been dealt some rather difficult issues - his wife has just been horrifically injured in a boating accident and lies comatose in the hospital, he has to care for his two daughters, aged 10 and 17, and he hasn't a clue on how to go about that, and finally he is the sole trustee for a trust that owns 25.000 prime acres in Kauai, and his family wants to sell it. He's still on the fence about that. A son of the King family, many generations back, married a woman that you might call the descendant of Hawaiian royalty, namely King Kamehameha . She was something like a grand niece. Long story - short version, The King family through a trust, now owns the rights to this huge parcel of undeveloped and pristine land. After the boating accident, King's youngest daughter Scotti played by Amara Miller begins acting out in school. Clearly she's lost and hasn't any way to know how to deal with grief. Her father decides to go and get the eldest daughter, Alexandra, portrayed by Shailene Woodley out of the expensive private boarding school where she is, so she might help out home with Scotti. Only Alexandra is going through her own issues which including drinking, partying, and recently, she has a huge argument with her mother. So when all are finally under the same roof, and Matt sits down Alexandra and lays it out for her that's going to have to grow up, set aside her differences with Mom, and help get Scotti back on track - where upon Alexandra drops the bombshell on Matt. "You don't have a clue do you? Mom was cheating on you. That's what we were fighting about." You sit in the audience and you watch the emotions make their way across Clooney's face. Anger, disbelief, frustration, anger, desperation - he's shocked speechless and there are no easy answers. This is atop the already known problems of Mom's coma, the fact the he hasn't really any experience at parenting, and the decision that must be made about the land. So, we hitch up our wagons to Matt and we're going to spend the rest of the film with him as he seeks his answers. He's going to have make a journey towards beginning the rest of his life with these huge obstacles that have suddenly landed not only before him, but also on him, as well as inside of him. Well George Clooney is more than up to the task. This is a Clooney we've not seen before. He's not going to be able to wisecrack, or draw a weapon, or outsmart someone. He won't be able to draw weapons or man-power from a personal arsenal. As Matt King, these are his problems and his alone. I didn't expect that my first visit to Hawaii would produce tears. But it did. Yet this film cannot be just pigeon-holed as a tear jerker. It is much more than that. No one is going to label this film gloom and doom. In fact, we won't cry until we see young Scotti begin to tear up after her Mom has passed. But short of tears we do experience the high and lows of family life. Our heart goes out to Matt King as we know that his struggles have been played out in homes maybe less grand than the one they live in, or in homes more grand - they're the quintessentials of life - no matter where or how you live. All of us will go through these same things. That's the beauty of this film. Directed by Alexander Payne and written by Payne and Nat Faxon and Jim Rash , the film manages to bring you into a situation of sadness that will only get worse as the film proceeds. Yet Payne and Clooney, as well as the supporting roles of the kids and other family members, (watch for former leading man Robert Forster as King's Father-in-law) bring us to a place where there is light at the end of the tunnel. Not a happy ending in the usual sense - but that King and his kids, have to move on, and the decisions have to be made, and for those of us who watch the fim - we have to move on as well. You leave the theater not with an exalted feeling of closure, or even wow, we got through it. Instead you feel grateful for having had the opportunity to peer into the home of a successful attorney, whose wife cheated on him. Into a family where the Mother has just suffered calamitous injury, and there you had a chance to see how the children of this family had to struggle to cope. But they and you will emerge. Life goes on. Yes, all is not well in paradise. Then again it never was.
Now that I'm back home from Hong Kong and Yangshuo in Gungxi Province, Mainland China, I've repopulated my Netflix queue, and Elite Squad arrived today. Released in 2007, b Elite Squad /b , or as it was called in Brazil, b Tropa de Elite /b , is about the Rio slums or favelas, and an elite squad of police called BOPE, whose mission is not so much law enforcement as it is the eradication of the drug lords that rule the favelas. br br br br This is not a film for the sensitive or the faint hearted. From the extreme fire-fights in the streets of the favelas, to the brutal interrogation methods employed by the BOPE officers, to the downright excessive boot camp training of the BOPE candidates in which it is a good year if three out the 25 make the cut - the intensity level of this film starts at strong, and soon goes through the roof with hardly any down time at all. br br The main character is Captain Nascimento played by b Wagner Moura /b . He's married, with a kid on the way, and he is one mean-ass cop. He's doing his best and his wife wants him out of BOPE and into a less demanding and less dangerous line of work. Unfortunately, his line of work is more dangerous than almost any other because by the time BOPE is called in - things have already spun out of control. br br He's got two guys who are already cops but they're trying to get into BOPE. Neto is played by b Caio Junqueiro /b , has been assigned to supervise the motor pool after a disastrous night on the streets when his quick trigger finger got another cop or two killed by the drug crew. Only the motor pool is out of funds. One car is cannibalized so another might run, and headquarters hasn't any money for him. So he has to steal a payoff to get some cash to fix the cars. You won't believe who the money that he intercepts is intended for. br br Matias played by b Andre Ramiro /b is a cop and is also trying to become a lawyer. He joins a group of students in a favela, and his girl friend Maria ( b Fernanda Machado /b )is living in the same neighborhood as one of the most brutal of the drug lords, Baiano played by b Fabio Lago /b . He hasn't told her that he is also a cop. Once the secret is out - people will start dying - and in ways almost too brutal to describe. br br Both Neto and Matias make the cut for entrance into BOPE. So there's your set up. Three cops and a drug lord and his minions of street retailers of drugs, look-outs, and the gunmen that back them up. Directed by b Jose Padilha /b , the film is dense, claustrophobic, as well as noisy. There's a lot of action at night, and the dialogues overlap, plus there is a grainy effect at night. Those things along with the jittery hand-held cameras that are utilized during the raids and ensuing fire-fights make the film a bit of work for the viewer. br br But the payoff comes in the tension, the pressure, and the excitement. While some of the police were corrupt and in the pockets of Baiano and his ilk, and the residents of the favelas were living in an area where desperation and danger lurked around every corner created there by poverty, the murderous drug business, and the firefights with the BOPE. Director Padilha has left the beauty of the Copacabana and Ipanema beaches out of the film. We will see Sugar Loaf Mountain only so very briefly, and we don't see Christ the Redeemer standing tall above Rio from his perch atop Corcovado at all. The film isn't about Rio's highlights - instead it about the places where visitors are unlikely, or rather shouldn't go to. br br There was a bit of controversy about this film. Many people felt that the BOPE tactics were as criminal as the activities of those who were their targets. Others said that the film sort of made those BOPE officers heroic while Nascimento was just as good at killing as Baiano and that was hardly heroic. You'll have to see the film yourself in order to decide what is the right answer to that question. br
Every so often, when you reluctantly head into cinemas to take a gander at the dismal choices Hollywood has mass produced for your not-so-viewing pleasure, you sometimes find a true gem that captures your senses and engrosses you in a new world. French director Michel Hazanavicius, known for his James Bond spoofs OSS:117 , has delivered a true achievement in cinematic storytelling that is at once classic and elegant in delivery and modern in its freshness and parody. It is called The Artist and it is simply an inspired experiment in bringing the silent film back from the dead in a way that is classier than Mel Brook’s Silent Movie but just as delightfully amusing. At the center of the film is the masterful French actor Jean Dujardin who looks like William Powell, is as charming as Errol Flynn, and dances like James Cagney. Without his true embodiment of the silent era, including every movement and facial expression, The Artist wouldn’t have been as stunning. But Dujardin isn’t alone in bringing this unique piece of film to life. There is a brilliant score that aids the crisp cinematography, which often mimics the silent era’s composition traits. But Hazanavicius and his cinematographer Guillame Schiffman take great lengths in bringing a renewed and splendid vision to telling their silent film. It’s filled with classic cinema homage ( Sunset Blvd. , Citizen Kane , and The Thin Man come to mind) and exudes the style of the silent era in every aspect from editing (montage, close ups, transposed images), acting (exaggerated movements, facial hints), and image (black & white, slanted composition, manipulative lighting). If Hazanavicius hadn’t proved himself a student of the cinema before he has given us a magical and truly charming love letter to classic cinema that shows that black & white/silent era films have just as much charisma, story, and emotion, if not more so, as any modern day film. The Artist is appropriately set in the mid to late twenties and uses the transition from silent era films to talkies as its story backdrop. Dujardin plays George Valentin who is a charismatic and popular silent movie star who loves the limelight but loves the work he does even more. When he’s introduced to the future of movies with the introduction of sound his world is turned upside down, which is magnificently shown through an elegant and brilliantly executed dream sequence where everything has sound except his own voice. As his stardom begins to fade, an actress who he helped get her start, Peppy Miller (a tactful and charming Berenice Bejo), begins to flourish as a talkie star. Though she might feel an obligation to owe him a favor for the start of her career, it is really out of a growing love that she begins to try and help Valentin through his troubled times, including the loss of all his money in the Stock Market crash. The acting from all of the actors, whether they are French, English, or American, aid the film in its silence giving the proper personality needed to hook audiences with an entertaining and emotionally connected experience. Perhaps, though, it is the beautiful score that drives every scene from the romantic and heart wrenching to the humorous and fun. It’s a brilliant balancing act dealing with darker themes, such as pride comes before the fall or even the possibility of suicide in the face of losing all meaning, and the lighter touches, including a fantastic part for a Jack Russell Terrier named Uggie who steals the show half the time. Compliments can be given to every technical element in the film, especially with the graceful camera work and silent style oriented editing. The film becomes irresistible as it sweeps you off your feet with a foresight for delivery that is at once experimental and yet also unmistakably conventional, which basically shows us that film can manipulate the expectations of particular genres in a unique and welcoming way. So in a way, The Artist is truly a rare cinema experience and not simply because it is a silent film, but rather it is due to its practically perfect use of cinema’s tools to tell a story that is moving and memorable. Doubters who will dismiss seeing the artist because it happens to be a silent movie will be losing the chance to witness something extraordinary. People forget that silent movies and early talkies during the Great Depression were essential escapes for audiences nationwide that were intended to remove all worries and enjoy a captivating experience. The Artist can essentially be described with that one word: captivating. Through all of the actors’ abilities and the film’s technical achievements, the film engrosses you in mind, body, and soul. Hazanavicius gives you a truly entertaining experience where there is plenty of humor to compliment his wonderful script that not only understands the film era he is capturing but also gives us characters that are sympathetic, dynamic, and worthy of our time and attention. The Artist , while using editing, cinematography, and particular acting to embody a particular time and style, transcends the limitations of simply being a silent film and becomes what we all head for the movies to see, which is a stunning and awe-inspiring cinema experience. The final scene has a momentary use of sound that will show you that sound doesn’t necessarily add to the clarity of the project and sometimes it can be just noise. The Artist isn’t even close to having any noise for it is truly an elegant and classy film that will have you leaving the movie with a smile.
Back in the late 1930's, when your great-grand-parents were coming of age and discovering sex and politics (most assuredly in that order but I have no way to verify) populist film director Frank Capra brought forth the great grandfather of all political films. The title was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939). It starred Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur , and what was billed, at the time, as the greatest cast of supporting actors ever. The film garnered 11 Oscar Nominations but did not win any of the major awards. A film adapted from a popular novel by Margaret Mitchell , called Gone With the Wind , walked off with most of the gold that year including Best Picture. However Mr. Smith was a brilliant film - Jimmy Stewart played Jefferson Smith who was appointed as a compromise by the governor of an unnamed western state to replace a Senator who had just passed on. Smith was appointed because the sitting governor couldn't abide the political boss's handpicked stooge and he had to worry about his own re-election so he couldn't name a popular reformer because that would piss off his bosses. So, the middle of the road type, read as unknown, Jefferson Smith is appointed to the Senate vacancy because he was naive, inexperienced, an idealist, and yet could be (they assumed) easily manipulated. Mr. Smith turned out to be a film that stood Washington on its head. While it is an inspirational and feel good story of the highest caliber, the Washington Press Corps and the US Congress reviled the film because of its portrayal of the corruption and venality in those hallowed halls of the American Government. The Senators and Congressmen didn't much care for the fact that they came off looking like a bunch of crooks at worst, or a bunch of hogs at the trough at best. So with a film like that one, symbolizing one of the major roots of political drama in cinema, we can look back and take note of some of the off-springs of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, beginning with Robert Redford in The Candidate (1972), Redford and Dustin Hoffman in All The President's Men (1976), Joan Allen in The Contender (2000), and of course, The American President (1995) which was directed by Rob Reiner and starred Michael Douglas and Annette Bening . These films made statements about the life and times of American politics and its natural bedfellow - the press. I mention all of this as background to give you an idea of how excited I was when I heard of George Clooney's film - The Ides of March. Dutifully, I attended the 11:00 AM, first show of the day, on opening day, October 7th. Basically, the film centers around 4 men, with two women showing up in smaller but key roles. Clooney plays Mike Morris, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and Presidential hopeful. He's got it all - looks, charm, charisma, and he says all the right things like; " Within 10 years America will no longer run on combustion engines, there won't be a need to invade anywhere, and places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia won't matter" . He says, " My religion is a sheet of paper called the United States Constitution, and if that's not enough religion for you, then don't vote for me. " He's assembled a crack staff to run this campaign to win the Democratic Presidential nomination. The story takes place in and around the Ohio primary election. As has been said many times before, As Ohio goes, so goes the nation, so you don't need me to tell that this is a key state. His campaign manager is the brilliant Paul Zara portrayed by Philip Seymour Hoffman . Paul's forte is winning the election for his candidate. This means he knows how to make a deal behind closed doors, and he know who to make a deal with. He's a whiz at reading the figures, the polls, crunching all of the numbers to be able to read the political winds. What he values above all else is loyalty. The number two man is the 30-something Stephen Myers played by Ryan Gosling. His forte is beating the drum, and creating the words that win the hearts and minds of the voting public. He's a wordsmith rather than a strategist, but he knows how to run the campaign office. His strengths are his intelligence and his diligence as well as his fire: " I'll do or say anything if I believe in it, but I have to believe in the cause ". The opponent has a strong tactical man at the helm of his campaign. That would be Paul Giamatti as Tom Duffy. He smarter than anyone else in the film, and he outplays and out maneuvers every one. Even when he doesn't get what he wants, he usually can still end up in a win-win scenario. I thought Giamatti's performance was just superb, and I'm already to label him the winner of the Oscar in the Supporting Actor category. Evan Rachel Wood plays Molly Stearns. She's a beauty, and she's cast as the hot 20 year old intern. She can best be described as a heat seeking missile, and I don't mean that as a double entendre. She chases power without even realizing how potent she is. But then again she's only 20 in this role. Or maybe I misread her and she does have a handle on how to get ahead. Marisa Tomei plays Ida Horowicz - a fictional New York Times political columnist. She's pretty savvy about playing the press/politics game. She's doesn't get into bed with anyone but that doesn't mean she's on the outside looking in. Of course that game is an old one, one hand washes the other. We all know how that works, and the result is that Marisa/Ida doesn't get a lot of on screen time, but really, her role didn't need any expansion. There's your set-up. Clooney not only acts, but he also directed the film, and he gets a co-screenwriting credit with Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon , whose theatrical play, Farragut North , was the source for this movie. What they have created and delivered is another political drama that will soon be considered worthy of sharing space on the pantheon of acclaimed political dramas. While they haven't spent a ton of money on this production - aside from the actors' salaries, you won't miss those standard DC exteriors. The White House, the Washington and Lincoln Memorials, and the US Capitol Building don't appear at all. This film was shot in Ann Arbor, Michigan with exteriors of Cincinnati, Ohio. So it comes down to the plot and the script. While this one is isn't quite as a good as Aaron Sorkin 's best - I mean it doesn't have the pacing and the crackling good word play. But that doesn't mean it doesn't get kudos. In fact - I was hooked immediately. In the opening moments when we hear Gosling's Myers reciting the lines that he's written for Clooney's Morris to be delivered at the speech later that night to the end when we hear Clooney's Morris telling us that '... integrity matters ...' - you know you've just watched a remarkable film. What Clooney and company have shown us is that politics is a dirty game (not that we didn't already know this), that there are no rules, and that the press and politicians use each other far more than you might think. As someone who developed an interest in politics from reading R.W.Apple in the New York Times on the one hand, and Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 , on the other - I became less interested in about the men in politics as idealists and media icons. Instead I grew to appreciate politicians as tight-rope walkers, or Modern day versions of Icarus who flew too close to the sun and burned and perished. In fact, bringing them down seemed more exciting than getting them elected. Clooney has not painted politicians as crooks or pigs at the trough as Capra did 70 years ago. No, in this film, Clooney is telling us that there are no good guys at all. None. We are not corrupted by the characters in the film. We are not placed on any kind of idealistic search for any kind of a political holy grail. When the back room deals are made, and the votes are tallied, we find that the results were not so much of an election as opposed to a foregone conclusion. When all the votes are in, someone has won the election, and someone has lost the election, and we can then understand what Clooney's message is - that there are no winners - instead there are only players who have outmaneuvered the opposition. Or said another way - it doesn't matter who wins - because the game was so dirty to begin with, that it only reflects the dark side of political desire and ambition. Maybe we are the ones still out by the trough, shoulder to shoulder, knee deep in the mud, struggling to keep our beaks and snouts wet.
A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971) The films of Stanley Kubrick became the references of the modern day Cinema. He was the ultimate “auteur” within every genre he explored. Kubrick’s own particular vision and exploration of narratives characterizes his oeuvre. Subsequent viewings of all his films makes every experience richer and more meaningful to the spectator. A Clockwork Orange may be the most famous film made by Stanley Kubrick, the ultra-violence depicted, the scandals, the banishments, and the aura around it makes it one of the most popular film of all-time. In this critics’ opinion, every Kubrick picture is a masterpiece. A Clockwork Orange is no less. Alex (Malcolm McDowell) a young man lives by night getting high on “shakes”, violence, rape, and stealing. He dresses as a dandy by day and as some kind of punk with army boots and white clothes by night. As the leader of his droogs Alex fulfills their need in drugs, sex, and brawls. One day his lead of the gang needs to be reinforced, so he decides to give them a good lesson. Formed of three other droogs; his gang, evidently exasperated by Alex, plans a trick to be sure he will get in for good by a stronger authority than his mild mannered parents and the weird/pederast principal of his school to reform his behaviour. Later after ending up in prison, he’ll offer himself to get a treatment that cleans the brain from “bad” or “wrong” thoughts from his nature. He’ll then be able to get back into society with a normal/passive temperament. This treatment will dehumanize Alex and rehabilitate him to the society. One part exposing Kubrick’s fear of America (he left New York for England because he was afraid of the violence and the nuclear menace in the USA) and one part the demonstration of the nature of humans that couldn’t be castrated or sedated. Humanity must have a choice of its actions and it should be moral. We can’t brainwash someone and erase his entire personality. Human nature is formed of good and evil and both must get into our minds to fully balance themselves. Sometimes in society we have to be clever and be better but other times we must fight and stand our guards. Be passive in some situations just makes us bland as sheep. The meanings of A Clockwork Orange are interesting and one must notice that this is a masterpiece as for its content so for its visuals. Every frame of this film is composed of superb imagery and as a perfectionist as Kubrick was it shows how he took so much time working on a film refining a particular idea. The scene under the bridge where the droogs beat up a drunk bum is lit like a Film Noir with such a mastery that even if this is a cruel scene this is one of the most beautiful scenes of Cinema. Visually the colours, the frames and the movement of camera in A Clockwork Orange doesn’t have any flaws. Adapted from Anthony Burgess’ novel by the same name, this feature is way much better than the original material and I think the same for Kubrick’s version of The Shining . The symbolism and the psychological/philosophical depth of Kubrick’s films can’t really be described, you have to see/live those films to fully appreciate every aspect of them all. The differences between Burgess and Kubrick are that the film success in bringing an entertaining story with the most unfriendly character ever presented. This is one of the most pessimistic films and one of the most ironic too. Nobody would want to live in this kind of world where everyone is ugly and inhuman. The dehumanization of Alex is done by vicious scientists and his rehabilitation is the action of political manipulations. Evil is everywhere and irony reigns. The roles switched in many cases, the writer who got beat up and got his wife raped by Alex and his gangs gets his revenge by torturing the mild dehumanized Alex without any remorse. On a technical aspect, the use of classical music, especially Beethoven’s, Alex’s favourite compositor, sets the standard that Kubrick already did with 2001: A Space Odyssey . Those classical masterpieces were remixed and are characterized by the perfect use of music in films. When I hear Beethoven my mind automatically will remind me of the accelerated threesome scene, the record store just before, or the morning when Alex puts on music in his room. This is a celebration of the magnificence of Beethoven’s oeuvre. The first time we discover this film, the music of Beethoven makes a clash because this is such a beautiful, elegant, and passionate piece of art that Alex isn’t the type of individual who’ll connect with this kind of music. You would think that in this near future he would listen to some distorted guitar à la Black Sabbath or The Stooges, something dark and heavy, but still. Kubrick probably choose those masterpieces that transcended time and imagination, like his other pictures he needs something that doesn’t reflect a time period but that evokes and awakes many layers of emotions. A Clockwork Orange is an example of mastery in the use of a soundtrack and demonstrates how a score should fit with the imagery it presents. Like any other masterpiece, A Clockwork Orange has its detractors. Some say it’s too violent, others say that it depicts a surreal world of nonsense and coldness. The violent aspect of the film is there and the weaker hearted may find some scenes unwatchable but still, this is a film that denounces this kind of gratuitous violence. On the other hand, sure this is a surreal world, this is a science-fiction movie that projected the world of tomorrow just like George Orwell’s 1984 . The last argument of the detractors, the most justified in my opinion, is the cold approach of Kubrick towards the story and the characters. Kubrick is not a warm director and his characters are more pieces of chessboard than the players of a John Cassavetes movie. He uses them to tell the story. The objective of the camera always seems distant to the characters and they are shot with blissful movements of camera. It creates some sort of objectivity through the subjectivity of the story. Unlike Hitchcock, for example, we are not pulled into the story as the wrong man. We are the watchers of the story, Kubrick uses other tricks to interpel his public. His favourite director, Max Ophüls and his always moving camera influenced the work of Kubrick. The uncommon camera angles and unique framings destabilize the viewer in his experience. As you may have guessed this is a film I love with passion. I have seen it a dozen times and each viewing has showed me a different aspect of the film. When I think about the perfect director I always put Stanley Kubrick in number one. Even if it’s not my favourite Kubrick or my favourite movie of all-time, A Clockwork Orange will always have a special place in my cinephile heart. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/08/clockwork-orange.html
Fellini’s Satyricon (Federico Fellini, 1969) The films of Federico Fellini always have been intriguing and mysterious because every first viewing of his films I feel like I’m entering in a different world than mine. Not only the imagery but also the narrative and the acting. It is always like the feeling of being in a dream-like universe. The first film from Fellini I saw was his Casanova with Donald Sutherland. It’s time for an anecdote: when I came back from my one month trip in Italy in 2006 my flight from Paris to Montréal had a special passenger: Mr. Donald Sutherland. The funniest thing about this little moment was that I knew who he was and I loved his presence in Casanova , Don’t Look Now, 1900, etc. But everyone was shouting this is Jack Bauer’s father! For Odin’s sake’s this man is a living legend don’t insult him by saying that he is the father of the flavour of the moment! Recognize the man at least! I discovered many Fellini films before I started this blog, so this is why this is one of the first reviews about his work. Satyricon was the first film of Fellini I ever bought, the Antic Roman settings and the name of the movie (I am a fan of the band of the same name) were the two magnets that got me and my hard earned money. Opposed to many Italian and American peplums that tried to recreate with precise details the past, Fellini’s Satyricon is the perception of the Roman Empire by Fellini himself. This is his fantasy about this time and age. It may sound a little pompous but for the neophytes out there Federico or affectively Fefe had an incredible imagination and his creations are inimitable. This creativity is characterized by a childish approach to everything, many of his imagery is taken from his memories and his impressions as a kid on how he used to perceive and see life. Far from being his most accessible work, Satyricon did not have standard narration neither does it have appealing characters. It looks like a freak show set in Ancient times. It is raw, bizarre, and beautiful at the same time. But like many unique films, this Fellini is a masterwork of cinematic brilliance and mise en scène. Even if it’s not considered as a major work from his oeuvre I still think that film has a special aura of greatness and weirdness. Moreover, Satyricon is a very personal film made by the genius vision of Federico Fellini. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/satyricon.html
Going the Distance (Nanette Burstein, 2010) Drew Barrymore and Justin Long are around 30 years old and they both have had hard times at relationships. She, is finishing school and is an understudy in New York for the summer while in Autumn she’ll return to her big sister’s house to complete school. He, is a New York guy working for a record label he hates. His relationships always fell in the same pattern with every girl. But together they’re like the perfect couple. As Fall comes Drew returns to San Francisco to finish her grad. Their relationship will have to pass through the test of distance. This light rom-com aims at the Y generation. Filled with a superb soundtrack of bands like Weezer, The Cure, and The Airborne Toxic Event. Going the Distance has modest goals and probably hits the target for what it’s supposed to be. A light but not life changing comedy. The denouement is predictable but like every Colombo, we how it’s gonna end, it’s how it gets there that is interesting. Well, even if passing by the clichés Going the Distance has this breezy light hearted spirit and a funny feeling. Not as good as ( 500) Days of Summer , Going the Distance fells into that category of films that are not too stupid or not overly melodramatic either so it can please the boys and the girls. The weakest points are the supporting roles that aren’t stiff enough and that could have some sort of Easy A ing. The stereotyped supporting cast just get onto your nerves and slows the whole story and its evolution. Far from being a study of characters it still has this hook that makes you want to finish the film even if you guessed the ending right. It is a movie worth a look with your girlfriend. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/going-distance.html
After seeing Contagion today, I thought long and hard about the peanuts sitting in a bowl on the bar next to my drink. This new film directed by Steven Soderbergh, and written by Scott Z. Burns is described as an action thriller centered on the threat posed by a deadly virus and a team of doctors contracted by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) to deal with the outbreak. I think the term action thriller is a little misleading. There's not really a lot of action and it isn't really a thrill ride either. It is really a horror story that could become true tomorrow or at any other time in the future. Only in this horror story, the monsters aren't visible. In fact, there already have been plagues, and diseases that have spread rapidly. The horror is that it can come at any time, and in anyplace on the globe. That is what is so frightening. The film tells us that an average person touches their own face 2 or 3 times a minutes all day. That's 2-3 thousand times a day. Every day. The film tells us that every day contacts with other people like shaking hands, picking up a glass, handling a door knob, or a pole on a subway train or a bus, or even handing someone a file, or money, or a credit card then receiving it back might result in the transmittal of a disease. The film opens at Day 2. Someone we know (the actress - not the character) has contracted the disease. She's unaware - but we know. Part of the reason is that this film's title is Contagion, and she looks and acts sick, and the other reason we know is that the blasted trailer told us as much. This is Beth Emhoff played by Gwyneth Paltrow. Within a few minutes of film time, she's weakened, collapsed, rushed to a hospital, then dies. The film back tracks and shows us some of what happened to her in Macau, in a bar, a casino, the flight home, etc. Her husband Mitch Emhoff is played by Matt Damon. Beth's death is so unexpected and so out of the blue to him, that when he's told that she's died, and that they couldn't save her, his first comments are -Okay. When can I see her. Can I talk to her? In short the news of her passing doesn't even register. A few days later Beth's son dies. From this scary beginning, the news only gets worse. There are deaths in Hong Kong, London, Japan, etc. There's no knowledge about the virus, or what it is , or where it started. Of course there's no cure either. The CDC, and the World Health Organization (WHO) swing into action. Laurence Fishburne plays Dr. Ellis Cheever with ample gravitas. Some have said he's too laid back. I say, as an Executive Director in the CDC, he can't panic, or seem to be at loose ends. He's got to be a rock. He dispatches Dr. Erin Mears played by Kate Winslet to head up to the Minneapolis suburbs where the Emhoff's lived to try to get a handle on what's going on. The WHO dispatches Dr. Leonora Orantes, played by Marion Cotillard, to Hong Kong on a similar venture. Days tick by. Day 5, Day 12, Day 17. What began as a few isolated cases increases exponentially with each passing day. Death tolls mount all over the world. The numbers reach into the millions. Panic and chaos mount. Poor Mitch Emhoff and his surviving daughter are not even permitted to cross a state line to go from Minnesota into Wisconsin. As I said this is a horror story. But that's all I will say about the story that unfolds on screen. So let's now have a look at the film's structure. Multiple story lines or settings, and about a dozen or so well known, and even award winning actors, and actresses have roles. No one is particularly heroic although some are very brave. The story moves along. As I said this isn't really a thriller, but there is lots of tension. You really can't take your eyes off the screen. It is not so much that you get attached to one character or another. They come and they go, some live and others die. But what is gripping is that we are all involved in this. This isn't just an outbreak of Ebola in an isolated African country. This isn't even SARS which began in Guangdong Province in China and quickly spread to Hong Kong and then on to many other countries around the globe quite quickly. The SARS outbreak was real and it was in 2003. I was in Hong Kong in 2003. Contagion is set in the present. The first victim (Paltrow) catches it just before flying home to Minneapolis via Chicago. Her flight originated in Hong Kong. Because of the fact that we have to keep so many characters afloat mentally, we don't get an attachment to any of them. Some have said this is a flawed movie because of just this factor. In my view - this keeps the melodramatics out of the film. It doesn't play like a drama with back stories, and lots of exposition. You just get caught up in it and are carried along. Some time is spent in the film where some provocative ideas are brought into play. Is there a conspiracy? Are we the victims of the big Pharmaceutical outfits who create a disease so they can reap the rewards on delivery of the curing vaccines. Will such agencies as the CDC, FEMA, WHO, and even Homeland Security give us all the facts. And what about the fear mongers in the media and on the internet. Can they be believed or are some them even involved in the profiteering stemming from the production of the serums or even the natural or organic medicines. The reality is that all of the above can or might happen. None of us are safe. Who will get the vaccines first? The questions mount and the answers are not really offered. I think this film shall do quite well and might even garner some award nominations. At the end of the film, we get to see how this particular strain of a virus came about. The actual Day 1. One more thing - I'll be in Hong Kong and Southwest China in 7 weeks.
I'm smart. I'm kind. I'm important... While the above might be a statement of self-empowerment, we hear this said by actress Viola Davis' character, Aibileen Clark, very early on in the new film The Help. Davis plays a maid in Jackson, Mississippi, circa 1963. She is the daughter of a maid, and a grand-daughter of a house slave. As she tells us during an interview with 'Skeeter' Phelan, "Yes- I always knew I would be a maid." Aibileen's words at the top of this review were said to her youngest charge, a bright 3 year blond girl who is the daughter of Clark's employer. Aibileen has raised 17 white children for her employers. But while this career has provided her with a job, and put food on her table, and brought the rewards of child rearing to her - this career was never going to be anyone's idea of a dream job. The film was directed by Tate Taylor who also wrote the screenplay, adapting the best selling novel, The Help, by Kathryn Stockett. Both Stockett and Taylor grew up in Jackson so this was a film based on their hometown, a place they both knew very well. To set the film up - the time of the story was before President Johnson signed into law The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Skeeter Phelan, played by Emma Stone is a recent graduate of Ole Miss, and more than anything else, she wants to be a writer. Her circle of friends are all bridge playing housewives who have opted to spend their days playing cards, shopping, gossiping, and turning over the raising of the their children, and the running of their households to 'the help'. The film takes as its format - that Skeeter wanted to talk to a housemaid to get some help about the kitchen column she had been assigned to do at the Jackson newspaper. But the more she spoke to Aibileen the more she realized that Aibileen had something both more topical and more serious than topics about cooking and cleaning. Only Aibileen wasn't about to put her livelihood at risk by talking about her employer. Only she couldn't keep it in. And once the stories of the slights, the insults, the exploitation, and the abuses started to come forth, it was like a dam had broken. Soon, more maids lined up to be interviewed and then still more. By the time Skeeter was done, and her New York publisher had launched her book - the town of Jackson, Mississippi, and its venerated domestic help situation would never be the same again. I thought the film was terrific. It was thoughtful, provocative, empathetic, sympathetic, funny, serious, and meaningful. A good number of very fine actresses took on their roles and ran with them. You'll laugh, you'll cry, and you will feel a whole raft of emotions as this film plays out before you. You will especially appreciate the work of Viola Davis, Emma Stone, Octavia Spencer, Dallas Bryce Howard, and Jessica Chastain. Oh there's been some negative press but in my opinion these criticism don't mean a whole lot. For example some have said that the film wasn't severe enough in showing how difficult life was for the blacks in those days. Meaning that the real life plight was even worse than how it was portrayed in the film. I understand that - but isn't that a whole different movie? This is not a documentary about how Civil Rights came into being. This is not a film about Jim Crow, the KKK, or even the violent times that actually happened. This is a smaller story - not a history book. The second main criticism is that this story about the plight of the help was filtered through the actions and thoughts of a white character. Ok it was. So what? If the author had been black instead of white, would the story been any different? Isn't the point of the film about the plight of one group at the hands of another? What difference does it make about who tells the story. So I totally disregard that criticism as well. The last thing I'd like to mention is that people griped about how the film wasn't as good as the book, or that many parts of the book were skipped, or left out, or simple glossed over. Probably this is true. Again - so what? This is a two hour film, not a 12 hour TV series. I think we are going to see some Oscars come to this film next year. I really do. And I also think this film is smart, and kind, and very important.
RATING 7/10 Bottom Line ‘Limitless’ is an intriguing thriller with a great concept and likeable cast, but the lack of logic in places, constant voice overs, loud soundtrack and over-use of certain visual styles stop the film from becoming something great. The Good Eddie Moora (Cooper) is a struggling writer, who is dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Cornish) at the outset. With his life going nowhere and seemingly becoming worse, he has a chance encounter with his ex-brother-in-law who supplies him with a pill that enhances his brain. Suddenly, Eddie is able to focus, and is able to turn his life entirely around to the point where he is able to make millions day trading in record time. However, his life becomes complicated when powerful businessman Carl Van Loon (De Niro) offers him a job, and the side effects of the drug start to manifest themselves. This concept is great for a thriller, as it taps in to the notion that by taking a pill, the possibilities that you can create for yourself become ‘limitless’. Any one who drinks a cup of coffee in the morning to get themselves motivated would love this drug. The cast lined up for this film are likeable and hold their own very well. Bradley Cooper is allowed a change of pace for himself and he proves to be quite a likeable star, moving from one pitfall to another as he uses his newfound abilities to change the world. Robert De Niro does his usual best; he’s not a gangster but he’s ruthless. Director Neil Burger manages to infuse an elaborate visual style that is very unique, and in some cases, quite inventive. A number of scenes show multiple versions of Moora in the same shot, stylistically portraying how much more capacity he has in achieving so many tasks. “Limitless” will hook you in to its concept, and will ensure that you want to stick around to see how it ends. The Bad Despite the great concept, there are a few lapses in logic displayed here. The most obvious one relates to the loan shark character. You can buy Eddie’s motivation to get quick cash from a Russian thug, but after he earns more than twenty times this money back on the stock market, you would think he would pay him back immediately, and also remember to do so given his brain is working on overdrive; but he does not. This is the only reason given for the loan shark character to stay in the film, and the lack of logic in motivation here does make his character seem arbitrary, particularly when the loan shark’s villainy could have been quite easily given to Robert De Niro, who would have no doubt pulled it off. The previously mentioned visual styles are quite fascinating when you first see them, but after a while, they tend to become irritating. Combined with a loud soundtrack and a reliance on Eddie providing uninspired voice overs, the mystery and thrilling aspects of the film become undermined and are nowhere near as strong as they could be.
Do you recognize this city? To be honest, I could not ID this place from this photo. But this particular skyline appears quite often in this film, like a leit-motif, only it is a visual note rather than a recurring melodic phrase. It is called the symbol of the New South Africa. It is Johannesburg. But this film, Gangster's Paradise: Jerusalema is not about the glamour and the glitter of glass and steel that began as an idea and ended as a landmark buildings in a city striving for success in the post-apartheid era. Actually this film is more like Martin Scorcese 's gritty Mean Streets or Brian DePalma 's over-the-top Scarface . What we will see is the rise of the gangster named Lucky Kunene [koo-nen-ay] played first as a teenager by Jafta Mamabolo . He is the gun-toting young hoodlum on the title card. He is seduced into a life of crime because of poverty and the Svengali like local crime boss in Soweto called Nazareth, and played chillingly by Jeffrey Zekele . Starting with simple snatch and grabs to car-jacking, young Lucky and his boyhood pal Zakes, are seduced by the easy money and the excitement. He tells his mother he is employed in the automotive industry (delivering cars). But the crimes escalate into bank robberies and then armed robbery in a scene that actually visually referenced Michael Mann 's Heat as the inspiration. But when this scene escalated (the armored car's personnel were shot and killed), the boys were terrified. So they packed up and left the township and headed for Jo'berg. The film fast forwards to 10 years later. Lucky (now played by Rapulana Seiphomo ) and Zakes own and operate a single mini-van taxi business. But life is not good. They incur the wrath of other taxi and cab companies by doing business in sectors controlled by the taxi fleets. Free-lance cabs like theirs are stealing business from the big outfits. So Zakes is chased, shot at, and is nearly killed. They live in squalor. Their apartment complex is infested with drugs pushers, drug users, criminals, and prostitutes. People are barely eking out a living, so they can't afford better housing. The land-lords couldn't care less about the conditions - as the rental revenues keep coming in - the living conditions get worse. So Lucky decides to form a better business plan - The Hillbrow People's Housing Trust. It is a simple plan. Win the trust of the tenants by promising to clean up the crime, and fix the buildings. Tell them their rent is cut in half, and they will now pay the rent directly to the Housing Trust. Withhold the rent from the building owners. When the revenue stream dries up - the building owners sell the buildings at huge losses. The buyer? The Hillbrow Peoples Housing Trust. Of course this is a get rich quick scheme for Lucky and Zakes. And it works. But the gangsters of the area aren't happy. Neither are the drug kingpins, nor the police. So we watch a story we've all seen before, the rise of a criminal, but in a new to most of us place - Jo'burg. Directed by Ralph Ziman , this is a worthwhile film. The colors are vibrant, the music pulsating, and there's plenty of action. The film is based on the story of Lucky Kunene, a real life underworld figure in the 1990's. The Jerusalema reference is that Hillbrow was to be a New Jerusalem, a place of hope rather than deperation, a place that would rise instead of a place that would sink. The film has some slow spots, and it also has some white knuckle tension. There's a romance of course - between Kunene and a young Jewish woman, Leah Friedlander, played by Shelly Meskin . Of course there's also the evil white Afrikaner cop, Detective Swart, who you can't help but detest on sight. The other notable figure is the drug-kingpin. He's brought his drug poison to Jo'burg from Nigerian. So when Lucky threatens him, " You've poisoned your own people, now you want to poison the people in this country. I won't let it happen !", you just know there's going to be war. Ziman has imported or co-opted plenty of familiar peole and situations. Despite that fact, the film does manage to tell this oft-told tale in a way that holds your interest. While the screenplay isn't hackneyed, you will find it predictable. But the freshness of the actors, the location shooting, and the music make the film better than the sum of its parts.
RATING 8/10 BOTTOM LINE Biased and opinionated as ever, Michael Moore does at least make you stop and think hard about the inequality of the American Health Care system in this insightful and clever documentary. THE GOOD Michael Moore has a penchant for exaggeration and highly-opinionated bias, but he does a great job at stirring your thoughts on issues he chooses to cover. In ‘SiCKO’, Moore has the American health care system in his sights, and his main point is that it has been hijacked by powerful insurance companies who are in the business to make money and not to provide health care. In many cases, it is difficult to not be sympathetic to Moore’s cause, as with his other documentaries. When Moore spends time talking to industry insiders who unravel the true nature of the system, and how insurance companies will do anything to get out paying out claims, you cannot help but feel angry. Moore also takes shots at the right-wing establishment thought processes that providing government funded health care is akin to socialism. On this point, the documentary makes some fascinating points, shedding light on America’s obsession with anti-communism and anti-socialism, and a fear that these ideologies will re-surface if items such as health care are taken over by the government. Moore rams this point home when he visits other countries, notably the United Kingdom and Canada, who in Moore’s eyes have miraculous health care systems that do not put undue pressure on the general public and give them what should be a basic human right. His trip to Cuba is perhaps one of the most insane stunts Moore has pulled, but you have to wonder what is wrong with the system if detainees in Guantanamo Bay are getting better health care than the average American. ‘SiCKO’ is Michael Moore doing what he does best; making a whole lot of noise, albeit over the top in some places, but all designed with the intention of making you think of challenging the established order, and not to be afraid of those in power who are out to protect their own financial interests. THE BAD Moore’s tendency is always to go over the top and to exaggerate to make his points. As with all his other documentaries, he seems to ignore facts that do not suit his argument, which in the end can invalidate the overall good message he is trying to convey. Although Canada and the United Kingdom have better health care systems in place for their citizens, it is unlikely to be as easy to deal with as he suggests. His stunt in Cuba makes some great points, but it is highly unlikely the vast majority of Cubans would get the same level of health care as those Cubans he depicts in this film, given that country’s status on the human development index. It is the inherent contradiction in Moore’s self-presentation that he has to make a lot of biased noise to get attention, but the same biased noise may partially invalidate his position. One can only imagine the type of influence he could yield if he took a more measured approach to his filmmaking.
RATING 5/10 BOTTOM LINE The film has a good message, but the execution is lost, meandering and weak, leaving “Charlie St. Cloud” in a netherworld where it loses its message in a sea of mediocre direction. THE GOOD Teen heart-throb Zac Efron plays the title character Charlie St. Cloud, a young man with a potentially bright future in sailing. When his younger brother Sam (Tahan) is killed in a tragic car accident with Charlie at the wheel, his life is turned upside down, and he puts everything on hold to stay with his brother, becoming curator for the cemetery in which Sam is buried. He forms a spiritual connection with Sam, which becomes all the more poignant when fellow sailor Tess (Crew) shows up in his cemetery, apparently injured. All of these moments lead Charlie to finally discover the meaning of his life. At its basic level, this film is about working out that life is meant to be lived, not be put on hold for someone or something else. A strong scene in the film involving Charlie and the paramedic that saved him highlight the tragedy of Charlie’s life, as he never moved forward after Sam’s death. Zac Efron does an amicable job as Charlie, providing the right amount of grimness and quirkiness to his performance to make him believable. The film tries to capture some moments about ‘life’, and in a few aspects, it does a reasonable job of this. THE BAD The overall execution of the concept of this film is weak. The plot navigates in a meandering and lost manner, never really connecting the dots appropriately. Charlie is something of an arrogant older brother, which doubly compounds his feelings of guilt of Sam’s death. But the film spends an inordinate amount of time at the cemetery where Charlie is talking to other people he knows who have died. When you first see this, you think Charlie is not all there mentally. But later, the film suggests that they are spirits he is in contact with, but by this time, the whole point is lost as the revelation comes too late. It also makes Charlie’s subsequent rescue of Tess that much more unbelievable. To think that she survived in freezing conditions for more than three days, and all Charlie had to do was use his body warmth to heat her up is bordering on ridiculous. It also trivialises their meeting at the end of the film when Tess realises that she has a much stronger connection to Charlie than she anticipated. In many ways, the structure of the script seems to be like that of a novel (probably lifted straight from the one this film is based on). That structure works for a novel, but it does not work for a film which needs a different structure. As a result, the film’s good message is totally lost in a weak and meandering plot that does not seem to go anywhere.
"Tell Billie for me. Bye, Bye Blackbird..." So ended gangster John Dillinger' s life. According to Special Agent Winstone, Dillinger uttered those words with his dying breaths and asked the agent who shot him (one of a several FBI agents who had a hand in gunning him down) to pass them on to Billie Frechette . The fact that this, the closing scene of the Michael Mann film, Public Enemies (2009), was totally fictional shouldn't bother you as a viewer, After all, that was an elegant tear that fell from Billie's eye. Billie, of course, was portrayed by Marion Cotillard . Mann has fashioned a gangster film wrapped inside of a love story. Here, the gangster is neither demonized or glamorized. For certain, Johnny Depp 's Dillinger is not a heroic character. He may be mythic in the sense that in real life, Dillinger took on the G-Men, when the country was in dire shape. But that is different than heroic. The Michael Mann / Johnny Depp take on Dillinger was that he was fearless. He didn't fear confrontation with the FBI. Nor did he expect to be turned down by Cotillard's Billie, which she did at first. When Billie protested that she wasn't going to run off with a man she barely knew, Dillinger laid out all his cards as well as a brief summary of his life so far ... I was raised on a farm in Moooresville, Indiana. My mama ran out on us when I was three, my daddy beat the hell out of me cause he didn't know no better way to raise me. I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars, whiskey, and you... what else you need to know? So Dillinger and friends robbed banks, just like Bonnie and Clyde . In fact, a question comes to mind. Did Mann pay homage to that film? I think he did. Dillinger died in hail of bullets, and he fell in slow motion. I think Mann was acknowledging Arthur Penn 's visual conception of the Bonnie & Clyde ambush. But Penn romanticiized his characters to a degree, and Mann did not. Yes Public Enemies did a good job with the Frechette/Dillinger romance. Their glorious passion and love was there for all to see. But we never got to know much about Dillinger and Frechette did we? Another view is the Mann reprised his theme of the obsessed hunter and hunted that he brought to the screen in Heat . DeNiro 's Neal McCauley has now been updated, or maybe I should say backdated to Depp's 1934 Dillinger. Vincent Hanna, played by Al Pacino in Heat, has resurfaced as Melvin Purvis , G-Man extraodinaire, played for the most part by Christian Bale in a one-note style. Though Bale looked great in his vested suits, suspenders, overcoats, and fedoras, we learned nothing about him during the film - which was clearly an extended chase, or hunt throughout the film. Purvis was obsessed in bringing down Dillinger. He chafed under the iron grip and protocol as laid out by Hoover and Tolson . When Purvis asked to import some good men from Texas and Oklahoma. Hoover's response was, "I can't hear you..." But Hoover was trying to make a name for himself, and would. The FBI came to life during this period. Somehow Purvis did get the kind of men he wanted. Most notably portrayed by Stephen Lang , as Special Agent Winstone. I can't decide if it was the combination of his gray hair and blue eyes that made it impossible to not notice him. Or maybe it was his steely determination and his utter fierceness which was matched on screen, not by Bale's Purvis but only by Depp's Dillinger. The action was deadly throughout the film, someone always got shot. This was so much the case, that the bank jobs themselves seemed almost an afterthought. While the film was extremely violent, it seemed that most of the violence was displayed on the shooter's side. The rapid-fire machine guns, or Tommy guns as they were called. The muzzle flashes. It was so exciting. The alternatives? Dillinger and cohorts planning a job - or divving up the money. The G-Man setting up their ambushes. The negatives - the over reliance on closeups. Sometimes I felt I was watching Cary Grant on Mt. Rushmore clamboring over those stony presidential faces in Hitchcock 's North By Northwest . Only most of the time it was Bale's stonefaced Purvis. The lack of depth to the main characters. The fact that quite often we didn't get an introduction to the latest member's of either Purvis squad or Dillinger's gang. In short it was hard to follow. Michael Mann's Public Enemies was 'okay' to quote my brother. 'But it wasn't as good as Bonnie and Clyde' he said. The Penn film preceded Public Enemies by 42 years. In fact, Mann's flick wasn't as good as Public Enemy No. 1 - the French gangster flick directed by Jean-Francoise Richet which I reviewed earlier this year.
» = New Post(s)