Day 225 - El Dorado

El Dorado (1967) directed by Howard Hawks

El Dorado undoubtedly draws comparison to Rio Bravo for obvious reasons. Both are westerns that star John Wayne and are directed by Howard Hawks. They are also somewhat similar in plot as well with the sheriff and company trying to protect a small town against the bad guys. Both are pretty darn good movies.

 I'm so tired right now, I have zero interest in rehashing the plot so I'll just mention a few observations. This is one of the few posts where I am outright admitting to half assing it. I think I'm allowed to have one of these every now and then just like how I know 90% of so-called vegetarians have a secret stash of bacon somewhere for their moments of weakness.

- There is a scene that is completely lifted and westernized from the ending of another Hawks film The Big Sleep. In that film Bogart's character confronts the bad guy in the house with a group of the bad guy's men waiting outside. Bogart knows that as soon as he steps out the door they will shoot him so he cooly points the gun at the bad guy and tells him to go outside basically sentencing him to death. Naturally the bad guy doesn't want to go outside so Bogart gives him a little encouragement in the form of gunshots at his feet forcing him to finally step out that door. There's basically the same exact scene in El Dorado except with cowboy hats. This scene got me to thinking just how awful these characters are. John Wayne sadistically shoots at the guy's leg and shoulder kind of like how those sick kids that pull off the legs of a spider one by one. Finally the guy has no choice but to go outside to get shot by his own men. There are other scenes where they could have easily taken in a guy alive but instead shoot them almost in cold blood. It's a take no prisoner's kind of attitude I guess.

- James Caan does one of the most racist impressions I've ever seen on film, perhaps less offensive than Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's, but no less shocking. Basically out of nowhere Caan's character has the bright idea of disguising himself as a Chinese guy to sneak up on a guard. The whole scene, obviously meant to be humorous, is so unnecessary not to mention kind of a stupid idea to begin with. I'm sure they could have found half a dozen other ideas to take out that guard. If you asked me about this film five years from now, this scene would probably be the only thing I'd remember.

- The more I see of John Wayne the more I'm convinced he wasn't a very good actor. He just looks so uptight on screen and has very limited range. Just keeping it real! He's still an icon though.

- I've eaten half a jumbo sized bag of gummy Coke bottles. They are quite delicious though can be quite sickening once you've had too many which I have. That is a sign to wrap this up.

Grade: B

Day 224 - Klute

Klute (1971) directed by Alan J. Pakula

It's kind of strange that Alan J. Pakula's name is so unfamiliar to me. I didn't even realize this is the third film of his that I've seen in this project (Presumed Innocent, All The President's Men). One would think I would follow up that point with something, but nope, it was really just a ploy to try to get you to click on my old links to boost my page count.

John Klute is a private investigator sent to New York to investigate the disappearance of his friend Tom. He is led to the prostitue Bree Daniels who may be the key to figuring out what happened to him. It is a good old fashioned mystery thriller. As you can tell from the picture, Klute and Bree hook up. I don't think that is really ruining anything because have you ever seen a film about a private investigator keeping tabs on a pretty woman and the two did not get involved? I didn't think so.

What is interesting is that this film is named Klute after Donald Sutherland's character but Jane Fonda's character Bree is unquestionably the main character of the film. In fact, Fonda would win Best Actress for this role and she is quite good. What makes her character interesting is that it is (what I assume) a pretty realistic portrayal of a call girl. She isn't the hooker with a heart of gold archetype like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, but a flawed sometimes even cold and mean woman. She is an aspiring actress but she is addicted to the game. She likes to turn tricks because that is what she is good at, that is when she has the power and the control. There are scenes where she confidently handles her clients with authority and confidence, yet in another scene she admits that she is afraid of the dark and is paranoid all the time. (Her paranoia turns out to be justified though as she is being watched, not just by Klute, but also the mystery man behind it all. Pakula shoots many scenes from afar to indicate she is being watched by this unseen character.)

Klute begins as the investigator out to do his job though you can tell he is intrigued by Bree. However he is kind of a boring character. He doesn't show much emotion or say many words. He is an observer and a listener. In a way he is in the audience with us watching Bree. And by the way, it is pretty amazing how some fathers and sons look so much alike. There was a moment when I thought I was watching an episode of 24 starring Kiefer.

The film has a very eerie feeling to it thanks to its noir style cinematography and creepy music. It all blends perfectly with the mystery aspect of the film. The film is very good at creating this ambiance. It is atmospheric and suspenseful throughout. Can't think of much else to say other than this was a well made and a pleasant surprise from a film I never even heard of.

Grade: B+

Day 223 - The Muppets

The Muppets (2011) directed by James Bobin

The great thing about The Muppets is that it isn't just a cheap gimmick out to make a quick buck. It is a well thought out, often hilarious, and always charming experience that old timers will watch with fond nostalgia while their young kids will watch Kermit and co with glee. The film is so good on its own merits that you don't really need to know who The Muppets are to appreciate it. I often found myself grinning from ear to ear at its exuberant silliness and wickedly funny jokes, not just aimed at little children, but the adults accompanying them. It's been a while since I've been so happy watching a movie. It's just a really fun experience.

The premise is pretty basic. The old Muppet Theatre is going to be destroyed by a rich oil tycoon unless the Muppets can come up with $10 million. Gary (Jason Segal), his lovely girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams), and Walter, Gary's muppet brother, embark on a journey to round up the old Muppet gang to save the theater. What do they want to do? Do one last show together on live TV to raise the funds. The only problem is that the Muppets haven't performed together in years and are scattered all over the place. They must reconnect with each other and ultimately themselves to give the show of their lives.

The Muppets is a surprisingly intelligent film. Rather than just have a wacky adventure together (though the film is plenty wacky) the film deals with their place in society now. In this way the film is very self aware. The Muppets are no longer famous or relavent. They've become a bunch of B list celebrities. Much of the film deals with the characters re-evaluating their circumstances in life. Kermit lives by himself in his lonely mansion, poor Fozzie Bear is doing local gigs in dingy bars in Reno. Perhaps they miss the spotlight but as it turns out they really miss each other. They are family.

The film wouldn't really be complete without its human stars. I particularly liked Amy Adams, a personal favorite of mine since watching her in Enchanted. She is so sweet and bubbly here and when she breaks into song, it is hysterical. Speaking of which, all the songs, aside from an unfortunate Chris Cooper rap, are very good. There is one particularly hilarious song that almost had me in tears.

One of the funnest movie going experiences of the year. And a Pixar short at the beginning was a very pleasant and entertaining surprise.

Grade: A-

Day 222 - Batman: Year One

Batman: Year One (2011) directed by Sam Lui and Lauren Montgomery

Back from vacation!
I'm finally back from vacation and should go back on a normal posting schedule. I don't want to turn this into a personal kind of blog, so I'll just say that it was a nice trip but I'm glad to be back home sleeping in my own bed. Movie watching was at times pretty draining because of some super long tours and/or really rough days at sea and using the internet was a nightmare. While flying to Europe I lost twelve hours due to the time difference and was never able to get it back which was why my posts were coming in a day late. It's kind of crazy to think that I wasn't able to squeeze in two movies in one day to make up for it over a two plus week trip, but it just goes to show how tough this whole thing can be at times. Anyways I got back in kind of late so I decided to pick a shorter movie so I can go to bed soon. This is the second animated Batman film I've done so far, the first being Batman: Under the Red Hood. I'm kind of a nerd so I really enjoy these movies, but they are actually pretty good even for non comic geeks.


On to the movie...
A lot of people mistakenly credit Christopher Nolan for reinventing Batman into a more mature and darker character. While the recent movies have certainly helped revitalize the Batman franchise to the mass public, the real credit for Batman's darker image should go primarily to Frank Miller thanks to two key story lines he wrote in the 1980's, The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One. While Batman has always been a dark character by nature, it was Miller's realistic, gritty and brooding origin story that really changed the way people viewed Batman.

Batman: Year One is based on the comic of the same name, and from what I've heard is a really faithful adaptation (I haven't read the comic). The story is what you'd expect it to be based from the title, Batman's first year on the job. It is also Lt. Jim Gordon's first year in the job at the Gotham City's Police Department and surprisingly, this film is almost as much about Gordon as it is about Batman. The film deals with their two separate stories; they both seek to bring justice to Gotham but from different sides of the fight, one is a police officer and the other is a vigilante. As we've all learned from various films like Death Wish real vigilantism would never be tolerated in the real world. Batman's main struggles in his first year aren't with the criminals he's trying to catch but with the police that's trying to catch him. Gordon is tasked to bring in Batman, although he has his reservations about it. He is more interested in curtailing the rampant corruption of the Gotham Police Department. As we all know Gordon would be Batman's greatest ally and vice versa.

One minor comment that I have is that the film feels a little choppy in its pacing at times. Perhaps this has to do with being lifted directly from the comic sometimes panel for panel or that it has to cover an entire year of events in just over one hour. There is no in-between segment from Batman's first patrol where he's still an overzealous amateur to when he's confidently taking down bad guys with fearsome style. Other than that though, I'd have to say I was pretty entertained and interested throughout.

I also have to say that the production value of this movie is pretty good. The animation is very nicely drawn and heads and shoulders above the animated Batman's from my childhood and subsequent films throughout the years with the possible exception of Batman: Gotham Knight. The voice acting is spot on with none other than Bryan Cranston voicing Gordon. Overall, a very solid movie that focuses more on character than action which may turn off some casual viewers but should fascinate the fans.

Grade: B

Day 221 - Jane Eyre

Saturday November 26, 2011

Jane Eyre (2011) directed by Cary Fukunaga

I've never read the novel so I really have no idea how this film adaptation compares. I am just going to assume that the basic story is the same and the differences lie in the artistic vision of director Cary Fukunaga. I suppose that is the challenge of adapting famous books into movies. You pretty much have to leave the story alone so it is just a matter of how you present it which can affect the feeling of a film almost as much as the story itself.

The film is about a young orphaned girl named Jane who ends up working as a governess at a rich estate. There she catches the eye of the imposing master Rochester who is taken by her intelligence and honesty. It is a classic Victorian age romance that deals with the issues of class, wealth, and expectations of women. However, not knowing anything at all about the story (though I assumed it was a romance) it was hard to tell where it might go because of the ambiance of the film. There is an incredible sense of foreboding throughout the movie; at one point I thought it may even be a horror film because of how dark it felt. Indeed, there is something fishy going on at the Rochester estate but I was never really sure of the nature of the secret until it was revealed.

There is sense of something really tragic in the film because of this darkness and the musical score which makes heavy use of the violin, which is both beautiful and profoundly sad. We already feel for Jane even before we truly understand why. 

Along with the wonderful score, the film is also gorgeously filmed. Though most of the film has a very austere feel to it with muted colors, it never looks bad and in some cases even shines. Exterior shots look like paintings with sunsets glistening over the fields. Springtime at the Rochester estate is as nice as the palace at Versailles. The dark interior shots set the tone for the most of the film. Faces are hidden in shadows but reveal enough to see the details of their features. 

When I rented Jane Eyre, I assumed it would be similar to Pride and Prejudice. Both are famous Victorian romances, but Pride an Prejudice is a more light hearted romance with some comedy (at least the film was, I haven't read this book either). Jane Eyre is deathly serious. I don't think there is a single joke in the entire film. I would say Pride and Prejudice is more romantic in the traditional sense, while Jane Eyre's romance is less developed though no less emotional. Was this the tone of the novel as well or is it Fukunaga's direction?

Grade: B+

Day 220 - After Hours

Saturday November 26, 2011

After Hours (1985) directed by Martin Scorsese

You know the expression "Just when you think things couldn't possibly get any worse…"? Well, that is Paul Hackett's night in Martin Scorsese's wacky movie After Hours. It's so weird because I had never heard of this film, but I always had its premise in my mind for a story for a book or movie: basically a series of adventures late at night in a city and the film plays out pretty much exactly like I imagined, absurd characters and even more ridiculous scenarios the protagonist finds himself in. This is a really great film that feels so familiar yet is so different from anything I've seen. It is also a testament to Scorsese's brilliance as a director to be able to take such a seemingly meaningless story and practically turn it into some sort of modern epic urban adventure.

I read in a description somewhere that this film is akin to the Odyssey, a modern take of the adventures of Ulysses set in late night New York City. In a way this makes a lot of sense. Big cities can often feel like strange exotic places full of interesting characters. Like in Woody Allen's recent Midnight in Paris, once the night comes just about anything can happen. And it does happen to Paul. One night he meets a woman in a coffee shop and gets her number. Not quite ready to call it a night he calls her up and is invited to her place which leads to one dark comedic twist and turn after another. It's rather pointless to describe each mis-adventure because by themselves they are silly little episodes that don't seem to make much of a plot. As the story goes on it pushes the boundaries of coincidence, fate and perhaps a higher power's twisted sense of humor. Regardless of any underlining subtext that may or may not be there, the film is great for all the reasons films are great, entertaining, engaging and artistically compelling.

It is always interesting to see what great directors can do with certain screenplays. After Hours's screenplay is excellent but Scorsese makes the most out of a script that I would guess didn't demand a lot of special direction. What I mean is that Scorsese finds interesting ways to shoot normal scenes in a seemingly unassuming "regular" movie. There are big camera movements, interesting use of close-ups and camera angles and superb editing and use of music. Maybe another director could have done something different or even better with a scene here or there, but no one but Scorsese could have made this film exactly like this. And this is true for any great film by any great director, they find ways to make movies distinctly their own. After Hours was a very refreshing and surprising find for me. It is a hidden gem among Scorsese's impressive filmography and it deserves to be mentioned among some of his best work.

Grade: A

Day 219 - 21 Grams

Friday November 25, 2011

21 Grams (2003) directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

21 Grams is an intricately woven story centered around three tragically flawed characters whose fates slowly become intertwined with each others. The narrative is as fractured as the characters, telling the story out of order, constantly shifting perspective and time, leaving you wondering how it all fits together throughout most of the movie. It takes a whole 30 minutes before you can even begin to sort out the basics and slowly put the pieces together. Whenever I watch a film with these distinct narratives, whether it be a flashback with the end at the beginning like in Double Indemnity or telling the story backwards like in Memento or out of order like in Pulp Fiction, I always ask myself does this make the movie better or is it just a gimmick? Does it reveal more about the story and the characters? Does it create a deeper sense of suspense or drama? These are particularly important questions regarding 21 Grams because this film starts out completely jumbled without any way to make sense of anything. When a film is constructed in this manner, the expectations of the viewer go way up because they expect a big payoff in the end to reward them for their patience and effort. 21 Grams is interesting in that the payoff isn't at the end at all, but rather in the process.

What I mean by that is that the ending isn't a mind blowing revelation nor a surprise. It may almost be considered a let down, but only because of how good the rest of the film leading up to those final moments are. The strength of the film lies in the three compelling characters played brilliantly by Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro and particularly Naomi Watts. Each character is given their moment to shine (and falter). Because of the structure of the film, we see them at various stages in their lives in seemingly no particular order. What this does is cause us to focus on their stories and wonder where it all went wrong for them to reach that breaking point. Because we know that tragedy is in store for them, scenes that we know come before carry much more weight. An innocent moment becomes all the more heartbreaking because we know there are no more left for them. 

Sean Penn plays Paul, who we first see lying in a hospital bed. We have no idea how or when he got there. It is revealed that he is dying and needs a heart transplant but even then we are not sure if this beginning scene has anything to do with his heart condition. He is married to a woman named Mary but in an early snippet we see him lying in bed with Naomi Watt's character Christine. Christine is seen at a support group talking about her dark past, but we find out that she is happily married with kids but not with Paul. And finally there is Benicio Del Toro as Jack, an ex-con who has turned to Jesus to right his ways. All three of these characters are tragically flawed and show a great deal of vulnerability. These powerful performances drive the film. Even when we don't know what the hell is going on, we are still captivated because of how compelling these characters are. Christine suffers dearly in the film and Watts displays such a great range of emotion from depression and anger to unrelenting despair. 

In fact the whole film has a feeling of despair and foreboding which is accented by Inarritu's jumbled film structure. It is a style he has become known for following up 21 Grams with his critically acclaimed Babel. The performances are so strong that the film could have probably been just as powerful if told from beginning to end, but by fracturing the narrative, not only does he add in an element of mystery and suspense but also makes the performances and the individual stories all the more compelling.

Grade: A