| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
 |
|
Summary: Nice Try? No, Not Nice At All.
It's been over two months since my last movie review, yet that doesn't mean I wouldn't have watched any movies in the meantime. On the contrary. Why I chose 'A.I.' to resume writing reviews, I don't quite know. Maybe it bugs me. It's always best to write about something that bugs you, that makes it personal, makes it real, makes it less abstract, less forced. And do believe it, this film does bug me. Big time.
I sort of like Kubrick's style. I was entirely blown away by 'Eyes Wide Shut', 'The Shining' was breathtaking, and '2001: A Space Odyssey' had a great sense of vision and atmosphere. Still, from an artistic perspective, I prefer David Lynch. Anyway. 'A.I.' was supposed to be Kubrick's legacy, handed over to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg is a solid director, he's entertaining, he's able to bring in the crowd, he's inventive, somehow, and one of the big players in L.A., and Dreamworks SKG, the studio owned by him, Katzenberg and Geffen, has produced lots of great films, and has been very lucky on almost all counts. Yet Spielberg, sadly, is no Kubrick.
When I think about what this movie is, the word "hybrid" comes to mind. This is a crossing between a Kubrick movie and a Spielberg movie. In genetics, or transplant surgery, some things don't mix. If you do mix them, it could be fatal. Well, no one dies from hybridization in movies. Except, of course, artistry. Spielberg proves he's watched Kubrick's films, he also proves that he's able to imitate certain portions of Kubrick's style, mostly sets and the way scenes unfold. Yet that ain't everything. There's more to Kubrick than a specific way to direct a camera lense. If this is supposed to be an execution of a Kubrick project, it's just that, only in the negative sense: Kubrick's vision is ridiculed by this shallow attempt.
Let's start this from the Kubrick angle first. Of course, Spielberg's first choice for the music is always John Williams. That's a mistake Kubrick probably wouldn't have made. It's not that I don't like Williams' music, it's just that he starts to become repetitive and derivative of himself. He's not original any more. Kubrick, like Oliver Stone also, would probably have preferred a more twisted musical collage, like in other films of his. The Williams soundtrack makes the movie soft, friendly, kind. Since when do these attributes fit a Kubrick film? The story is told in an extremely straight way, the cuts are brutal, the transitions utmost primitive. This is a benign fairy tale - a watered-down version of Pinocchio, a story told over and over again. Kubrick has never been benign. He has been brutal, obnoxious, disturbing, shocking, sarcastic. But benign? This is no hommage to Kubrick, it's a bad film interspersed with obvious rip-offs from Kubrick's visual style, always providing a feeling of "almost-if", yet never a true sense of its own. Kubrick's vision is only executed to a certain point, to an invisible line, a line Spielberg doesn't seem willing to cross. That's not only annoying, it's sad - because somehow I believe Spielberg would be able to do more, he always seems to be holding back. (But maybe that's just my always trying to approach everything from a more benevolent angle?)
The story is not only old, it has been told over and over again. I don't just have to refer to last year's 'Bicentennial Man', a movie I consider to be much better than 'A.I.', not because it would be especially artistic, but because it's honest and not that preposterous. Beside that recent film, science fiction, most prominently Star Trek, especially The Next Generation and Voyager, have always been dealing with the topic of artificial life, treating the issue much more exhaustively and much gentler than this movie. There's also 'Blade Runner', and even Shatner's so-so TekWar series of course. In such a company, a new android movie would have to seriously counter redundancy by being original, fresh and new (and post-modern, whatever that means). Spielberg seems to try to draw his film's momentum from Kubrick's and his own name; yet that's not enough.
He tries to deliver a "message", to discuss a certain "issue". He already did that in 'Schindler's List', as well as in 'Saving Private Ryan', pure issue-oriented movies, the first counting among his better films, the latter among his worst. An issue doesn't make a film. Just because the issue is important, the film about the issue needn't be important. Criticizing a bad movie with an important issue doesn't mean to devalue the issue. If you can't present the issue in an adequate artistic way, write a paper or an essay about it. Everything else would feel preachy and didactic. Do a documentary. But don't sell this as an important and good film, it isn't, it's derivative, boring, tedious and superfluous.
There are some good things in this film too, like Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law. And Teddy. Teddy's great. But it's a toy Spielberg seems to like playing with. That makes Teddy obnoxious again. Forget Teddy then. Let's leave it with Osment and Law. That's it.
One quasi-final thought about the kitsch factor. I'm pretty resistant when it comes to kitsch, and I can tolerate a lot. I like stupid romantic comedies. I like Star Trek though it is kitschy in every single aspect of its persistant benevolence, kitschy in such a way that it does indeed work, that it does make you believe in a better world. Lynch and Kubrick also seem to adore kitsch, Lynch especially. Lynch can be brutal, bloody and nasty, but when it comes to love, he's the master of kitsch. But with all those examples, Trek, Kubrick, Lynch, the kitsch factor has a point, has a meaning. It's mostly set up as a contrast to a greater darkness, under which conditions kitsch would be the only thing to let you get going, it's like believing that Buffy and Angel will be together in the end. That's what guides you through all the pain and suffering. Yet in 'A.I.', the kitsch is just self-serving B.S., watering down an already watery story till it freezes and stops moving. Literally. Frozen kitsch, like a kitsch-popsicle.
Well, I guess I've got to stop right here, otherwise I'd be getting mean. Wouldn't want that, not with a movie that bugs me as extremely as this one. Well, at least it's not 'Episode One'. But close. Just forget this artificial movie. Contrary to its protagonist, it has absolutely no life, neither intelligence. Yet who am I to bash this film, maybe the Academy will provide it with some ill-deserved Awards next year... Poor Kubrick, you definitely didn't deserve this.
September 29th, 2001
|
Alexander (2004)
 |
|
Summary: Blah
I must admit, I'm somewhat biased. I'm a fan of Stone's work, especially regarding Nixon, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. The man can direct. There's a certain meticulousness and madness to his work that I find very much appealing. Capturing grandeur and aiming for historical accuracy, often combined with correcting a stereotype, that's oftentimes his greatest strength.
In Alexander, he aims for the same things: capturing the ideas of past times, the energy and madness of Alexander the Great, his drive, looking for an explanation for his inane quest for empire. It's true, Alexander created a great empire, yet it soon fell apart, unable to hold itself together. Quest and exploration, initially born out of the conviction to eliminate the Persian threat once and for all, lead to conquest and domination. Through the Macedon kings, the Hellenic world, setting out to overcome Persian corruption, is corrupted just the same through eating the Persian empire. The figure of Alexander, his energy, his insane drive, all's very well captured by Stone's picture.
The battle of Gaugamela is done brilliantly, lots of other scenes are convincing as well.
Yet still. I'm a great fan of Anthony Hopkins', but his scenes simply drag on for too long, they smack of preaching and worship. A story should not have to say that someone was a great man, it should demonstrate it, otherwise it's a very weak move. Colin Farrell is great, the rest of the cast though are a tad uninteresting. Jared Leto, even from an entirely heterosexual perspective, is damn fine looking, yet what does he do? Angelina Jolie plays the stereotypical evil mother, oh please. With serpents and everything. Why do we get a (fantastic) nude shot of Alex's wife, but not of him and Hephaistion? Not that I'd want to see that particularly, but why is it that Stone chooses to treat women characters so differently, basically as monsters and sexual bodies? Ain't that a bit too much inside the text? I understand the showing of Aristotle's grotesque remarks regarding race, but those are shown as coming from Aristotle, and that's basically correct. Also, the praise by Ptolemy may still be seen as just that. But who's guiding the glances, is that also Greek perspective, or is that just done for the sake of the audience? In any case, it's weak, a particularly annoying fallback into sexism and exoticism.
Vangelis' score is great for background listening, in the movie, it only works in Gaugamela. The rest of the time, it just pours a very sweetish kind of sauce over the pictures and aims for a weird sort of hero-worship. Who is speaking here, Ptolemy or Stone? Or is Stone's perspective uttered through Ptolemy? I'm not saying you cannot be oblique, that you would have to make a definite political stand. But to be that uncritical to the point of worship, that's a bit dangerous concerning a person like Alexander. I do get the idea that his energy and drive were remarkable. But all in all, his energy was mainly focused on exploration and conquest, not on good governance, justice and taking care of his men. If Nixon is portrayed as utterly flawed and sometimes even monstrous, I cannot quite understand Stone's hero-worship regarding Alexander.
But leaving that aside, and trying to accept that this is not a film about taking a position (which, again, I would not deem necessary, not necessarily), but that it's a narrative about Alexander through the eyes of the aging Ptolemy, to whom Alexander, of course, was a hero, and that we don't necessarily need to connect the director with the position of the picture, still, there's an emptiness and a feeling of "is there nothing more".
I guess I have to say it. It's not a terribly bad film, for that, there's just too many good things going on. But that doesn't make it a good film either. Not by a long shot.
January 26th, 2005
|
Alien (1979)
 |
|
Summary: Terrifying and subtle
Ridley Scott's 'Alien' opened a series of films that combined sf and horror not just in a very frightening way, but that contributed to serious sf. This is not just another horror flick, we are being confronted with one of the peaks of dramatic presentation. This film belongs to the kind of sf started with '2001', but it is a much more interesting, suspensed-filled and chilling experience.
In addition to that, 'Alien' features a stunning female lead, something not quite usual for its time. And then there is the score by Jerry Goldsmith, who - again - makes us believe what we see. To the rise of sf and horror in the subsequent years, 'Alien' has contributed as much as 'Star Wars', having spawned not only sequels but also given a new direction to filmmaking.
With sublime imagery, terror and horror, the impact of slowness, ingenious production design and effects as well; the end result is a classic space horror movie with a concept of greatest simplicity; disturbing each time you watch it. In space, no one can hear you scream.
January 29th 1998 / March 15th 2000
|
Aliens (1986)
Summary: Suspense-filled yet overblown James Cameron's approach to the 'Alien' series was much different than Scott's, and one does sometimes feel like being in Jurassic Park, judging from the amount of aliens that he has unleashed. The movie departs from the original concept in the most drastic way possible, thus including more easy scares but definitely decreasing the chill factor. This isn't anymore the simplistic and highly effective horror movie, Cameron has turned it into an action film with scares. Nevertheless, as can be seen by the direction the series has taken from then on, these movies proved to be something like a playing field for entrepreneur directors, and each of these films is very different from the others in most aspects except the basic concept: the Alien and Ripley. Variations on a topic, built together to form a continuing story. Thus, as part of the series, Cameron's approach may seem justified, as a sequel, he distorts the concept. Subtlety substituted by grandezza. But then he presents us Lance Henriksen, and this choice in some way fills the gap Cameron had created within the atmosphere. But let me spend some words on the music now. James Horner surely may write great music, but does he ever vary his musical themes? The score sounded much like 'Star Trek III', which - in turn - resembled that of 'Star Trek II', which - again - sounded very similar to 'Space Raiders'. Judging from the themes, I always expected some Klingons to show up. That's not really what I'd have in mind, wouldn't it be more appropriate to create a specific style for a specific movie?
| |
|
Alien³ (1992)
Summary: Claustrophobic and sublime This time it's David Fincher together with composer Elliot Goldenthal, and just as 'Aliens' was just little above average, this one is almost perfect. Fincher needs just one alien and a bunch of strange guys to scare us to death. The set is claustrophibic, Ripley extremely hard-edged, and the final scenes are just incredible. Lance Henriksen also gets his performance, and we are getting to see the picture: That it is not the alien we should be afraid of but the Nazi types who are just looking out for the creature to make it a weapon. David Fincher's direction proves to be inventive and more than appropriate for the concept, and he seems to be getting back to the original, reducing the number of aliens and increasing the psychological tension. But the score is the key to the movie, supplementing the images and intensifying the dark atmosphere.
| |
|
Alien Resurrection (1997)
 |
|
Summary: Fresh, hip, less scary
'Alien Resurrection' continues the previous chain of thoughts with director Jean-Pierre Jeunet and composer John Frizzell. Although it seems very much like an artificially constructed resurrection of the Alien Saga on the big screen, this one clearly gets near to its predecessor.
This time we have two female lead characters, and that's kind of funny because it aired almous synchronously with 'Tomorrow Never Dies', and it seems that Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder wanted to show that James Bond is nothing compared to them, and they seem to be right. However, the amount of "girl power" in this film may not be that surprising after all if we take into consideration that the film was written by Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Brad Dourif makes a fine addition to the cast, there is even kind of a comedy effect as he tries to tame an alien, which - of course - ends in a disaster. But again, the most shocking moment is the scene when Ripley visits her clones. Again it is mankind who inhabits evil, and the death of the alien-human-hybrid-baby at the end of the film gets some tragic touch, I even felt sorry for this fellow. There is just one question left - will there be a Number 5?
January 29th 1998 / March 15th 2000
|
American Beauty (1999)
|
|
Summary: American Sublime
At first, the story seemed to be satirical somehow, comedic even, and such moments are spread throughout the whole piece, the danger seeming unreal, the dissolving of the family rather told in a matter-of-fact style. In repeating a scene from the relative end of the movie right in the beginning, a kind of tension is created: By the story not seeming to arrive at such a point, and when it does, doing it rather differently than expected, this prolepsis adds to the weird atmosphere.
Kevin Spacey is even better than usual, outdoing the rest of the cast a bit, but that doesn't affect the harmony of the story as it is centered around his very character. Nobody and nothing in this movie is what it seems, and the direction provides some interesting aspects. Visually, the movie is interesting to say the least. Beautiful images and imaginative shots add to the title of the film in a manner which is decent and subtle, not a bit overblown, no cheap effects.
The retrospective narration, seen from the main character after his death adds an additional twist to the story. Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) re-discovers his life after having retreated into a virtual stasis, into a life devoid of all mystery and happiness. Just seeing his daughter's classmate, Angela, he refurnishes his life and reclaims inner peace - while around him everything is falling apart. When he dies, there is no sadness nor remorse nor fear nor anger: How can there be such things "with all the beauty in the world". Somehow, this movie puts things into another perspective, takes the focus away from all the little worries and perturbations of life. Why do we all the time consider ourselves to be so important anyway?
February 15th 2000
|
American History X (1998)
|
|
Summary: Powerful and powerfully played
"Hatred is baggage" - as it's demonstrated by this movie in a stunning and devastating way. I do not remember a movie showing certain things that bluntly like this one did; there was of course 'Schindler's List'; but that was about Nazi Germany. This one is about Nazis in America. I personally cannot understand how such a movement could set its foot in America; this is somehow one of the most bizarre facts of history, as bizarre and unimaginable as the genocide of the Native Americans and slavery. The land of the free here is deconstructed very drastically; all kinds of social problems are being touched - providing a view of America which is much more detailed, also by showing details we usually wouldn't want to see.
The topic of the motion picture is dealt with through the focus of a family. The elder son, Derek Vinyard, once kind of a Nazi leader, but convicted for man slaughter and after three years in prison, having completely changed. His younger brother, Daniel, meanwhile has been following the violent steps of his brother; now confronted with the new Derek. For both boys, the principal of their school plays an important role in guiding them back to humanity; this role being played by Avery Brooks - as great as ever. But his younger colleagues are just as brilliant as he is: Edward Norton plays Derek in a performance which to describe with 'stunning' would be underestimating it even. Edward Furlong, playing Danny, has less screen-time but shows as much potential as the two others. The rest of the cast has little or no chance against those three; Jennifer Lien amongst them. But that doesn't matter at all.
Directing and photography are just breathtaking; frightening, compassionate, revealing. The switching between color and black-and-white backshifts might not be new, but it is somehow being re-defined by this movie. Regarding the topic; this is really frightening, also deeply sad - for at the source of that hatred, there is mostly either fear or evil; evil with those in the background putting their brown crap into the heads of some youngsters. Fear is the food such movements are nurtured with; leading to paranoia and hate. Can the truth help against this? This movie tries to find an answer; but it also shows that at the core, there are human beings. And also monsters like the old Derek Vinyard are able to turn into a human again.
February 28th 1999
|
American Psycho (2000)
|
|
Summary: An absurdist view of society
'American Psycho' has to count amongst this year's most controversial films, rightly so, but for what reasons? Is it the shameless portrayal of the killer as the protagonist of the movie, is it his voice-overs, his ironic and cynic view of the world, uttered so suavely and shamelessly? Is it the gripping performance of Christian Bale, a performance which overshadows all the others in the film, although they're pretty good? The rather unfiltered perspective which lets us see how much fun he has doing the things he does? The more or less explicitly shown murders or victims, the violence which is so devastating on both a visual and psychological level, a violence partly seen, partly obscured - and through this hiding, made even more real?
Is it the textbook-like portrayal of his daily routine, a classic obsession with insignificant detail? Is it the lack of psychobabble which could tell us something about a possibly bad childhood or something else? Is it the way in which he is able to conceal his crimes? Or isn't it rather the way he fits in so perfectly into society? Isn't it rather his obnoxious normality, his being more normal than others, again a prototypical description of the serial killer? Isn't it the very notion that even the thought that he could be doing the things he does seems so absurd - as absurd as this view of society has to seem, has to be declared, for how coud it be that such a man could be living amongst us, undetected, perfectly embedded into society, a predator amongst sheep, wouldn't that be absurd?
January 25th 2001
|
Antz (1998)
|
|
Summary: Fun with a message
There's something about 'Antz', something very special: Not only is it just the second computer animated motion picture, it is also a very intelligent and moving film: Animals have been a means of telling a story about humanity very often, and that's what 'Antz' is about. This is not a movie about ants, well, it is, but it is about human society as well. This, definitely, makes this movie much more than a usual animated movie.
At first, what I came to think of when I saw the ant tunnels presented in the movie, was a Star Trek Borg cube; no surprise then, for the Borg were originally concepted as being kind of an insect race. The colony, the collective, is an incredible force, an incredible institution: mass does matter, not size. But then, the comparison has to end here: A Borg collective doesn't know individuality (except for the Borg Queen of course) - so does the mass of ants, but in 'Antz', there's for sure individuality, although merely being performed at the top of the society, otherwise individuality is being suppressed.
The fascist-communist reign of the General is based upon lies and classification. The ants are pressed into a system which is told them to be natural, it is made clear to them that own thoughts and individuality are not supposed to occur. This insignificance of the individual is the most obvious sign of the ant colony, being illustrated by the General's decision to send his troops clearly into death when he orders them to conduct a preemptive strike against the termites. He doesn't care about them - they're just drones, why bother? But Z, the hero of the story, by using his individuality, can make a difference and save the ants from catastrophy. But his individuality can only work because of the commmunity's joint efforts to escape the threat - individuality mustn't mean egotism. Each single person is significant and can make a difference. We are the colony.
November 17th 1998
|
Any Given Sunday (1999)
Summary: Erratic and gripping The game of football may not be my favorite game, but Oliver Stone succeeds in telling a not so original story in a compelling and ingenious way. Oliver Stone wouldn't be Oliver Stone if he didn't make comments on society, and the way in which he comments the game by visuals, sound, music and direction is both revealing and disturbing. We do not see an American stadium in Miami, it looks rather like a Roman collosseum. We do not see football players but gladiators or even warriors. The music playing is rather reminiscent of a tribal ritual, the trainer is rather an army commander or warlord. It is no game but a battle, and the parties and celebrations have something demonic; the most disturbing of all but are the frequent allusions to war. Throughout the film, the characters slowly are getting a face and a cause, Al Pacino delivering a stunning and utmost devoted performance. The message of team spirit above egotism isn't new, but it is told in a gripping way. All in all, the film might be a bit strenuous, but it is a stunning ride. Restless is the game, restless the movie has to be. Oliver Stone's direction masterly creates a moving collage of a film, the only moment of relative rest and waiting is the moment the football is spinning in the air, waiting to hit the Earth. No scene is simply a scene, simply one camera angle - the pictures are shifting, interlacing, moving, interspersed with other pictures from other scenes, anything happening anytime. I had forgotten the name of the director when I went to the cinema, but when it appeared at the end of the movie, I understood that perhaps no other could have undertaken such a project. In terms of direction, this has to count amongst the most inventive approaches yet.
| |
|
Apocalypse Now [Redux] (1979/2001)
Summary: An Errand into Darkness Films almost generally are bigger than life. No film is truly a "realistic" portrayal of the "truth". Neither can any other piece of art or documentation achieve that. There is always "fiction" mixed with "fact". To say that a movie would have achieved a kind of realism is contradictory in itself. Movies - as any depiction of individual perceptions of reality - are always constructed, heavily constructed even. And still, behind all the masquerade and artificiality, sometimes something can shine through which, indeed, may feel so utterly real and devastating that the construction may seem less artificial than it really is. Such movies are "true" through their focus on individuality, on an individual "experience", on emotionality, on selective fragments of the whole. Such movies are also highly manipulative; and yet, still, that doesn't hinder them from making a greater impact. The Viet Nam topos may seem prevalent in 'Apocalypse Now'. Maybe it is. But maybe, and I think that's even truer, Viet Nam just happens to be the scenery. The story could be taking place anywhere, anytime. Viet Nam just fits the time frame, and it surely is the inciting event for this movie. But the film makes statements which can be true for any war. That sort of helps approaching some one-sidedness in the ideology behind the plot; though some scenes reveal a kind of rare insight into a historically more balanced perspective. Though drawing heavily on disappointingly blind anti-war propaganda concerning Viet Nam, the film can still be justified as it tells its tale from the above mentioned subjective viewpoint. It is therefore less important to reveal the historical setting and background of the war, though it would help clear some ideological babbling. The longer version, Redux, even addresses some of these issues with the scenes at the French plantation, where some politically less correct arguments can be witnessed. But anyway, that's not the point of the film. It is not about Viet Nam, at least not in the not so humble opinion of this reviewer. War, contrary to some politically correct propaganda, may sometimes have a reason. But even an entirely justified war could never be a clean event. War is dirty. War is killing. War is darkness. Waging war, even from an utmost honorable ethical ground, is always an errand into darkness. And if you are not prepared to accept this, you will become a victim of that darkness. War is a constant negotiation and re-negotiation of ethics and values. It is about relative values: Killing is never the right choice. But sometimes it can be a better choice than not killing, depending on the situation. The war against Hitler has been an honorable one. Such as the war against the Taliban. Or against the Viet Cong. Or the Cold War against the Evil Empire. But that's the bigger scheme, a scheme which is sort of irrelevant in the small scope. That's what this movie is about. In "real life", the borders are less clear. In the small scope, you see the blood, the confusion, the haze, the insanity; you see innocent people killed together with guilty ones; you see otherwise rational men going havoc, losing themselves - losing their judgement, their calm, their humanity; losing their hearts to the darkness. Herein the honor of the cause is deconstructed and rendered completely irrelevant, as the action of war itself has no honor, and corrupts those who are caught in it. The film is a classical road, or rather, boat movie, linking several individual threads together via the perspective of a main character. It is episodal in nature, which could make it tedious at times. But for that to happen, the acting is too gripping, the composition too real, the atmosphere too dense. Through that, 'Apocalypse Now' succeeds in capturing the audience and luring them farther and farther into the depths of the human psyche. And suddenly, and utterly abhorrently, Kurtz makes sense. For indeed, why should it be obscene to write "fuck" on a helicopter destined to kill human beings? Where lies the real obscenity? Kurtz has to die. He has to die not because he's wrong, but because he has gone places civilization doesn't want us to go - and rightly so. But in a setting like Viet Nam, Kurtz makes sense. That's why he can only be overcome by someone who has become just like him: It needs a monster to fight monsters. And in the end, there's only horror. There can only be horror.
| |
|
Arlington Road (1998)
|
|
Summary: Are you paranoid enough?
Do you feel safe? You might answer with yes, but after this movie, you'd probably want to change that answer. 'Arlington Road' is a very unusual movie, depicting very old issues: Broken trust and desperation. Professor Faraday (Jeff Bridges), whose wife's life was lost during a mis-planned FBI operation, suspects his neighbor (Tim Robbins) to be a terrorist, but his suspicions are not shared by his surroundings. So he's on his own to try to unveil his new friend's identity and to stop whatever it is he's doing.
The story might sound simple, but the way the movie takes, and the way it is being portrayed, are not. The intensity created by the images on the big screen is undescribable, and it is reflected on Jeff Bridges' face - his character falling more and more into desperation, into insanity, leaving all thinking behind and being led only by his emotions. Sometimes, you can't be paranoid enough.
Amongst the highlights of this movie is its main titles montage - with most movies today either lacking main titles at all or following quite a usual recipe with that, like fulfilling a seemingly unnecessary obligation, this movie starts with a very much breathtaking opening and titles. And you might wonder how I come mentioning it, but even the end titles do not flow the usual way - they do not scroll down, they blink into existence and fade away. By depicting these little details I just want to underline this film's extraordinary pace and visual style. Together with the music of Angelo Badalamenti, this is somehow a crossover between David Lynch and The X-Files, delivering an excellent contribution to today's visions of darkness.
April 7th 1999
|
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
Summary: Simplistic and intense Carpenter movies are amongst the most effective and direct of all: Not only cost-effective, although that's a major plus of his films, but also highly effective concerning characters, story, suspense. There is no unnecessary ballast, no unnecessarily neat effects which would draw the audience's attention; Carpenter movies are about storytelling. He doesn't need a famous cast, he rather seems to favor less known actors or those who'd usually not play the lead - so at first sight, the appeal of a cheap movie with little effects and nobody from the upper Hollywood actors league seems rather small. But once the film has started, the first thing capturing the audience is the score. Being of the same innate simplicity as all the other ingredients of his movies, it is nonetheless gripping and captivating: Being of a compelling intensity, it throws us right into the action. The music promises what will be fulfilled by the climax, but at first, the buildup leads us consequently into the lives of the main characters. Ordinary people mostly, doing ordinary things. Suspense, however, exists by the musical theme reminding us of the conflict yet to come, and various events upping the ante: At a certain point, the critical mass of groundwork is reached and the action sets in, and it is done rather obviously and drastically. In 'Assault', the scene which regains the pace, the ice cone, is amongst the most shocking of all; and then, hell breaks loose. Not in an overdone manner, but carefully and poignantly. Beauty, horror, suspense and sublimity (as in the paper-shooting scene) necessitate a common ingredient: Economy. As soon as something is overdone, greatness is lost and reduced to a pathetic chasing effects - here, the suspense lies in the small scope with infinite terror and tension: A situation which the audience can relate to, simple but crucial dialog, no unnecessarily blown-up discussions, reminiscent of great American Westerns like 'The Alamo'. Carpenter needs no mediator, his movies can translate directly into experience. Simplicity over pathos.
| |
|
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)
|
|
Summary: Insanely funny
I wasn't so sure whether to watch this one or not. I didn't see the first one; but, anyway, I chose to give it a try. And I was surprised - pleasantly surprised. Intelligent, but also somehow dirty and sick; but never mean. Mike Myers in three roles, portraying Austin Powers, Dr. Evil and Fat Bastard; Heather Graham as Felicity Shagwell (known for Twin Peaks fans as Annie Blackburn in the respective show), this time in a much different role.
I couldn't have thought of a better way to brighten my day. It might be sick, but it's astoundingly inventive and great entertainment. A must-see. And do take the time to watch the end credits till the very end.
October 22nd 1999
|
|
| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 | |||||||||||
