A nineties thriller from 2005

'The Interpreter' (2005) feels like it was made in the nineties.

- This is partly due to the way the opening credits come on while the first scene is playing. This seems like a pretty nineties thing to me. Films don't bother so much with opening credits these days.

- The music doesn't sound like it's of this decade. It reminded me of films like 'The Fugitive' and 'The Firm' (another very nineties Sydney Pollack film. At least that one was actually made in the nineties).

- The two main actors, Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn were big in the nineties (not to say that they aren't big now) which makes this film stand out a bit because there are no up and coming, flavour of the month young actors in it. It could have been released in the nineties.

- There's something about the camera work, and the production (I can't quite put my finger on it) that makes this film seem dated. I think it's just the way that Sydney Pollack directs (I know he's dead but I'll still use the present tense); he doesn't seem to put many artistic flourishes into his work, he favours a more workman like approach to film-making.

- The thriller is very nineties. Especially the vaguely political thriller. They are still made today of course, but they were especially popular in the nineties. Think of all those nineties Harrison Ford films, for example.

I'm not saying that any of this is a bad thing. It was kind of refreshing to see an old school thriller.

Raging Bull

This Thursday, TBT is launching 'Block Cinema', a monthly community screening of some great films. The first film in the line up is Martin Scorsese's classic 'Raging Bull'. This is a tremendous movie that anyone with an interest in cinema should see.

You should go along to 'Block Cinema' because:

- The idea of a community cinema is very cool. It's a fun way to be a part of something Hobarty.

- 'Raging Bull' features (or perhaps, stands on the shoulders of) one of the greatest acting performances of all time by Robert De Niro. The way he gets into this character is quite frightening. He trained as a boxer and became mega-buff, then he ate like Elvis and became a total chubster for the later scenes. And that's only the physical stuff. It's such a complex and emotional performance, one that leaves barely any trace of the actor Robert De Niro behind.

- This film might be about a boxer but it's not really about boxing. It's about obsession, jealousy, masculinity, aggression, violence, relationships, trust. The themes are important and dealt with in a confronting manner through this horrible character that you can't help but despise for most of the film.

- Cinematically, the film is packed with great stuff. The editing is awesome, the camera is used perfectly, the placement and choice of music is very clever, and the decision to film in black and white was a risk that paid off. The boxing scenes are brutal and actually make you feel like you've been punched in the head a few times; they give what I can only guess would be a realistic view of being in the ring of a boxing tournament.

- This film unearthed Joe Pesci as an actor worth watching. He was excellent in this, and went on to star in other Scorsese classics like 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino'. He was also in the 'Home Alone' films. I'm not sure what to feel about them.

- There are many cool stories about the making of this film. Robert De Niro actually competed officially, as a boxer, during his training, and won a couple of matches! Martin Scorsese has said that De Niro's insistence on him directing this film, saved his life as it distracted him from drugs. Scorsese told De Niro to alter the script in order to get a more surprised reaction from Joe Pesci in one particular scene ("you f***ed my wife?!"). They used chocolate for blood.

'Block Cinema'
Thursday 30th April
South Hobart Community Centre
8pm
and it's FREE

Inexplicable Oscars

1997 Best Supporting Actress - Kim Basinger (L.A. Confidential)

'L.A. Confidential' is a fantastic, near perfect film but I can't understand how Kim Basinger's portrayal of Lynn Bracken was considered worthy of an Oscar. It's certainly not a bad performance; Basinger is convincing enough, looking and sounding the part, but was she that good? I have a soft spot for the Academy Awards, I like knowing who wins and trying to work out why. Sometimes there are awards given for seemingly inexplicable reasons, and I'm going to do my best to work out these reasons.

So, who were the nominees for this award in 1997?

Kim Basinger - L.A. Confidential
Joan Cusack - In & Out
Minnie Driver - Good Will Hunting
Julianne Moore - Boogie Nights
Gloria Stuart - Titanic

I wouldn't say it was the strongest group of contenders so maybe it's not so surprising that Basinger won. However, I think Julianne Moore was much more impressive with her role in 'Boogie Nights'.

Maybe I missed some subtleties in her acting. Perhaps I should give her more credit when I say she was convincing in this role because, maybe it was not such an easy character to play. In the hands of someone like Sharon Stone, for example, this character probably wouldn't have had the depth that Kim gave her; it would probably have been a one-dimensional femme fatale stereotype (although I could be completely wrong there, because Kim Basinger has never been considered one of the great actresses). But I don't think she should have won an Oscar just because someone else could have done a worse job; I hope that's not how they decide these things.

A somewhat cynical theory as to why she was considered the best supporting actress, is that because 'Titanic' swept up most of the awards, this award was handed to 'L.A. Confidential' as a consolation prize. As if to say "look it's a great film guys, too bad 'Titanic' had to come out... here, have this actress award". I really hope that's not what happened. I like to think that the Academy make these decisions based on what was the best in each category.

Has anyone else wondered why she won this award? Or have any other inexplicable Oscar beefs?

Dances with Woolworths

Wouldn't this be a great film? Kevin Costner stars as a supermarket manager that employs Sioux Indians on night-fill. Tension arises when Kevin refuses some of his employees the right to have their real names on their name badges (Swooping Eagle, Chief Kicking Bear etc). He soon realises he was wrong to do that and they find a respect for one another. There is a very moving scene where Kev helps the Sioux stack shelves for about three and a half hours (which is also the length of the film).

The Pursuit of Happyness

Just watched the Will Smith film The Pursuit of Happyness at Bible Study. It was the victor of four other contending films in a potentially flawed electoral system (pair and elimination). It's probably the easiest way to select a film to please a large group of people.

Will Smith was very good; he plays a serious part with excellence. I can't really remember any standout moments, and the film kept up the same pace throughout. My biggest problem with it was the music and production; it just made it seem too slick, too polished, and too cheesy. I felt the story (quite a powerful tale) would have been better served by a more gritty style.

It's not a bad movie though. Worth a watch. Much better than Boondock Saints.

Just a quickie

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is really weird. That is all.

Body of Lies

An above average thriller about the US involvement in the Middle East. Not quite as awesome as I hoped it would be, but well worth watching. Good acting, especially from DiCap and Crowe. The message of this film bows down to political correctness but, because it's a thriller, and not a serious topical drama, it gets let off the hook. The Middle East is a very exciting setting and the political climate make for a pretty gripping film. Russell Crowe plays a family man whose indifference to the life and death situations of others is pretty vile. DiCaprio plays a similar role to his in The Departed. He's good at playing these stressed out, well intentioned guys. My favourite character was Hani Salaam (pictured). He wore some awesome suits and was basically 'Captain Meaty' in every scene.

It's better than The Boondock Saints.

The Boondock Saints

This movie is a huge heap of rubbish. For some reason, it has a cult following, and from that following I had heard many recommendations to watch it. Normally, I think even a fairly bad film is worth watching once, but this is beyond bad. The characters are as thin as anorexic paper, the script is embarrassingly corny and unrealistic, the violence is gratuitous, the acting is laughably over the top, the editing is a mess, and the story is completely stupid.

The Boondock Saints follows the story of two Irish brothers (played unconvincingly by two annoying B-list actors) in Boston, that have been assigned by God to eliminate all the criminals in the city by mercilessly killing them. An outrageous gay FBI detective is leading the investigation into the killings (a cringe worthy performance by Willem Dafoe). That's pretty much the plot. One of the film's many problems is that it has no suspense or mystery because you already know who the killers are, so watching the lengthy crime scene investigations is utterly pointless. Speaking of which, Willem Dafoe was even worse than David Caruso in CSI: Miami, with his cheesy dialogue delivery. There are quite a few moments where this film attempts humour and fails miserably. The funniest thing about it was watching Dafoe doing a little Irish jig.

The writer and director Troy Duffy was clearly desperate for his film to be a Reservoir Dogs or a Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. It was definitely meant to draw adjectives like "cool", "slick", "badass", and "edgy". It doesn't come close to any of those things though. It's stylised but in a Chickenfeed sort of way. Troy Duffy is not Quentin Tarantino and this film will look quite dated in the future, if it doesn't already, 10 years on.

The Boondock Saints has the nerve to end with a blatant attempt at a serious moral dilemma (is it wrong to kill bad people?). A question that doesn't deserve to be answered in the context of this film. Duffy doesn't take his film seriously for the the first 90 minutes and then, all of a sudden he changes the film's tone. That's an awful lot to ask of an audience.

I haven't disliked a film this much for a long time. It was a struggle getting to the end of this one. I can't understand why it has such a large legion of fans. It's just a terrible, terrible film. Stay away from it.

Top 10 Nicolas Cage Films

It's Nicolas Cage's birthday today. A lot of people underrate him as an actor, but I think he's pretty good. Here are some of the best films he's been in:

10. 8mm - Creepy and seedy detective thriller, in the same mould as 'Se7en'.

9. The Weather Man - Very funny and under appreciated black comedy.

8. Wild At Heart - Weird and, at times, disturbing David Lynch film... wait that's all of them.

7. Raising Arizona - An 80s classic from the Coen brothers.

6. National Treasure - A very fun adventure, and a great role for Cage.

5. Leaving Las Vegas - Harsh, depressing, bleak film that won Cage an Oscar for playing a suicidal alcoholic.

4. Matchstick Men - A very slick Ridley Scott tale about con artists.

3. The Rock - An action classic. Cage plays the nerdy chemical weapons specialist really well.

2. Bringing Out The Dead - Another wrist-slitter, this has Cage, directed by Martin Scorsese, as an ambulance officer. It's very grim but I consider it a hugely underrated film. Watch it when you can't sleep.

1. Adaptation - One of my favourites. I love the multi-layered realities, and the characters. This is Nicolas Cage's finest acting performance. He plays two characters; twins that are almost opposites in personality. Somehow he pulls it off so well that you forget it's the same actor playing both!

Some Recent Viewings

Into The Wild (2007) - Very enjoyable, beautifully filmed true story about a man that abandons society in order to live in the wild. It has a lot to say about finding genuine happiness and meaning in life. Directed by Sean Penn who's proving to be quite good behind the camera. I heartily recommend this one.

Silent Hill (2006) - Based on a computer game... not usually a good idea. A film that begins as a noble attempt at horror but gets worse and worse as it progresses. By the film's end, it becomes an over the top, B-grade, gore fest. There are too many stupid looking monsters in this movie for it to be in any way scary, and the script and music don't help either.

Rear Window (1954) - I watched this after watching 'Silent Hill' and it was already a better film after the first 10 minutes. Really cool story about a man, confined to his house, spying on his neighbours, and becomes convinced one of them has murdered his wife. The suspense is as well executed as anything made today. Scratch that - it's better than most films made today. Hitchcock always impresses me and this is surely one of his best. A real classic.

The Orphanage

The Spanish film 'El Orfanato' (The Orphanage) is a really good horror film. Some people will watch a horror film, fail to become frightened, then decide that the movie wasn't very good. I think that's a silly approach - a film can be good regardless of how scary it is, even if it's marketed as a horror. You're going to dismiss so many decent films if you rate them by your level of terror. 'The Devil's Backbone' (directed by Guillermo del Toro - producer of 'The Orphanage') is a really well made ghost story that just isn't that scary - but there is still a lot to appreciate in it. 'The Orphanage' is beautifully filmed, has good acting, and an intriguing story. I also found it to be very scary!

It's a ghost story that takes place in a creepy old house, formally an orphanage - the type of place you'd never go into, let alone live in, if you were sane. There are some intense scenes which made me jump (2mm into the air), and there are some interesting, freaky characters. The film borrows a few classic horror techniques, but puts them to good use. I was totally sucked into this movie.

'The Orphanage' treads a fine line between supernatural horror and psychological thriller and it never descends into b grade gore-fest action. Another thing that added to the suspense, was the depth of the characters - I actually cared about them, so I was drawn into the tense moments of the film, much more than I would have been had there been cardboard characters involved. Also, it's in Spanish, which can be quite a scary language.

A couple of modern classics...

Last night, I revisited 'Ocean's Eleven' (the modern version). It has got to be one of the coolest films of all time; the suits, the soundtrack, Vegas, the dialogue, George Clooney... it's all cool. But the best thing about it is the detail of the plot - it's so meticulously put together. Even though I'd seen it a couple of times before, I was totally hooked on the suspense. That's why 'Collateral' was so average; there was no attention to detail given to the script or reasons why the characters even existed. 'Collateral' took itself too seriously, when it really wasn't much more than a popcorn flick. 'Ocean's' knew exactly what type of film it was, and played to that strength.

Another film I re-watched recently was 'The Prestige'. This is another example of a totally gripping, twist 'n' turn, modern classic. You just can't fault the writing. I love watching movies that are made by people that so obviously care about their film and have managed to get the best out of everyone involved. One of the great things these two gems have in common, is that they take a particular topic (casinos and magicians) and brilliantly summarise the vibe, adding elements of mystery. The themes that are explored in these movies seem totally appropriate to their subject matter. A story about magicians and magic will conjure up (if you'll forgive me) thoughts of obsession and deception. Casinos and gambling - the same things.
I reckon these two films could go the distance and remain popular after several decades have past.

Collateral

I watched the much-hyped Michael Mann film 'Collateral' on the weekend. I've been meaning to see it for a while and was looking forward to doing so because it's in a genre that I have a soft spot for - the Thriller. I love these kind of films.

I was a bit disappointed with 'Collateral' though. I still enjoyed it, and there's a lot about it that's impressive - Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxxxxx are both excellent, and Michael Mannnn's treatment of Los Angeles as a setting is really cool. There are a lot of shots from unusual angles to bring out the city's skyline... LA was basically as good as a supporting actor in this film - much like New York is in Lumet's and some of Scorsese's work (gee, how much of a wanker do I sound like?!)
However, I was unmoved by the attempt at profound dialogue between Cruise and Foxxxxxxxxx. Also, the story was quite empty; I really wanted to know more about the characters and why Tom Cruise was killing them all - apart from just (POSSIBLE SPOILER) "they're all involved in some court case". Maybe I missed some key explanation due to the terrible sound quality on the TV I was watching.

In my opinion, a more intricate back story would've elevated this film from OK to excellent. The ending was an anticlimax too. But there was a cool, slightly surreal, vaguely symbolic scene with a wolf (or maybe a coyote?). I really liked that scene.

Am I the only one...

...that can't stand this movie?



It seems inexplicably popular to me. I love a good adventure and fantasy story as much as the next bloke, but this one is just annoying. The thing I hate most about it, is the part when the grandpa is telling the Fred Savage kid the story. Not only is this cheesy and dated (talk about 80s!), it is completely pointless. Why does it have to be a story about a story? Why can't the story about Westly and Butterhead be enough for the film? It devalues the fantasy and makes people cringe.

Also, the quotes. People quote this film to death. And they aren't even good quotes! "As you wiiiiiiiiish", "inconceivable" - inconceivable is a common English word and somehow people think you're referring to this film if you use it... and the worst one: "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." Now, in what situation can this quote possibly be of any relevance? That's right, none. It's so specific to the context of the movie that it doesn't even make sense to quote it in real life. But people do. Inconceivable.

I don't think 'The Princess Bride' is a bad film at all, just a reasonable one that's been overrated by people that go on about it. There are other good movies out there you know...

Old People II

Old people often can't tell you if they've seen a film before, until they are 3/4 of the way through it. The name of the film, actors that are in it, or the story's synopsis are not enough to trigger any remembrance.

If they do remember a film, they will usually get the title slightly wrong. For example: my dad referred to 'Being John Malkovich' as "Inside Mr Malkovich". So close but so far!

Nice, slow, entrancing films

Sometimes, if I'm in the right mood, I like to watch slow-moving, visually mesmerising films - a bit like the visual equivalent of a Sigur Ros album.

Examples:

Lost in Translation
Marie Antoinette
(Sofia Coppola)
I do like The Virgin Suicides but it's too depressing for this list

The New World
The Thin Red Line
(Terence Malick)

Heaven (Tom Tykwer)

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

You know, that sort of thing.

Action

The other day I watched The Rock again for the millionth time (but I hadn't seen it for a couple of years). It is one of the best action movies ever and there have been very few decent ones since it came out. The mid eighties to late nineties seemed to be the golden age of action movies. This perception can be partly attributed to my age - I was a teenager in the nineties and teenage boys love action movies, but I think it's still fair to say that the standard of action film making has dropped in the last decade.

Part of the reason why The Rock is so good is the actors. It has a great cast of "proper" actors. Ed Harris plays an excellent morally compromised villain, Sean Connery plays his best character since Indiana Jones' dad, and Nicolas Cage is great as the reluctant hero. A lot of action movies feel the need to use an "action star" in the lead role and this is often to the detriment of the film. Vin Diesel cannot act. The Rock (not the film, the wrestler) cannot and should not be allowed to act. The only reason these people are in films is down to an incorrect assumption that if Arnold Schwarzenegger can do it, then these guys can. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for one minute suggesting that Arnold was ever a good actor, but his meat-headedness was used to great effect by the people that casted him in a lot of action films. This idea was poorly replicated by a lot of other action stars like Sylvester Stallone, Jean Claude Van Damme, Wesley Snipes and worst of all - Steven Seagal.
Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford can all act reasonable well, and they've been in some classic action movies - I don't think that's a coincidence.

Here are some must-see action classics:

The Rock
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Predator
True Lies
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon
The Bourne trilogy
Aliens (not as good as Ridley Scott's 'Alien' but it is more of an action film)
Léon
Patriot Games (perhaps more of a thriller but who cares)
Mad Max

The Deer Hunter

I watched this 3 hour classic on the weekend. Didn't start it until 11pm, which was ambitious. Anyway, it's meant to be one of the best films ever made - very highly acclaimed as a cinematic high point, but (and I feel a little bit ashamed as I write this)... I didn't like it. It was an absolute battle getting through to the half-time cup of tea, let alone the end credits. I was surprised that I had such a dry response to it because I can normally find some enjoyment out of just about any movie, and I love 70s American cinema. Myself and the others that watched this were wondering if we'd been oblivious to moments of sheer brilliance. The only thing that kept me watching was the hope that something would happen, but it never gripped me.

To briefly summarise, the movie is about a bunch of working class buddies that go off to 'Nam, have an horrific time there and return to Pennsylvania, forever changed by the torment of what they (barely) endured. That doesn't do it justice - there's a lot more to it than that, and there are some memorable scenes in the movie (several intense Russian Roulette games). But the whole thing is so slow moving it was almost funny... It begins with a Russian Orthodox wedding scene that lasts for 45 minutes! That's like watching a complete stranger's wedding video. I'm sure the reason behind such a loooooong scene was to create some kind of familiarity with the characters involved but that didn't work for me; I couldn't engage with any of the characters and I seriously felt that some drastic editing was required.

At some stage, I plan to watch 'The Deer Hunter' again - give it another chance when I'm feeling more awake. Has anyone seen it? If so, can you explain what I missed?

The Motorcycle Diaries

I watched this for the third time the other day. I actually enjoyed it more than I did the first time. When I first saw it, I went in with the assumption that it was a movie about Che Guevara in his younger days and it would foreshadow what happened with the Cuban revolution. That's not really what it is. When I re-watched it recently, I didn't really think about it historically; I didn't even think about who the character of 'Ernesto' would later become - and I enjoyed it more. It's basically a cool road-trip movie about humanity and the awakening of a social conscience. There are a lot of subtle moments in the movie that are actually quite moving, and I missed these on my first viewing. Oh and it made me pumped to go to South America - the scenery is spectacular and mysterious.

The Godfather part III

I recently watched the much maligned third installment of the Godfather trilogy. It was made some fifteen years after part II and set about 20 years after it. The Godfather part I and II are considered as two of the best films ever made, and they really are awesome, possibly even perfect films. While the first two parts were soaking into our culture, becoming 'classics', the time in which part III was to be made and be well received was slipping away, as was the chance that it would be any good compared to the other films.

I really enjoyed the film. It's not as good as the other two but as far as films go, I think it's a very good one. I really like that the story focuses on the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church - it adds a weird romantic, mysterious edge and gives the corruption a new flavour. The final 3/4 of an hour of this film (the opera scene to the end credits) is one of the most exciting and memorable scenes in the entire trilogy.

Some letdowns:

- Michael Corleone's character. I know he was meant to be older and more reflective, and tormented by his past sins but there was barely any recognisable trace of the Michael from the first two films. Al Pacino acted well in this, but I couldn't help but feel he'd forgotten what Michael was like. He really does seem like a completely different person - literally.

- Sofia Coppola's acting. It was very bad - she actually made her character seem 'special' and I don't think that was the intention.

- The script. It's not as well written as the others. This film is not actually adapted from Mario Puzo's novel - the screenplay was written from scratch by Puzo and Coppola and was perhaps a little rushed. It doesn't have the poetic brilliance of the first Godfather film, where every line spoken seems perfectly natural and tantalisingly profound at the same time.

- Vincent. I didn't think this character had any depth. It was hard to believe that Michael would put him in charge of the family. This film really missed Robert Duvall.


Some let-ups:

- As mentioned earlier, the opera scene was fantastic.

- I liked what they tried to do with Vincent's character. It seemed like he was meant to be the reverse of Michael in part I - going from ruthless villain to respectable family man. I like that idea, it just didn't quite work because of Andy Garcia's acting and the script. Or maybe I'm just seeing things that weren't there.

- I liked the brief flashbacks to all the women that Michael had lost. They gave a lot of strength to the emotional punch of this film.

Not a perfect film but a nice way to end the trilogy, nonetheless.