It's been 10 years, but Michael Mann has finally come out with an achievement that comes close to the greatness that he use to show repeatedly. In the 80's, he made a good thriller called "Monster" and then a successful series known as "Miami Vice." In the 90's, he created a personal and emotionally staggering crime/epic called "Heat", and a wonderful character study called "The Insider." After that, he did nothing special for his resume. "Ali" was dull and predictable. "Collateral" was very good, but just another action film. And "Miami Vice" turned out to be one of the worst films of 2006. I started to wonder when will Mann be the man again. And boy, he came back a lot sooner then I expected with "Public Enemies."
Here's the synopsis.
The story takes place in the 1930's with the feds and Melvin Purvis try to take down the famous American Gangster John Dillinger.
First of all, this film is ambitious, beautiful, brutal, and intense. The shootouts are vintage Michael Mann, and he uses the editing to illuminate every little detail during the shootouts. It's some of the best editing I have seen in a Michael Mann film since "The Insider." And it's easily his best work since both "The Insider" and "Heat." I wish he would stop using the digital camera, but he gives this type of film a unique look.
Visually, it is splendid and very original. I love classical film making, but I get tired of seeing these type of period films with the same old direction, same old camera angles, and the same old editing techniques that I've seen in a thousand other films like this. It was great to see different type of camera angles, close-ups, and camera movements. This is gritty film making at it's finest, and it made me feel like I was actually there during that time period. Michael Mann is still the man in my opinion. Johnny Depp gives his most mature and disciplined performance to date.
Depp is perfect as John Dillinger. He IS John Dillinger. He captures the man's body language, facial expressions, hand movements, and charisma. He deserves another Oscar nod for commanding the screen, and actually adding alot of emotional depth to his performance. Which is something that I rarely see him do.
Bale is just as great as Purvis. Bale invokes alot of sadness and pain in every scene. Every time he kills somebody, he always has a look of deep pain in his eyes. His accent is flawless, and he totally transforms into his character. This has to be Bale's best performance since "The Prestige." Like Depp, he hits all the right notes.
Marion Cotillard was outstanding as well. She was the emotional weight throughout the entire film, and her vulnerability is absolutely frightening. She is slowly becoming one of my favorite actresses. I loved many scenes in this film. I don't know if any of them will become classic scenes, but they could be. Like almost every scene between Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard was treated like a 1930's classic Hollywood romance. When their watching a horse race, the musical score gets louder when they start kissing.
The shootouts will be praised, and talked about for a long time. The scene where Dillinger walks into the Chicago Police Department could be considered a classic scene. It's intense, amazing, and the best slow-motion you will see during this summer season. I also loved that Michael Mann strips down the legend and shows that he was nothing more then a sociopath. John Dillinger was not a nice man, he robbed, killed, and enjoyed it. And Mann doesn't shy away from that. He even shows the cops being just as ruthless and brutal as John Dillinger himself. He wisely keeps things mysterious about Dillinger and never gives an explanation to why he robs banks. That's up for the viewer to learn about, not the film.
So what didn't I like about this film?? Well I think the love story was too cliched, and that the dialogue between Cotillard and Depp felt recycled from other crime/dramas in the past. Or other romances that I've seen. And the CGI blood at the end didn't feel necessary at all. Overall, this is a damn good film with a lot of great moments.
I don't know if this will be considered a classic, but it will be considered Mann's best achievement in a long time. It's also one of the best films of this year so far. I give it an 8.5/10.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three(1974): A nice classic(((spoiler warning)))
"The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" is the type of film that works because of it's style, not due to it's substance. In fact, it benefits from not trying to be anything more then it is, a heist film. A heist film that has influenced films like "Reservoir Dogs." It's intense from the first scene to the very end, the music is catchy, the directing is versatile and engaging, and the editing is damn near perfect. I also enjoyed the convincing performances by Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw.
Here's the synopsis.
Four armed men hijack a New York City subway train and demand a ransom of over 1 million dollars. Which must be delivered in one hour. If it's not, then they will start killing every innocent passenger. Unless a veteran NYC transit policemen manages to stop them.
What really struck me during the film was how it perfectly blended in the humor, intensity, and drama throughout the course of the film. It's nothing that I haven't seen before, but you rarely find something as stylish and sophisticated like this. It boldly embraces the New York cynicism and makes the environment feel very authentic and vivid. Joseph Sargent's direction builds on the tension in every scene, and the viewer starts to feel a sense of paranoia. This is masterful direction on his part, and you would never guess that he would direct a mess like "Jaws 4."
What makes classics like this so great, is the formalism that is utilized in Joseph's directing. Old school filmmakers use to focus and believe in the construction of how a film was shot. These days, it's mostly just point there, shoot there, move here, point there, and shoot some more. There's no sense of ambition or dedication in a lot of modern films. It's not that it's completely lost, it's that you rarely see it anymore. But this is why the 70's is usually considered the golden age of American cinema. Filmmakers and producers just aimed a bit higher back then.
Now other then the mixture of humor and drama, what grabbed my attention was the four armed men. They didn't look too "villainy. They looked like everyday guys that you see on the subway. I've lived in New York City for over 5 years, and most New Yorkers wouldn't of looked twice at these guys in a subway station. I found that to be a breath of fresh air, and very realistic.
Robert Shaw is absolutely perfect as an ice cold thief, that turns out to be one of the most like able villains I have ever seen. Even though it felt like he came from a James Bond film. And while Walter Matthau isn't a great actor, he gives a nice subtle performance as Lt Garber. He's the perfect average Joe, who has a brooding touch of charisma. I could think of better actors who would of added so much to this film, but Walter does as a very fine job with the talent that he had. The grin on his face towards the end is priceless.
So why don't I think this is a great film?? Well I felt it was too bogged down by a lot of dialogue, which made certain moments feel tedious. And I felt that the music was over used during a lot of scenes. The film could of gained even more intensity if the subway scenes had absolutely no music.
Overall, this is not the best film of it's kind. But it is an influential, and entertaining experience. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I give it an 8.5/10.
Here's the synopsis.
Four armed men hijack a New York City subway train and demand a ransom of over 1 million dollars. Which must be delivered in one hour. If it's not, then they will start killing every innocent passenger. Unless a veteran NYC transit policemen manages to stop them.
What really struck me during the film was how it perfectly blended in the humor, intensity, and drama throughout the course of the film. It's nothing that I haven't seen before, but you rarely find something as stylish and sophisticated like this. It boldly embraces the New York cynicism and makes the environment feel very authentic and vivid. Joseph Sargent's direction builds on the tension in every scene, and the viewer starts to feel a sense of paranoia. This is masterful direction on his part, and you would never guess that he would direct a mess like "Jaws 4."
What makes classics like this so great, is the formalism that is utilized in Joseph's directing. Old school filmmakers use to focus and believe in the construction of how a film was shot. These days, it's mostly just point there, shoot there, move here, point there, and shoot some more. There's no sense of ambition or dedication in a lot of modern films. It's not that it's completely lost, it's that you rarely see it anymore. But this is why the 70's is usually considered the golden age of American cinema. Filmmakers and producers just aimed a bit higher back then.
Now other then the mixture of humor and drama, what grabbed my attention was the four armed men. They didn't look too "villainy. They looked like everyday guys that you see on the subway. I've lived in New York City for over 5 years, and most New Yorkers wouldn't of looked twice at these guys in a subway station. I found that to be a breath of fresh air, and very realistic.
Robert Shaw is absolutely perfect as an ice cold thief, that turns out to be one of the most like able villains I have ever seen. Even though it felt like he came from a James Bond film. And while Walter Matthau isn't a great actor, he gives a nice subtle performance as Lt Garber. He's the perfect average Joe, who has a brooding touch of charisma. I could think of better actors who would of added so much to this film, but Walter does as a very fine job with the talent that he had. The grin on his face towards the end is priceless.
So why don't I think this is a great film?? Well I felt it was too bogged down by a lot of dialogue, which made certain moments feel tedious. And I felt that the music was over used during a lot of scenes. The film could of gained even more intensity if the subway scenes had absolutely no music.
Overall, this is not the best film of it's kind. But it is an influential, and entertaining experience. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I give it an 8.5/10.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Terminator Salvation: All action, no story.
I went to see "Terminator Salvation" during it's opening week on a Thursday night. It might not be the worst film of this year, but it's pretty terrible. This franchise just keeps falling apart since Cameron left the seat. After a long wait, we finally get to see the battle for mankind and it ends up feeling limp. I've been a fan of this franchise since I was about 5 or 6 years old. My parents first introduced me to the original film when I was a kid and I went nuts over it. So you could imagine how much joy I felt when I saw "T2", which is one of the greatest achievements within both the sci-fi and action genre. "T3" was not a good but at least it attempted to be as fun as the first two. But "Terminator Salvation" has basically ruined all of my hopes and dreams for this franchise. It's gone and it should not continue. If this franchise is going to get this bad then it doesn't need to continue.
Here's a quick synopsis.
After Skynet has destroyed much of humanity, John Connor leads the resistance to keep the machines from finishing the job. It's set in the year 2018 and the future is altered by the appearance of Marcus Wright. Connor must figure out where he came from. And while Skynet prepares it's destruction of humanity, Connor and Wright will embark on a journey that will lead them to the depth of Skynet and discover a terrible secret that could annihilate everyone.
This film is visually appealing, and the action sequences are very well done. The problem is that there is no real dramatic weight behind them since the film gives us no reason to care about the characters. Story and characters should come first, but McG felt that explosions, special effects, and overblown chase sequences should come first. There was simply not enough story to keep me interested, no real character development, and no compassion in either love story. The dialogue was laughably bad and the performances are consistently mediocre.
Christian Bale gives his most flat performance to date. I don't know if it was how John Connor was written, but Bale's performance is one-dimensional and his accent is horrid. All he does is scream, look intense, scream some more, look more intense. This is John Connor were talking about, the messiah of this franchise. He shouldn't be such a predictable and boring character.
Bryce Dallas Howard had nothing to do except look shocked in every scene. Sam Worthington looks bored throughout the entire process. And Moon Bloodgood is nothing more then eye candy. Anton Yelchin is the only one who walks away with dignity, but even he couldn't bring any life to this film. Which is another problem with the film, there doesn't seem to be any life in it.
The first two installments were fun, full of life, excitement, character depth, and real human warmth for us to connect too. None of that is apparent in "Terminator Salvation." It's too serious for it's own good. It doesn't try to spark a lot of excitement or even entertain us. It's not provocative or moving, because it gives us nothing to care about.
McG seemed to care more about connecting this film to the first two installments. It couldn't stand on it's own because it kept reminding me of those two milestones in cinema. Forget that the CGI Arnold was utterly pathetic. Some of the characters were very pointless as well. Like Kyle Reese's cute little sidekick who does nothing out of the ordinary. She has no personality like Newt in "Aliens", nor does she attempt to kill any robots. She's there for no reason at all. Another awful thing in this mess is Common's performance as Barnes. He's so bad, it almost made me cringe.
This film even has such a cheesy and juvenile message that I can't even connect it to the first three films. The message in "Terminator" is that we can't avoid our fate so we have to face it. The message in "Terminator 2" is there is no fate or destiny, it's our choices that shape our path in life. "T3" back peddled and said we can't avoid our destiny at all, and we'll have to face it sooner or later. We're just preventing the inevitable until the time comes. The message in "Terminator Salvation" is everybody gets a second chance. That is beyond cheesy.
Overall, this is one of the worst summer films in recent years. It has some nice action sequences, a dark tone, and cool visuals. But that's all the praise it deserves. This film is too predictable, too serious, and McG takes no chances with the story. The ball for this franchise is finally dropped. My rating is a 3/10.
Here's a quick synopsis.
After Skynet has destroyed much of humanity, John Connor leads the resistance to keep the machines from finishing the job. It's set in the year 2018 and the future is altered by the appearance of Marcus Wright. Connor must figure out where he came from. And while Skynet prepares it's destruction of humanity, Connor and Wright will embark on a journey that will lead them to the depth of Skynet and discover a terrible secret that could annihilate everyone.
This film is visually appealing, and the action sequences are very well done. The problem is that there is no real dramatic weight behind them since the film gives us no reason to care about the characters. Story and characters should come first, but McG felt that explosions, special effects, and overblown chase sequences should come first. There was simply not enough story to keep me interested, no real character development, and no compassion in either love story. The dialogue was laughably bad and the performances are consistently mediocre.
Christian Bale gives his most flat performance to date. I don't know if it was how John Connor was written, but Bale's performance is one-dimensional and his accent is horrid. All he does is scream, look intense, scream some more, look more intense. This is John Connor were talking about, the messiah of this franchise. He shouldn't be such a predictable and boring character.
Bryce Dallas Howard had nothing to do except look shocked in every scene. Sam Worthington looks bored throughout the entire process. And Moon Bloodgood is nothing more then eye candy. Anton Yelchin is the only one who walks away with dignity, but even he couldn't bring any life to this film. Which is another problem with the film, there doesn't seem to be any life in it.
The first two installments were fun, full of life, excitement, character depth, and real human warmth for us to connect too. None of that is apparent in "Terminator Salvation." It's too serious for it's own good. It doesn't try to spark a lot of excitement or even entertain us. It's not provocative or moving, because it gives us nothing to care about.
McG seemed to care more about connecting this film to the first two installments. It couldn't stand on it's own because it kept reminding me of those two milestones in cinema. Forget that the CGI Arnold was utterly pathetic. Some of the characters were very pointless as well. Like Kyle Reese's cute little sidekick who does nothing out of the ordinary. She has no personality like Newt in "Aliens", nor does she attempt to kill any robots. She's there for no reason at all. Another awful thing in this mess is Common's performance as Barnes. He's so bad, it almost made me cringe.
This film even has such a cheesy and juvenile message that I can't even connect it to the first three films. The message in "Terminator" is that we can't avoid our fate so we have to face it. The message in "Terminator 2" is there is no fate or destiny, it's our choices that shape our path in life. "T3" back peddled and said we can't avoid our destiny at all, and we'll have to face it sooner or later. We're just preventing the inevitable until the time comes. The message in "Terminator Salvation" is everybody gets a second chance. That is beyond cheesy.
Overall, this is one of the worst summer films in recent years. It has some nice action sequences, a dark tone, and cool visuals. But that's all the praise it deserves. This film is too predictable, too serious, and McG takes no chances with the story. The ball for this franchise is finally dropped. My rating is a 3/10.
The Best Film of 2008: Che
I love this film. It runs at 4+ hours, and I never felt bored, I never checked the time on my cell phone, it never felt tedious, and I was simply overwhelmed by the epic feel of this extraordinary achievement. It has a perfectly subtle, and Oscar worthy performance by Benicio Del Toro. He never goes over the top, and always captivates the audience with his charisma, and presence. He conveys so much emotional depth, and what he does in this film, is basically what Marlon Brando and Robert Deniro use to do in their primes. He acts with his eyes, hands, body, and voice. It is probably the best male performance of 08, and it is criminally underrated.
Here's the synopsis
Che is a two part epic character study by Steven Soderbergh. The first part focuses on Che's involvement with the Cuban revolution and his partnership with Fidel Castro. The second part focuses on Che's futile attempt at revolution in Bolivia, and his demise.
Now I'll admit that sitting in a movie theater for 4 hours or more is pretty exhausting, but it doesn't help that a film like this can be so emotionally exhausting. I was truly struck by the emotional depth of this film. And while Steven Soderbergh does apply a lot of dialogue, and great characterization for Che. He also relies mostly on sound, visuals, and imagery. Some of the most gorgeous scenes, were the scenes with absolutely no dialogue, and had very somber music.
What Soderbergh does here, is what made him so great with films like "Traffic", and "Solaris." The man knows how to create an engrossing, and an almost hypnotic experience, when he is at his best. The film does follow some conventions, but it goes against the norm, by being an emotion, instead of just a plain old story. It's more artistic, then entertaining. I also feel that Soderbergh is one of the best directors who know how to use the shaky cam.
Many directors use that thing, and give me a headache. But Steven does it in a way that feels economic, and almost cerebral at times. He doesn't shake it too much, and he allows the audience to see what is going on. Even during the chaotic battle scenes, you know what is going on, and there is not too many quick cuts at all. The editing is tight, and paced very well.
And when the camera starts to shake a lot, it gives us some psychological insight into what was going through Che's mind during his final battle in Bolivia. It's madness, and the film shows us that his journey was not only a test of endurance, but a spiritual journey as well. But the best thing about this gem is the ambivalence that is given to Che. If you had a lot of questions about Che before seeing this film, then you'll leave it with very few answers. Why?? Because there is no definite answer to a character like this.
Even when you read about the man on Wikipedia or some other reliable source, you don't REALLY know who he actually was. Like many of us, he was extremely complex, and had different sides to him. And like most of us, he seemed to have a bit of everything. He was good, he was evil, he was a hero, he was a murderer, he was an executioner, a leader, and a healer. One thing is for sure, Che Guevara is an inspirational, flawed, and highly controversial figure to this day.
Nobody will ever agree on who, or what he was. Overall, I give this masterful film a 9.5/10. It is the best film of 2008. And it might be Soderbergh's best, and most spiritual work to date. I love this film, and I can't wait to own it on DVD. Some scenes were so gorgeous, that only my X-Box 360 could do it justice.
Here's the synopsis
Che is a two part epic character study by Steven Soderbergh. The first part focuses on Che's involvement with the Cuban revolution and his partnership with Fidel Castro. The second part focuses on Che's futile attempt at revolution in Bolivia, and his demise.
Now I'll admit that sitting in a movie theater for 4 hours or more is pretty exhausting, but it doesn't help that a film like this can be so emotionally exhausting. I was truly struck by the emotional depth of this film. And while Steven Soderbergh does apply a lot of dialogue, and great characterization for Che. He also relies mostly on sound, visuals, and imagery. Some of the most gorgeous scenes, were the scenes with absolutely no dialogue, and had very somber music.
What Soderbergh does here, is what made him so great with films like "Traffic", and "Solaris." The man knows how to create an engrossing, and an almost hypnotic experience, when he is at his best. The film does follow some conventions, but it goes against the norm, by being an emotion, instead of just a plain old story. It's more artistic, then entertaining. I also feel that Soderbergh is one of the best directors who know how to use the shaky cam.
Many directors use that thing, and give me a headache. But Steven does it in a way that feels economic, and almost cerebral at times. He doesn't shake it too much, and he allows the audience to see what is going on. Even during the chaotic battle scenes, you know what is going on, and there is not too many quick cuts at all. The editing is tight, and paced very well.
And when the camera starts to shake a lot, it gives us some psychological insight into what was going through Che's mind during his final battle in Bolivia. It's madness, and the film shows us that his journey was not only a test of endurance, but a spiritual journey as well. But the best thing about this gem is the ambivalence that is given to Che. If you had a lot of questions about Che before seeing this film, then you'll leave it with very few answers. Why?? Because there is no definite answer to a character like this.
Even when you read about the man on Wikipedia or some other reliable source, you don't REALLY know who he actually was. Like many of us, he was extremely complex, and had different sides to him. And like most of us, he seemed to have a bit of everything. He was good, he was evil, he was a hero, he was a murderer, he was an executioner, a leader, and a healer. One thing is for sure, Che Guevara is an inspirational, flawed, and highly controversial figure to this day.
Nobody will ever agree on who, or what he was. Overall, I give this masterful film a 9.5/10. It is the best film of 2008. And it might be Soderbergh's best, and most spiritual work to date. I love this film, and I can't wait to own it on DVD. Some scenes were so gorgeous, that only my X-Box 360 could do it justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
