Tag Archives: 7/10

Movie Review: 42 [2013]

Posted by

10

42 [2013]

42 [2013]
Director: Brian Helgeland
Screenplay: Brian Helgeland
Genre: Biography/Drama/Sport
Starring: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie
Running Time: 128 minutes

Jackie Robinson will always be known as the first African American to play in Major League Baseball, but many seem to forget that he was also a damn good player. In a ten year career, he was a 6-time All-Star, an MVP winner, Rookie of the Year, and a World Series champion. In the new biopic, 42, his excellent career is only glossed over in favor of taking a look at his tumultuous first season.

First, we begin in 1945. Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) is looking to improve his team and comes up with an unfathomable idea — why not sign a talented African American player? While there was no rule against letting minorities play Major League Baseball, there was an unwritten code that every team adhered by. After taking a look at several of the big names in the Negro leagues — including Roy Campanella and Satchel Paige — Rickey settles on the then 26-year-old Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), citing his strong demeanor and ability to withstand verbal abuse.

42 [2013]

Jackie, accompanied by his lovely wife, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), spends a season in the minor leagues before hitting the majors in 1947. As soon as he steps on the field on Opening Day, Jackie is surrounded by reporters. This is commonplace, as is the racist heckling from the crowd, written death threats and even petitions against him from his own teammates. It’s hard to believe that just over 60 years ago, the U.S. was so heavily segregated. Toilets, water fountains and even baseball stadiums were divided, with different lines for “whites” and “colored” patrons.

Many of the character interactions in this film are downright disgusting, and sadly enough, most of them actually happened. The most notorious example is when Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk) attempts to rattle Robinson while he’s at the plate by spewing racial epithets at him over and over again. Chapman is relentless, and this is when Jackie reaches his breaking point. Is he really ready to do this? Can he continue to handle all of the pressure bestowed upon him as MLB’s first African American player, essentially a trailblazing pioneer? Of course, we know the answer to this.

42 [2013]

It’s somewhat disappointing that 42 only focuses on Jackie’s first season, simply because he had an impressive career with many noteworthy moments. This makes sense from a film perspective since it gives director Brian Helgeland a chance to portray Robinson in the brightest possible light (which I have no complaints about), but it still feels like there is just so much more to tell.

The film is given the full Hollywood treatment with tried-and-true cliches, dramatic music and a number of heavy-handed scenes (I half-expected Steven Spielberg’s name to be attached to the project), and it concludes with notes on what later happened to Jackie and a select few teammates. While I was fully expecting this “where did they go?” epilogue, it was bizarre to see notes given on players who weren’t even named in the film. Much of the supporting cast (re: teammates) are briefly acknowledged by a first name, if we’re lucky, and they all just blur together. While it’s nice to know Ralph Branca played for three different teams in his career, why should the audience care when he was given maybe a few lines in the movie?

42 [2013]

Regardless of these head-scratching end notes, it should be stated that the entire cast did a hell of a job with their roles. Chadwick Boseman perfectly nails Jackie’s baseball mannerisms, and Harrison Ford hits one out of the park with his scenery-chewing performance as the cigar-chomping old codger running the Dodgers. An impressive array of character actors fills out the supporting cast, led by John C. McGinley as the legendary announcer, Red Barber, and Alan Tudyk as the racist manager, Ben Chapman.

42 is a serviceable biopic, and it hits all of the proper emotional notes. It is an important film, one that deserves to be seen, even though it may be too “Hollywood” for its own good. Jackie Robinson’s legacy is undeniable, and at the very least this film has deservedly brought him back into the forefront.

7/10

About these ads

Movie Review: Trance [2013]

Posted by

28

Trance [2013]

Trance [2013]
Director: Danny Boyle
Screenplay: Joe Ahearne, John Hodge
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
Starring: James McAvoy, Vincent Cassel, Rosario Dawson
Running Time: 101 minutes

Danny Boyle’s latest thriller is a film that bounces all over the place with a plot that is both convoluted and completely outlandish. Twists and turns are plentiful, and at times the film is hard to follow. However, it is directed with a style and vision that only Boyle can pull off.

James McAvoy stars as Simon, an art auctioneer who is violently hit in the head by criminal Franck (Vincent Cassel) during an art heist gone bad. When Simon regains consciousness, it is discovered that he also has amnesia — he cannot remember anything that happened after the damaging blow to the head. His memory is crucial, as it turns out that he had hidden an extremely valuable painting during the heist, sending Franck and his goons home empty-handed. Franck begins torturing Simon in a desperate attempt to find its whereabouts. Realizing Simon isn’t bluffing with his amnesia, Franck sends him to a hypnotherapist, Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), in a further attempt to unlock the memories of where the painting might be.

Trance [2013]

From there, the film bends in all sorts of directions, and there are enough dream sequences shown to make it very difficult to know just what is real and what is fantasy. This is a film that must be taken at face value; it asks its audience to go with the flow and not think too much about what is happening on screen. So much of it is far-fetched that these jumps in logic are bound to infuriate some.

For a good 3/4 of the film, it’s incredibly difficult to determine what exactly is happening. A huge twist near the end puts things in perspective, and it is in this way that the film rewards patient viewers. Sure, it may not entirely make sense, but then again the film’s concept itself is pretty ridiculous.

In the hands of a lesser director, Trance could easily be a middling affair. However, this is Danny freakin’ Boyle, so at the very least it’s full of eye candy. Dazzling shots, vibrant colors and a rush of a soundtrack (composed by Underworld’s Rick Smith, no less) all help make Trance fly by.

Trance [2013]

The cast, of whom McAvoy, Cassel and Dawson are all given nearly equal screen time, is strong, and they play off each other rather well. The arch of McAvoy’s character is particularly invigorating, and he delivers what may be his strongest performance yet. It is Dawson’s performance, however, that people will remember most. She is completely believable as a hypnotherapist, which is a major feat in itself. I could listen to her soothing voice all day long.

While Trance may jump around a bit too much for its own good, it remains a solid thriller that is rewarding enough for those who sit through till the end. It is the type of film that begs to be seen more than once, but at the same time it is perhaps not strong enough to warrant repeat viewings.

7/10

Movie Review: Spring Breakers [2013]

Posted by

15

Spring Breakers [2013]

Spring Breakers [2013]
Director: Harmony Korine
Screenplay: Harmony Korine
Genre: Drama
Starring: James Franco, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, Rachel Korine, Gucci Mane
Running Time: 94 minutes

Oh how I would have loved to have attended an opening night screening of Spring Breakers, just to gauge the reactions from a full audience. Here is a film that is so polarizing and divisive among critics and movie fans alike, and one that is bound to infuriate those simply looking for a party movie.

Director Harmony Korine, perhaps best known for writing the controversial 1995 film, Kids, has crafted a film unlike any I have ever seen, a rare feat in this day and age.

Spring Breakers tells the story of a quartet of young female college students, two of whom just so happen to be played by former Disney starlets. These four girls — Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), Brit (Ashley Benson), Cotty (Rachel Korine) and Faith (Selena Gomez) — are all so desperate to leave their boring college town and go on a spring break vacation that they are willing to do anything to come up with enough cash to do so. Their solution? Rob a restaurant using hammers and squirt guns. Shockingly, it works, and the girls head to St. Petersburg, Florida to party their asses off.

The girls are enjoying themselves, drinking, doing drugs, and riding scooters in their tiny bikinis, but their vacation is turned on its head when they meet Alien (James Franco, never better).

Spring Breakers [2013]

Alien is a goofy-looking rapper/gangster (those grills! those cornrows!) who the girls quickly take a liking to, and they get soaked up in his world of crime. What was a typical spring break vacation full of debauchery turns into something none of them could have imagined. It’s here where the film will lose half of its audience, as it goes in a completely different direction than expected.

Harmony Korine deserves major credit for keeping his viewers on their toes, as he seemingly drops bits of foreshadowing then completely disregards them. I had no idea where the film was going to go, and for that, I am impressed.

However, I can’t say I was entirely thrilled with the film’s editing choices. Monologues and certain moments are repeated over and over again, and this repetition grows monotonous over the course of film. At the same time, this is clearly what Korine intended to do, as it is readily apparent he does not care if we are actually entertained. Not everything he does *works*, but he certainly doesn’t lack the courage to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

Spring Breakers [2013]

If there is any common ground in this film, it likely comes in the form of appeal for James Franco and his unforgettable performance as Alien. He is completely ridiculous but also wildly entertaining. People will be talking about him in this film for quite some time. The girls also do well in their roles, though their characters mostly blend together. Only Gomez is given a different story arc, as her character is frequently at odds with the lack of morals presented by her friends.

Spring Breakers is pretty far out there, and as such, it will appeal to a select audience. It’s a challenging, curious film, one that I am not fully in love with, but one that I appreciate all the same. It oozes style, dares to go in directions most films won’t, and it even manages to make Skrillex tolerable. That alone makes it a winner in my book.

7/10

Video Game Review: Dead Space 3 [Xbox 360]

Posted by

16

Dead Space 3 [Xbox 360]

Dead Space 3
System: Xbox 360 (also on PS3 and PC)
Genre: Third-person shooter
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Developer: Visceral Games
Release Date: February 5, 2013

Despite the emphasis placed on horror in the first Dead Space, the series’ gradual transition to full-blown action gameplay seemed inevitable. After all, in the eyes of corporate big-wigs, gamers don’t want to be scared; they want to blow shit up and dismember aliens, right? As such, even though we all knew Dead Space 3 would focus on action, the change is still startling, and unfortunately disappointing as well.

Set three years after the Sprawl incident of Dead Space 2, the game once again places you in the role of Isaac Clarke, the engineer who has now become quite handy with a gun (and chatty, at that). Isaac is dragged out of his self-made isolation in his rather disgusting apartment on the moon, and he is forced on a mission to help find his ex-girlfriend and her missing team. Once again, he encounters an endless amount of Necromorphs along the way, with the added bonus of also having to fight off Marker-crazed Unitologists (essentially cult soldiers).

Dead Space 3 [Xbox 360]

The plot is basically more of the same from the Dead Space series, but the game does go in an interesting new direction when Isaac arrives on the snowy planet of Tau Volantis. Being able to play in blizzard-like conditions is a nice change of pace, even if these moments are often interrupted with forays into the familiar dark, gloomy interior settings.

Being able to play on an ice planet is fun, but it can’t mask the fact that the campaign is lacking in any major “wow” moments. The first two games were full of such moments — who could ever forget the introduction of the Necromorphs in DS1, or the eye scene in DS2 (not to mention many others)? After finishing DS3, I have had a hard time remembering much of anything. In fact, by about the 2/3 mark during the campaign, the gameplay grew monotonous to the point of me just wanting it to be over with.

The campaign is longer than before — it took me nearly 15 hours to finish it single player with all optional missions completed — but there is little diversity to keep things fresh. This is a major issue, though it is helped somewhat by the addition of a brand new co-op mode.

Dead Space 3 [Xbox 360]

Now, games can be dropped in and out of using the online co-op feature. In this, one player is Isaac, and the other is John Carver, an EarthGov Sergeant. They have separate personalities, and there are a handful of co-op exclusive side missions that can explore these differences more in-depth. Being able to play with a friend makes it a little easier to overlook the shortcomings found in the campaign, though it is somewhat infuriating that part of the content is exclusive to co-op.

There has been quite a bit of controversy regarding another new feature in Dead Space 3 — its weapon crafting system. Instead of only being able to acquire a dozen or so weapons, you now have the ability to make your own guns based on different parts you find throughout the environment. There are a ton of possibilities, and if you put in the necessary time, you can make some pretty badass weapons.

Dead Space 3 [Xbox 360]

The controversy for this feature comes in the form of microtransactions. Basically, EA has given the option for impatient/lazy gamers to spend real money to acquire the materials needed to craft certain weapons. I had no problems whatsoever finding the elements and parts I needed during the course of the campaign, so this feature does not bother me in the slightest. In fact, I don’t see what all the fuss is about. This isn’t something that is forced onto gamers — it’s entirely up to them if they want to dish out any extra cash to change their gameplay experience. Of all the common complaints with DS3, this is the one I don’t get.

And yes, Dead Space 3 does have its fair share of problems, but it is still a competent third-person action game. Fans of the horror aspects of the series will no doubt be disappointed by the reliance on action, but those especially interested in the Dead Space canon will likely still enjoy this. At the very least, the game warrants multiple playthroughs, so there is a good amount of replay value, and it can be fun to kick back with a friend. It’s just a shame that the series has already gone so far away from what made the first two games so great.

7/10

Movie Review: End of Watch [2012]

Posted by

15

End of Watch [2012]

End of Watch [2012]
Director: David Ayer
Screenplay: David Ayer
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick and Natalie Martinez
Running Time: 109 minutes

End of Watch is a police movie that nails one aspect that many others often neglect: the virtue of humanity.

Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena spent five months riding along (for 12 hours at a time) with several different Los Angeles law enforcement agencies in order to prepare for their roles as police officers Brian Taylor and Miguel Zavala, respectively. This commitment to their roles is extremely noticeable in their performances, as the duo feel like a pair of real life cops with their authentic banter (much of which was improvised).

End of Watch [2012]

End of Watch doesn’t have a typical plot. Most of the film feels like a hybrid of the TV show Cops and a buddy cop movie, but with an even greater air of authenticity thanks to its use of handheld cameras (more on that later). The pair of officers perform some questionable acts — such as Zavala openly brawling with a suspect in a fit of testosterone-induced action — but they remain mostly honest cops who are willing to risk their lives to save others.

When the officers stumble upon the shady underworld of a Mexican cartel, the shit hits the fan. Suddenly they find themselves entangled with the wrong group of people. As they go deeper and deeper into some truly disturbing stuff, they struggle to maintain their personal lives. Zavala is married with a child on the way, and Taylor has a blossoming relationship with fellow twenty-something Janet (Anna Kendrick). These women are well aware of the risks their men take on the job, something they are reluctantly forced to live with.

End of Watch [2012]

As mentioned earlier, part of what makes End of Watch stand out from other like-minded films is its reliance on handheld camera work. At the beginning of the movie, Taylor is shown filming everything in sight for a class project. We are often shown the perspective from his lens, but there are also many other camera angles used, most of which use the same handheld “shaky cam” technique. The transition from different angles is jarring at first, especially since the beginning of the film seems to insinuate this will be using footage from Taylor’s camera. Some of the car chase scenes using the in-dash video are tough to stomach, as are a handful of the especially-shaky action moments. While I can appreciate director David Ayer’s decision to experiment with these different techniques, I almost wish he were a little more consistent. There were also times where the camerawork made it feel as if I were watching a video game, as evidenced by its occasional “first person shooter” viewpoints, and this ultimately grew to be distracting.

While the camerawork is hit-and-miss, the sense of realism is an absolute high point. Gyllenhaal and Pena have impeccable chemistry, and the tight-knit bond between their characters feels legit. The rest of the supporting cast, led by Natalie Martinez and Anna Kendrick as their significant others, also do well in their given roles.

End of Watch [2012]

One aspect that the film scraps with is its overabundance of foreshadowing. There were far too many dialogue exchanges that spoke of impending doom, and they were laid on so thick that the film ultimately became predictable as a result. Perhaps the outcome wasn’t too unfamiliar at the beginning anyway, but I could have done without the ominous remarks.

At any rate, End of Watch is still an entertaining ride that is well worth seeing just for the partnership between Gyllenhaal and Pena. The film looks at the lives of police officers in a different light, and the character relationships make it stand out from the rest. It’s just a shame that it doesn’t quite reach the level of greatness that it sets out for.

7/10

Movie Project #47: The Nightmare Before Christmas [1993]

Posted by

21

Due to the surprising success of my initial Movies Project, I decided to do a part two for 2012. This time around I put a greater emphasis on directors I am not familiar with, but I also tried to compile a mix of different genres and eras. This will be an ongoing project with the finish date being sometime this year.

The Nightmare Before Christmas [1993]

The Nightmare Before Christmas [1993]
Director: Henry Selick
Genre: Animation/Family/Fantasy
Starring: Danny Elfman, Chris Sarandon and Catherine O’Hara
Running Time: 76 minutes

Although this is only the second movies project I have put together, I am noticing a trend. There is one film from each that garners the biggest “how have you not seen this?!?” reaction. With last year’s project, hands down it was Back to the Future. This year it’s Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas (with apologies to Rocky and The Bourne Identity).

Set in the spookily morbid world of Halloween Town, the film follows the plight of one Jack Skellington, a thin skeleton who wears a snazzy black pin-striped suit. Every year the monsters and mutants that make up the town’s population rely on Jack to lead their Halloween celebrations. This year, however, Jack has become disillusioned with their proceedings. While wandering about, he stumbles upon a portal into a new world — Christmas Town — and becomes enchanted with what he sees there. Seeking to bring that Christmas spirit into his hometown, Jack decides he wants to be Santa Claus and hires a group of residents to kidnap the jolly fat man.

The Nightmare Before Christmas [1993]

Clearly this is a bad idea, but it sets the precedence for some of the film’s greatest moments. As a trio of kids — dubbed Lock, Shock and Barrel — chase down Santa, a ridiculously inappropriate (but wildly amusing) song starts playing that discusses how they want to “chop Santa into bits.” I don’t know how appropriate that is for children, but I got a kick out of it. It was also a lot of fun watching Jack masquerade as Santa Claus, delivering frightful gifts to little kids.

Outside of these comical bits, however, I felt little attachment to the film. Most of Danny Elfman’s musical numbers, outside of the opening tune, are forgettable, and the film’s emotional development rests its weight on the skinny little shoulders of Jack Skellington. Most of the supporting characters fall flat, and I did not feel connected to any of them.

The Nightmare Before Christmas [1993]

On the flip side, I did find it amazing that Burton’s stop-motion animation still holds up remarkably well nearly 20 years later. I can’t use the word “beautiful” because of the grotesque subject matter, but this is one slick-looking film. The character designs are especially imaginative, and there’s always something new to catch the eye.

I can’t help but feel that a lot of The Nightmare Before Christmas‘ appeal rides heavily on nostalgia from those who saw it in their youth. It’s a solid film, but is it truly worthy of its near-unanimous praise (IMDB Top 250, 96% on Rotten Tomatoes)?

7/10

Movie Review: Cloud Atlas [2012]

Posted by

16

Cloud Atlas [2012]

Cloud Atlas [2012]
Directors: Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski
Genre: Drama/Mystery/Sci-Fi
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Jim Broadbent, Doona Bae
Running Time: 172 minutes

Cloud Atlas is a mess, a huge, sprawling epic that jumps through different time periods at will. It’s also one of the most interesting films I have seen all year.

Based on the “unfilmable” novel of the same name, Cloud Atlas tells six different stories from six time periods — from 1849 to present day and far beyond. Each story uses different characters, but they all appear to be connected in some way. The film is here to show us how the lives of others impact those in the future, and that we as humans are connected regardless of our race and gender.

Cloud Atlas [2012]

With a running time of nearly three hours, there’s a lot to digest. The film itself is visually stunning and begs to be seen on the big screen, and it has an especially impressive score (composed by the trio of Tom Tykwer, Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek). On aesthetics alone, Cloud Atlas is a treat. However, I’m still trying to wrap my head around what I watched.

It’s no secret that a film of this magnitude will welcome a second viewing (at least). I spent a great deal of time trying to piece together just how each story was connected, and I kept an eye out for subtle (and not-so-subtle) hints that put the different eras together. With so many stories and characters to keep track of, it’s impossible to pull it altogether after one viewing.

Cloud Atlas [2012]

This will infuriate some viewers, no doubt, and I’m not sure the payoff is as exceptional as it could be. Regardless, it can be a challenge to keep us entertained for a full three hours, and I was genuinely enthralled for the vast majority of the feature. With so much going on, you really do need to give this your full attention.

It helps to have an absolute star-studded cast at the disposal of the film, and it’s a lot of fun to look out for the same actors in each time period. Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess and Hugh Grant appear in every single story, always playing different characters (some major, some not). Hanks, in particular, is greatly entertaining, especially as the 2012 writer, Dermot Higgins, who is responsible for one of the film’s most shocking moments.

Cloud Atlas [2012]

Much controversy has been raised about the use of white actors playing Asians in this film. Normally I am against this so-called “yellowface” tactic, but there is no underlying racism here. This film is meant to show how we are all connected, regardless of race, and it’s not just white people playing minorities here. Both Halle Berry and Doona Bae (the popular South Korean actress) play white women at one point. Although sometimes the heavy makeup used by these characters becomes distracting, I thought that using this same group of stars for multiple roles was a brave choice, and the correct one at that.

Cloud Atlas has received wildly mixed reviews, which should be a surprise to no one. The buzz word going around is that the film is “ambitious” and for some this is a good thing, while for others it is not. I like a lot of what the film tries to do, and it is an entertaining “mess” as I mentioned earlier. Some plot threads could have been tightened up, and a few scenes felt unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, but for the most part the film succeeds. Love it or hate it, there hasn’t been another film like Cloud Atlas this year.

7/10

Movie Project #40: Chicago [2002]

Posted by

23

Due to the surprising success of my initial Movies Project, I decided to do a part two for 2012. This time around I put a greater emphasis on directors I am not familiar with, but I also tried to compile a mix of different genres and eras. This will be an ongoing project with the finish date being sometime this year.

Chicago [2002]

Chicago [2002]
Director: Rob Marshall
Genre: Comedy/Crime/Musical
Starring: Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, John C. Reilly
Runtime: 113 minutes

I approached my viewing of Chicago with an open mind. I was feeling optimistic — after all, I had went through a good run of musicals (Singin’ in the Rain, Moulin Rouge!, Dancer in the Dark) that made me look at the genre with renewed interest. Maybe I was being biased for no good reason and I just needed to see a few strong musicals to make me a fan. I was all set to love this, especially since the film was set in my city (albeit in the 1920s). All of the pieces were aligned, but alas, Chicago didn’t quite live up to my expectations.

Based on the stage musical of the same name, Chicago revolves around two murderesses who are in jail and awaiting trial in the 1920s. Roxie Hart (Renée Zellweger) is charged with the murder of Fred Casely (Dominic West), her lover who never gave her the broadway gigs he promised her. She dreams of being a vaudeville star like Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who is also sent to jail after killing her husband and sister, whom she finds in bed together. Faced with the prospect of death sentences, the two women enlist the services of highly talented lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) to set them free.

There is also a sense of jealousy between the two women. Velma is the queen of the roost, so to speak, and she gets all of the headlines due to her past popularity. Roxie is envious of this and does everything she can to weasel her way into the newspapers — much to Velma’s dismay.

Chicago [2002]

Now, while some may find interest in the satirical plot, the appeal of Chicago lies in its bombastic song-and-dance numbers. This is a film that revels in its visual style, piecing together large and exuberant dance routines with a distinct Jazz Age flair. The set pieces are fantastic; the costumes, flamboyant. It’s easy to get lost in the flashy showtunes, despite the fact that most songs are utterly forgettable. “All That Jazz” is a treat, but nothing else really left a mark on me.

Ultimately, that is the biggest problem I had with Chicago. Outside of the glitz and the glamour, this is a film with very little substance. I enjoyed the spectacle of it all, but everything felt shallow, and I lacked any real connection to the characters or the proceedings. Taken on its merits, there is a certain amount of charm. I was just hoping for more… substance.

Chicago [2002]

Still, there are some brilliant performances that beg to be recognized, particularly that of Catherine Zeta-Jones. She is absolutely stunning as Velma Kelly, and it was always a treat to watch her on screen. I have no complaints about her winning an Oscar — she really is that damn good. Zellweger and Gere are also up to the task in their performances, though they did not leave as much of a lasting impression. Special mention should be made of two entertaining supporting roles — John C. Reilly as Amos Hart, Roxie’s cuckolded husband, and Queen Latifah as “Mama” Morton, the strong and independent matron of the Cook County Jail.

While I did enjoy Chicago overall, I just didn’t connect with it in the way I was hoping. I get the appeal of it, and its visual style is certainly impressive, but it’s a bit of a head-scratcher as to how this won Best Picture in a year stacked with great films.

7/10

Movie Project #34: Gilda [1946]

Posted by

14

Due to the surprising success of my initial Movies Project, I decided to do a part two for 2012. This time around I put a greater emphasis on directors I am not familiar with, but I also tried to compile a mix of different genres and eras. This will be an ongoing project with the finish date being sometime this year.

Gilda [1946]

Gilda [1946]
Director: Charles Vidor
Genre: Drama/Film Noir/Romance
Starring: Rita Hayworth, Glenn Ford and George Macready
Runtime: 110 minutes

Rita Hayworth. Having never seen a film with this red-haired dame, she has become something of a mythical goddess to me over the years. Between Jack White’s constant fawning over her, and references from film writers, I had heard so much about the actress without ever actually seeing her perform. It was with this in mind that I added Gilda to the project, arguably her most popular film.

Gilda is a Film Noir with an especially thick layer of sexual tension. Hayworth plays the titular character, an undeniable femme fatale who is caught between two men. Her husband, Ballin (George Macready), is the boss of a South American casino. His righthand man is Johnny Farrell (Glenn Ford, also the narrator), who once had a past with Gilda. She spends her time flaunting about and staying out late with strange men, much to the chagrin of Johnny, who is trying to keep her in check. Gilda is something of a wild stallion, however — impossible to tame.

Gilda [1946]

There’s also an air of homoeroticism between Ballin and Johnny, though it is never overtly mentioned in the script. This bizarre love triangle spins a dangerous web, especially once the truth comes out about Johnny and Gilda’s past. Their relationship borders that fine line between “love” and “hate”, and it’s especially intriguing to see this play out.

At its core, this is a Rita Hayworth film. She glows in every scene she is in, especially in the famous “Put the Blame on Mame” striptease. Just by merely removing her long, black glove, she oozes a kind of sex appeal rarely seen on screen. This rivals Marilyn Monroe’s legendary “I Wanna Be Loved By You” number in Some Like It Hot, as both show two classic beauties in their prime.

Rita Hayworth in Gilda [1946]

The problem with Gilda is exactly what makes it so great — Rita Hayworth. Take her out of the picture and there’s nothing left but a middling noir. Sure, Glenn Ford and George Macready round out a strong main cast, but she is undoubtedly the centerpiece of the film. Using a different actress would have been a grave mistake, and the film would have suffered greatly without her.

As it stands, Gilda is worth seeing, but only because of Miss Hayworth. The sexual tension she creates between both men is a work of art, and I have never seen a film with such a strong love-hate relationship as found with her and Johnny. There is no mistaking her legacy.

7/10

Movie Project #30: Ringu [1998]

Posted by

34

Due to the surprising success of my initial Movies Project, I decided to do a part two for 2012. This time around I put a greater emphasis on directors I am not familiar with, but I also tried to compile a mix of different genres and eras. This will be an ongoing project with the finish date being sometime this year.

Ringu [1998]

Ringu [1998]
Director: Hideo Nakata
Genre: Horror/Mystery
Starring: Nanako Matsushima, Miki Nakatani and Yûko Takeuchi
Runtime: 96 minutes

My experience with Japanese horror movies is very, very limited. In fact, I can only remember seeing Audition, and that was many years ago. When I initially compiled my 50 movies project, it was suggested that I include something from the genre. As the highest grossing horror film in Japan, Ringu seemed like an obvious starting point.

Those who have seen the 2002 American remake, The Ring, are likely familiar with the premise. A group of teenagers have discovered a cursed videotape that will kill its viewers seven days after watching. A reporter, Reiko Asakawa (Nanako Matsushima), starts a personal investigation of this matter after it is rumored that her niece and a few friends died from the curse. Eventually she discovers the tape herself, watches it and then frantically has to find a way to reverse the process and stay alive. She gains help from her ex-husband Ryuji Takayama (Hiroyuki Sanada), but can they solve the mystery in time?

Ringu [1998]

By now, more than a decade later, the film’s more memorable moments have been ingrained into the pop culture canon. The creepy little girl with long black hair, the bizarre content on the videotape, the sudden appearance of a large eyeball — anyone with half a pulse will recognize these. The common perception, with these idiosyncracies in mind, is that Ringu is scary as hell. I was expecting to *finally* be scared by a movie, something that has never happened to me. Alas, I was surprised to learn that Ringu is more of a mystery film than anything.

Sure, the suspense is riveting and the atmosphere creepy, but there was never a moment where I became frightened. The eyeball was alarming, but that was more peculiar than anything. Taken as a horror film, this is a little disappointing. As a mystery, however, this is more intriguing.

Ringu [1998]

Even though I knew what to expect from most of the film, I was generally interested throughout. The slow build creates subtle tension, and while it has its more convoluted moments, the culmination into an epic 10-minute frenzy at the end is unforgettable. For some, though, I imagine this payoff is too little, too late.

Ringu is a good, solid film, but I feel that it has lost some of its flair over the years. The mystery story is well-crafted and the performances are strong, but it is mostly forgettable outside of a few select moments. That being said, I am definitely interested in seeing more of the genre.

7/10

 
Now I’m ready to revisit The Ring. What do you guys prefer? Ringu or The Ring?