Part 1: Introduction and Three Star Reviews
Part 2: Two Star Reviews
Star Review Primer
This is going to be the fun post. There are only two movies to list here, but I couldn't wait to talk about them, especially the latest Mr. Mann Masterpiece.
07-09-09: Choke (2008) 1 star:
This movie feels like it came out about ten years too late and about six months before it was ready. I love Sam Rockwell, he is fine in this movie, as is Angelina Jolie. Brad William Henke was a revelation, and I can't wait to see more of his work. My problem, though, is that this film doesn't go anywhere, or say anything. Its just there. I don't know if this is the fault of Palahnuik's book or Gregg's writing and direction, but after this film ended, all I could think was "so what?" On top of that, the film is disjointed and feels like it was rushed. Part of me wonders if half the movie was left on the cutting table, and if those scenes would have given the film more resonance, but I think the biggest problem with this film is that the film thinks it is meaningful and deep, rather than just a collection of sex jokes, quirky characters and awkward moments.
I didn't want to, but I have to compare it to Fight Club. I know a lot of people were seduced by the ideology of Tyler Durden, but I honestly think that, at least the movie, is a satire of that ideology - I have never believed Fincher for once thought that the characters were anything but idiot losers stuck in arrested development. On the other hand, Fight Club is a technical masterpiece and moves with an energy that I wish all films had.
Choke, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. It has no energy or drive, and shifts between laid back and lethargic. Choke also worships its characters and wants us to sympathize with them. For what reason, I don't know; they are outsiders who don't fit into normal society, work at a historical reenactment camp, and have cool, quirky addictions to sex. Maybe I'm too old, or maybe I'm too dull, but I can't find these characters as anything but laughable and pathetic. Choke is the thirty-five year who had one philosophy class in college and is convinced he knows the truth of the world. He also has a fondness for calling people sheep. For five minutes he is amusing, for ten minutes he is a bore, and after an hour or so, you have already tuned him out.
07-11-09: Public Enemies (2009) 0 stars:
Damn you Michael Mann, you did it again! After swearing you off repeated times, somehow you pulled the sheet over my eyes once more and made me think, "this time will be different, this time it will be a great movie." He was back in his hometown of Chicago, where they had to shut down the city during filming. He was working with an awesome collection of interesting historical characters in a great time period. Look at that cast!!! Most movies would kill to have a supporting roster that deep.
So what does he do with it? He spends an obscene amount of money making a hybrid between an old studio gangster and a $10,000 exploitation film. In no particular order, this film is:
1. Ugly as sin! Yes, you love digital, and you like putting cameras in the corner of a floor so it looks worse than a student horror film. You also seem to hate lighting. I don't care if this is your style, its completely ridiculous for this film. If Scorsese can use a completely static camera in The King Of Comedy because a fluid camera, despite being his trademark, would feel completely foreign in an environment of stilted, arrested characters, then you could learn how to light a shot or hire a cameraman who has legs, a dolly, or at least a tripod. Zodiac was a digitally shot period film, and its beautiful. That shootout in the house in the woods, you know, the big climactic scene, was one of the ugliest, most amateurish, laughably bad looking scenes I have seen in a movie this decade. What the hell did you spend all that money on?
2. Long and boring. Michael Mann, I have finally realized there is no story you can't make unexciting. Hell, you made Ali dull. Ali, arguably one of the most interesting, controversial, energetic, provocative, charismatic people of the Twentieth Century, you found a way to make a movie about this man as entertaining as C-Span. I didn't care a damn thing about any of the characters in this movie. How can John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, or J. Edgar Hoover ever bore you? They can all meet in a Michael Mann film, and then go about their motions as if on rails, with zero character development, motive, insight, or even common sense. Mann is more interested in getting from point A to point B than to explain why, how, what, where, or who the hell gives a damn about point B. Its all trip no destination, and sadly, he doesn't even navigate the trip well.
3. Seriously, you shut down Chicago for this???? Name one shot that you go "Oh Wow, way to use the location." It could have been shot on a soundstage, it probably should have - at least then you would have proper lighting.
4. The music and tone suck. I liked the bluegrass guitar, but whenever the love story came on screen, the dialogue got cheesy and the orchestra swelled to MGM proportions. The only saving grace of this, of course, is it helped wake me up a couple times when I caught myself dozing off for a minute or two. This film is completely schizophrenic: it wants to look like a Lars von Trier experiment and ignore classic story conventions, but also wants to be a studio era gangster film with snappy dialogue, over the top glamour shots, and musical queues on every single closeup of the lovebirds. Its a mess.
5. Be accurate, or be fun! I don't expect or demand historical accuracy. Mann, though, obviously feels that is the reason to watch his film: the only answer to most of my complaints about the story structure is that Mann just wants to show us how it was, not explain it. That would be alright, or at least forgivable, if he was historically accurate. He isn't - despite adapting the film from a very good, non-fiction source, this film is very fast and loose with the facts, having people die out of order to provide motivation, or inventing scenarios to show how characters ascended their own career ladders. Hell, Dillinger had like 50 girls, but not in this movie. This would be fine if Mann actually backed up this fantasy by fleshing out the characters or the plot and let us believe the characters would act this way. Instead, he just cuts and dices history to fit some fantasy story and expects the audience to just buy it because "its history." Basically, Mann's story is lazy and insults our intelligence, hiding behind the authenticity of "inspired by a true story." Someday Mann is going to film the Civil War where Lincoln kills Robert E Lee in 1958, which is how he is elected president, only to have Grant kill Lincoln because Lincoln fell in love with General Sherman, with no explanation, and expect the audience to buy it all because its "inspired by a fifth grade history book."
There is more, a lot more, wrong with this movie, but I don't care. I'm done with Michael Mann, you can have him. I want to make it clear that I blame 100% of this movie on Mann. For what they had to work with, the actors were all fine. The sets and costumes appear to be great. Then Mann gets to shoot and edit, and it all goes to waste.
In parting words, I'm not the only one who seems to be done with Mann: he has a history of bringing in films over budget that never make their money back, and there are rumors that Public Enemies was the last straw. I'm actually happy - I think Mann has some talent, and a true arthouse budget might be just what he needs to make a good movie again. At least he won't be able to hire a full orchestra anymore!
There are the dogs. Stay tuned for Part 4 of this series where we get into some true gems!
No comments:
Post a Comment