Review: A Clockwork Orange

A Clockwork Orange (1971):

Synopsis – A young asshole goes too far one day and ends up tossed in the slammer. He then undergoes an experimental procedure which turns the tables, making him the victim for a change.

Starring - Malcolm McDowell, I'm sure there are other famous people in the movie, but really it's a Malcolm McDowell vehicle.

April Movie Project Film #4

I like Stanley Kubrick movies, but sometimes I don’t get what the hell I’m seeing when I am seeing it. This happened to me the first time I saw The Shinning. I remember putting the DVD from Netflix into my DVD player, watching it, and then wondering what the big freaking deal was. I have since watched it again (on the big screen which was amazing) and a few other Kubrick films, and now have a good grasp on how amazing a director he really was. Naturally, not having seen A Clockwork Orange, I set my expectations high when I added it to the April list. Now that I’ve seen it… I’m honestly at a lost. I’d love to immediately say that I loved it and it’s another masterpiece from Kubrick, but in reality I didn’t really get it. If it’s solely a commentary upon society, then sure, I can probably eke out some understanding if I put some homework into it. But as a rule, I don’t think movies should make you work for appreciation like that. So on a later date I will give this another try, but right now I feel like I am grasping at straws trying to find the majesty.

What I Liked:

-As with any Stanley Kubrick movie, I got to experience some pretty great visuals.

-Malcolm McDowell is of course amazing. You hate his character; you have to because he is so despicable. Yet there is still that little love you have for him. He is rotten to the core, but he seems so intelligent in his rottenness. This is a movie that is served very well by its voice-over.

What I Didn’t Like:

-I don’t know why this is a problem for me, but I didn’t like that I couldn’t get any sort of grip on what kind of world they lived in. It’s a place where gangs seem to be able to rape and pillage as they seem fit, yet there is some sort of law enforcement and punishment system. Oooooooooo, I am getting something! Nope, there it goes.

-As I said, there are some great visuals in the movie, but what I wanted was to be blown away. I wasn’t, like I had been with The Shinning or 2001. This might change after a rewatch, but I can’t be sure, and that makes me sad.

What I Hated:

-Nada

Verdict:

Chance are if you know about this movie you know if it’s something you are going to want to watch. It’s pretty good. I wish I had more to say.

Review: Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai

Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai (1999):

Synopsis – Ghost Dog is hitman who lives by a self-imposed code, modeled after the ways of the samurai. After fulfilling a job for his boss, he finds that his bosses boss in none too happy, and that he is now squarely in the sights of a group of rather inept mobsters.

Starring - Forest Whitaker, John Tormey, Isaach De Bankole, the cast is wide and varied and awesome.

I don’t want to jump to any crazy conclusions, but I think I might love Jim Jarmusch. Wait, let me rephrase that. I might love Jim Jarmusch’s directing style. Of his films that I have seen, a dark sense of humor is consistently felt throughout each narrative. The first of his films that I saw was Broken Flowers. I remember I was still madly in love with Lost in Translation and walked into the movie expecting more of the same, simply because it starred Bill Murray. I HATED Broken Flowers. I had not yet reached the ability to tell the difference between and actor’s style and the director that made the film. Sofia Coppola and Jim Jarmusch, I know now, are two directors playing in completely different playgrounds. So now I love Jarmusch movies, so I guess I owe Broken Flowers a rewatch. Also… I think I gave away my review already. Read it anyway, please?

What I Liked:

-This movie is funny. So many goofy, off the wall things happen in this film I often found myself chuckling. Whether it’s the stereotypical Italian mobsters interacting with each other or Ghost Dog talking with his French pal in the park there was just a lot of funny being thrown around. A lot of funny action happened too. Ghost Dog somehow comes off as a pro despite being overweight and not particularly fast. When you see Forrest Whittaker walking down the street with his bounding pace, somehow blending into the background everywhere he goes, that is funny enough alone.

-I really like the way Jarmusch handles a story. He doesn’t shy away from details, like mobsters watching old cartoons or Ghost Dog repeating his habits when lifting a vehicle (I mean stealing a car, not literally lifting a vehicle like Hercules). This emphasizes humanity in my opinion, making these characters more than characters. Making them people.

What I Didn’t Like:

-You know, even though I am pouring on the praise and saying how much I love Jarmusch, this movie isn’t very important. I wasn’t looking for transcendence when I sat down to watch this, and I didn’t get it. I got perfectly decent movies that happened to tickle my funny bone. That’s all I need sometimes.

What I Hated:

-Once again, not hatred here.

Verdict:

This movie isn’t for everyone, so please, if you decided to watch this based on my praised be prepared to hate it, not me. I had a lot of fun with it, and I will watch it again over the years I’m sure. It is just a weird little dark comedy with a lot of style.

April Week2: I Post What You Did Last Summer

Can you imagine if I did post what you did last summer? What kind of SCANDAL would that cause? Let's see, last summer I was at school getting my certifications... OOOOOOOO. Yeah, I'm boring.

So, how was your week? I'd like to tell you something exciting happened in my week, but 1; That would be too much a change from my regular BS and 2; Nothing happened. The most exciting thing I did was babysit and set up some speakers for the TV. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. But I did watch some really great movies. I've been throwing caution to the wind when it comes to my movies watched to reviewed ratio. I am behind by 4 films I think, but that's ok. Hell, I still haven't written up Rear Window yet. Anyway, this is what I reviewed this week!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

A Woman Under the Influence

Blade Runner: Theatrical Cut

The Conversation

Days of Heaven

I am going to be a little self critical here and say I'm not satisfied with some of how of these reviews came out. I always try to take notes during a film, but when it's really good I usually forget. So after I am done writing this stuff up I suddenly remember stuff I wanted to talk about. It's not really important, but I like criticizing myself. It's like a hobby. 

I hope you all have a great week. Watch a movie or two. It'll make you happy.

Review: Days of Heaven

Days of Heaven (1978):

Synopsis – A man and his “sister” run away from the big city to find work out in the fields. When the owner of the fields, a handsome young man, falls in love with the “sister”, the protagonists find themselves in a morally compromising situation that they may not be able to resist.

Starring - Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, Sam Shepard, Linda Manz, etc

Movie #3 in the April Film Project

When it comes to films directed by Terrence Malick, I've never really got what makes them so special. Beautiful visuals/cinematography, sure, but I can get that kind of stuff from other films. In my opinion, the man takes the concept of “show and not tell” and goes crazy with it, leaving morons like me struggling to understand what is happening in the story. I am not the kind of person who can sit back and just enjoy visuals (he types this knowing that his favorite film is currently 2001: A Space Odyssey, making him a giant hypocrite), I love story way too much. I can appreciate the belief that the audience is smart enough to fill in the blanks, but I think that Mr. Malick let’s himself stray too far by assuming that we can relate with the tales he unravels through visuals and small amounts of dialogue alone. Days of Heaven does not suffer from this problem. I was able to follow and enjoy the movie as an entire experience. And enjoy it I did. Along with the other films in the April Film Project I've seen, this is truly another diamond of a film, with only a few flaws to its shinning surface.

What I Liked:

-Well, I guess it goes without saying if you've seen any of Malick’s other work that this film looks fantastic. POV shots from the top of trains, wind rippling through the fields, that house, beautiful and ominous. And of course all our actors are good looking, but the way the camera seems to find each of them at a perfect angle is pretty astonishing. It’s one thing to be pretty; it’s another to look like a work of art.

-Malick’s subtlety of story is usual one of the problems I have with his films, but not with this one. We hear enough snippets of dialogue, combined with the voice-over narrative and the visual storytelling, to understand a cohesive and relatable story in the film. I don't think much of this movie is left up to interpretation. We see actions, we see consequences, and it all looks really good.

-I love the soundtrack/score of this movie. I don't know if it is all famous works, but there were songs in the movie that I have heard 100 times in the trailers for other films. The music fit everything perfectly.

What I Didn't Like:

-If I had to complain about one thing it would be the voice-over narration. While I wouldn't call it intrusive, it certainly didn't feel necessary. In fact, if they got rid of that, they might as well get rid of the scenes of the sister reflecting back on the story while she is bedridden. It certainly doesn't do the actress any favors by trying to force her voice to sound older. I complain about voiceover a lot don’t I?

What I Hated:

-I preferred being one of those people who just didn't like Malick movies. Now I feel like I should see all his stuff.

Verdict:

You want to see a visual masterpiece that is romantic and powerful, while still remaining subtle and mysterious? Bingo, we have your movie. If you decide to watch it, put it on the biggest screen you have and put the volume at a decent level, then sit back and let the film wash over you.

Review: The Conversation

The Conversation (1974):

Synopsis – Harry Caul is a solitary and private man, but only when it comes to his own life. His work requires him to eavesdrop over anyone dictated to him, and he is a master of the game. When a job he has taken begins to stink of a cover-up, Harry finds that his curiosity in the matter only rewards him with more exposure. But he won't stop till he knows what is what no matter the expense.

Starring – Gene Hackman, John Cazale, others including Harrison Ford.

Movie #2 in my April Film Project, The Conversation is one of a handful of masterpieces that Francis Ford Coppola directed before he lost his edge. And by edge I mean he stopped making masterpieces specifically, he still does decent work from time to time (I am only speculating, I haven't seen one of his recent movies). Although I had heard of The Conversation before, I can’t really place the person who told me about it. It’s true that I have spent a lot of time reading about film and film works that I should invest my time in, but I feel like an actual person told me “You should really watch this movie.” Perhaps that person, like Harry Caul in the film, prefers to be hidden from society and I was lucky enough to get any info from them at all. Either way, I am super happy I got to see this film. This is going to make me sound really stupid, but having seen Enemy of the State quite a few times I felt this joy upon seeing Gene Hackman play a much quieter version of his character from that Will Smith movie. I haven’t watched Enemy in years, I’m sure it doesn't hold up.

What I Liked:

-In a film that focuses so much on what people observe, everything is done right in sound and camera departments. The small and contained shots when Harry and his companions are being secretive serve as a counter to the wide open, sweeping shots of the 70’s whenever Harry is out in the open and is exposed to any amount of observation himself. As for sound direction, I can only say that everything worked perfectly for the movie. I am not an audiophile; it’s something I need to study more.

-This movie plays around a lot with what you are seeing as a viewer. We are made to see things that may only be in Harry’s mind, but at the moment they seem just as real as anything else that happens. Are they the visions of a man who has become so paranoid he cannot help but envision exactly what his mind is imagining? Are they real? We as viewers are turned on our head and even in the end when the plot is revealed one cannot be sure what was true and what poor Harry had only made up in his paranoid daydreams.

-I did not recognize John Cazale, and all it took was a pair of glasses. Not I can see why Superman got away with it for some many years!

What I Didn't Like:

-There were a few moments when the soundtrack was a bit jarring, but even at this point I can’t really remember exactly when I was bothered. A minor complaint.

What I Hated:

-Nothing.

Verdict:

The Conversation is an excellent movie, but I don’t need to tell you that. At this point it’s history. But maybe you are like me and you hadn't really heard about it before. If you want to see a great thriller, please check it out. It’s currently streaming on Netflix!

Review: Theatrical Cut of Blade Runner

Blade Runner (Theatrical Cut) (1982):

Synopsis – Decker is a former police officer who specialized in the “retirement” of replicants (androids). Having retired himself, he is once again drawn into work when 4 special replicants appear on planet Earth and begins causing havoc in Neo-Los Angeles.

Starring – Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Daryl Hannah, William Sanderson, Brion James, everyone in this movie is a star as far as I'm concerned.

Why does Blade Runner have such a special place in my heart? It’s not like I watched it as a kid. I am pretty sure I saw the movie for the first time in my 20s. There is a burning coal smoldering constantly in my film lover’s soul, and occasionally the flames are fanned into a blaze that leaps out of me at the mere mention of a film. Examples of this would occur for movies like The Celebration (1998) or Inside Llwewyn Davis (2013). Blade Runner has almost the opposite effect for me. Thinking about, watching or talking about Blade Runner has a cooling effect on my spirit. It brings a peace of mind and body, returning me to the wonderment of a child and leaving me vulnerable. I keep my love for it hidden, and when I find some else who also loves it, I still do not let them in entirely to see how I really feel. Blade Runner is my secret happiness. It is the perfect film for me.

This time around I watched the Theatrical Cut of the movie, which I had never seen before. If there was one thing that could have ruined this movie for me, it would have been if this was the only version of the film. Thank God for director’s cuts!

What I Liked:

Listen, a breakdown of this movie is not going to go well for me. You want to what I liked? EVERYTHING. But, everything as a singular subject has equal parts perfection and imperfection. It all becomes perfect to me as a whole. So let me see what I can do.

-I ran a funny little poll recently on Facebook. The question was about whom was the more alluring figure: Sting from the movie Dune or Rutger Hauer from this movie. 100 percent of the answers were Rutger Hauer, and if you have watched the movie you know why. The man positively oozes virility, even when he is at his craziest.

-I read a criticism that the movie doesn’t have a plot, it’s just a series of events that happen. If anything, this film might have too many plots! I would love a full movie about any of them. The story of Decker, the story of the inventor of the replicants, the story of the replicants themselves, the story of the doll maker, the story of Neo-Los Angeles. So many tales that intertwine into the perfectness that is this movie.

-One of the things that used to bother me about the movie was a specific scene, where Decker is aggressive with a woman under duress, taking advantage of her. While this is still a completely sexist and somewhat uncomfortable scene, I now know this is a troupe of film noir. Bogart did it, Mitchem did it, and now I know why Ford did it.

What I Didn’t Like:

-nothing falls into this category. However…

What I Hated:

-As I said earlier, this time I watched the Theatrical Cut of the movie. If this had been the only version ever produced, I don’t think I would love it nearly as much. The voice over by Harrison Ford in the Theatrical Cut is ATROCIOUS. It was as if Ford was sitting in the room with me, and every once in a while he lifted up a microphone and commented on what was going on onscreen. His voice came in from a different universe, and all of a sudden I wasn’t watching my favorite masterpiece, but something more amateurish and stumbling. It was a violation to my senses, and honestly offensive to me. Thank God it goes away for the most part at the midpoint, only to rocket back at the slapped on alternate ending.

Verdict:

I have said my piece, so you know how I feel about the movie. I love it through and through, and it has never let me down. I’d say that if you have never seen the movie before, don’t watch the Theatrical Cut. Watch the Director’s or the Final Cut.

Review: A Woman Under the Influence

A Woman under the Influence (1974):

Synopsis – A wife and husband try to keep control of their family life, while the wife begins to lose control of herself in various destructive ways.

Starring – Gena Rowlands, Peter Falk, the children and the other workers, and they're all great, but the stars are the first two.

Movie #1 in the April Movie Project, I have only seen one other movie directed by John Cassavetes. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie was a different animal than most cinema, one where the adjective “raw” actually fits quite perfectly. The characters in the movie were sleazy, and human, and way too familiar for comfort. Cassavetes seems to be able to get performances out his actors that leave every bit of falseness to the side. Watching A Woman Under the Influence was another raw experience, but domestically based and therefore much more relatable/disturbing. I am going to stick with my normal breakdown categories, but to say I liked any part of the movie seems a bit strong. To be more accurate, I was fascinated by it.

What I Liked:

-There is a reason I only mentioned 2 actors in a movie filled with great performances. Gena Rowlands does some absolutely astonishing work in this movie. Her character is a woman so broken, so downtrodden and depressed it tears at your heart. When a person acts the way she does in this movie, it cries for the kind of help that is not in the average person’s hand. You see her acting childish and speaking to herself and all you can do is look in horror because this isn’t the act of an attention seeking simpleton. This woman is DAMAGED. And she is getting no help.

-I love Peter Falk, and after this film that love was simple doubled. If you are used to seeing the man only playing Columbo, like I was, this role is a gigantic eye opener. The depths of love combined depravity he put on display made me hate him so bad. I could have jumped on to the screen and kill him sometimes! But other times he would be so gentle and honest, so caring that he became a shade of gray on the sunny side, another completely mixed up soul in the mixed up universe of this world. There is no other way to put it, he was brilliant.

-There is nothing false about the world that Cassavetes sets before you. Although I cannot imagine watching this movie again right now, I know I am going to want to go back and take a look at that side of cinema again.

What I Didn’t Like:

-There is something sticky about John Cassavetes’ films. This opinion is based solely on the two I have seen of course, so I am jumping to a conclusion a bit too prematurely. Never the less, after both times watching one of his movies I felt a little bit soiled. It was as if I had just peaked through the window into someone’s house and saw things that were secret, and secret for a good reason. The only reason that this observation is under “What I Didn’t Like” is because the feeling is unsettling, but it is also quite marvelous.

What I Hated:

-Nothing.

Verdict:

This is an extremely intense movie and I will recommend it if you are looking for something different than what Hollywood does, even the indie side of Hollywood, and if you can stand seeing a woman hit. It is one of the most “mature” movies I have ever seen.

I think this film is regarded as Cassavetes’ best film. If so I can completely see why. I do intend to watch this movie again, study it a little like an interesting insect and poke at my concept of film until I am satisfied with my basic understanding.