Review: Valhalla Rising

Valhalla Rising (2009):

Synopsis – When One-Eye is freed after years of slavery, he begins a journey that takes him over the ocean to a new world, leading a group of men who are already lost even further into the unknown.

Starring – Mads Mikkelsen, Maarten Stevenson, other very serious looking folks.

Nicolas Winding Refn has a unique film catalogue. From Pusher to Only God Forgives, the man seems to have a narrow vision when it comes to his themes. People are animals, violent and unpredictable, and the intensity of everyday life can be terrifying. Of the films of his that I’d seen previously, all three were something special. Dark, beautiful, fantastic music, two volumes of acting (quiet and loud). His movies seem to be trying to leave the entertainment factor of film on the wayside, and focus more on craft, pure and simple. This is of course, right up my alley. Anything different is something I want to see. When I sat down to watch Valhalla Rising, I set my expectations rather high. I had heard mostly negative things about it, but the same can be said for Only God Forgives, and I loved that movie, so I figured I might love this one as well! I didn’t. The movie is fine, but it almost takes the craft I talked about to its logical conclusion, leaving a beautiful picture and not much else. There wasn’t even enough violence to make up for the empty plot, and that is something I had come to expect from Refn’s films (intense violence, that is).

What I Liked:

-I confess. I am mad about Mads. Mads Mikkelsen’s unique face and very reserved acting style appeals to me greatly. And since the rest of the country seems to agree with me at this point I suppose I don’t really have to justify my opinion. I do wish he had more than 2 expressions through. There is smile and there is no smile. All the expression an actor of his caliber needs I suppose.

-The cinematography is very lovely, although there really isn’t anything too special about the locations of the film. Most of the movie is shot almost documentary like, holding focus in one direction as the actors move about or sail on a river. The cinematography manages to make the unexciting environments of the films somehow fantastic to observe.

What I Didn’t Like:

-The film feels like it is missing at least 30 minutes of content, and therefore context. It’s supposed to come off as a fever dream or acid trip, and I can certainly see that direction (Vikings and endless oceans have certainly been in a few of my nightmares), but it still doesn’t make up for the fact that the substance that holds your attention throughout the film turns out to be ultimately hollow. The depth and nuance that make Drive and Only God Forgive work so well are just not here beyond the surface.

What I Hated:

-I can’t really remember what happened in this movie. When that happens I can usually point to things, like I was looking at my phone or someone was talking to me, as an excuse. Here, I think there was just nothing but smoke left for my brain to hold onto afterward, and smoke dissipates.

Verdict:

I am mostly negative on this film, but I am not sorry I watched it. I don’t feel like I wasted my time. It was very pretty to look at, and the acting is very solid. It might be a nice film to put on if you are showing off your new big screen and speaker set, otherwise, unless you are Mads Mikkelsen completest I can’t recommend the film.

Review: Hannibal

Hannibal (2001):

Synopsis – Clarice Starling continues to pursue Dr. Hannibal Lecter as he avoids the police and other parties that are very interested in making Hannibal pay for his crimes.

Starring – Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta, Giancarlo Giannini, others

Everybody who’s anybody has Hannibal fever right now. That show on the teletube is pretty darn good if I do say so myself. I recently missed an opportunity to see Silence of the Lambs projected, and so I was prompted by that to seek it out on the small screen. I found it, it’s streaming on Netflix right now, but I also found that the sequel was streaming as well. Hannibal from 2001 was directed by Ridley Scott, a man whose name is no longer said with any optimism in the film community. Whether we are talking about the backlash from all the love that Gladiator got back in the day (a movie I still like, but is nowhere near perfect) or his many recent mediocre films such as Robin Hood, Prometheus, or The Counselor, chances are you aren’t going to hear any positive words used in conjunction with his film making ability. We have to reach back in time to Alien or my personal favorite Blade Runner to even see why this guy was on people’s radars in the first place. Since I had not seen Hannibal I decided to give it a whirl, setting my expectations fairly low but holding out hope for some glimmer of greatness. The film met my expectations, but did not exceed them in any way. Disappointing is the appropriate adjective.

What I Liked:

-I always like seeing Gary Oldman in a movie. Every movie he is in gets extra points even if the rest of it is terrible. In this film, I did not at first recognize him as he was wearing that hideous face piece, but eventually I figured him out by his voice.

What I Didn’t Like:

-Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs was terrifying, even when behind his glass cage. In this movie, he seems mostly harmless and silly. If he is on the FBI’s most wanted list, why would he assume being in another country would give him any sort of assured freedom? He doesn’t even go to a country where he wouldn’t be known, he goes to freaking Italy, and becomes a lecturer! For the super smart and scary man he is supposed to be, Hannibal sure does some dumb stuff.

-I feel like I harp on actresses more than I should, or perhaps I am too sensitive about it because I am around a feminist every day. Either way, Julianne Moore, bless her heart, is a poor substitute for Jodie Foster. I don’t know if it was Foster’s wide eyed new recruit act that sold her as Clarice Starling or what, but for some reason Moore tries to play her as a veteran agent how still manages to do dumb things and it doesn’t work. Honestly, Moore wasn’t given much to do, as the plot focus way too much on the other characters. Hannibal is what we remember from Silence of the Lambs, but that movies is all about Clarice and it is better for it.

-The whole search for Hannibal segment of the film is pretty damn boring. By the time he is captured and brought to ugly face dude’s estate it didn’t matter how exciting they thought the climax would be, I had already lost all interest.

What I Hated:

-For a rated R film, it really felt like it didn’t have any teeth. The murders were not exciting, the action was pointless, and pigs? Really? I’m sure being mauled by them might be a genuine danger, but there was nothing thrilling about the scene where they are unleashed. Even the ending scene where Ray Liotta gets what is coming to him was not worth the wait.

Verdict:

I don’t have to tell you that this movie isn’t worth watching. I’m pretty sure it’s well known. But just in case, let me assure you: IT’S NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. Go fly a kite or something. Or rewatch Silence and bask in that glory.

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!