ScreenCrave.com » Reviews

Reviewing Roger Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: Written in the Wind (1956)

Jaime Lopez — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:00:03 +0000

Years ago, ScreenCrave contributor Jaime Lopez privately began tackling Roger Ebert’s “Greatest Films” list, an ever-expanding monolith of celluloid currently comprised of 354 films. With 261 under his belt and less than 100 films left to go, Lopez has set himself to put these remaining films’ “Greatness” to the test–reviewing both the movies themselves and Ebert’s response. This week, he takes on Douglas Sirk’s Written in the Wind.

The Players

Director: Douglas Sirk
Writer: George Zuckerman, Robert Wilder
Cast: Rock Hudson, Lauren Bacall, Robert Stack, Dorothy Malone

Notes:

Prior to watching this film, I had never given much thought to where soap operas came from. Roger Ebert calls Written on the Wind “a perverse and wickedly funny melodrama in which you can find the seeds of Dallas, Dynasty, and all the other prime-time soaps”. I wouldn’t call this film “wickedly funny”, and the comedy struck me as unintentional or so satirical that you have to be aware enough to be in on the joke. Much of the dialogue in the first act didn’t really engage me. I found myself reaching for deeper meaning until I realized “hey, this is a Technicolor soap opera!”. And that’s where I got the film, but mostly by taking it lightly.

I couldn’t help but compare this to the Mexican soap operas I watched as a kid during the 80’s and 90’s. Written on the Wind takes itself more seriously….. or does it? According to Ebert, director Douglas Sirk can be given credit for establishing the tone in soap operas, “in which shocking behavior is treated with passionate solemnity, while parody burbles beneath”. Either I watched too many damn soap operas growing up or I’m too much of a hopeless romantic to have noticed any parody “burbling” beneath. Once I settled into the story and knew a bit about each character, I ate up all the drama and unfolding plot points.

The film follows Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack), who is the son of an oil millionaire and – without a sense of purpose in life – marries Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall). But she has always been secretly loved by his best friend Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), who is also a geologist for his father’s company. Kyle’s sister, Marylee Hadley (Dorothy Malone), has always had a crush on Mitch. The stage is set for a web of sex that – though not intricate enough to be called “tangled” – provides some nice surprises along the way. Conflict is triggered when Kyle learns that he is unable to have children, a discovery that takes him back to the bottle, and that’s exacerbated when Marylee tells Kyle that Lucy is pregnant.

The best performances here are by Dorothy Malone and Robert Stack as the Hadley siblings. They’re both unstable and spoiled individuals. Malone is recognizable as the type of manipulative lust-hungry family member, an archetype that we’ve grown to expect in soap operas. Previously known for playing nice girls, Malone won an Oscar for her against-type work here. Robert Stack has a scary and unsettling intensity, which is probably a major reason why his character is drawn to Lucy’s calming presence. His eyes often seem like they’re deviously thinking about something else. Stack lost the Oscar to Anthony Quinn (whose winning performance in Lust for Life was less than ten minutes long), allegedly for political reasons involving his studio contract. It is Stack and Malone that drive the action.

Lauren Bacall and Rock Hudson are mostly straight-laced here. Bacall was married to Humphrey Bogart at the time of this film and took this role at a time when her career had lost much of its steam. Bacall and Rock Hudson are not bad here, but their characters are given a limited range of emotions and rendered mostly as self-composed individuals.

Brief Words for Mr. Ebert: I like this movie, although I was ready to turn it off during the first act. But about 30 minutes into it, when I stopped taking it seriously, my enjoyment multiplied. And the fun levels went through the roof when Lucy makes the film’s biggest revelation to Kyle, and we can see that all hell is about to break loose by looking at Kyle’s eyes as he says, “You shouldn’t have done that”. Mr. Ebert, as sometimes happens in film history, some films are overlooked and dismissed as simplistic during their time, only to then be re-assessed and declared to have greater value because some critic decides that the joke was on us the whole time. My hesitation in calling this film “great” stems from my own curiosity, mainly wanting to know whether director Douglas Sirk did intend this as satirical humor and as a subversive take on American families. Why didn’t critics know that before they began praising it years later? And, it seems, why wouldn’t a director disclose his intentions from the start if that is in fact what he intended. On the surface, this is similar to a soap opera, but under the surface, it is suggested by critics that much of its power lies in its subversiveness. When recently watching Contagion, I appreciated the last minute of the film when we learn how and where the pandemic began. If only it were possible to know who, and at what precise moment, someone first declared Written in the Wind to be satirical, leading to the now widespread belief of it being so.

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GOOD

Do you like Written in the Wind? Do you consider this film to be Good, Bad or Great?

Next week’s review: Victim

Men In Black 3: Movie Review

Laura Aguirre — Tue, 22 May 2012 19:37:31 +0000

Men In Black 3 has become a blockbuster underdog, mainly because it’s the movie no one was asking for, and has to overcome a lot of bad buzz about re-shoots. It’s been 10 years since we last saw Will Smith‘s Agent J and Tommy Lee Jones‘ Agent K monitor alien activity on Earth, and the new film offers a time travel twist which introduces Josh Brolin as the new K, placing Jones in the back seat. Does MIB3 have what it takes to overcome being a little outdated and a “troubled production?”

Find out in our review of MIB3…

The Players:

Directors: Barry Sonnenfeld
Writers: Etan Cohen, David Koepp, Jeff Nathanson, Michael Soccio
Starring: Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin
Cinematography: Bill Pope

The Plot:

When Agent K’s (Jones) life and the fate of the planet are put at risk, Agent J (Smith) takes it upon himself to travel back in time to right the wrongs of the future. J seeks help in an unfamiliar era, teaming up with young K (Brolin) to save his partner, the agency, and the future of humankind.

The Good:

Josh Brolin As Young K: MIB3 took a risk by breaking up an iconic duo and replacing Jones with Brolin – though everything suggested that Jones’ was one of the stars of the film, his performance is basically reduced to a cameo. But the movie doesn’t suffer because of it as Brolin gives a pitch-perfect performance as young Agent K. His impersonation of Jones is uncanny but entirely his own. He displays a softer side of the character, playing K as a charming and optimistic fellow instead of the world-weary cynic of the last two films. His chemistry with Smith comes easy, and both actors play off each other well.
Time Travel: Smith’s Agent J travels back in time to the Mad Men era (or at least that’s the film’s most obvious touchstone), and it’s where the movie really takes off. The 60′s section of the film offers the film’s best moments, including a trip to Andy Warhol’s The Factory where Bill Hader gives us his best Warhol, and a surprisingly lighthearted moment of period racism when Smith’s K gets pulled over for being a black man in a fancy car. In the past we also meet a sweet and likable alien named Griffin, played by Boardwalk Empire‘s Michael Stuhlbarg. He’s a pivotal part of K and J’s mission to save the world, and gives the movie a needed spoonful of quirk.
Visuals: Visually, the film is amazing. It’s a bright, colorful and full of spectacle. And the 3D actually serves a narrative purpose – including visual jokes. In one particular funny scene, we see Nicole Scherzinger carrying a wobbling two-layer cake, intercut with closeups of her vibrating buttocks that kills. But like a lot of 3-D, these scenes are at the beginning of the movie and by the third act the 3-D isn’t as noticable.

The Bad:

Weak Bad Guy: The main troublemaker, Boris the Animal, is played by Flight of the Conchords actor/musician Jemaine Clement and he’s transformed into an unrecognizable, disgusting creature (courtesy of the amazing make-up artist Rick Baker). And though he looks great, he doesn’t really make for a memorable villain. There’s nothing beyond the make-up. He’s a plot point, and little more.
Not Memorable Enough To Make A Stink: MIB3 is better than expected, but not only is it coming 10 years late, but it’s not a movie anyone was asking to see. And once you see it, it’s hard to find the motivation for it other than “Seemingly Viable Franchise.” At this point getting the band back together isn’t enough to justify buying a ticket.

Overall:

MIB3 is better than you’d think, all things. The performances, visuals and a few of the jokes make it painless. But one does not expect to call a franchise tentpole blockbuster “diverting” (at best). And in the competitive summer marketplace, it’s just not good enough.

Rating: 6.5/10

Men In Black 3 opens in theaters Friday, May 25, 2012.

Photo Gallery:

Trailer:

Are you excited for Men In Black 3?

Reviewing Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: ‘House of Games’ (1987)

Jaime Lopez — Fri, 18 May 2012 18:46:44 +0000

Years ago, ScreenCrave contributor Jaime Lopez privately began tackling Roger Ebert’s “Greatest Films” list, an ever-expanding monolith of celluloid currently comprised of 354 films. With 260 under his belt and less than 100 films left to go, Lopez has set himself to put these remaining films’ “Greatness” to the test–reviewing both the movies themselves and Ebert’s response. This week, he takes on David Mamet’s House of Games.

In House of Games every word matters. There is a literary quality; the dialogue is almost purely employed to serve the story. If listening to the dialogue in a Tarantino is like surfing through the internet, David Mamet’s style is like reading a book with a sustained train of thought. You leave feeling smarter.

The Players

Director: David Mamet
Writer: David Mamet
Cast: Lindsay Crouse, Joe Mantegna, Ricky Jay

The Plot

Margaret Ford (Crouse) is a psychiatrist, and her life changes the day she decides enter the House of Games, the name of a crooked establishment where a group of professional gamblers and con-artists plan their schemes. The ringleader of this underworld operation is Mike (Mantegna), and Margaret is there to negotiate the debt of one of her clients. Always making deals, Mike promises to forgive the debt if Margaret plays along as Mike’s companion in a poker game as a way of to help reveal the tell of a gambler having good luck. Before long, Margaret proposes to follow Mike into his world for the purpose of writing a book. When feelings begin to emerge, we wonder whether a true romance can occur when so much of a relationship is based on learning how to be deceptive.

The Good

The Screenplay: Not surprising from a famous playwright, David Mamet’s stories are furiously focused on its characters, but also showcase intelligent dialogue that feels like it deserves credit as a character in the film. The efficiency of this script is mind-boggling. Mamet has a writing style that seems mathematical in its precision. There’s a beautiful focus to the dialogue; it offers no frivolous talk. Margaret’s way of communicating is calculative, which fits nicely with her character – she’s extremely orderly with an unreal composure. When Margaret sheds a tear, when she finally shows emotion, it drops like an atomic bomb.

Plotting: Any movie dealing with high-minded con-artists can’t have any holes or the audience could spot the con. And with that motivation, you’re forced to pay attention to everything. The film is not just smart, it’s riveting.

Directing: Mamet made an effort to achieve objectivity in his films, “shaping them by logical ways of creating order from disorder, in search of the super-objective”. Unlike a Michael Bay film, there are hardly any shots of eye candy. His directing style is focused on ensuring that each shot and each word advances the story. Similar to an Ingmar Bergman film, what we have here is a minimalist style with little to no distractions.

The Bad:

For the second week in a row, I really don’t have anything to say about this film. It’s quite a gem of a thriller!

Brief Words for Mr. Ebert: I am in complete agreement that “the plotting is diabolical and impeccable”, and I think you make a good point not to “spoil the delight of its unfolding by mentioning the crucial details”. The dialogue is delivered so openly and so matter-of-factly that I agree when you say that “they speak with a sort of aggressive, almost insulting directness”. I was delighted at the following comparison you make, “There is a hint in Mamet’s stagings of the influence of Fassbinder, who liked his actors to behave as if they were posing in tableaux, and knew they were”. This is an excellent comparison because there is a recognizably deliberate yet unpredictable quality to the staging and a speech pattern that seems unrehearsed and fresh, just as it appears in Fassbinder film such as Ali: Fear Eats the Soul. Mamet takes a premise and follows it to its logical conclusions, without really seeming to address whether an act is good or bad. The ending left me wondering whether the protagonist changes in a way that I would hope she would or whether I should just sit back and observe her behavior, much as she had intended to merely observe Mike’s behavior.

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GREAT

Do you like House of Games? Do you consider this film to be Good, Bad or Great?

Next week’s review: Written in the Wind

Battleship: Movie Review

Krystal Clark — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:30:50 +0000

There she blows! This weekend, Universal will dock Peter Berg‘s Battleship at a theater near you. The film is a live-action adaptation of the popular Hasbro strategy game. It stars Taylor Kitsch as a reluctant hero, who gets caught in the middle of an alien invasion. He’s supported by a cast of familiar faces including True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard, and Oscar-nominee Liam Neeson.

Check out our review below…

The Players:

Director: Peter Berg
Writers: Erich and Jon Hoeber
Cast: Taylor Kitsch, Alexander Skarsgard, Tadanobu Asano, Rihanna, Brooklyn Decker, Jesse Plemons, Gregory D. Gadson, Peter MacNicol and Liam Neeson
Director of Photography: Tobias A. Schliessler
Music: Steve Jablonsky

The Plot:

Battleship centers on Alex Hopper (Kitsch), a Naval lieutenant known for his immaturity and lack of discipline. While participating in a training exercise, an alien force lands at sea and sets up shop off the coast of Oahu. After suffering several tragedies at the hands of these creatures, Hopper’s forced to become the new leader of a broken crew.

The Good:

Nods to the game: Director Peter Berg did the impossible. He managed to integrate elements of the Battleship board game into the film’s narrative. You actually see a version of the playing grid, and hear commands like “R-5! E-7!” There’s even a nod to the game’s famous tagline. They just couldn’t resist.
Honors the military: Everything about Battleship shows great respect and love for the Armed Forces. It honors veterans of the past, while praising soldiers actively on duty. The cast is littered with real-life military personnel, who come out of retirement for some much-deserved screen-time.
Taylor Kitsch: Kitsch is a decent actor, who needs material that plays to his strengths. To date, his best work remains on the defunct series, Friday Night Lights. Therefore, we’re not surprised he was chosen to play Alex Hopper. The character’s nothing more than Tim Riggins with a haircut. Either way, the similarities worked in his favor and produced a solid performance.

The So-So:

Admiral Shane: We love Liam Neeson, but his character brought nothing to the table. He’s written as a one-note military dad, whose main job is to scold Hopper. He doesn’t have much to do, and that falls on the shoulders of the writers and director. They had a great actor, but did absolutely nothing with him.

The Bad:

Alien threat: How big does an alien threat need to be? For the majority of the film, we’re watching a large, mysterious mass outsmart and out-maneuver the heroes at every turn. And that’s just their ship! The creatures themselves are a whole other story. They destroy major cities, but seem more concerned with technology than people. Any casualties are merely accidental or brought on by provocation. Their motivation is unclear, and identities are never explored.
The government: When it comes to the invasion, the White House really takes a backseat. It’s understandable that the writers want the focus on Hopper and his heroics, but where’s the government’s presence? There are a few scenes with the Secretary of Defense (played by the underrated Peter MacNicol), but he had no grasp of the situation or how to handle it.

Overall:

Battleship is everything you expect it to be. It’s loud, it’s colorful and filled with Michael Bay-grade explosions. The story isn’t well defined, but there are some good character interactions, and humorous moments. It’s mindless fun and definitely a popcorn movie for the masses.

The Rating: 6/10

Battleship opens in theaters nationwide May 18

Photo Gallery:

Trailer:

Will you be seeing Battleship this weekend?

Reviewing Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: Santa Sangre (1989)

Jaime Lopez — Fri, 11 May 2012 17:33:02 +0000

Years ago, ScreenCrave contributor Jaime Lopez privately began tackling Roger Ebert’s “Greatest Films” list, an ever-expanding monolith of celluloid currently comprised of 354 films. With 259 under his belt and less than 100 films left to go, Lopez has set himself to put these remaining films’ “Greatness” to the test–reviewing both the movies themselves and Ebert’s response. This week, he takes on Alejandro Jodorowsky’s Santa Sangre.

There are some films that insert themselves so deep into our memory that you will never forget them, ever. Like a recurring dream, Santa Sangre will shock you, disturb you, and disgust you. Yet it carries so much inexplicable emotional weight that it will pull at your heartstrings. Nothing can prepare you for what you’ll see here.

The Players:

Director: Alejandro Jodorowsky
Writer: Alejandro Jodorowsky, Roberto Leoni, Claudio Argento
Cast: Axel Jodorowsky, Blanca Guerra, Guy Stockwell, Thelma Tixou

The Plot:

[Warning--Spoilers Ahead!!]

A young boy magician named Fenix grows up the son of a circus performing mother, Concha, who is controlling and susceptible to jealous rages. Concha is especially enraged by the infidelity of the circus ringmaster, a man constantly enjoying the temptations of a circus’s Tattoo Lady. Everything gets bizarre after a violent and bloody confrontation occurs. Fenix’s life is never the same, and neither is the rest of the film.

The Good

A Bizarre and Unconventional Premise: Orphaned and mentally disturbed after slicing off of his mother’s arms, Fenix lands at an asylum as an adult, where he appears to be thought of as a savage, as if raised by wild animals and completely detached from civilized society. What the film never explains, in terms of the Freudian psychology, is the mother’s influence on Fenix. At times we are left wondering whether she exists or remains alive only in his mind. It goes with the film, whether a series of events actually occur in the film’s reality or not is up for debate, and whatever conclusion is reached the film is not significantly changed.
Jodorowsky’s Vision: If I described a film featuring arms being sliced, acid poured on genitals, tattooed ladies, suicides and gore as being beautiful, you probably wouldn’t believe it. But there so many moments that blend artful imagery and music with violence it’s impossible not to call this a beautiful film. At once, there are moments reminiscent of Fellini, Bunuel and a little Lynch.
Daring Imagery: Warning: the film features images of animal violence. But it’s consistent with early surrealist works, ones that featured a variety of animal imagery (I’m reminded of a donkey being dragged along the floor with a piano in Bunuel’s Andalusian Dog), Santa Sangre portrays an elephant dying , buried in a funeral-type ritual, and shows its appendages and organs torn out and thrown into a celebrating crowd of mourners. In one scene, dogs are seen licking the blood of a recently deceased person, in another scene, snakes emerge underneath a coat being worn, and in yet another scene, a Christ-like image of Fenix in a barn is surrounded by chickens. Such is the disturbing and nonsensical world that these characters inhabit.
A Love Story: Few love stories come close to being as surreal as Santa Sangre. As Fenix encounters potential romance in his life, he is faced with orders to kill each potential suitor – his mother’s influence still very much alive within his mind. All the while, Fenix remains hopeful that he will someday be reunited with his childhood love.
Performance: Concha is played by Blanca Guerra, who I had previously only seen in 80′s Mexican films, sometimes playing alongside Mexican singing legend, Vicente Fernandez. Her performance here evokes feelings of fear and intimidation as a controlling women apparently willing to kill any woman deemed unpure. Every scene with her presence holds a distinct edge to it, and provides loads of great tension.
Jodorowsky Trivia: During the 1970′s, Jodorowsky came close to directing a film version of Dune, a project for which he intended to hire none other than Salvador Dali and Orson Welles, with Pink Floyd providing the score. One could only imagine what that film could have been!

The Bad

I cannot think of anything bad to say at this time other than providing a warning to anyone with a weak stomach.

Brief Words for Mr. Ebert:

This is one the most masterful reviews I’ve read from you and it is especially fitting that it describes a film restores my faith in unique visions. You call this “a collision between Freud and Fellini”, and you’re right on the money. You say that Santa Sangre is a throwback to the days when filmmakers had bold individual visions and were not timidly trying to duplicate the latest mass-market formulas”, when you describe the main character’s journey as between “the most impenetrable thickets of Freudian and Jungian symbology”, when you say that one scene “treads delicately between fiction and documentary”, I couldn’t agree with you more. You also mentioned that Jodorowsky has written a series of fantasy comic books and I am now determined to get my hands on them. Anything made by someone this daring and creative should be seen by those who want to see something refreshingly unique.

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GREAT

Do you like Santa Sangre? Do you consider this film to be Good, Bad or Great?

Next week’s review: House of Games

Reviewing Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: Persona (1966)

Jaime Lopez — Fri, 04 May 2012 18:02:57 +0000

Years ago, ScreenCrave contributor Jaime Lopez privately began tackling Roger Ebert’s “Greatest Films” list, an ever-expanding monolith of celluloid currently comprised of 354 films. With 254 under his belt and less than 100 films left to go, Lopez has set himself to put these remaining films’ “Greatness” to the test–reviewing both the movies themselves and Ebert’s response. This week, he takes on Ingmar Bergman’s Persona.

This week’s film features a character study of the most artistic kind. This may not bring the excitement of a certain Cabin in the Woods, but what transpires during a small retreat to a seaside cottage is too psychologically intense and erotic to encapsulate within a short synopsis. Bergman films are hard to digest, so don’t feel discouraged if things feel abstract, complicated, and/or confusing. At times , we may not know what the hell is going on. But the film awaken emotions.

The Players

Director: Ingmar Bergman
Writer: Ingmar Bergman
Cast: Bibi Andersson, Liv Ullmann

The Plot

[Warning--Spoilers Ahead!!]

A young nurse, Sister Alma (Andersson), is asked to care for Elisabet Vogler (Ullmann), an actress who has become mute. Alma follows orders to take Elisabet on a short retreat to a cottage house. Gradually, as Elisabet benefits from this retreat, Alma begins to straddle the line between attacking Vogler and then vulnerably apologizing. While one seems to be getting better, the other seems to be getting worse. The turmoil between both women, the awkward moments of jealously, and the co-dependent nature of their relationship makes an identity crisis unfold.

The Good:

Film as ART: This is an art film in the most well intentioned meaning of the term. Before the opening credits are over, you get more artistry than most “artistic” films achieve in 2 hours. Within the first few minutes juxtaposed images seem unrelated, but in a weird way, there’s a seamless connection between them that feels cohesive. We see a mound of snow, the profile of a man’s nose, a hand being nailed to a crucifix, and several flash frames of human faces. This is a minimalist film, there is hardly any music, very few set changes, and out of five total actors appearing on screen, only two, Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullmann’s characters, appear for more than a minute. As Bergman once said, “The human face is the great subject of the cinema. Everything is there.”
Human Relationship: There is an inverse relationship between Elisabet and Alma. As one gets better, the other worsens. Elisabet’s apathy seems to change through long walks, fishing, cooking, and letter writing. Meanwhile, Alma gradually goes from discussing books and other subjects to more personal matters, revealing details about her past relationships and a wild infidelity with potentially major consequences for her marriage. One seems to regain some normalcy while the other starts losing her mind, and to see their roles essentially reverse seems to indicate that a certain balance in their relationships is being maintained.
Erotic Dialogue: There is a scene where Alma reveals participating in a ménage a quatre with young men at a beach. Despite not showing any sexual imagery, Alma’s casual description, in her Swedish voice, is as erotic as language can get. There is nothing vulgar in her description, but it’s shocking how hot this scene is.
Persona trivia: Having written this film over a span of 9 weeks while recovering from pneumonia, Bergman viewed this film as one of his most important, claiming that it saved his artistic innovation and possibly his life. This marked as one of maybe two times where Bergman worked in total freedom. Some critics refer to this as “one of the great works of art of the 20^th century”. In 2010 it was ranked #71 in Empire magazines “The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema”.

The Bad:

Hard to Digest: The only “bad” thing I could say about this film is that it requires a level of sophistication that typically would require multiple viewings and/or a deeper familiarity with Bergman films. Similar to acquiring a taste for wine, I believe it takes a more seasoned background in movie-watching to fully appreciate this film. It is with the hope that all good films were easy and more easily accessible that I say this is a bad thing, if only temporarily. Sometimes, certain insights require a bit of work.

Brief Words for Ebert: As I write this, I get the feeling I’m not qualified to write about this film. In your early years, you reviewed this film in 1967 and you point out the frustration that comes with trying to understand it. In fact, this was one of the first films you ever reviewed. And wow! What a tall order to sink your teeth into a Bergman film. Thirty four years later, you had gained a deeper appreciation for Bergman, suggesting the best interpretation for Persona was a literal one. I agree with you, and I will add that I some films don’t require you to fully understand them in order to have an important emotional experience. This is one of those films, one that humbles me in the presence of a seemingly deliberate manifestation of one person’s vision. To watch this, I had to be open and in the mood to enter some dark emotional territory. There is always uncharted emotional territory to explore, and I’m reminded of the following phrase I once heard, “While man has explored the moon, the oceans and the caves of our world, rare is the man willing to explore the abyss within himself”. Persona is beautifully shot, with dialogue that is utterly poetic and each frame economically and artistically composed. Moreover, I have to share with our readers a line you gave us, “Most of what we think of as “ourselves” is not direct experience of the world, but a mental broadcast made of ideas, memories, media input, other people, jobs, roles, duties, lusts, hopes, fears.” Who are we? Who is anybody? What is real? This is a film I will revisit over the years.

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GOOD

Do you like Persona? Do you consider this film to be Good, Bad or Great?

Next week’s review: Santa Sangre

The Avengers: Movie Review

Damon Houx — Wed, 02 May 2012 21:00:13 +0000

The Avengers is here, and it’s the film Marvel has been planting the seeds for since Iron Man hits screens in 2008. In that time we’ve had films featuring Hulk, Thor, and Captain America to help get audiences in the mood and in the know about these characters. And knowing the characters is important for Joss Whedon’s film, because character development and – for the most part – motivation is kept to a minimum. You’ve got an all–star cast facing evil, and it all builds to a blockbuster conclusion. But too bad it’s such a rocky ride to get there.

The Players:

Written and Directed By: Joss Whedon
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Tom Hiddleston, Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlet Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Colbie Smulders, Clark Gregg
Music By: Alan Silvestri
Cinematography by Seamus McGarvey

The Plot:

Loki (Hiddleston) is sent back to earth to find the Tesseract (which will open a portal for invasion), and has the power to turn humans into slaves. He invades SHIELD headquarters, and that sends Nick Fury (Jackson) Agent Coulson (Gregg) and Black Widow (Johansson) to gather Captain America (Evans) Iron Man (Downey Jr.) and the Hulk (Ruffalo) to help stop Loki. Eventually – along with Hawkeye (Renner) – they become a team to fight the alien invasion (the Chitauri).

The Good:

That Third Act: New York is in the crosshairs, as The Avengers must stop an oncoming horde of aliens from taking over the planet. This is what you paid to see and it delivers some great moments of the Avengers fighting bad guys and doing cool stuff. The Hulk is a stand out here.
The Cast: It’s hard to be as excited about some of the returning actors who are doing their well-defined characters, but this is a muderer’s row of talent, and it’s the people who get something new to do who shine. Johansson gives as good as she gets, and has some of the best moments in the film, while Mark Ruffalo as Banner and as Hulk steals the movie.
Quips: It’s Joss Whedon, and they’re mostly funny.

The Bad:

Marvel: This is the big film they’ve been building to for years, and they decided with this one that they were going to shoot it flat (1.85:1) – instead of scope (2.35:1) as they have every film they’ve been behind previous. Not only does that break continuity, but it robs the film of an epic feel. It makes the movie that much smaller. On top of which it’s just a very small feeling film. Not intimate, but none of the early set pieces feel epic. Everything comes across as if it was done on a budget until New York – and even then that’s kept contained.
Nothing to Do: Loki shows up and then gets arrested in a sequence that lays out what little is going on under the surface of this movie (good versus evil, maybe a little anti-fascism) and spends the middle section of the movie waiting for things to happen. Captain America is here because he’s a soldier, and does nothing in the film all that memorable, while Tony Stark also seems to be here because they asked him (and because he’s a little curious about SHIELD himself), same with Bruce Banner. Black Widow and Hawkeye are company men, and Thor joins the group just because – and this was Nick Fury’s big plan? To have people like Thor just show up? No one is acting like they’re trying to stop the end of the world, and the moments where these iconic figures of comic book world finally meet for the first time and then decide to work together seems as powerful and iconic as a coffee date. There was a lot of wrangling that went in to getting this film made, but it seems the film doesn’t find its iconic footing until the last section, when it realizes you want to see the team together. When Banner shows up in New York to fight along side his compatriots, there’s a sense that he’s showing up more because the plot demands it than him feeling like it’s the right thing to do.
It’s a Godzilla Movie: This has been a complaint of mine for a long time with super hero movies, and – to be fair – this is more Destroy All Monsters than Godzilla Vs. The Smog Monster, but it never really functions as a team movie because at no point during the course of anything that happens during the first two thirds of the film do they work together as a team. Seriously. And when they do, they rarely work as a group so much as co-ordinate their assaults. But it’s not about using skill sets so much as random butt-kicking. The set pieces don’t build in the early sections of the film, so much as get things into place for the final act. Which delivers, but still. When they do work together – like Hawkeye and Iron Man – it’s where the movie really soars.

Overall:

If you are just happy to see these characters together, you will love this film, and the idea of this film feels unimaginable. Unfortunately, the imagination that went in to bringing the characters together and what they do once they are together is severely limited by budget and creativity. Once again, it’s an origin story with familiar characters where it feels like it’s all building to an awesome conclusion. But since there’s no real main character or thematic heft or even interesting motivation to latch on to, it’s empty spectacle.

Rating: 6.5/10

The Avengers opens May 4.

Photos:

Trailer:

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: All In – Movie Review

Christie Ko — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:29:26 +0000

On the surgery table about to have a vasectomy, Uriel explains in detail to no one in particular his reasons for having the procedure.Women all want to get too serious with him. Life is too risky. He already has children and doesn’t want to start over. He seems confident enough in his decision, until Gloria shows up later that day and makes him rethink his hand. Director Daniel Burman’s well-executed romantic comedy, All In, is no bluff.

The Players:

Director: Daniel Burman
Screenplay: Daniel Burman, Sergio Dubcovsky
Producer: Diego Dubcovsky
Composer: Nico Cota
Primary Cast: Jorge Drexler, Valeria Bertuccelli, Norma Aleandro, Gabriel Schultz, Luis Brandoni, Paloma Alvarez Maldonado, Lucciano Pizzichini

Tribeca Synopsis:

Happy with developing his online gambling business, being single, and raising his two sweet kids, Uriel takes a gamble and decides to have a vasectomy. But just as he embarks on his new life of freedom, he runs into his old pre-marriage flame, Gloria, newly arrived in Buenos Aires after years abroad.

Making his acting debut, Oscar-winning songwriter Jorge Drexler leaps off the screen in his charming portrayal of Uriel, while Valeria Bertuccelli’s (XXY) Gloria is the ultimate modern woman, balancing a world-weariness with the need for love. Colorful supporting characters fill out this bright, honest portrait about learning that in life one’s poker face may not always be the key to hitting the jackpot.

The Good:

This year’s winner of the Tribeca Film Festivals Award for Best Screenplay, it’s no wonder that this story is tight, very well-paced, and has nicely developed characters. It doesn’t drag or ramble. The humor is intelligent, playful, and translates well. Actors Jorge Drexler and Valeria Bertuccelli have good chemistry and a very believable relationship. This straight-up romantic comedy delivers exactly what you would expect.

The Bad:

The metaphor about life being like a game of poker was the least entertaining part of this film, and unfortunately, there’s a lot of it. It was just too simple of a connection to be worthwhile. The story could have stood on its own without the repeated connection between risks and choices in life and risks and choices in cards. The film is well-written, but it’s heavy-handed with its central metaphor and lacks subtlety.

Overall:

Well-written, well-shot, and well-performed, I think many people will enjoy it. But for me, through no fault of its cast, it lacked dimensionality and felt flat. Bottom line: entertaining, but not forward-thinking or inventive.

Rating: 5/10

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: Any Day Now – Movie Review

Mali Elfman — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:35:07 +0000

Any Day Now was by far my number one pick for best film at Tribeca Film Fest 2012. It won the Heinkien Audience Award and should have won best screenplay and director. After watching many films attempt to deliver and experiment with tone and structure, it was a joy to see a real film that will stand the test of time…

The Players:

Director: Travis Fine
Screenwriter: Travis Fine and George Arthur Bloom
Producers: Travis Fine, Kristine Fine, Chip Hourihan, Anne O’Shea (EP)
Cast: Alan Cumming, Garret Dillahunt, Isaac Leyva, Frances Fisher, Gregg Henry, Don Franklin

Tribeca Synopsis:

Set in 1970s Los Angeles and inspired by a true story, Any Day Now is a poignant and occasionally incendiary drama from TFF alum Travis Fine (The Space Between) that addresses gay adoption rights issues that are as relevant today as they were nearly 40 years ago. Augmenting the touching performances from Cumming and Dillahunt is Isaac Leyva, who offers a subtle yet impactful performance as a boy who inspires those around him to fight for what is right when no one else will.

The Good:

Alan Cumming: He’s phenomenal in this film. From the subtle looks he gives over his shoulder, to the flip-flopping of emotions, to the pushing his character to the extreme without ever going over the top — he owns this film. He’s master of the screen and it’s quite clear that this was a film meant for him and he was meant for this film. Stunning, superb, give him some awards already!
The Acting: Yes, Alan Cumming made this film what it was, but it takes an army to make a film excel. The reason why this film (not just the one character) was great was because of the extraordinary supporting cast. From the subtle moments between the actors, to nailing lines that could have possibly have come off as cheesy (Ex: “we just have to keep on fighting”), to having a special-needs actor in one of the lead roles absolutely stealing every moment he’s on camera — every single actor in this film had a clear back-story, brilliant delivery and understanding that made this film truly great.
The Tone: This is a difficult film because it deals with a very serious story and yet allows for a lot of moments of subtle comedic relief. It’s extremely tricky to balance these two things without one taking over, but it does it effortlessly, making it both entertaining and impactful.
The Filmmaking: The filmmaker was extremely smart in letting the meaning of the film reveal itself through great story-telling. The director seemed to understand how to deliver an important message without preaching to the audience or over explaining himself. He focused on the characters and the story, not the subject matter and by doing so the film carried your away and made you feel involved. The result was a film that was not only important, but well made and enjoyable to watch.
The Subject Matter: It’s timely, relevant, woven seamless into this beautiful story between two magnificent men, and if there was ever a film that will get you both crying and ready to fight, it’s this one.

The Bad:

Horrible film for you if you wear mascara. Bring tissues. A lot of tissues.

Overall:

This was by bar the best film out of Tribeca Film Fest and it deserved to win far more awards than it did (best screenplay to All In and not this??). As soon as it finds a distributor and makes its way into theaters, seek it out and tell your friends. Hopefully this won’t be the last that we hear of this film.

Rating: 9.5/10

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: Searching for Sugar Man – Movie Review

Mali Elfman — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:57:57 +0000

After missing Searching for Sugar Man at Sundance earlier this year, it was a pleasure to finally catch up with it. Once enough people find out about the story of “Sugar Man” it’s safe to say some of the mystery (and fun) of the film will be taken away, so see it as soon as possible. That being said, this is a finely made documentary that looks to be my top pick of the festival as it nears its end. Find out more about the intrigue of the man, the myth, the legend that never was but now is below…

The Players:

Directed and Written by: Malik Bendjelloul
Producers: Simon Chinn, Malik Bendjelloul
Editor: Malik Bendjelloul
Director of Photography: Camilla Skagerstrom

Synopsis:

He was supposed to be the next Bob Dylan. Record labels loved him, everyone around him saw greatness, and yet for one reason or another ’70s folk rock musician Rodriguez never made it big. After what seemed to be a massive failure, Rodriguez slipped away and urban legends of different types of onstage suicides emerged. And as he faded away from the US’s memory, one bootlegged copy, somehow showed up in South Africa, where his antiestablishment message resonated with the youth protest movement there, and Rodriguez unknowingly became bigger than Elvis, but no one knew.Decades later, two intrepid fans decide to investigate whatever happened to the mysterious rocker….

The Good:

Great Story Telling: The bottom line is that documentaries are comprised of a lot of footage and sometimes you feel the weight of the director wanting to tell you everything. Not only did this director have limited amounts of found footage to deal with seeing as Rodriguez was barely ever in the spotlight and decades of information of to compile, but he also had the challenge of tracking down this mystery man with absolutely no help. Somehow he managed to put it all together and organize it in a way that feel effortless and is a true joy to watch. The film is more like an action/thriller than a documentary.
A Story We All Want to Hear: We all want to believe that happy endings are real. We all know that we have a better chance of being hit my lightening than having our wildest dreams come true. But we still need to believe it can happen, and it’s nice to know that this one man, who stood up for what he believed in, can finally receive the recognition he deserves. It’s nice to know that sometimes the hero wins.
Hope: Let’s face it, there’s a lot of crap going on in the world and a lot of documentaries bring that darkness to light and for good reason, BUT everyone once in a while, you watch a film like this and it gives you hope. Hope that the world is a better place, hope that if you’re patient, good things may just happen, and for the filmmaking community, hope that a story well told with a great subject will be loved by the community. This film was successful on all fronts. Not only was this the only film I attended that got a round of applause as the credits rolled, but a standing ovation for the director afterward. This is a film that’s not only needed, but wanted.

The Bad:

I really hope we don’t find out this is fake, I would be so disappointed.

Overall:

Truly an inspirational story and film. A must see film with heart and a message that many of us want to believe, that ‘maybe if I keep going, my dreams will come true.’ Don’t miss it!

Rating: 8.5/10

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: Take This Waltz – Movie Review

Mali Elfman — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:04:51 +0000

Talk This Waltz is one of those films that is on the verge of being an indie darling and it’s easy to see why it’s found its place at Tribeca Film Fest. It’s a film quite obviously made by experiences and talented artists all around and has the potential to be great. Michelle Williams, gives another stunning performance, Sarah Silverman gives a wonderful performance and struts her stuff (literally and figuratively) on screen and Seth Rogen shows us yet another side of his talent. And they all do it with some extreme styling. Find out why this film is almost amazing…

The Players:

Director: Sarah Polley
Screenwriter: Sarah Polley
Producer: Susan Cavan, Sarah Polley
Cast: Seth Rogen, Michelle Williams, Luke Kirby, Sarah Silverman

Tribeca Synopsis:

Margot (Michelle Williams) and Lou (Seth Rogen) are a happily married couple living a quiet, comfortable existence. Their marriage is filled with love, companionship, and humor, but after years of being together, they have settled for contentment and security over excitement. Their life is thrown out of order when Margot falls in love with a handsome and charismatic neighbor (Luke Kirby), and she is forced to choose between the comfort of the familiar and the exhilaration of the unknown.

The Good:

Michelle Williams: Once again, she’s great at playing a person going through an extreme emotional crisis. She once again fully throws herself into the depths of the role, analyzing and portraying the tiniest of emotions in a strong yet, subtle way. Only problem is, Blue Valentine is a far superior film overall, and we’ve seen her play this exact role a few times now. That being said, she’s becoming the Queen of the indie drama, who is time and time again captivating to watch.
Sarah Silverman: Though she only had a short time on screen, she had the biggest presence and was easily my favorite part of the film, not only for her witty timing, but poignant and powerful performance.
The Style: Though there is no WAY some of these couples could afford these homes, with these amenities and in such great clothes. That being said, the overall style of the film was phenomenal and it’s hard not to want to steal almost every cup and piece of clothing that pops up on screen.
Simple Truths: It’s quite obvious that writer/director Sara Polley wanted to focus on some of those simple, coming-of-age truths that we all have to face at some time. Things such as “even new things get old” and the fact that Romeo and Juliet may not have worked out 10 years down the line. There are a lot of great messages in the film, that late teens and twenty year old’s can strongly relate to. There were parts of the film that really hit home, but there may have been a bit too many…

The Bad:

Simple Truths: When well told, these simple truths realized can been groundbreaking, and this film had those moments, the problem is it had the same moments over and over again. It would tell you “even new things get old” and then tell you it again, and again, and again. So despite it having beautiful moments, the overuse of them makes you feel like you’re being brow-beaten with deep thought. Much like I complain about large, block-buster films over-explaining the plot, this film over-explains the emotions, making it so you feel like you’re learning a lesson and not experiencing one. Which leads me to…
Editing: Someone needed to say, enough is enough and just start cutting this bad boy down! This film could easily have about 30-40 minutes cut out of it and it would make for a sharper more poignant film. It’s also hard to imagine that it could find a large enough audience with the near two hour run-time, and with all the love and skill that obviously went into making it, it would be a shame for it to not be seen widely.
The End: There is a quiet moment towards the end of the story with Rogen, where we feel everything that has happened, know everyone’s perspective and it is simple, small and beautiful. It would have been an amazing place to stop the film there, but instead it dissects that moment and then shows us what we already know will happen in detail. From that moment on, they are, beating a bored audience. The film goes into over-explanation mode, and instead of leaving us with those moments of “knowing” and “feeling”, we’re left having our emotions spelled out to us.

Overall:

What’s frustrating about this film is that there are great, not good, but great elements to it, but by over-indulging in the messages that it wants to get across, they’ve managed to leave it with none. Emotional films like this are best left felt, not explained.

Rating: 5/10

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: Burn – Movie Review

Mali Elfman — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:11:24 +0000

So far, it’s easy to say that Burn is leading the pack at Tribeca Film Festival. Though ScreenCrave got here for the tail end of the festival, we’re doing out best to catch up as quickly as possible and there’s no better way to kick things off than with talking about Burn, quite easily one of the most heart-wrenching, relevant, and accessible documentaries I’ve seen for some time….

The Players:

Director: Tom Putnam, Brenna Sanchez
Screenwriter: Brenna Sanchez, Tom Putnam

Synopsis:

Detroit has gone for booming, to burning. With massive unemployment rates, the city ha s crumbled. In the film they say “it’s like Hurricane Katrine was to New Orleans, but there was no hurricane.” Empty house everyone are left as kindling. And though the department is known for fighting fire “with balls” with ill-equipped trucks and a serious lack of funding, there’s only so much these heroes can do.

The Good:

The Heart: If there’s one thing that fire-fighters have got, it’s heart, and it would be impossible for a film to properly represent them with out. Luckily, this film has got that extra something that makes it more than just a piece of cinema, but a journey into the lives of these heroes.
The Many Perspectives: All of these men had incredibly interesting stories to follow and were all worthy of film of their own (hey, maybe that would help with their budget crisis?) but this is a film about the bigger picture and they did a great job at not only showing all the different sides of the department, but also of the entire system. Everyone had an angle and a reason for doing what they were doing, and everyone felt fairly represented.
Editing/Music: This is a heavy film, with a lot of sadness and a lot of despair, but somehow it never managed to lose momentum. Between the well paced story line that never hangs too long in the slower, sadder beats, and some much needed bursts of lively music, the film clips right along and is extremely easy to consume.
The Why: With all the challenges this film shows, from the lack of funds in the system to these men saving lives and putting their lives on the line for others, it’s hard not to wonder, why would anyone want to do this? The film does a great but subtle job at showing you a bit of why every person on the team not only loves this, but needs this in their lives.

The Bad:

Little Upside: For as great as the film and filmmaking is in Burn,the situation that they’re in is so dire and they’re receiving such little help, that you leave the theater feeling overwhelmed and dare I say depressed. There needed to be more of a call to action at the end of the film, because it makes you want to help so badly, but it doesn’t give you a way to do it. And man is that depressing.

Overall:

It’s a great film, one worthy of watching and surprisingly fun to do so at times, but it will leave you with a heavy heart. Watch, enjoy and be ready.

ScreenCrave.com » Reviews

Reviewing Roger Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: Written in the Wind (1956)

The Players

Notes:

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GOOD

Related Posts

Men In Black 3: Movie Review

The Players:

The Plot:

The Good:

The Bad:

Overall:

Rating: 6.5/10

Photo Gallery:

Trailer:

Related Posts

Reviewing Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: ‘House of Games’ (1987)

The Players

The Plot

The Good

The Bad:

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GREAT

Related Posts

Battleship: Movie Review

The Players:

The Plot:

The Good:

The So-So:

The Bad:

Overall:

The Rating: 6/10

Photo Gallery:

Trailer:

Related Posts

Reviewing Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: Santa Sangre (1989)

The Players:

The Plot:

The Good

The Bad

Brief Words for Mr. Ebert:

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GREAT

Related Posts

Reviewing Ebert’s ‘Greatest Films’: Persona (1966)

The Players

The Plot

The Good:

The Bad:

Good, Bad or Great Movie: GOOD

Related Posts

The Avengers: Movie Review

The Players:

The Plot:

The Good:

The Bad:

Overall:

Rating: 6.5/10

Photos:

Trailer:

Related Posts

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: All In – Movie Review

The Players:

Tribeca Synopsis:

The Good:

The Bad:

Overall:

Rating: 5/10

Related Posts

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: Any Day Now – Movie Review

The Players:

Tribeca Synopsis:

The Good:

The Bad:

Overall:

Rating: 9.5/10

Related Posts

Tribeca Film Fest 2012: Searching for Sugar Man – Movie Review

The Players:

Synopsis:

The Good:

The Bad: