jmar1978 Reviews

Anonymous (I) (2011)

Overcooked

[3/10 · 10 November 2011]

I'm well familiar with the many arguments that someone other than the Stratford Actor, William Shakespeare, wrote the plays attributed to him and am somewhat agnostic about the whole matter. There are good reasons to believe someone else did them, although I think there are also good reasons to believe that Shakespeare was, for the most part, Shakespeare (allowing for collaboration with others in his company).

But this film isn't a good representation of the argument that Edward de Vere was the author of the plays we attribute to Shakespeare. I lost count of the historical inaccuracies after the first 20 minutes or so (Hamlet before Richard III? Richard III, not II, at Essex's revolt? And the way Marlowe died? Just to mention some obvious nonsense).

But I really was less bothered by that than I was by the general unbelievability of this film's characters. Just about everyone in this film over-emotes, and their motives are just implausible. I'll buy historical fiction (which this film really is), but only if the characters and events are believable and compelling. This film fails that test.

I doubt this film will be long for the theaters. It's terribly overcooked.

Hamlet (2000)

Words, words, words

[6/10 · 5 November 2011]

There are a number of things I like about this adaptation of Hamlet. The setting in yuppie New York works well, and a couple of the performances are strong. The play with technology -- the lines coming over answering machines and phones, the wire on Ophelia in 3.1, and the play in 1.1 with security cameras was clever.

But in the end, Shakespeare is about language, and that's what sinks this film. The cast's enunciation and diction are so weak that they sap the life out of the play. The worst at this, hands down, is Bill Murray as Polonius, who has no business in a show like this (he's great in his own idiom, and this is not his idiom).

I recall that when Joseph Mankiewicz cast Marlon Brando as Mark Antony in his splendid Julius Caesar (1953), he had Brando work for weeks with John Gielgud (who played Cassius) to get his diction in order. The actors in this film needed some coaching of the same sort.

Godzilla: Final Wars (2004)

An irresistible, committed train wreck

[5/10 · 23 June 2011]

Now let me see if I have this straight: a group of reptilian (or insect-like) aliens wearing human skin gain telepathic control of Earth's most fearsome monsters, so MMA legend Don Frye and his team of mutant (are they mutants?) karate masters and mistresses must fly to the South Pole in a big submersible drill bit and summon Godzilla to save the world.

I think I should have watched this film in the original Japanese without subtitles; my imagination, while watching, might have supplied a script that made more sense.

That said, this movie is fun to watch. It's committed to the world it creates and pays homage to the Godzilla genre by bringing in stars of past films along with every other monster the big G ever fought. It plays off of the "V" series of the 1980s, the Matrix, and several other sci-fi films -- even the "Gotengo" (that magic underground, undersea, through the air drill bit) has the same lines as the Nautilus from the original "20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea." And I have to admit that I was sucked in -- in part by the bewildering plot, in part by the cast of monsters and aliens, in part by the bizarre presence of Don Frey (Raymond Burr, I guess, is permanently unavailable), and in part by the perverse attraction I have to train wrecks.

Objectively I can't give this more than 5 stars for many reasons, and some are due to the limitations of the genre. But it suffers even in comparison to its predecessors, and it's not just the plot and script. Some of the scenes involving exposition drag on too long, the pacing is uneven, there's plenty of (also very committed) overacting, and there are too many continuity problems: every 10 minutes or so, I was asking, "wait ... wasn't he ... weren't they ...?"

I still enjoy the original 1954 film as it has an edge to it that has been blunted here (and in other Kaiju films of the 90s) by too many fantasy elements.

But hey: if you like a lot of cheese on your popcorn, check it out.

Thor (2011)

A fun afternoon at the theater

[7/10 · 8 May 2011]

My parents forbade me from reading comic books when I was kid so, um, I read them all -- at friends' houses, cousins' houses etc. And I loved them to death. So I was very much looking forward to this film, as "Journey Into Mystery," which featured Thor, was a favorite of mine.

This is a fun movie but ... not great thought-provoking cinema. I enjoyed myself, but left the theater feeling that this film will not reward re-watching, as so much of its pleasure comes from wondering what will happen next and the pleasure of how the writer and director worked things out. I'm more interested in how they will play things out in the inevitable sequel than I am in re-seeing the film. That's why it's a 7 and no more for me.

The lead performances were all quite strong and believable, and I was very pleased with the performances of lesser (but still important) characters like Colm Feore as Hlafi (in the official cast, "Laufey," meaning these guys need to get their Old Norse geek on), lord of the frost giants, Kat Dennings as Darcy, and (what a pleasant surprise) Rene Russo as Frigga. Tom Hiddleston was a convincing (and wonderful) Loki, and I can't wait to see where he ends up in the sequel.

What I really enjoyed was how the movie created a wonderful and believable comic-book world. It isn't the actual world of the Thor comics (where he transforms into Donald Blake, M.D., and is in love with his nurse-receptionist assistant, Jane Foster), but I really don't care about that. The worlds of Asgard and the land of the frost giants are wonderfully realized (with CGI), and the film neatly integrates the whole "S.H.I.E.L.D. is looking for a team" motif that's become part of the Marvel film universe. The "son of Coul" remark was priceless as was "I'm not getting killed over six college credits" and, the one that left me chortling, "Oh, my God!" I think I was the only one in the theater who got it, though. Buncha rubes there, I guess.

I'm sure that the chap with the bow mid-film will become Hawkeye by the time some Avengers movie comes out, and I was a fool to leave before the credits were over, as I've now heard we get another Nick Fury cameo.

So overall, fun -- if rather predictable. Comic-book fun. But hey: if they keep making them like this, I'll keep buying tickets.

Twelve O'Clock High (1949)

Most remarkable

[10/10 · 22 November 2010]

C.S.Lewis, in "An Experiment in Criticism" wrote that a genuine classic stands up to repeated re-readings. Assuming that a classic film is one that stands up to repeated re-viewings, I have to say that this film is classic, and it has become, hands down, my favorite film about World War II in the air.

One of the remarkable and striking aspects of this film is that it includes very little combat -- which occurs only at the climax of the film -- but rather covers men before and after combat, so we're focused on the anticipation of what they are in for or the fallout of what they've been through. And really, the best films about war explore how men face up to the stress, terror, and absurdity of combat.

Indeed, one of the strongest scenes in the film is watching the ground crew play baseball whilst waiting for the bomber crews to return home. Given what comes ahead of it, the tension is palpable -- almost Hitchcock-like. Likewise, in the last scene when Gen. Savage is grounded with delirium, he's not the only one who "is up there with them" as we wait with him at RAF Alconbury.

And this is the great strength of the film: we get a striking exposition of the philosophical and psychological aspects of modern warfare, and I think that's the only reason to make a movie about war. I think in its own way it is comparable to films like "Paths of Glory" and "The Seven Samurai."

Add to that not just sterling individual performances from Gregory Peck, Hugh Marlowe, and Dean Jagger, but also wonderful ensemble acting across the board. This is a film highly deserving of wider recognition.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Unbelievable

[3/10 · 22 November 2010]

I'm astonished that this film made the top 250 -- indeed, at time of this writing, number 84. I'm guessing that a number of the reviews are written by one-view enthusiasts who haven't very deep roots in film history or film criticism.

I was tempted to rate the film at one star just to even things out, but that wouldn't be honest. There are two scenes in this movie that are striking and worthy -- the opening scene where Christopher Walz (Col. Landa) was looking for hidden Jews, and the second when a number of the "Basterds" are in a cellar pub trying to make contact with a defecting actress, but are interrupted by unforeseen events. Both scenes, really, are at times breathtaking.

But the rest of the film varies between maudlin, unbelievable (even on the terms of its own alternative history) and just plain boring. The references to other films and directors (Hugo Stiglitz? Give me a break!), not to mention the comic book-style titles and all that were really wearying.

How many of you think this is really a better film than "Rebecca"? Or "The Wizard of Oz"? I thought we only had grade inflation in higher ed ...

I can't imagine this film will improve on second viewing, and there is absolutely nothing about it that invites such an investment of my time.

Stage Door Canteen (1943)

A valuable artifact

[7/10 · 5 December 2009]

As a film, this is almost tissue-paper thin. The leading characters are almost stereotypes, the plot is tediously predictable, and the work's values are conventionally true-blue.

And yet: this, I think, is a valuable film for what it captures about the mood and values of the nation in 1943. Katherine Hepburn's speech near the end to the young lass whose fiancé missed their wedding due to deployment orders, I think, grasps the essence of what the U.S. was dealing with in the troubling year of 1943 (remember, the air campaign over Europe had been dealt setback after setback, in the Pacific U.S. forces were still slogging up the Solomons and New Guinea, and the 1st ID had just been handed its helmet at Kasserine Pass).

There's an air of both uncertainty and hope in this film -- the sense that a lot of these lads were going over and never coming back, combined with a sense of resolve: it was a dark hour, but we're going to prevail. And we're going to do what we can for the troops as they embark and return.

So I have a world of respect for the performers who make cameos in this film: Goodman, Basie, Kyser, Bellamy, Bergen, Hepburn -- the list is immense. They probably got paid for it, but they still invested their clout, their personality, their franchise, for an unabashed paean to U.S. soldiers. I know it was a simpler times and the issues were more clear, but I doubt you'd see a comparable lineup today honoring U.S. troops in Afghanistan, etc.

Beowulf (2007)

Overdone

[3/10 · 23 November 2007]

I saw the film in its 3-D Imax incarnation. I found certain aspects of the film appealing: at the core of the film is a psychological and moral allegory about kingship in a warrior culture committed to offensive warfare for the sake of treasure (hence, the role of Grendel's mother). As such, I don't mind the plot changes from the original poem, which in the end also simultaneously celebrates and critiques the Teutonic warrior ethos.

What did bother me, and what almost sent me running from the theater a few times, was the emphasis on the gaudy and garish visual effects, not to mention the overdone soundtrack. The depiction of Grendel as an anguished, pathetic simpleton upset by the noise coming from Heorot is far less effective than the original poem's presentation of him as a mysterious, undescribed evil descended from Cain. Having a completely disrobed Beowulf fight Grendel led to gratuitous comedy (one was always wondering, "how are they going to cover it next?") that detracted force from what should have been one of the more tense scenes in the film.

The graphic novel look, which was successful in "Sin City" and "300," struck me as less effective here, perhaps because it is no longer fresh but now formula. And while some of the 3-D effects were noteworthy (the long shot to the ship across the beach early in the film, I thought, was pretty neat) the technology hasn't advanced much since "Invaders from Mars," so there's often an obvious artificiality to it that I thought detracted more than it added.

Perhaps the words "formulaic" and "artificial" best sum up my experience of this film (along with "loud" and "garish"). It had entertaining moments (some of the fight with the dragon, I admit, got me going), but in the end it was all overdone to the point of being indigestible.

Alexander Nevsky (1938)

The music makes it

[8/10 · 5 June 2007]

I had the very good fortune of being in NYC last fall to see the New York Philharmonic perform a restored score for full orchestra while a very good print of the film was played on a large screen in Avery Fisher Hall.

My experience of the film to date had only been with weak prints of the film and a soundtrack that left a lot to be desired. Apparently, in the early recording, the orchestra was rather small and playing under poor conditions into a single mike (or about that bad -- my memory of the program notes may not be correct).

But the experience at Avery Fisher was breathtaking -- the wonderfully clean print of the film showed Eisenstein's genius with the camera, and the stunning orchestra performance afforded what Prokokfiev probably only heard in his mind's ear. Imagine that scratchy soundtrack you're used to filled out in all registers and overtones -- it was a sound to behold (okay, that was awkward).

I hope very much that the NY Philharmonic does whatever it takes to get its soundtrack married up with this print in DVD (if they haven't already, but I've seen no evidence that they have).