104 in 2009 Week 13: Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead and Sliding Doors

This is a big week for mediocrity, with both movies scoring a 5.5. In addition, I was also exposed to Bye Bye Birdie, which I am not rating or counting due to the fact that I didn't finish it - but if I were to rate it, I would give it an "oh god, make it stop" out of 10.

Things to do in Denver When You’re Dead
Gary Fleder, 1995

It’s been several days, and I still can’t really figure out if I like this movie. The central romance is a joke, the made-up slang is kind of obtuse and irritating, and Andy Garcia’s final bit of growth as a character doesn’t seem related to anything he’s done earlier, but there are plenty of really funny parts and the first half especially crackles along at a good pace. The central operation upon which everything else turns is a terrific sequence as well. I guess I’ll call it even, then give an extra half of a point for Treat Williams and his excessive awesomeness.

5.5/10


Sliding Doors
Peter Howitt, 1998

This movie has been recommended to me several times by several different people over the last ten years. As such, I had fairly high expectations going in, despite the fact that it has taken me this long to get around to watching it. Unfortunately, those expectations weren’t really met. The concept is solid, and the way it plays out, structurally speaking, is interesting. The two alternate timelines crisscrossed and even occasionally intersected to a far greater degree than I expected, which held my interest throughout. The acting was a bit more hit and miss. John Hannah, who played the bartender in two of the best episodes of Carnivale, was very good, and Gwyneth Paltrow gave a strong and appealing enough performance to hold the film together. But then there’s Jeanne Tripplehorn. I’m tempted to refer to her character as one-dimensional, but that would imply she had a dimension at all. I can’t blame her entirely, though – it seems pretty clear that she wasn’t written to have any depth.

This is really the main problem with the movie. Having developed an interesting idea and structure, writer/director Howitt wound up fleshing it out with warmed-over romance stories and stock characters. For every moment I really appreciated, such as the death near the end that is indicated by an out-of-focus heart monitor in the background, sans beeping, there’s a peppy pop-music montage or other such nonsense. Howitt also seems to want to make damn sure that we always know his characters are British. On the off chance you manage to forget, they’ll throw a “shagging” into the conversation or, more often, talk about Monty Python, which is apparently the only cultural touchstone these people have in common.

Basically what I’m saying here is that it’s a mediocre movie, leaning toward bad, that’s presented in a cool and interesting way. I guess that makes it worth it, barely.

5.5/10

Progress: 25 (Par -1)

104 in 2008 Week 12: The Long Kiss Goodnight and After Life

Short reviews this week, since I'm already a few days late.

The Long Kiss Goodnight
Renny Harlin, 1996

Here we are with another Shane Black script, and a much better one than the last I saw (Lethal Weapon, for those who don’t remember). It still pales in comparison to Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, but then again, most things do.

There’s not a lot of sense to be found in this movie, but there is a lot of fun, from the ridiculously over-the-top action sequences to Samuel L Jackson’s ridiculously over-the-top wardrobe to – eh, you get the point.

7.5/10

After Life
Hirokazu Kore-eda, 1999

This is an interesting movie that raises plenty of questions and has a very appealing aesthetic to it. The performances are strong, in a minimalist sort of way. Theoretically, I should love it – but it left me somewhat cold, due to the fact that there were too many (or too few) characters that received focus. Several of the recently departed (the man in the plane, the woman on the rope between the bamboo trees, a few others) are given roles in the film that fall into that nebulous zone where too much time is spent on them to allow them to pass as minor aspects of the story, but not enough time is spent to fully flesh them out. As a result, the segments focusing on them tend to drag tremendously. The story involving the lead characters also does not get the time it needs as a result, although the problem is less pronounced in this case.

Also, the snow-punching tantrum at the end was just kind of embarrassing. Still, I give it a lot of credit for the wonderful premise, the look of the piece, and the ambition to make something a little different.

8/10

Progress: 23 (Par -1)

104 in 2008 Week 11: Ace in the Hole

Wow. . . I managed to stay caught up for almost a whole week. Ah, well. I may have only watched one movie this week, but what a movie it was.

Ace in the Hole
Billy Wilder, 1951

Billy Wilder is best known for two types of movies – slight, but wonderfully entertaining comedies (Some Like it Hot) and noir (Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd). The two sensibilities collide in Ace in the Hole, a dark satire that was his biggest failure ever. It turns out that Wilder’s comedic sensibility, when removed from the farcical and lighthearted context of his comedic successes, twists and transforms into something altogether more miserable, dark, and horrifying – much more so than anything in his actual noirs.

By the way, if you can’t tell from the way I’m describing it, I absolutely loved this movie.

The great Kirk Douglas stars as a reporter who finds a man trapped within some Indian ruins deep within a mountain. Anxious for a big story that will allow him to move back into the big leagues, he builds the rescue operation into a giant circus, prolonging it for as long as he can while the man inches closer and closer to death. Douglas never really allows you to like his character, but you can’t take your eyes off of him either. He starts off obnoxious but amusing, and winds up sad but terrifying. As performances go, it’s a tad broad – but in a way that feeds back into the character and adds to his depth – just as the comedy in the movie as a whole feeds back and bolsters the tragedy.

The ending is just a little bit awkward, probably Hayes Code-mandated - but it doesn’t hurt the movie the way the similar bit of Hayes-groveling at the end of Detour did. And even if it did, it would still be worth it to get to that perfectly staged and framed final shot.

9.5/10

Progres: 21 (Par -1)

104 in 2009 Week 10: Peggy Sue Got Married, Zatoichi, and On the Town

Woo-hoo! Three movies this week, which gets us back up to par. Pity I didn't enjoy them more, though.

Peggy Sue Got Married
Francis Ford Coppola, 1986

Peggy Sue Got Married is a difficult movie to like or dislike. It has a core premise – a forty-two year old woman travels back in time into her own body at age seventeen – that, while full of potential landmines, also has a wealth of both comedic and dramatic possibilities. Unfortunately, Coppola (or, given that he was a hired gun, his largely unknown writers) chooses to blandly walk through the scenario, without really committing to comedy or drama and winds up with a movie that pretty well defines middle-of-the road. When he does throw in something unexpected and bizarre (like the old fogies’ lodge that was founded by a time traveler), the element is quickly dispatched without exploration. The movie is perfectly competent in nearly all aspects, but inspired in none.

The cast does what they can to elevate it, though. Kathleen Turner, despite some . . . odd line deliveries, does a fantastic job of selling both ages through her body language and demeanor. Nicholas Cage finds slightly less success in that regard, but he gets points for remaining watchable and interesting even in the face of the horrible, horrible affected voice he puts on. A young Jim Carrey manages to not be too distracting.

5/10

The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi
Takeshi Kitano, 2004

About an hour in, I was thinking the best thing I could say about Zatoichi is that it wasn’t boring (which is not as faint a praise as you might think). Once the back half kicked in, however, it became apparent that this movie was at least a half hour too long, and most of the momentum dropped right out. Now, the best thing I can say about it is that there is a very distinctive sense of humor at work, which provided a lot of amusing and interesting moments amidst the tedium. Even the dance number at the end was kind of neat (and I don’t often say that about dance numbers). Despite the length, I’d be tempted to say I kind of liked it, if it weren’t for one critical issue: The violence.

Now, I’m not saying the movie was too violent. Far from it (and what are the odds I would ever say such a thing?). My issue is with the technique used to portray the violence – specifically, extremely poor compositing with CGI blood sprays. A man swings a sword in front of a green screen, and another actor is placed in the path of the sword. A spray of red pixels explodes from somewhere in the neighborhood of the sword. Rinse and repeat. This technique is not used once or twice, it is used almost exclusively. I have read that Kitano wanted to diminish the impact of the violence by doing this, but I can’t help but wonder what the point of making a samurai movie filled with limb removals and head choppings is, if you don’t want the violence to have impact. The best way to prevent the audience from feeling the impact of slicing a man in half is to not slice the man in half! At first, I viewed the effects as somewhat incompetent, perhaps charmingly so. Instead, assuming the information about Kitano’s intentions is correct, they turned out to be intellectually dishonest.

2.5/10

On the Town
Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly, 1949

There’s not a lot of point in me reviewing this movie. It’s a musical, there’s lots of singing and dancing, it’s just not my thing. That said, it’s one of the more enjoyable examples I’ve seen (note I said MORE enjoyable, not enjoyable), and certainly better than the last Donen/Kelly collaboration I saw, if only because the ridiculously unmotivated and pointless dance number shoehorned into the back half is a little more interesting this time.

I’m trying to avoid using full-on evaluative terms like “good” or “bad,” here. They really aren’t relevant, when you get down to it. The classical song-and-dance musical (as opposed to something like Sweeney Todd, which has a different sort of operating philosophy) is, for all intents and purposes, just like the slasher movie. It’s a bunch of (barely) characters strung together into a thin semblance of a plot that serves as an excuse to move us along to a series of set-pieces that are really meant to be appreciated on their own. Whether those set-pieces are bravura ballet sequences or amazing Tom Savini prosthetic effects showcases, it’s really all the same. In neither case is there anything inherent to the production that is of value (at least, not most of the time), so any evaluation basically comes down to the question of whether the set-pieces are the sort that appeal to you. As it happens, I’m a great admirer of Savini’s work.

And I don’t really like Gene Kelly’s.

4/10

Progress: 20 (Par)

104 in 2009: Week 9

Didn't catch up this week, but didn't lose ground either, so I'm calling it a win. I also discovered that I really need to write up my reviews immediately after viewing - if not, I don't seem to have the drive to say much, as the Confessions of a Superhero bit below suggests.


Suspicion
Alfred Hitchcock, 1941

Easily the weakest of the Hitchcock movies that I’ve seen, Suspicion is an awkward, compromised piece. It starts off playing like a sort of light romantic comedy, which would almost work – except that our heroine, Lina, is required to be so spectacularly naïve that it’s difficult to form any sort of attachment to her. The middle segment, as the dream marriage between her and Cary Grant’s Johnny is beset by lies and increasingly sinister coincidences, is fairly enjoyable – but it manages to drag on for too long before we finally reach the great, screaming meltdown of an ending, which was apparently the result of studio interference and test screening results. The last five minutes are not only terrible as a segment in its own right, but they recast the events of the rest of the movie in a different light, and manage to sink the whole enterprise. As usual with Hitchcock, however, you do have to give some points for technical proficiency.

3.5/10

Confessions of a Superhero
Matthew Ogens, 2007

Starts off strong, and remains strong as long as it leans toward comedy. The last 20 minutes or so, however, slow things down a lot as we delve into more of the drama in the subjects’ lives. Most of it is fantastically enjoyable, however.

7/10

Progress: 17 (par -1)