Woman in the Dunes
Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1964
A vacationing schoolteacher (Eiji Okada) spends the night in the home of a recently widowed woman (Kiyoko Kishida), who lives in the bottom of a large sand pit. In the morning, he finds that the villagers have pulled up the later and intend to keep him in the pit for the rest of his life.
Well, now. That's more like it. Woman in the Dunes is a masterful, moody exploration of how and why one finds meaning in life, full of allegorical concepts (Sisyphus, anyone?) and striking images. The constant shots of sand, flowing in the wind like water, are both mesmerizing and terrifying, easily enough to make anyone forget that a sand pit like the one in this movie could never really exist. In fact, Teshigahara spends much of his time playing with the effect of simultaneous attraction and repulsion, to great effect. The most striking example would be the image of the sleeping woman, lying naked on the floor, coated with a layer of the glistening, infernal sand that threatens to consume everyone. Marvelous stuff. My only real complaint is that the pacing falters a bit in the latter half - it drags for a bit, then several developments are rushed through with multiple month jumps in time. It's a minor complaint in the grand scheme of things, though - and the final moments more than make up for it.
9/10
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
18. The Palm Beach Story
The Palm Beach Story
Preston Sturges, 1942
After a fight, Gerry Jeffers (Claudette Colbert) leaves her husband, Tom (Joel McCrea), planning to go to Palm Beach and find a new, rich husband whom she could convince to fund Tom's dream of building an airport. Tom follows in hot pursuit, determined to stop her.
Not a fan of this one. How Preston Sturges managed to make the terrific The Lady Eve right at the same time as this movie and the better but still not very good Sullivan's Travels, I'll never know. Here, he takes the term "screwball comedy" to heart, filling the whole movie with wacky zaniness, but never manages (despite several more dramatic scenes that are notably bereft of jokes) to insert the necessary element of humanity that holds the best such movies together. Maybe it's just Colbert and McCrea that can't display that humanity, though, because once Rudy Vallee's rich suitor and his sister (Mary Astor) show up, the movie becomes kind of watchable and even funny at times. They almost save the movie - but then there's the ending. I can't even bring myself to describe what happens at the end. I can't tell you about the shit that Sturges tries to pull. You just have to see it for yourself. But don't see it for yourself, becuase it's not worth it.
3/10
Preston Sturges, 1942
After a fight, Gerry Jeffers (Claudette Colbert) leaves her husband, Tom (Joel McCrea), planning to go to Palm Beach and find a new, rich husband whom she could convince to fund Tom's dream of building an airport. Tom follows in hot pursuit, determined to stop her.
Not a fan of this one. How Preston Sturges managed to make the terrific The Lady Eve right at the same time as this movie and the better but still not very good Sullivan's Travels, I'll never know. Here, he takes the term "screwball comedy" to heart, filling the whole movie with wacky zaniness, but never manages (despite several more dramatic scenes that are notably bereft of jokes) to insert the necessary element of humanity that holds the best such movies together. Maybe it's just Colbert and McCrea that can't display that humanity, though, because once Rudy Vallee's rich suitor and his sister (Mary Astor) show up, the movie becomes kind of watchable and even funny at times. They almost save the movie - but then there's the ending. I can't even bring myself to describe what happens at the end. I can't tell you about the shit that Sturges tries to pull. You just have to see it for yourself. But don't see it for yourself, becuase it's not worth it.
3/10
17. Dr. Who and the Daleks
Dr. Who and the Daleks
Gordon Flemyng, 1965
Kindly old Inventor Dr. Who (Peter Cushing) travels across time and space with his family. They find themselves marooned on the planet Skaaro, stuck in the middle of an ancient war between the inherently peaceful Thals and the monstrous Daleks.
Oh, man. This was really odd to watch. It's an adaptation of an old story from the TV series, but altered to work as a standalone story. Also, the producers of the movie were unable to use certain aspects of the program - thus, The Doctor, a timelord from the planet Gallifrey, becomes Dr. Who, a brilliant but doddering old man from the planet Earth. He still has the TARDIS, which is still bigger on the inside, but now the inside looks like a cheap warehouse office. Daleks still say "EXTERMINATE" and have gun arms, but now they shoot some sort of deadly smoke instead of lasers. Everything is the same, but different. Very disconcerting.
Other than that, how was the movie? Well, kind of terrible. It looks tremendously cheap, and not in that charming Doctor Who-ish way. More in that "we have money, we're just spending it badly" sort of way. The Dalek war room has lava lamps on the table. Not some sort of prop or decoration made out of a lava lamp. Just lava lamps, completely unaltered. It's kind of embarassing, frankly. The story kind of happens around our heroes, who don't do a whole lot to affect it (a problem with the source as well, granted), the dialogue is laughable, Roy Castle's "comic relief" isn't laughable, and it's pretty dull overall. Really, the only positive elements are Peter Cushing, who is watchable in anything, and the Daleks themselves, who maintain a residual creepiness no matter how misused. As a result, I do have to admit that there were moments that I enjoyed despite myself - but it really should have been much, much better.
3/10
Gordon Flemyng, 1965
Kindly old Inventor Dr. Who (Peter Cushing) travels across time and space with his family. They find themselves marooned on the planet Skaaro, stuck in the middle of an ancient war between the inherently peaceful Thals and the monstrous Daleks.
Oh, man. This was really odd to watch. It's an adaptation of an old story from the TV series, but altered to work as a standalone story. Also, the producers of the movie were unable to use certain aspects of the program - thus, The Doctor, a timelord from the planet Gallifrey, becomes Dr. Who, a brilliant but doddering old man from the planet Earth. He still has the TARDIS, which is still bigger on the inside, but now the inside looks like a cheap warehouse office. Daleks still say "EXTERMINATE" and have gun arms, but now they shoot some sort of deadly smoke instead of lasers. Everything is the same, but different. Very disconcerting.
Other than that, how was the movie? Well, kind of terrible. It looks tremendously cheap, and not in that charming Doctor Who-ish way. More in that "we have money, we're just spending it badly" sort of way. The Dalek war room has lava lamps on the table. Not some sort of prop or decoration made out of a lava lamp. Just lava lamps, completely unaltered. It's kind of embarassing, frankly. The story kind of happens around our heroes, who don't do a whole lot to affect it (a problem with the source as well, granted), the dialogue is laughable, Roy Castle's "comic relief" isn't laughable, and it's pretty dull overall. Really, the only positive elements are Peter Cushing, who is watchable in anything, and the Daleks themselves, who maintain a residual creepiness no matter how misused. As a result, I do have to admit that there were moments that I enjoyed despite myself - but it really should have been much, much better.
3/10
Sunday, February 14, 2010
16. Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon
Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon
Roy William Neill, 1943
Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) must protect a scientist and his fancy new bomb sight from the Nazis, which becomes all the more difficult after they team up with his old nemesis, Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill)
Well, it was a tad better than the last one I saw (keeping in mind that I think less of that last one now than I did when I saw it), but still not really any good. Rathbone is still terrific, and is really the only reason to watch it - but there are better Holmes movies with him out there (or so I've been told). There's just not much to say about this one.
2.5/10
Roy William Neill, 1943
Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) must protect a scientist and his fancy new bomb sight from the Nazis, which becomes all the more difficult after they team up with his old nemesis, Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill)
Well, it was a tad better than the last one I saw (keeping in mind that I think less of that last one now than I did when I saw it), but still not really any good. Rathbone is still terrific, and is really the only reason to watch it - but there are better Holmes movies with him out there (or so I've been told). There's just not much to say about this one.
2.5/10
15. On the Waterfront
On the Waterfront
Elia Kazan, 1954
Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) is up to his neck in shady dealings with a corrupt union boss (Lee J. Cobb). But with the help of a crusading priest (Karl Malden) and the sister of a man Terry sort-of murdered (Eva Marie Saint), he just might find the strength to do the right thing.
On the Waterfront is a very important movie. It oozes importance from every frame. You can tell because it's the sort of movie where everyone speaks in generalities, where no one is allowed to just be "a man who. . ." Instead, he is "the sort of man who. . ." Kazan has something he wants to say, and he's not going to let any story or characters get in the way of it (What he has to say is, essentially, "It's okay that I named names for the HUAC"). In that way, it's kind of like the Crash of the 50's.
To be fair, unlike Crash, it's not a terrible movie - just a bad one. Young Brando's method acting is something to behold, and the scene in the cab between him and his brother is rightly lauded. It's just that it's surrounded by such a turgid mess.
3/10
Elia Kazan, 1954
Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) is up to his neck in shady dealings with a corrupt union boss (Lee J. Cobb). But with the help of a crusading priest (Karl Malden) and the sister of a man Terry sort-of murdered (Eva Marie Saint), he just might find the strength to do the right thing.
On the Waterfront is a very important movie. It oozes importance from every frame. You can tell because it's the sort of movie where everyone speaks in generalities, where no one is allowed to just be "a man who. . ." Instead, he is "the sort of man who. . ." Kazan has something he wants to say, and he's not going to let any story or characters get in the way of it (What he has to say is, essentially, "It's okay that I named names for the HUAC"). In that way, it's kind of like the Crash of the 50's.
To be fair, unlike Crash, it's not a terrible movie - just a bad one. Young Brando's method acting is something to behold, and the scene in the cab between him and his brother is rightly lauded. It's just that it's surrounded by such a turgid mess.
3/10
14. The Awful Truth
The Awful Truth
Leo McCarey, 1937
Jerry and Lucy Warriner (Cary Grant and Irene Dunne) enter into divorce proceedings after deciding that they can no longer trust each other.
Disappointing as all hell. I quite enjoyed the later Grant/Dunne collaboration, My Favorite Wife, which is generally considered to be the weaker of the two films. There are actually a lot of similarities between them, down to the lengthy “reluctant” reconciliation at a vacation home that closes out both films. The problem here is that Grant and Dunne are not nearly as likeable this time around, and the problems they face seem kind of lame and petty. There’s also a weird undercurrent of class warfare to the whole affair. Most damning of all, though, it’s just not very funny.
3.5/10
Leo McCarey, 1937
Jerry and Lucy Warriner (Cary Grant and Irene Dunne) enter into divorce proceedings after deciding that they can no longer trust each other.
Disappointing as all hell. I quite enjoyed the later Grant/Dunne collaboration, My Favorite Wife, which is generally considered to be the weaker of the two films. There are actually a lot of similarities between them, down to the lengthy “reluctant” reconciliation at a vacation home that closes out both films. The problem here is that Grant and Dunne are not nearly as likeable this time around, and the problems they face seem kind of lame and petty. There’s also a weird undercurrent of class warfare to the whole affair. Most damning of all, though, it’s just not very funny.
3.5/10
13. Lifeboat
Lifeboat
Alfred Hitchcock, 1944
Several survivors of a German U-Boat attack find themselves unsure of who to trust as they try to make their way to safety – especially after they pull a young German officer onboard.
Lifeboat starts out well, but ultimately kind of collapses under itself - although it manages not to become a complete disaster. The ending is nothing more than blatant and awkward wartime propaganda, and does a lot to undermine the tension and uncertainty that had been built up throughout the film. Despite this, the master’s hand is evident at several points, including a bit of impromptu surgery and a marvelous sequence in which a certain character is, essentially, talked to death. These sequences are subtle and low-key, and work terrifically. Things are less successful when the drama boils up and the hysterics kick in. Even Tallulah Bankhead, who is otherwise wonderful, is somewhat undone by her breakdown scene. Definitely worth watching, though, despite the faults.
6/10
*GOAL ACHIEVED* I have now seen 10 movies from 1944. Yes, this was an easy one, since I already had 9 going into this year.
Alfred Hitchcock, 1944
Several survivors of a German U-Boat attack find themselves unsure of who to trust as they try to make their way to safety – especially after they pull a young German officer onboard.
Lifeboat starts out well, but ultimately kind of collapses under itself - although it manages not to become a complete disaster. The ending is nothing more than blatant and awkward wartime propaganda, and does a lot to undermine the tension and uncertainty that had been built up throughout the film. Despite this, the master’s hand is evident at several points, including a bit of impromptu surgery and a marvelous sequence in which a certain character is, essentially, talked to death. These sequences are subtle and low-key, and work terrifically. Things are less successful when the drama boils up and the hysterics kick in. Even Tallulah Bankhead, who is otherwise wonderful, is somewhat undone by her breakdown scene. Definitely worth watching, though, despite the faults.
6/10
*GOAL ACHIEVED* I have now seen 10 movies from 1944. Yes, this was an easy one, since I already had 9 going into this year.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
12. In the Loop
In the Loop
Armando Iannucci, 2009
After speaking a bit too candidly about the possibility of war with an unnamed middle eastern country, Simon Foster (Tom Hollander), a mid-level British cabinet minister, finds himself caught in the middle between various British and American political forces trying to alternately prevent and instigate the war. Also, Foster's superior (Peter Capaldi) yells at people.
In the Loop is probably the funniest movie I've seen this year (yes, all twelve of them). Ah, what the hell, we'll throw in last year too. Nearly every second is filled with sharp, high-speed, crackling dialogue that was, as I understand it, largely improvised. There's not a weak link in the cast, although even if there was, the sheer force of Capaldi's persona would likely have devoured them whole and spit out their kidneys on to an orphan's favorite puppy, so it wouldn't have been much of a problem.
The really amazing thing is that, if you stop laughing long enough to pay attention to the characters, there's some surprisingly deft work going on there. I think one could reasonably call this a character study. Even if that's stretching it a bit, the one thing you can't really call it is a political movie. Sure, it's based in the world of politics, and deals with things that are intimately tied to current events, but those really only serve as a playground for Iannucci and his writers and actors. It's not a message movie, it's not a liberal or conservative movie, it's just a terribly clever farce - which is why it will likely stand the test of time better than so many other movies.
8.5/10
Armando Iannucci, 2009
After speaking a bit too candidly about the possibility of war with an unnamed middle eastern country, Simon Foster (Tom Hollander), a mid-level British cabinet minister, finds himself caught in the middle between various British and American political forces trying to alternately prevent and instigate the war. Also, Foster's superior (Peter Capaldi) yells at people.
In the Loop is probably the funniest movie I've seen this year (yes, all twelve of them). Ah, what the hell, we'll throw in last year too. Nearly every second is filled with sharp, high-speed, crackling dialogue that was, as I understand it, largely improvised. There's not a weak link in the cast, although even if there was, the sheer force of Capaldi's persona would likely have devoured them whole and spit out their kidneys on to an orphan's favorite puppy, so it wouldn't have been much of a problem.
The really amazing thing is that, if you stop laughing long enough to pay attention to the characters, there's some surprisingly deft work going on there. I think one could reasonably call this a character study. Even if that's stretching it a bit, the one thing you can't really call it is a political movie. Sure, it's based in the world of politics, and deals with things that are intimately tied to current events, but those really only serve as a playground for Iannucci and his writers and actors. It's not a message movie, it's not a liberal or conservative movie, it's just a terribly clever farce - which is why it will likely stand the test of time better than so many other movies.
8.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)