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)

104 in 2009 Weeks 7 and 8: Murder by Death and Revenge of the Sith

I've kind of fallen behind in the last couple weeks, and I don't have much to say about what I did see. Hopefully things will pick up down the line.

Murder by Death
Robert Moore, 1976

Not a terrible movie, but not great. There are a number of good, clever jokes, but it slips from goofy fun to goofy obnoxious all too frequently.

6.5/10

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
George Lucas, 2005

Not much point in reviewing this movie, so I’ll just say “ugh” and leave it at that. Still, a hair better than Attack of the Clones.

3/10

Progress: 15 (par -1)

104 in 2009 Week 6: Dirty Harry and Lethal Weapon

Dirty Harry
Don Siegel, 1971

Dirty Harry is often held up as the movie that began, or at least codified, the hardcore right-wing ends-justify-the-means school of thought that dominated action movies (and, to a certain degree, society) in its wake. If anything, it is typically criticized for being too simplistic, and boiling complex moral issues down into a simple black-and-white scenario.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I found that not only did the movie present a considerably more nuanced view of things, but that it did so in a not particularly subtle way. Sure, there is the basic conflict between Harry Callahan’s extreme methods and disregard for criminal rights vs. the weak constitution of the mayor and police lieutenant, who are forced to release an obviously guilty maniac because of their concern for said rights. And Harry’s perspective, that Scorpio has to be stopped, rights be damned, is demonstrably correct, within the world of the movie. I do not dispute this.

The thing is, though, that while Harry’s argument is validated, it isn’t celebrated. When Harry tortures Scorpio on the football field to find a kidnapped girl, the scene is not triumphant – it’s nightmarish. Even more critical is the transformation that Harry goes through over the course of the movie, which is clearly delineated in Eastwood’s reading of the famous “do you feel lucky, punk?” speech. The first time, when he says it to the bank robber, there’s a lightness to it. At the end, there’s even a joke and a smile. When he confronts Scorpio for the last time, it sounds like he can barely spit out the words. This is only the clearest example; throughout the first half of the movie there is a wry humor to Harry Callahan, which dissipates as Scorpio’s reign of terror stretches on.

Then there’s the final moment, where Harry throws away his badge. Siegel pointedly refuses to show any hint of Harry’s life outside of his work throughout the movie. A cop is all he is – and yet, after the lengths to which he went to stop Scorpio, he isn’t really a cop anymore. Harry no longer has a role in society – in a sense, he sacrificed his life. He was right to step beyond the law, but there was a price to be paid. Hardly an ode to police brutality.

I haven’t yet touched on the aesthetic qualities of the movie, so I’ll just quickly mention that it’s very well paced and quite atmospheric, with several bravura sequences – the best of which is Eastwood’s chase through the city on foot, led from phone booth to phone booth by Scorpio. Speaking of Scorpio, Andrew Robinson gives a very effective performance, presenting a villain that is dangerous and terrifying on one hand, but pathetic and childlike on the other.

All told, a well-deserved classic and one of the highlights of my viewing so far this year.

8.5/10

Lethal Weapon
Richard Donner, 1987

Lethal Weapon is basically the movie that made writer Shane Black’s career, which means, in a way that if it weren’t for Lethal Weapon, there would never have been a Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. Which would be a tragedy. Unfortunately, Lethal Weapon doesn’t have half of the wit and cleverness on display in KKBB, but what it does have is enough to get by – mostly.

The movie starts off with a bang, as a topless woman jumps off as a building. More filmmakers should have such a flair for the dramatic. The bulk of the movie is very good – granted, we get a parade of every buddy-cop cliché in history, but given that Lethal Weapon is buddy-cop patient zero, that’s not really a problem. Gibson and Glover have good chemistry, the dialogue is generally pretty sharp, and it all looks nice. Also, it’s great to be reminded that, once upon a time, Mel Gibson was actually awesome.

Eventually, however, Lethal Weapon wears out its welcome, and the action scenes just start getting tedious. The fistfight between Gibson and Gary Busey at the end, while very prettily shot, is shoehorned into things almost as hamfistedly as the ballet sequence in Singin’ in the Rain. Still, certainly worth watching.

6.5/10

300, Baby!

As of today, Peephole has been viewed 302 times. This took approximately two months, and pleases me to no end. It also surpassed Intuition as my most viewed movie on Vimeo. Intuition has been sitting at 298 views for nearly a year now, but also, oddly enough, passed 300 today, with a grand total of 301 views.

It's a real horse race.

104 in 2009 Week 5: Johnny Handsome and Noises Off. . .

Once again, meeting but not exceeding expectations.

Johnny Handsome
Walter Hill, 1989

Johnny Handsome is a middling modern noir, redeemed partially by Mickey Rourke’s performance as the titular character. The movie looks typical late-80’s cheap, although there were enough inventive lighting setups to make me think it may just be the horrible, horrible cheap pan’n’scan transfer on the DVD that makes it look cheap. The broad strokes of the story – criminal tries to make a new life for himself, but can’t escape the vengeance and violence at his core – are sound enough, if a bit shopworn, but the details are not particularly compelling. To the degree that it is worth watching, it’s worth it for for Rourke or, to a lesser degree, Lance Henrikson and Morgan Freeman. Quite disappointing overall.

3/10





Noises Off. . .
Peter Bogdanovich, 1992

Noises Off is kind of an inconsistent movie. When it’s on, it’s really on, but it can be rather terrible at times. The beginning is very rough going, filled with bland narration by Michael Caine and an onslaught of typically overwritten stage comedy dialogue. Things start to improve very quickly after that, though, and by the time we hit the absolutely brilliant second act, everyone is firing on all thrusters. The third act can’t live up to the second, despite some inspired gags, but is still very strong. After that, though, a good chunk of the good will that has been earned throughout the movie is thrown away on a terrible “everyone lived happily ever after” ending (which was not, apparently, part of the original play). Speaking of the original play, Noises Off doesn’t even attempt to hide its theatrical origins, and while the translation is sound (other than that tacked-on ending), it would clearly be a much more impressive production if seen on stage. Still, even in movie form, it’s a great way to spend two hours.

7.5/10

Progress: 11 (Par+1)