...I See Frants

DRIVE -Violent, slick, cool, disturbing, haunting.  All in a good way.

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD -Universal’s celebrating its 100 year anniversary with some stunning restorations of classics in their library.  This one looks impressive.

THE THING -Didn’t see it.  Have seen the original.  Freaky shit.  See the original.

IN TIME - I guess kind of an interesting idea, but the result, that no one ages beyond 25 years old, just sounds like an excuse to cast everyone on the CW.

BLITHE SPIRIT

Did you know that before director David Lean made the epics he’s known for - Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago - he cut his teeth on Noel Coward works?  His first four films were all Coward plays adapted for the screen; alright, the first one, In Which We Serve, was an original screenplay (all four will soon be released by Criterion in a lovely restored box set).  I seem to be watching them in reverse order.  I reviewed his fourth, Brief Encounter, a while back, and here we have the third, an adaptation of one of Coward’s most known and successful plays.

This delightful 1945 screwy comedy stars Rex Harrison as a novelist, who invites a local medium over to his house to ‘entertain’ his dinner guests and allow him to research for a mystic murder story he’s working on.  Unfortunately, the medium appears to have risen the ghost of his late wife.  As he’s the only one who can see or hear her, the antics that follow are assured.  His current wife, especially, does not enjoy it one bit.

The film is notable for a few reasons.  Coward’s razor-quick witty dialogue is front-and-center.  The film was shot in brilliant Technicolor (no doubt, the choice to shoot in color was made to allow Lean to more easily distinguish the ghost - all in grey clothes and make-up - from the living)*.  And the film won an Oscar for special effects, mostly standard stuff now like double exposure (to allow the living to ‘pass thru’ the ghost) and floating items, that back then was quite smartly done.  As a film, it’s quite ‘stage-y’, but the performances are fun, the premise ridiculous, and the dialogue so fast you’re out of breath (in a good way) just keeping up.

*A fun little ‘goof’ of sorts; Lean’s camera exits a room and zooms in on a mirror.  Then there’s a hidden cut, and you can see the DP’s hand cranking the camera in the reflection, just for a bit.  Ah, the hand crank days.

KUNG FU PANDA 2

Pretty much what you’d expect, in that it’s a sequel to a story in which someone who didn’t think they could do something ended up being the best at it.  You may remember that the second and third Matrix films didn’t really work, because Neo was already The One; all the mystery of what’s-going-on/how-does-this-work was taken care of in the first one.  The second Panda film encounters the same problem, and remedies it with an expected storyline: now that Po is the Dragon Warrior, where did he come from? Who is he really? An origin story, of sorts.

It’s not that Dreamworks Animation films aren’t good.  Shrek, How To Train Your Dragon, even the first Kung Fu Panda.  Smartly written, beautifully animated.  It’s that you can kind of feel them working towards a franchise with every film.  Countless Shreks. Several …Train Your Dragon sequels planned.  More Kung Fu Pandas planned.  A third Madagascar coming (with a penguin spin-off in development).  Aside from Pixar’s Toy Story trilogy, few animated films really have the need, story-wise, for another film or three (the reason the Toy Story trilogy works is that the main characters’ very existence changes as their owner grows up.  So the passing of time presents new, honest, and natural conflict for the characters to deal with, instead of just taking the cast and plopping them into another situation constructed just to give them something to do).  They all just become the same kind of jokes, with the same characters, only lacking the freshness and discovery that made the original so good.

WINGS

At last, thanks to a stunning restoration by Paramount, I can say I’ve seen the first film to ever win Best Picture, this 1927 silent epic from director William Wellman.  (And, I’ve now seen every single Best Picture winner, a quest I began 16 months ago)

The story here follows two fly-boys in WWI.  Rivals at first, both in love with the same woman back home (not Clara Bow; her love is long unrequited), they become fast friends, and two of the best pilots the US doughboys have on their side.  The film’s aerial dogfighting scenes are still as thrilling to watch today as they must have been decades ago, for the very reason that Wellman didn’t fake a thing.  He was a fighter pilot in the war himself, as was one of two male stars, Richard Arlen.  And the other star, Buddy Rogers, went through flight training, so Wellman could actually film the two of them in the cockpits of the planes, racing through the air.  It’s truly a testament to how doing it for real sure does look better than special effects (and that holds true today, for all films).  Every bank, swerve, flip, twirl, and dive is so brilliantly captured.  And to coordinate that with the choreography of hundreds of ground troops to stage a major battle in the war - well, damn, it just can’t be beat. 

There are a lot of cinematic firsts to note here.  Gary Cooper has a single scene, but his piercing good looks were enough to launch his career from those brief minutes.  This was the first silent film to win Best Picture, and the only one to date (until The Artist wins next month, I hope).  One of the first major films to feature nudity, though only a brief second or two glimpse at a topless Bow.  And one of the first films to feature two men kissing, though it’s a fraternal kiss during a dramatic moment.

A note on the Paramount DVD/Blu-Ray: really well done.  The sepia/b&w tones look beautiful.  You have the option to listen to the original pipe organ score in stereo, or a new 5.1 mix of the score with full orchestra, and sound effects by Skywalker Sound (sound effects were included in some prints of the film back in the late 20s. Sync sound was new enough to include FX, but too new to be reliable for dialogue, especially considering all the war and flying scenes would be impossible to mike regardless).

This film, almost 90 years old, still packs a hell of a punch.  If you really want to see how they used to make ‘em, add this new restoration to the queue.  Just fantastic.

LARRY CROWNE

I expected this Tom Hanks-directed comedy to be an uninspired, typical, by-the-books comedy. It seems I gave it too much credit.  There’s absolutely nothing redeemable in this insipid little piece of fluff.  Seeing as how Tom Hanks last directed, and wrote solo, the charming little comedy That Thing You Do!, my deductive reasoning for this film’s failure is the addition of “writer” Nia Vardalos, the breakout star discovered by Hanks and wife Rita Wilson in 2002, leading to her breakout hit My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Let us note, however, that since that Oscar-nominated smash, she’s written flop after flop after flop.  So naturally, she’s the choice for Hanks!

Yes, this is gonna be one of those harsh reviews.  This film feels like Hanks wanted to create a middle-class hero, a schluby victim of the recession, whose charm and earnestness lead him to take hold of his life and start anew.  So he wrote that script, and I’d bet it wasn’t horrible.  Then he gives it to Vardalos for a pass, and let the car wreck begin.  Every single moment - I’m talking every plot point, prop, line, character - seems constructed only to deliver a “laugh”. Crowne is laid off, goes to community college, meets a sassy young scooter-driving girl who instantly takes enough of an instant shine to him to start changing his wardrobe, his hair, his house, his life. Why? Who is she? Why does she care about Larry?  Who cares, Vardalos’ script tells us. She’s cute, and quirky!

And so we have countless things that are structured purely for “comedy” but deliver none of it.  Garbled intercom joke. HA! Neighbor won game show. HA! Perpetual yard sale. HA! Scooter crash. HA! Weird George Takai. HA! Porn-loving husband. HA! No pants. HA! Puns! Misunderstandings! No cell phone in class! “George Bernard Shaw” sorta looks like “Geography Show” when written in bad writing! Listen, when you’re writing a comedy, and you have to make the pizza delivery guy bring your characters a large pizza, Salad Box™ and Cinnamon Eggs™ (HA! Those aren’t real, and sound quirky! How delightful!) in order to get a “laugh”, you’re doing it wrong.

Who is Larry Crowne? Dunno. Who is his teacher? Who knows. Why does she like Larry? Who knows. Who are these Scooter Kids that adopt Larry as their own? Who know. Why do they? Ditto. Hanks might as well have taken his script to Screenwriting 102 and asked the one student failing that class to do a punch-up for him.

THE DEBT

There are certain devices in scripts that I would consider a cop-out.  Voiceover is one.  Often voiceover is used to fill in the blanks that a better writer would be able to do without VO.  It’s especially obvious when the voiceover happens just once or twice, as opposed to throughout.  Another device that often doesn’t work is messing with time.  Flashing forward, flashing back, back and forth in time.  It adds a feel of complexity, but often that’s all it is.  The story itself isn’t complex, just the method of revealing it. (Soderbergh’s Out of Sight is one of the best films to smartly use the jumping around in time, for story over complexity)

That’s the biggest problem with director John Madden’s film, itself a remake of a 2007 Israeli film. It opens in the present, with Helen Mirren and her scarred face.  Then we flashback to something climatic that happened in the past. Then forward.  Then back to before that flashback, staying there for some time.  Now, it would seem that the reason for the early climatic flashback is to set the stage for a “twist” in the narrative later on.  But, without giving away too much, the fact that the climatic thing is shown, and then the majority of the film’s action after that reveal is the action leading up to that moment, means that there’s no real stakes in what you’re watching.  Like the Star Wars prequels, you know what it’s all leading to, so you’re not too worried that our heroes are in any real danger.  You’ve seen them alive in the present, so they’ll be okay in the past. It becomes just the ‘how’ of the thing, without any investment.

Then it leads up to a twist, which reveals that you’ve been lied to in some way.  And that’s fine, there’s nothing like thinking you know what’s up and being wrong. But it’s just the way it’s structured here, with the present day trio and the flashback and then forward and back; the result is the worst possible way to use the time jumping and twist reveal devices.  My reaction was just, “oh, it’s not like that but like this? Okay.”  And the impact of that twist on the characters seems to fall aside, not important to the story.  It should be huge for them, but instead the script just hopes the audience’s feeling of “twist!” should be enough without exploring the emotional toll of said twist on the characters experiencing it.

Obviously it’s hard to get any more specific without ruining the film, so I’ll stop.  The acting here is good (Jessica Chastain, in yet another film!), the direction capable.  But in the end, the desire for a rope-a-dope in the story sucks all of the suspense out of a potentially tense thriller.

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE

Yesterday marked the end of a pretty impressive streak for director Stephen Daldry. Before this, he had directed three films - The Hours, Billy Elliot, and The Reader - and had received a Best Director nomination for every one.  3-for-3.  Alas, no nomination for his fourth film (though it did snag a Best Picture nod), based on the stellar novel by Jonathan Safran Foer. 

It’s the story of young Oskar Schell, who lost his father in the south tower of the World Trade Center on what he calls “the Worst Day”.  A year later, he finds a mysterious key in his father’s closet, itself in an envelope with the word “Black” written on it.  And so he goes on a mission to meet all 400+ Blacks in the New York City phone book, to find where this key fits.

I struggle to think of any film that’s truly dealt with 9/11 successfully.  United 93 is stunning, but it’s the actual events, not that months-long hangover that the country had afterwards.  Oskar Schell’s childlike (possibly Asperger’s-related) focus on this key is a clever way to personalize the shock and grief of that day, and the book was so successful because of the uniqueness of Oskar’s narration.  The biggest problem with the film is, I think, the script.  Eric Roth’s script is a little too precious at points, as if he was afraid to go all in with Oskar’s occasional abruptness and seeming callousness that can accompany Asperger’s.  He jumps around in time, and even gives us scenes that Oskar would not be privvy to, like his mother’s phone conversation with his father at her office.  So while Daldry’s direction does find some moments of brilliance - tilt-shifting and plays with focus are an excellent way to visually demonstrate Oskar’s POV - the film itself is disappointing because you can feel how it missed its opportunities. It’s like watching a truly perfect film through dirty glasses; you catch moments of it, and then it misses the chance those moments set up.

This is not to say it’s a bad film.  The acting is great (Von Sydow got a Best Supporting nod).  A lot is asked of young Thomas Horn, and he doesn’t quite keep it up completely, though his good moments far outnumber his less than.  Daldry’s direction is solid. But Roth’s script just feels a bit watered down.  I’ve heard people use the word “manipulative” when describing the flaw in the film; I wouldn’t say that, at least not in an intentional, negative way.  But it does occasionally tilt towards the tried-and-true easiness of straight-up emotion.  When you have a protagonist as unique as Oskar Schell, those cookie-cutter moments seem all the more out of place.  A good film, but quite a few missed chances for greatness.

50/50 - Smart story that doesn’t quite fit with Rogan-style humor.

GODZILLA (CRITERION) -Criterion continues to pick iconic, important films to remaster.  Here, the 1954 Cold War classic.

WINGS -At last, the one Best Picture winner I haven’t seen - and the first one at that - this 1927 William Wellman silent gets the hi-def transfer it deserves.  Can’t wait to see it.

REAL STEEL - Oh, to imagine the pitch meeting. “It’s a touching story of a father and a son.  Only with futuristic fighting robots and Hugh Jackman!”

AFTER THE THIN MAN

After the surprise success of 1934’s hit detective comedy The Thin Man, audiences were clamoring for more of Nick and Nora Charles.  Powell and Loy made three films together after The Thin Man (including Best Picture winner The Great Ziegfeld), and in 1936 were finally able to fit this sequel in.

Where the first film ends with the couple leaving NYC on a train, this film opens with that train pulling into their home of San Francisco.  Unlike the first film, in which we are forced to wait close to 20 minutes before the delightful couple enters the story, here we dive right in. And Powell and Loy haven’t lost it a bit, quick and clever as ever. Only now, there’s trouble brewing in Nora’s own family, trouble that leads to a murder.  As before, the crime takes a while to happen, as the story introduces us to countless potential suspects.  And as before, it loops and twists around, leading to another finale in which all the possible murderers are in one room together, forced to stand and listen to Nick Charles spin the truth and solve the case.

It does have that Hollywood Sequel-itis feel to it.  Some silly bits with Asta (involving a potentially cheating “Mrs Asta”), things like that.  But dog antics aside, I’m happy to see more of the same when it comes to Powell and Loy.  And while the conclusion follows the same successful formula as last time, the case itself is different enough to feel original and engaging throughout.

Also of note: in a major supporting role is a young James Stewart, his first substantial role in a film.

THE TRIP

British actor Steve Coogan might just have made himself a career, making good movies in which he plays himself not making good movies.  Director Michael Winterbottom began this with Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story.  This film, in which Coogan and comedian/buddy Rob Brydon play themselves touring Northern England food destinations, is really an edited-down version of their 6-episode TV BBC Two series.  And it’s hilarious.  A good majority of it is improv - really smart, fun improv by two talented comedians.  And they just entertain/annoy one another for the whole trip.  There are little side plots, like Coogan’s frustrating career and womanizing, but the real charm is in the pair’s interactions, impressions, and bickering.  The cinematography is stunning; practically every frame drips with Northern England’s beauty.  The restaurants are the real deal, so foodies can relish getting an inside look at the prep, plating, and presentation of their top dishes.   You would think that two hours of these two guys doing their thing might get annoying, but they find a perfect balance, teetering between competitive malaise and genuine comradery.  Word is the pair, with Winterbottom, are planning a second series through Italy.  Here’s hoping.

DETECTIVE DEE AND THE MYSTERY OF THE PHANTOM FLAME

I had not heard word one about this Chinese film from director Tsui Hark, but I started seeing it’s unmissable title sprinkled amongst Best of 2011 lists on the web.  I’m glad I added it to the queue, because it really is a delight.  Dee is based on a beloved Chinese hero, Di Renjie, from the 7th century Tang Dynasty.  What we have here is a nice blend of straight-forward detective story within a Crouching Tiger… sort of martial arts vibe.

With China’s first female emperor about to take the thrown, certain officials start to die mysteriously: by bursting into flame from within.  It’s a sight to see.  The Empress imprisoned Dee for rebelling against her years before, but she soon realizes he’s the only one who can solve this case.  Dee, along with the Empress’ right-hand lady and a stubborn blonde “cop”, follow the clues into all kinds of fantastic situations.  Really, the film looks simply stunning.  Yes, you can tell it’s CG, but it feels like they embraced that fakery, giving it a fairy tale tone.  The characters, the settings, the costumes, all wonderfully original and fun to explore.  Another thing Hark does well is realize what his story is, concentrating on telling it as it needs to be told.  While there’s plenty of that unique style of fantastical, soaring martial artistry, it’s mainly a detective story.  It’s only the setting that requires the magical fighting; were this to take place in Chicago 1925, it’s be tommy guns and firebombs.  The fighting is just part of what they need to do when they encounter baddies throughout the case.  It’s easy to see how this could have just turned into another cookie cutter martial arts flick; so glad it didn’t.

It was a blessing, I think, not knowing a thing about the film (though, having now watched the trailer, it doesn’t spoil a thing).  It’s good, smart, vivid fun, with just the right balance of all the things you’ve come to expect from one of these films.  A high recommend for a lazy weekend viewing.

OF GODS AND MEN

Filmmaker Xavier Beauvois’ film is based on the true story of a small group of monks living in a small, mostly Muslim village in Algeria during their civil war.  They offer free care to the local people, grow their own food, pray, teach, read, sing.  The simple life you’d expect.  Only, as tensions escalate, and local extremists become bolder and more desperate, they find they’re in danger.  Do they deny a particular man needed care because of his involvement in the civil war?  Beyond that, knowing that it may only be a matter of time before all the brothers are killed, there is much debate within the monastery about whether to stay or go.

What follows is an quietly simple film that’s quietly simple in non-new ways.  The situation they’re dealing with is clearly dangerous - one surprising and graphic moment of violence sets those stakes early - but so much of the “action” is each monk coming to terms with the risks and benefits, balancing them with their beliefs of what’s expected of them by God and themselves and their brothers.  I’ll admit a bias of a sort: I’m not religious at all, and while I enjoy a good debate over existence and moral responsibility, the motives and ruminations here are almost entirely cerebral.  One meeting might have a divided brotherhood, the next might have them all arriving at the same decision, but because they’re all so quiet and pensive, the times in-between don’t feel so much like they’re struggling to decide their own fate as simply waiting for the solution to present itself.  The film is shot beautifully, and acted very well, but there’s not enough ‘there’ there in this case.  I’m all for quiet films about existence (witness my love of last year’s Le Quattro Volte).  But with the stakes here so violently high, to counter that with sober religious self-debate just didn’t engage me.

THE THIN MAN

MGM didn’t have a lot of hope for this little film.  It was based on a silly book about a married couple who solve cases.  Leads William Powell and Myrna Loy weren’t considered the best bets for the story.  Lucky for them and for us, director Woody Van Dyke won out, and this 1934 gem not only spawned five sequels over the following 13 years, but got a Best Picture nomination and, along with that year’s classic It Happened One Night, helped form a new genre that audiences have adored every since: the screwball comedy.

Now, there is a murder mystery in this film.  I could go into it, but that’s not really the point.  The fun here is the lovely banter between husband and wife Powell and Loy (playing Nick and Nora Charles).  They’re quick, clever, funny; drink too much, slapstick a little, and have a perky little dog named Asta (a popular crossword clue).  In its own way, this film is an early genre mash-up: take the procedural detective story and sprinkle it into a screwball comedy.  I’ll admit the film takes a little while to get going, as it spends the first 15 minutes or so introducing you to the cast of characters who will be involved/suspected in the mystery.  But once Loy and Powell arrive, the film is nothing but pure delight (the two of them were such a great pair, they starred in a total of 14 films together).

Here’s something I never realized.  The five sequels - After the Thin Man (which I’ll be reviewing soon), Another Thin Man, Shadow of The Thin Man, The Thin Man Goes Home, and Song of The Thin Man - all reference the original film’s title, as if the slender gentleman in question is William Powell’s Nick Charles.  That’s not the case.  “The thin man” refers to a character involved in the mystery Nick’s trying to solve.  However, as is usually the case with Hollywood, they wanted name recognition for the sequels, so they just kept on with it, incorrect though it was.