Donnie Darko is a cult classic. Rarely can a film be listed as such so soon after its release, although Snakes on a Plane comes to mind, but even rarer is the fact that it finds a comfortable place in the Top 250. The film had a hard time finding a distributor originally, and was actually set to be released on the Starz network before director Richard Kelly found a buyer. Good thing he did too, because we got to be treated to one of the most unique and oddly interesting movies of the 2000s.
When it comes to film, I’m a fan of the oddity. Whether it’s a ‘70s sci-fi flick with a decent storyline no one has heard of, or a mixed genre dramedy ala The Life Aquatic, I enjoy exploring different movies. If this describes you, then a movie like Donnie Darko is probably right up your alley. It’s a blend of mystery, drama, suspense, and sci-fi that will keep your interest till the end.
The story follows a high school boy, Donald Darko, in 1988. Donnie is a troubled boy who doesn’t get along with most people, including his classmates and family. After a time, Donnie is prescribed medication for his issues and frequents a psychiatrist. Odd things begin to happen to Donnie (an effect of the meds, perhaps), including a particularly bizarre case of sleepwalking during which he meets an evil-looking giant rabbit named Frank. Frank tells Donnie that the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds. Throughout the next 28 days, Donnie sees Frank increasingly more, becoming more obsessed and responsive to him, and begins to unravel the mystery behind the giant rabbit and the end of the world.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. This sounds like a 2000’s version of Harvey, right? Right, except the giant rabbit that only the protagonist can see is predicting doom and causing chaos, not being chit-chatty with mental patient Jimmy Stewart.
On the surface there is a lot to like with Donnie Darko. The presentation is interesting; having it set in the 1980s allows for some 80s music and the inclusion of the 1988 Presidential election. The film is shot in a very moody and dark fashion. Almost every shot of Darko “under the influence,” if you will, has some sort of shadowy lighting that really brings his strange trances to life. The music is cut from the same cloth; very spooky and interesting throughout.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays a perfect Donnie; looking seriously disturbed, depressed, or happy when he needs to be. I can’t imagine anyone else doing this good of a job in the role (maybe Heath Ledger in Dark Knight). You really begin to care for his character and cheer him on as the film goes along. The side characters all do their part in the story, but their parts are pretty small. Maggie Gyllenhaal, Patrick Swayze, and Beth Grant all play their parts well, but nothing extraordinary.
There are, unfortunately, many problems with this film that kept me from fully enjoying it. If you don’t want to have your viewing experience tainted by my opinion, feel free to skip to the conclusion of my review.
First of all, I realize that a film of this nature requires a certain “suspension of disbelief” for such science fiction issues that are brought up multiple times in the film. However, in Donnie Darko’s case, I feel as if I was being stretched to the limit. For one thing, his parents, no matter how liberal (voting for Kucinich) or free-spirited they are, are not just going to leave their potentially mentally-disturbed son at home unattended. His actions throughout the film (and the beginning of the film suggests prior actions as well) merit some sort of change in behavior from the parental side of things. I simply accepted this early on, but after a few instances (especially after the parents’ trip to his doctor), I couldn’t take it anymore. This would have been an easy fix in the script, so I think it’s just lazy writing on the author’s part.
On the science fiction side of things, the time travel aspect is an interesting subject to bring up in a movie such as this. Quite frankly (no pun intended), I am a little confused about how this system of time travel works, but no matter. The end result is very intriguing to say the least. Donnie has to make a choice whether to save the one he loves, and consequently kill himself and reverse the “good” he had done while under Frank’s influence, or to do nothing… or does he even have a choice? It’s those kinds of questions that the film brings up that makes you think, “Wow! These guys were really thinking when they made this.” The only real question I had when the film was over was about Donnie. If this film really is about time travel and starting a wormhole or whatever, then what is all the sleepwalking and dementia for? Originally, about halfway through the film, I came to the conclusion that the whole thing must be a sort of dream or hallucination that Donnie was having because of his medication or mental issues, now I’m not so certain. But that’s what makes films like this interesting and entertaining; the mystery of it all.
Donnie Darko is not a feel-good movie, but it is a lot of other things. It surprised me how much heart there was at the end of this film, which is hard to gauge in the middle of film, but that’s just because it hadn’t developed yet. It’s a film that has a little bit of everything; love, pain, drama, even time travel and a giant rabbit. And while it didn’t exactly blow me away, there is a lot to like here (actually, I feel the need to watch it again). It’s certainly not for everybody, but give it a try, you just might like it. 7/10
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
#204: Ed Wood
If you don’t know who Edward D. Wood Jr. is, you haven’t watched enough terrible B-grade movies, which is probably a good thing. Films such as the classically horrible Plan 9 from Outer Space (along with its 3.6 rating) and Bride of the Monster were both directed by Wood. In addition with being unofficially named “The World's Worst Director,” Wood led a strange private life, which ended at the premature age of 54 in 1978 after a heart attack. Tim Burton takes the complex and bizarre story (and book “Nightmare of Ecstasy”) of Ed Wood to the big screen.
The plot revolves around Wood; his reasoning behind his atrocious films, his eccentric and bizarre personal life, and the people he surrounded himself with. Burton’s fingerprints are all over this film. His choice of shooting this in black and white was the correct decision, as it gives the film an eerie quality and brings life to the characters of the black and white era. Wood is played to creepy perfection by Johnny Depp, as he brings that certain Depp-quality weirdness to the Ed Wood character. As Wood becomes interested in directing a motion picture, he decides he needs a star to headline his films. Enter Bela Lugosi, the washed-up star of such classic horror films as Dracula. Lugosi and Wood become fast friends, initially out of need, but each has their own dirty little secret in their private lives which come to light as the film progresses. Martin Landau plays Lugosi to a ‘T’, the black and white color scheme working wonders to give him a very spooky aura. Landau’s efforts landed him a well-deserved Academy Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. The troubled Lugosi was the most interesting element of the Wood saga to me. Wood has sympathy for the man Hollywood has forgotten, despite his shortcomings. Landau plays the role so well that I really felt for the guy. He wants to get back into movies so badly that he willingly puts up with the circus that is Ed Wood, not realizing that Wood’s movies are only dragging him into oblivion. Sarah Jessica Parker and Patricia Arquette both play the love interest roles of Ed Wood. Parker quickly becomes freaked-out at Wood’s weirdness, while Arquette loves him for his uniqueness. Both play their parts well, and I actually found myself enjoying Parker in a movie for once. Another highlight is Jeffery Jones (of Ferris Bueller fame), who plays an excellent Criswell, a flamboyant nationally syndicated psychic from the time of Wood, and is one of Wood’s groupies.
One of the drawbacks to this film is the underutilization of Bill Murray, who is admittedly one of the main reasons I was looking forward to seeing this film. When on-screen his lines are just ok, but in my opinion he needs more screen time. With a story this strange and Wood’s life this weird, some Murray smarminess would be excellent. Unfortunately, there isn’t much.
The other main drawback is a more serious one, unlike the nit-picking above. It has to do with the plot, so if you’ve never heard Wood’s story and want to be surprised by his lifestyle, skip to the end of this review.
The Ed Wood character isn’t likeable, plain and simple. While I understand that the bizarre behavior and weird personality is supposed to keep me entertained and not necessarily his likeability, this is hard for me to do. His delusions of grandeur are preposterous. Anyone comparing themselves to Orson Welles at this time (with Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil under his belt) has to be borderline insane. His impossible dreams were made even further out of reach when he revealed himself to be a transvestite. On top of that, even after his movies were panned by executives and audiences, he continued to make trash. Thankfully, the movie of his life ends before possibly the most tragic chapter occurs; when he would eventually make pornos and write sex novels before drinking himself into a heart attack. I don’t find this as the fault of Burton’s direction, Depp’s acting, or even the script writing. I think it’s just that the story of Wood isn’t really worth re-telling. He had a dream, sure, everybody does. His was a dream that wouldn’t die even after it came to fruition. He got his movie made, but he wants to be like Orson Welles. I wanted to be like Nolan Ryan growing up, so what?
As a biography, Ed Wood, while admittedly incomplete, does a good job of capturing his bizarre life. From his obsession with movies to his personal life, Wood was a failure in most respects. His life was a tragedy. If you’re interested in Wood, Johnny Depp, Martin Landau’s excellent performance, or perhaps Tim Burton as a director, then see this, you won’t be disappointed. If a good story is what you crave, search elsewhere. Overall, it’s ok, but not worthy of a Top 250 nod in my book. 6/10
The plot revolves around Wood; his reasoning behind his atrocious films, his eccentric and bizarre personal life, and the people he surrounded himself with. Burton’s fingerprints are all over this film. His choice of shooting this in black and white was the correct decision, as it gives the film an eerie quality and brings life to the characters of the black and white era. Wood is played to creepy perfection by Johnny Depp, as he brings that certain Depp-quality weirdness to the Ed Wood character. As Wood becomes interested in directing a motion picture, he decides he needs a star to headline his films. Enter Bela Lugosi, the washed-up star of such classic horror films as Dracula. Lugosi and Wood become fast friends, initially out of need, but each has their own dirty little secret in their private lives which come to light as the film progresses. Martin Landau plays Lugosi to a ‘T’, the black and white color scheme working wonders to give him a very spooky aura. Landau’s efforts landed him a well-deserved Academy Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. The troubled Lugosi was the most interesting element of the Wood saga to me. Wood has sympathy for the man Hollywood has forgotten, despite his shortcomings. Landau plays the role so well that I really felt for the guy. He wants to get back into movies so badly that he willingly puts up with the circus that is Ed Wood, not realizing that Wood’s movies are only dragging him into oblivion. Sarah Jessica Parker and Patricia Arquette both play the love interest roles of Ed Wood. Parker quickly becomes freaked-out at Wood’s weirdness, while Arquette loves him for his uniqueness. Both play their parts well, and I actually found myself enjoying Parker in a movie for once. Another highlight is Jeffery Jones (of Ferris Bueller fame), who plays an excellent Criswell, a flamboyant nationally syndicated psychic from the time of Wood, and is one of Wood’s groupies.
One of the drawbacks to this film is the underutilization of Bill Murray, who is admittedly one of the main reasons I was looking forward to seeing this film. When on-screen his lines are just ok, but in my opinion he needs more screen time. With a story this strange and Wood’s life this weird, some Murray smarminess would be excellent. Unfortunately, there isn’t much.
The other main drawback is a more serious one, unlike the nit-picking above. It has to do with the plot, so if you’ve never heard Wood’s story and want to be surprised by his lifestyle, skip to the end of this review.
The Ed Wood character isn’t likeable, plain and simple. While I understand that the bizarre behavior and weird personality is supposed to keep me entertained and not necessarily his likeability, this is hard for me to do. His delusions of grandeur are preposterous. Anyone comparing themselves to Orson Welles at this time (with Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil under his belt) has to be borderline insane. His impossible dreams were made even further out of reach when he revealed himself to be a transvestite. On top of that, even after his movies were panned by executives and audiences, he continued to make trash. Thankfully, the movie of his life ends before possibly the most tragic chapter occurs; when he would eventually make pornos and write sex novels before drinking himself into a heart attack. I don’t find this as the fault of Burton’s direction, Depp’s acting, or even the script writing. I think it’s just that the story of Wood isn’t really worth re-telling. He had a dream, sure, everybody does. His was a dream that wouldn’t die even after it came to fruition. He got his movie made, but he wants to be like Orson Welles. I wanted to be like Nolan Ryan growing up, so what?
As a biography, Ed Wood, while admittedly incomplete, does a good job of capturing his bizarre life. From his obsession with movies to his personal life, Wood was a failure in most respects. His life was a tragedy. If you’re interested in Wood, Johnny Depp, Martin Landau’s excellent performance, or perhaps Tim Burton as a director, then see this, you won’t be disappointed. If a good story is what you crave, search elsewhere. Overall, it’s ok, but not worthy of a Top 250 nod in my book. 6/10
Sunday, September 27, 2009
#245: Planet of the Apes
Whether it's Alien, Star Wars, or something more obscure like Dark Star, I always find something to like in a sci-fi movie. The fantasy of deep space travel is something I’ve always found intriguing. So naturally I was excited to see Planet of the Apes on the Top 250, albeit near the bottom. Planet of the Apes is one of those films that many find too cheesy or cornball to be considered ‘good’ sci-fi. One of the reasons for this may be the fact that it has one of the worst-kept-secret twist endings in movie history (to go along with The Sixth Sense and The Empire Strikes Back). This could also be the reason why it has a habit of bouncing from the 230-240’s range of the Top 250 to off of the list all together.
The film begins as four astronauts travel many light years into deep space. They awake from their sleep to find they have crashed on a mysterious planet. Upon exploring the planet, they find that talking apes, not humans, are the superior species. The apes treat humans the way that we currently treat apes, and in many cases worse. They hunt humans for sport, keep humans as slaves, and perform exploratory brain surgery on them in the name of “science.”
The story follows astronaut George Taylor (Charlton Heston) as he learns the ways of the ape life on the mysterious planet. Taylor eventually befriends a fellow human named Nova (played by the breath-taking Linda Harrison) and a couple of kind apes; Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter). With his new-found friends he explores the planet’s secrets. The driving force behind Planet of the Apes is the story; the role reversal for Taylor to see what an animal feels like in our world. There is also the typical sci-fi storyline involving corruption and cover-up in government (although this time it’s the ape’s government) that furthers the violence and misunderstanding of humans.
Although the movie has that weird 1960’s feel to it, it is still effective in its storytelling. The ape costumes are high-quality, especially for the cheesy sixties, and not distracting to the story. There is plenty of adventure and exploration at the beginning and end, with some ape society politics sandwiched in between. This is more of an adventure film than it is an action one (unlike the 2001 remake). Charlton Heston steals every scene as the over-the-top leading man. When he screams, “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” – You believe in the power behind his voice. I cannot think of anyone better to headline this movie. Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter both turn in good performances in supporting roles, and the rest of the cast is adequate in their roles.
As a science fiction film, Planet of the Apes is a must-see, and probably lands in the top 20 sci-fi movies of all time. Its story is classic, its lead actor legendary, and it’s a fun movie to watch. As a Top 250 film, it’s easy to see why it’s near the bottom; corny 60’s flair, reused story, recent remake. But in the end, the pros far outweigh the cons. 8/10
The film begins as four astronauts travel many light years into deep space. They awake from their sleep to find they have crashed on a mysterious planet. Upon exploring the planet, they find that talking apes, not humans, are the superior species. The apes treat humans the way that we currently treat apes, and in many cases worse. They hunt humans for sport, keep humans as slaves, and perform exploratory brain surgery on them in the name of “science.”
The story follows astronaut George Taylor (Charlton Heston) as he learns the ways of the ape life on the mysterious planet. Taylor eventually befriends a fellow human named Nova (played by the breath-taking Linda Harrison) and a couple of kind apes; Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter). With his new-found friends he explores the planet’s secrets. The driving force behind Planet of the Apes is the story; the role reversal for Taylor to see what an animal feels like in our world. There is also the typical sci-fi storyline involving corruption and cover-up in government (although this time it’s the ape’s government) that furthers the violence and misunderstanding of humans.
Although the movie has that weird 1960’s feel to it, it is still effective in its storytelling. The ape costumes are high-quality, especially for the cheesy sixties, and not distracting to the story. There is plenty of adventure and exploration at the beginning and end, with some ape society politics sandwiched in between. This is more of an adventure film than it is an action one (unlike the 2001 remake). Charlton Heston steals every scene as the over-the-top leading man. When he screams, “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” – You believe in the power behind his voice. I cannot think of anyone better to headline this movie. Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter both turn in good performances in supporting roles, and the rest of the cast is adequate in their roles.
As a science fiction film, Planet of the Apes is a must-see, and probably lands in the top 20 sci-fi movies of all time. Its story is classic, its lead actor legendary, and it’s a fun movie to watch. As a Top 250 film, it’s easy to see why it’s near the bottom; corny 60’s flair, reused story, recent remake. But in the end, the pros far outweigh the cons. 8/10
Friday, September 25, 2009
#19: Once Upon a Time in the West
If there is one genre of film that I need to brush up on it’s got to be westerns. I never watched them growing up (more of Star Wars/fantasy movies for me) and this has, unfortunately, continued into my adulthood. Sure, I’ve seen a few; ‘The Alamo’ and ‘McLintock!’ with John Wayne, ‘High Noon’ with Gary Cooper, and ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ with Clint Eastwood. But unless you count ‘The Shakiest Gun in the West’ or ‘The Apple Dumpling Gang’ true blue westerns, I haven’t watched many more. Since I’m attempting a rundown of the Top 250, however, I need to watch a few essential westerns. One of which is ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ from Sergio Leone, the man behind the “spaghetti western” subgenre.
The plot of ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is a classic tale of good-versus-evil and one-against-many with a woman thrown in the middle. The story follows a man who is never given a name (Charles Bronson) and plays a harmonica. He teams up with a notorious desperado named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) to protect a woman, Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale), from a hired gun (Henry Fonda) working for the railroad. What starts out as a straight forward storyline, quickly changes into something more interesting once the film gains steam. While it is normally the action on-screen that keeps me interested, the story kept me watching this time around. I have to say that this is, by far, the most interested I’ve been in watching a western.
The cinematography and direction in this film is incredible, which is very typical of Sergio Leone. ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is set at a very slow pace; every conversation is slow and deliberate, and just about every shot is a slow pan or zoom. There is plenty of close ups of leathery, sweaty faces to go along with the slow pans across the beautifully barren, desolate and wide American southwest. Leone was clearly a master director and it shows here. I like to think of it as almost a ‘The Godfather’-type film; one that takes its time and should. The interesting thing about this film is that it isn’t so much ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ as it is ‘The Godfather.’ The way the factions in the film are split up it plays more like a gangster film.
Performances in films such as this are difficult to gauge. There are not very many lines of dialog in ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’, and those delivered are not exactly riveting. Combine that with the fact that the direction and cinematography practically steal the scenes and there’s a problem. Having said that, however, Bronson and Fonda are both good actors and both do well here. Fonda is in his element here in that he’s in a western, but he’s not usually the villain, so this is a nice change of pace for him and he pulls it off very well. Bronson, on the other hand, is basically playing a typical Clint Eastwood role. He is the tough guy of few words with no name, sound familiar? Then there’s Claudia Cardinale. Besides being completely drop-dead gorgeous, she also holds her own along side the bigger stars.
If you like westerns, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Some may not enjoy the slower pacing of the film, it is over two and a half hours long after all, but if you just sit back and take it in, I think you’ll find a lot to like here. It’s not a John Wayne western, but a beautifully shot, slow serenade to the Wild West. In the end, I believe the voters at IMDb got this one wrong. The fact that ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ is ranked higher than this masterpiece is really a shame. I loved it. 9/10
The plot of ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is a classic tale of good-versus-evil and one-against-many with a woman thrown in the middle. The story follows a man who is never given a name (Charles Bronson) and plays a harmonica. He teams up with a notorious desperado named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) to protect a woman, Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale), from a hired gun (Henry Fonda) working for the railroad. What starts out as a straight forward storyline, quickly changes into something more interesting once the film gains steam. While it is normally the action on-screen that keeps me interested, the story kept me watching this time around. I have to say that this is, by far, the most interested I’ve been in watching a western.
The cinematography and direction in this film is incredible, which is very typical of Sergio Leone. ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is set at a very slow pace; every conversation is slow and deliberate, and just about every shot is a slow pan or zoom. There is plenty of close ups of leathery, sweaty faces to go along with the slow pans across the beautifully barren, desolate and wide American southwest. Leone was clearly a master director and it shows here. I like to think of it as almost a ‘The Godfather’-type film; one that takes its time and should. The interesting thing about this film is that it isn’t so much ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ as it is ‘The Godfather.’ The way the factions in the film are split up it plays more like a gangster film.
Performances in films such as this are difficult to gauge. There are not very many lines of dialog in ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’, and those delivered are not exactly riveting. Combine that with the fact that the direction and cinematography practically steal the scenes and there’s a problem. Having said that, however, Bronson and Fonda are both good actors and both do well here. Fonda is in his element here in that he’s in a western, but he’s not usually the villain, so this is a nice change of pace for him and he pulls it off very well. Bronson, on the other hand, is basically playing a typical Clint Eastwood role. He is the tough guy of few words with no name, sound familiar? Then there’s Claudia Cardinale. Besides being completely drop-dead gorgeous, she also holds her own along side the bigger stars.
If you like westerns, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Some may not enjoy the slower pacing of the film, it is over two and a half hours long after all, but if you just sit back and take it in, I think you’ll find a lot to like here. It’s not a John Wayne western, but a beautifully shot, slow serenade to the Wild West. In the end, I believe the voters at IMDb got this one wrong. The fact that ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ is ranked higher than this masterpiece is really a shame. I loved it. 9/10
Sunday, July 19, 2009
#21: Fight Club
Anti-corporation films are a dime a dozen in the science fiction realm, but rarely does a film of this subject matter become a commercial and underground success in a real world setting. Fight Club accomplishes this. It is one of only seven films made in the 1990's to grace the top 10% of IMDb's prestigious Top 250, ranking at #21.
The plot of Fight Club revolves around the Narrator (Edward Norton), who tells the story from his point of view. The Narrator leads a typical life; he holds down a steady, albeit boring, job full of traveling and owns an apartment stocked with Ikea furniture. Unfortunately, he develops a rather severe case of insomnia. This leads him to believe that he has a problem that needs a solution from his doctor, namely drugs to help him sleep. When his doctor practically laughs off his problem and tells him that the people with real problems, of the life-threatening variety, are all in support groups, The Narrator decides to give a group a try. Once he attends one of the groups, he quickly becomes addicted - traveling from group to group and releasing his pent-up emotions with others. It becomes clear that he is not a normal, healthy individual.
On one of his many business flights he meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler intrigues The Narrator for many reasons, mainly because he is the polar opposite of himself. While The Narrator is meek and shy, Tyler is bold, daring, complete with fresh ideas on how to live life. As The Narrator increasingly conforms to Tyler's way of life they begin a club, Fight Club, which allows them to release their emotions with aggression. Once word gets out about the Club, however, it is no longer an exclusive bond between them, but an underground phenomenon that spreads like wildfire. As more and more people follow Tyler's lead, what will happen between Tyler and The Narrator and what will Fight Club become?
The direction and cinematography is dark and confused, matching the tone of the film to a 'T.' Just about every camera trick in the book is taken advantage of here, helping set the mood of panic during the many bloody fight scenes. The mood reminds me of The Matrix in the way that it portrays a regular joe character leading a bleak and boring life in a cookie-cutter world. Washed-out whites and very dark blacks and blues are key elements to the color palette.
Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are definitely the stars of the movie, but Helena Bonham Carter plays a big role herself and plays it beautifully. Norton's reserved, quiet character contrasts with Pitt's manic role very well, while Bonham Carter is caught in the middle as the twisted love interest. After watching this movie I realized that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Pitt play this sort of crazy character in multiple films (Snatch., to a greater degree Twelve Monkeys, and now this), he plays it so convincingly I'm surprised the man wasn't type-cast for this sort of role ala Anthony Perkins of Psycho fame. Norton plays narrator extremely well and really brings the movie together; whether he's on-screen or just speaking he holds your attention. His narration is a commentary on society, which comes in sarcastic, humorous, and cold flavors. In my opinion, I don't think anyone in the cast could have been better, they are all spot-on.
I do have a couple complaints with Fight Club, however. First, I felt it was a little on the long side. I don't know what I would cut, but to me I felt as if it could use less Tyler/Narrator scenes in the middle. I won't spoil the plot for you, but I understood what was going to happen early on and just wanted the movie to get to that point in the story. I hate it when that drag in the middle of a film happens, but sometimes it just does. Thts leads me to the second point, that this is a statement movie. With a statement film, most of the time, the director is spending time bringing the point across to the audience, which can lengthen the duration of the film sometimes to an unnecessary length. I feel as if this happens in Fight Club. More than a couple times I felt as if Tyler's ranting and raving about corporate America got a little old.
All in all, I must say that I enjoyed this movie. As with most films, there were parts I really enjoyed and others not so much. Norton and Pitt make Fight Club come to life and I feel that without them, there is no way this movie makes the Top 250. Unfortunately, Fight Club didn't rock my world the way I'd hoped it would. It is, however, a film I would recommend watching. 7/10
"The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club."
The plot of Fight Club revolves around the Narrator (Edward Norton), who tells the story from his point of view. The Narrator leads a typical life; he holds down a steady, albeit boring, job full of traveling and owns an apartment stocked with Ikea furniture. Unfortunately, he develops a rather severe case of insomnia. This leads him to believe that he has a problem that needs a solution from his doctor, namely drugs to help him sleep. When his doctor practically laughs off his problem and tells him that the people with real problems, of the life-threatening variety, are all in support groups, The Narrator decides to give a group a try. Once he attends one of the groups, he quickly becomes addicted - traveling from group to group and releasing his pent-up emotions with others. It becomes clear that he is not a normal, healthy individual.
On one of his many business flights he meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler intrigues The Narrator for many reasons, mainly because he is the polar opposite of himself. While The Narrator is meek and shy, Tyler is bold, daring, complete with fresh ideas on how to live life. As The Narrator increasingly conforms to Tyler's way of life they begin a club, Fight Club, which allows them to release their emotions with aggression. Once word gets out about the Club, however, it is no longer an exclusive bond between them, but an underground phenomenon that spreads like wildfire. As more and more people follow Tyler's lead, what will happen between Tyler and The Narrator and what will Fight Club become?
The direction and cinematography is dark and confused, matching the tone of the film to a 'T.' Just about every camera trick in the book is taken advantage of here, helping set the mood of panic during the many bloody fight scenes. The mood reminds me of The Matrix in the way that it portrays a regular joe character leading a bleak and boring life in a cookie-cutter world. Washed-out whites and very dark blacks and blues are key elements to the color palette.
Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are definitely the stars of the movie, but Helena Bonham Carter plays a big role herself and plays it beautifully. Norton's reserved, quiet character contrasts with Pitt's manic role very well, while Bonham Carter is caught in the middle as the twisted love interest. After watching this movie I realized that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Pitt play this sort of crazy character in multiple films (Snatch., to a greater degree Twelve Monkeys, and now this), he plays it so convincingly I'm surprised the man wasn't type-cast for this sort of role ala Anthony Perkins of Psycho fame. Norton plays narrator extremely well and really brings the movie together; whether he's on-screen or just speaking he holds your attention. His narration is a commentary on society, which comes in sarcastic, humorous, and cold flavors. In my opinion, I don't think anyone in the cast could have been better, they are all spot-on.
I do have a couple complaints with Fight Club, however. First, I felt it was a little on the long side. I don't know what I would cut, but to me I felt as if it could use less Tyler/Narrator scenes in the middle. I won't spoil the plot for you, but I understood what was going to happen early on and just wanted the movie to get to that point in the story. I hate it when that drag in the middle of a film happens, but sometimes it just does. Thts leads me to the second point, that this is a statement movie. With a statement film, most of the time, the director is spending time bringing the point across to the audience, which can lengthen the duration of the film sometimes to an unnecessary length. I feel as if this happens in Fight Club. More than a couple times I felt as if Tyler's ranting and raving about corporate America got a little old.
All in all, I must say that I enjoyed this movie. As with most films, there were parts I really enjoyed and others not so much. Norton and Pitt make Fight Club come to life and I feel that without them, there is no way this movie makes the Top 250. Unfortunately, Fight Club didn't rock my world the way I'd hoped it would. It is, however, a film I would recommend watching. 7/10
"The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club."
Thursday, June 4, 2009
#69: Reservoir Dogs
I’ve never been a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino. I’ve never caught any of his movies in the theaters or rented the videos upon their release. Upon looking at the Top 250, however, it becomes clear that the man cannot be ignored. Of the six films he has directed so far, that would be Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Kill Bill Vol. 2, and Grindhouse’s “Deathproof”, four of them are in the Top 250. Four out of six – that’s a 67% success rate if you want to get technical – not too shabby. He’s a director whose films are violent, crude, and most likely real (since I don’t hang out with the types of characters he creates, I don’t really know, do I?). What I do know is this; he does know how to make a particular type of movie. Reservoir Dogs was his first attempt at this type, and although it’s not the best movie in the world, it’s still pretty good.
The film follows a group of foul-mouthed crooks who got together to form a gang of sorts for a job. As the movie starts we are introduced to the characters, all named different colors to conceal their identities, at a diner for a meal arguing about the meaning of songs, specifically Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” It’s comedic, behind-the-scenes shots like this that set Tarantino apart, others have done it (Guy Ritchie, for one), but rarely as well.
After this relaxing scene, chaos ensues - there is a flash forward sequence after the job that shows two of the men speeding away from a job gone terribly wrong. Some believe there is a police spy among the survivors; we later come to find out in a series of flashbacks and storylines how the characters got where they are and who they are. The story and characters all tie in and are strong and entertaining.
This is Tarantino’s first film, and I personally don’t see how it could have been any better. The characters are all spot-on, with Tim Roth as Mr. Orange, Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde, and Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink being the highlights. It’s not hard to see why the Coen Brothers chose Buscemi to be their villain in Fargo just a few years later – he’s the perfect frantic foul-mouthed little guy. The way Tarantino sets up the dialog is great too, and you can see where he is coming from in Pulp Fiction, which is better than this film, in my humble opinion.
There are a couple things to be wary of when you’re watching one of Tarantino’s films, especially this one. They make you squirm with discomfort. There is a lot of blood in this movie, along with high doses of violence in general – including a torture scene, so if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing, you may want to sit this one out. And as a side note, the choice of music for the soundtrack is quirky, weird, and in some instances creepy. Let’s just say you’ll never think of Bob Dylan’s “Stuck in the Middle with You” the same way again. It’s not exactly a feel-good movie.
All in all, while this isn’t Quentin Tarantino’s best work (Pulp Fiction), it is one heck of a debut. As much as I may seem to praise it, however, I feel a little let-down. Maybe it’s just that his films aren’t my favorites, but I felt like although this was a solid product, I don’t know if it’s deserving of being in the Top 250 movies of all time. There are other similar movies (Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch”) that I would recommend before this one. 7/10
The film follows a group of foul-mouthed crooks who got together to form a gang of sorts for a job. As the movie starts we are introduced to the characters, all named different colors to conceal their identities, at a diner for a meal arguing about the meaning of songs, specifically Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” It’s comedic, behind-the-scenes shots like this that set Tarantino apart, others have done it (Guy Ritchie, for one), but rarely as well.
After this relaxing scene, chaos ensues - there is a flash forward sequence after the job that shows two of the men speeding away from a job gone terribly wrong. Some believe there is a police spy among the survivors; we later come to find out in a series of flashbacks and storylines how the characters got where they are and who they are. The story and characters all tie in and are strong and entertaining.
This is Tarantino’s first film, and I personally don’t see how it could have been any better. The characters are all spot-on, with Tim Roth as Mr. Orange, Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde, and Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink being the highlights. It’s not hard to see why the Coen Brothers chose Buscemi to be their villain in Fargo just a few years later – he’s the perfect frantic foul-mouthed little guy. The way Tarantino sets up the dialog is great too, and you can see where he is coming from in Pulp Fiction, which is better than this film, in my humble opinion.
There are a couple things to be wary of when you’re watching one of Tarantino’s films, especially this one. They make you squirm with discomfort. There is a lot of blood in this movie, along with high doses of violence in general – including a torture scene, so if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing, you may want to sit this one out. And as a side note, the choice of music for the soundtrack is quirky, weird, and in some instances creepy. Let’s just say you’ll never think of Bob Dylan’s “Stuck in the Middle with You” the same way again. It’s not exactly a feel-good movie.
All in all, while this isn’t Quentin Tarantino’s best work (Pulp Fiction), it is one heck of a debut. As much as I may seem to praise it, however, I feel a little let-down. Maybe it’s just that his films aren’t my favorites, but I felt like although this was a solid product, I don’t know if it’s deserving of being in the Top 250 movies of all time. There are other similar movies (Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch”) that I would recommend before this one. 7/10
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
#62: Aliens
After returning safely to base, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is called upon to return to the planet where her old crew discovered the alien. It turns out that a nearby colony on the planet was ordered to investigate the outrageous claims from Ripley that she and her crew had found an advanced race on the planet’s surface. After following orders, however, the colony was never heard from again. Now, with Ripley as their reluctant guide, a rough and tough troop of marines is being sent in to investigate the disappearance of the colony. Once the team gets there, things get complicated.
A new director is at the helm this time around. The now-famous James Cameron, fresh off the success of The Terminator in 1984, directs in much the same intense style. He deviates from Ridley Scott’s slower, impending-doom pacing and goes for a quick, action-oriented style. This works perfectly with the sequel since there are now more aliens to fight and plenty of marines (with big, loud guns) to battle them. The battles are fierce and frantic as the aliens come in waves to attack the marines, and while the majority of the movie feels like it belongs in the action genre, there is still plenty of Ripley fleeing from the aliens that invokes memories of the previous movie.
Even though the pacing has changed, the atmosphere and style remains the same. The planet is still as eerie as anything on film, the aliens are still powerful and dominating, and the additional knowledge of their birth cycle and spawning (queen alien, anyone?) is a huge creepy bonus.
What amazes me about these Alien films is the impact they had on the entire science-fiction world. Other movies attempt to imitate, but never duplicate, the creepy horror/sci-fi feel these two films bring. Video games like Halo and especially StarCraft, which even quotes the movie ‘Aliens’ on several occasions (the Dropship unit for the Terrans), were heavily influenced by these movies.
Both ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ are terrific movies in their own right, but having both in the same series of films makes them that much stronger. While the first film may be the more revolutionary and recognized of the two, I enjoyed the second film the most. The action is great, the acting good for an action flick, and the enemy is strong and intimidating. However, without the first film, this one isn’t nearly as fun. The first lays the creepy foundation, while the second takes this foundation and builds an incredible structure of action, suspense, and drama that is hard to find in any other film to date. 9/10
A new director is at the helm this time around. The now-famous James Cameron, fresh off the success of The Terminator in 1984, directs in much the same intense style. He deviates from Ridley Scott’s slower, impending-doom pacing and goes for a quick, action-oriented style. This works perfectly with the sequel since there are now more aliens to fight and plenty of marines (with big, loud guns) to battle them. The battles are fierce and frantic as the aliens come in waves to attack the marines, and while the majority of the movie feels like it belongs in the action genre, there is still plenty of Ripley fleeing from the aliens that invokes memories of the previous movie.
Even though the pacing has changed, the atmosphere and style remains the same. The planet is still as eerie as anything on film, the aliens are still powerful and dominating, and the additional knowledge of their birth cycle and spawning (queen alien, anyone?) is a huge creepy bonus.
What amazes me about these Alien films is the impact they had on the entire science-fiction world. Other movies attempt to imitate, but never duplicate, the creepy horror/sci-fi feel these two films bring. Video games like Halo and especially StarCraft, which even quotes the movie ‘Aliens’ on several occasions (the Dropship unit for the Terrans), were heavily influenced by these movies.
Both ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ are terrific movies in their own right, but having both in the same series of films makes them that much stronger. While the first film may be the more revolutionary and recognized of the two, I enjoyed the second film the most. The action is great, the acting good for an action flick, and the enemy is strong and intimidating. However, without the first film, this one isn’t nearly as fun. The first lays the creepy foundation, while the second takes this foundation and builds an incredible structure of action, suspense, and drama that is hard to find in any other film to date. 9/10
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)