Army of Darkness (1992)

Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell

**

I really don't know where to start with this movie mostly because I'm not sure if I liked it or not. I really want to say I hated it because I don't want to fall into that cult that has deemed it a classic but at the same time fundamental aspects that make a good film are there. The film opens and immediately thrusts us and our clear-cut protagonist into a conflict. From there, he's challenged to overcome both inner and outer obstacles to get home. Along the way, he falls in love, he forms friendships and most importantly, he changes. Everything else this movie attempts however, falls pretty flat.

Ash (Campbell) gets transported through time and his only way back is to battle the living dead and retrieve a secret book. The idea of a 20th century man stuck in the middle ages creates an opportunity for humor and Army of Darkness gives it a go. Ash warns Shelia (Embeth Davidtz) that she shouldn't touch his car (transported back with him) because her primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures. I suppose that could be funny, but Campbell doesn't pull it off. He doesn't really pull off any of those lines.

What Campbell does have going for him is a hero complex. As he towers over the castle he's agreed to protect from the living dead, regardless of what he's saying, I felt like I could get behind him and fight. As soon as I saw how rediculous this fight turned out to be however, I'd pack up and leave.

I can't really fault the movie too much for being cheesy because most of it comes from the poor special effects. An army of skelatons wasn't really all that impressive looking in '92 and I don't really think it was Raimi's top priority. I commend him for thinking story first. Unfortunately, Army of Darkness defies the idea that a solid story trumps all because so much of this movie doesn't work, not much could save it.

Scarface (1932)

Directed by: Howard Hawks
Starring: Paul Muni

****1/2

My Howard Hawks mini-marathon was unintentional but has paid dividends now that I've watched Scarface. Say what you want about the origin of the gangster genre and what movies influenced it. Bonnie and Clyde may have shown the violence, but Scarface invented it. Scorsese may have added humor, but not before Hawks did and The Godfather may have been realistic but didn't hit home like Scarface. I'm not suggesting that Scarface is better or worse than anyone of those films. I'm simply relaying what an appreciation I had for it. Scarface is by far one of the most progressive films I've ever seen and it was way, way ahead of its time.

Paul Muni plays Tony Camonte who rises through the gangster ranks by killing, stealing and defying all the rules. He's arrogant but he's determined... a dangerous combination. I've been an advocate for Paul Muni since seeing Scarface for the first time many years ago, as well as seeing him in The Story of Louis Pasteur and in The Good Earth. He, in my opinion is easily the best actor of his generation and he plays Camonte with no less intensity than we've seen from the likes of Pacino, DeNiro or Pesci.

While one can find art in the blood splattered scenes that Tarantino gives us, Hawks works his way around the 1932 standards with such an artistic quality. Whether it is the beautifully shot opening scene in which there are no cuts or members of a North Side Chicago gang lining up to be killed seen only by silhoette, we are watching perfectly crafted scenes.

When it comes to realism, I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it. Scarface is not a period piece. The movie is challenging the present 1932 during which it was made. The opening title cards were chilling even for someone who barely had grandparents alive then. The movie, while entertaining, has a sole purpose of making a statement to the nation. It tells them that they are responsible for the violence that threatens their lives and their children and that the government is their government and "What are YOU going to do about it.." When the police tell the newspaper editor he needs to stop printing violent stories on the front page, the editor goes off on a rant during which he practically speaks directly into the camera. He's telling the audience how it is, even if its not what they want to hear. Well, this isn't exactly a lesson in filmmaking, but I could only imagine how this movie chilled audiences at the time when it chilled me.

On the immediate surface, there's not much about Scarface that will blow you away, especially if you've seen Brian DePalma's remake which is much more in your face. But as a student of cinema, Scarface is revolutionary. Its a film that defined a genre and has influenced movies since. Its great.

The Big Sleep (1946)

Directed by: Howard Hawks
Starring: Humphrey Bogart

***

The Big Sleep is my second encounter with the private eye by the name of Phillip Marlowe. Robert Altman and Elliot Gould's 1973 take on the character left me very satisfied, even if that satisfaction didn't extend to the film itself. So having liked the character and for all the other obvious reasons, I went in for round two to see how Howard Hawks and Humphrey Bogart would fair.

In order to get the inevitable comparisons out of the way, I'll say that The Big Sleep was a far better movie than The Long Goodbye and leave it at that. Whether that means The Big Sleep was good, great or amazing remains unsaid. I'll leave that for later.

Having seen two films surrounding Phillip Marlowe now, I realize that the story's in which he appears are really only settings in which he exists. The real attraction is Marlowe. I missed this in the Long Goodbye I think because Gould was more of a characture with a few catch phrases casually following a few leads. Bogart is really made to play this character who is obviously created for film noir. Bogey is so cool, calm, collected and all together charming that what he says becomes gospel, what he does becomes justified and who he is, is just plain entertaining.

Like any mystery, The Big Sleep opens with a simple case which Marlowe is assigned to. This case, find a missing person. Of course the plot thickens and more characters reveal their secrets as Marlowe digs deeper into the case. Around every corner is Vivian Rutledge (Lauren Bacall) whose powers of seduction are second only to her powers of deception. The real mystery becomes how and why is she so involved in this case that started with a missing person and ends with one death after another.

If my synopsis seems vague, its only consistent with the telling of the story. I never really got a good explanation as to what was going on but as I said I really didn't need to. When Marlowe discovers something, Bogey's cool and determined face made me realize that he knew what to do next even if I didn't so everything was going to progress and eventually I'd understand.

And I did, as always in film noir, the case was summed up in the end. This person decieved this person to frame this person to get away with this... was pretty much the long and short of it. While I appreciate a movie not dropping its entire plot on top of me, I think Marlowe said it best... ''...she (the plot) tried to sit on my lap while I was standing up." And well, what happened? I missed it. But Bogey... he's so cool.

La Vie en Rose (2007)

Directed by: Olivier Dahan
Starring: Marion Cotillard

**1/2

La Vie en Rose is a biopic about the life and times of an apparently very famous singer name Edith Piaf. Like any biopic, this film has happiness and it has sadness. It has life and death. It has tragedy and love, successes and failures, uprises, downfalls, the overcoming of obstacles but mostly, it has a main character on which it relies fully as it leaves all other characters like dust in the wind. Like Jamie Foxx in Ray, like Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line, La Vie en Rose would be more aptly titled, the Marion Cotillard Show.

Unlike biopics such as Ray and Walk the Line however, La Vie en Rose surrounds a character who's life is much lesser known, at least perhaps in American and at the very least to me. So seeing her story was a bit more of an interesting side note to Cotillard's performance. It wasn't however, easy or entertaining.

At times, Edith Piaf is a real bitch. At other times, you couldn't possibly feel worse for her. Assuming accuracy, the film shows that Piaf had a very tough life. As a child, she panhandled for both of her parents. She lived with her grandmother in a brothel. She nearly went blind from Keratitis, however, as a child, she got her first opportunity to showcase her ability to sing. From there she went through the somewhat typical biopic up rise to success.

When I wasn't struggling to follow the timeline, I was recognizing that Piaf's life would have been much more sympathetic were it not for the chronological jumps throughout the film. There seemed to be no apparent consistency to the decision to go from Piaf as a child to Piaf in her early forties, back to being a child, to her late forties, to her twenties to her early forties again then back to being a child. All this really did was create confusion in the mind of an audience member. The end does reveal a half hearted twist that somewhat suggests a reason for the style of storytelling but neither the twist itself or that reason really win me over.

As for Cotillard... As one would expect, she is brilliant. I don't need to know anything about Piaf to know that Cotillard completely transformed herself to bring Piaf back to life. She was unquestionably deserving of her Oscar. When I finally reached a point of realization that I couldn't come up with any logical reason for the films chronology, I began to focus in on Cotillard and really appreciated the fact that not only was she brilliant but she was in all two hours and twenty minutes of this film. To sit back and marvel at that was not nearly as challenging as getting through the rest of the film.

Saying the film was challenging to get through is not to say that it wasn't good. That criticism is mostly based on the fact that the character, often times was not very likable. The film was too long as all biopics are and again, the timeline caused confusion. These elements aside however, Piaf's life is interesting enough to share. Whether I got a good impression of how her life went or if I just saw how she acted and behaved, remains unsolved.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Price (2009)

Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe

**1/2

I have the luxury of viewing and reviewing the Harry Potter films without the distraction of their loyalty (or lack there of) to the books. It gives me not only a certain freedom to create an independent opinion of the movie but also a freedom of enjoying the old tradition of not know what happens next.

The first two hours of the most recent epic installment of J.K. Rowling's story seemed to do a very good job of laying subtle and intriguing clues as to what will happen come the inevitably extraordinary climax of the film, however as the film progressed, I began to question whether or not these clues, while clinging to their intrigue, may have become too subtle and too infrequent. At one point, I passed this off as me looking too hard for something wrong with the film because for most of it, it played like one of those films that have an ebb and flow so smooth that you're engrossed to the point where you wonder if there is even anything wrong with it.

Of course the film is not perfect and that became more and more evident with each passing scene. Harry, Hermione and Ron have reached the age now where they've begun to have crushes on one another and other fellow classmates at the Hogwarts School of Magic. This is an important progression for the characters to make and for an audience, its entertaining, humorous and relateable. The simple joke of having characters behaving nervously and awkwardly around someone they like got good and consistent laughs throughout the film, (almost to the point where I think I laughed more often than I did during the Hangover, "2009's biggest comedy!") These jokes did reach the point of getting old however, yet still continued. This wouldn't have hurt the film enough to mention had that comedy not been an important element in setting up a pivotal turning point in the movie. By the time the movie got there, I wasn't really laughing at the repetitive jokes anymore.

When the film finally reached its climax it was over before it started. As the movie came to a close, I was still so hoping that all the subtle and intriguing clues I picked up on along the way were going to pay off much better. I, of course, recognize that the story of Harry Potter has yet to conclude and its very likely that director David Yates has brilliant plans for the final installment, however for him to be so meticulous with his setup and then give his audience no credit during the finale and completely shove what's happening right in our face was very unsatisfactory and disappointing.

Even without having read the books and knowing what is or isn't included in the film, I recognize how difficult it must be to craft a film that covers enough of the important aspects while still keeping it at a watchable length but I can't help but wonder if Yates spent too much time on the Harry Potter part of the title and not enough on the Half Blood Price part. We got a good look at the way Harry's social life is progressing, but that dark magic, the danger, the intrigue that makes Harry so special was somewhat absent throughout. It did, however, set me up for one thing... I want to know what will happen next.

Almost Famous (2000)

Directed by: Cameron Crowe
Starring: Patrick Fugit, Billy Crudup

*****

Almost Famous has always been one of my favorite movies but its also a movie that as time goes by I'm convinced is going to get worse with each viewing. This is mostly because of the fact that other Cameron Crowe films have fallen victim to just that but it also has something to do with the way the film is crafted... its cheesy.

All that having been said, this is still, one of my favorite movies of all time! Its a fantastic coming of age piece about a mid-level kid struggling with his own limitations in the harsh face of rock stars. William Miller (Fugit, while hardly turning in a good performance, works perfectly in the role and I can't imagine anyone else in it) follows and reports on the fictional band Stillwater on their tour across the country all on Rolling Stone Magazine's buck despite the fact that they've never met this journalist. Miller is a fifteen year old who until he was eleven, was under the impression that he was a year older thanks to his overbearing mother Elaine (Frances McDormand in a fantastic performance). His true passion for music sends him on this life-changing journey on which he meets people that shape his life.

The first ten-fifteen minutes of this movie is so obnoxious and contrived that I wanted to punch it in the face. I can't imagine reason good enough to warrant a mother convincing her son that he's a year older than he is. This is the same mother that forces her children to celebrate Christmas in September when it won't be commercialized. Did that already happen? Because Santa Claus is on the street in one of the first shots in the movie. These seem like little issues, but compiled into the first part of this movie, they really make for a confusing and pointless start. We would have been just as satisfied seeing William's sister leave home to the tune of Simon and Garfunkle because he mother won't let her listen to that music.

As soon as young William turns fifteen and Fugit enters the film, alongside Billy Crudup, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jason Lee and Kate Hudson in perhaps all of their career's best performances, this film transforms into perfection in so many ways. Nothing is unwarranted and even aspects that aren't necessarily believable in the real world work well. Every character is molded into someone you care about but at the same time feel frustrated with over the decisions they make. That is how involved I get in this film.

Yes, I've seen this movie many times before but upon this viewing, a first has occured. My review of Almost Famous becomes the first movie to sit pretty on this blog with a five-star rating.

Public Enemies (2009)

Directed by: Michael Mann
Starring: Johnny Depp

**1/2

I don't know whether or not to be disappointed with this movie. On the one hand, it was very much what I expected but on the other hand, I expect so much from Mann that anything short of great will always be a disappointment.

Every review I've read has been spot on about one thing, Public Enemies has some really brilliant scenes. The problem I had with the movie was that those scenes were about all they had to offer. Not to say that everything outside of these brilliant scenes was done poorly, I'm more suggesting that there wasn't much more period. The entire movie was much more of a collection of scenes than a story or John Dillinger or Melvin Pervis or the chase between the two.

While the fire fights between the Dillinger gang and the FBI were quite the spectacle, they weren't the same entertaining firefights we've seen in Mann films such as Heat and Miami Vice. The truely great scenes were the simple ones. The one's where Dillinger entered a bank and very calmly and casually robbed it in "one minute, forty seconds... flat". The were filmed so methodically, the music hightened at precisely the right times (something many other scenes can't take credit for) and we felt like we were watching the truest professional bank robber in American history. These were the scenes that made this film so great.

American history, in my opinion, may have been an aspect of this film that caused it harm. The four primary performances in this film were those of Depp, Christian Bale, Billy Crudup and Marion Cotillard. To begin with Depp as Dillinger, I'll say that this was perhaps the most perfect casting. What better actor could one choose to play a charming, handsome, talented American celebrity than Johnny Depp. That alone is what makes his performance work so well. I don't claim to know much about Dillinger's life and personality but I got the impression that Depp didn't waste time trying to be historically accurate in his performance, but to portray a celebrity. On the flipside of this, Bale and Crudup appeared to be mimicking the characters they were playing, rather than portraying an interpretation of them. Melvin Perivs is not a significant enough character in American history to demand an accurate portrayal. Take that away from Bale's performance and he would had more freedom to explore Pervis' struggles and frustrations while chasing Dillinger. The same applies for Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. I don't think I would have missed it, had Hoover's historically accurate voice been absent... I did miss a quality performance from an actor I like very much. Lastly, Cotillard falls more on the Depp side of things. Unfortunately, she simply plays the character off the page too much and lacks any depth and realism, perhaps no fault of her own as she is good in the film.

I hate to leave this review negatively because this film had a lot of positives. I went back and forth on it throughout and this is really due to its lack of consistency. Its amazing to see two and a half hours worth of amazingly crafted scenes but that doesn't make a good movie, it makes a good clip show more or less. Because the scenes didn't tie together to make a compelling story, the film lacked that consistency, it lacked suspense and really any emotional involvement. The performances and the quality of scenes within however, make it a worthwhile watch.

**1/2

Pineapple Express (2008)

Directed by: David Gordon Green
Starring: Seth Rogan, James Franco

I really enjoyed watching a movie that had no intentions other than to be funny, while at the same time, not suck. Whether this was the intention of the film, I don't know, but Seth Rogan and James Franco simply made me laugh for two hours.

Rogan plays Dale, a process serving pot head who dates a high schooler, in other words, he's a loser who witnesses a murder and confides in his pot-dealer Saul (Franco). The murderers attempt to track down Dale and Saul and kill them and nearly do so thanks to their lone clue, a joint of the latest, greatest marijuana, Pineapple Express. This routine plot sends Dale and Saul on the run, something that would normally call for a lot of physical comedy and while there is a fair share of such, that's not the kind of comedy that makes this film so funny.

While seeing James Franco jump into a dumpster garned some laughs, what was truely funny is that he said he didn't want to get out just because he already got in. The delivery of one funny line after another created a banter between characters that was simply brilliant. And that banter is what made these characters, who are just losers with nothing to care about in the world but each other and their weed, so likeable.

The story is simple and it works. The jokes are simple and they work. There was no need for an over the top joke to reel us back into laughing mode because the entire movie just put two real characters into a real situation (not necessarily realistic, just real) and they made me laugh. There was nothing subtle about the comedy... a film is very aware of the fact that its funny when a character beats someone up with a dustbuster, but it didn't shove that awareness in our face. The impression I got was basically, laugh at this if you think its funny. Eventually, we'll have a joke you like. There were several that I liked.

***1/2

Last September (2008)

Directed by Chapin Hemmingway
Starring: Jeremy Fiske

Yes, I am writing a review for Last September. Considering the fact that everytime I get together with Chapin, this movie is one of the handful of things we discuss, there's very little that hasn't already been said, but I'll procede regardless.

Last September has its flaws, none of which are fatal flaws. It also has its strengths, none of which make this movie great. The most important thing, however, is that the strengths outweigh the flaws, and that they do.

The story surrounds Mitchell, a young man stricken with confusion over his relationships after the death of his mother. He has only three relationships now. I'm not suggesting that the film should have delved deeper into the people he's known all his life but because there are only three and because this story's conflicts are created through his relationships, they need to be finely tuned.

The first relationship we are exposed to is with his girlfriend Claire. All we get is an exchange of eye contact. It works. We see that the relationship exists and we move on, a perfect opening. Then we are introduced to Tim, Mitchell's estranged friend who has finally made it back to pay his respects. They exchange a hug and decide to go some place to talk. Their relationship is established. Next we meet Mitchell's Dad, who's understandably is distant, he has just lost his wife, but he's distant from Mitchell. Why? Now would be a time for them to connect, but they don't, in fact they never really do which leaves us wondering why a relationship is introduced and not explored.

Mitchell's relationship with his Dad is easily forgotton however as the more important of the three relationships are those with Claire and Tim. Those relationships are what really shape the story into what it is. What it really comes down to is that Mitchell and Tim were great friends until Claire got in the mix. Without giving anything away, I'll say that its clear where the tension between the two comes from. What isn't clear is what that tension took away.

There's no backstory. There's very little reminicing. There's really nothing to suggest that Mitchell and Tim were ever friends at all. Its this that really makes the story struggle. At some points, its easy to dismiss this mystery but at others, its impossible to keep from wondering why these two very different people have any interest in spending time together.

The reason this movie doesn't fail however is in large part due to the performances. Fiske plays the confused, tormented character so well that that becomes his excuse for spending time with Tim (Drew Fletcher). Fletcher does a such a great job of hiding his guilt by presenting superficials to Mitchell that we're convince he does it to help him forget his troubles... its the only thing Tim knows what to do.

Overall, Last September is a quality film. The story, performances and visuals are all very compelling and engaging and the flaws of the film are minor.

***

The Battle of Algiers (1966)

Directed by: Gillo Pontecorvo
Starring: Brahim Hadjadj

Its hard to have a true appreciation for a movie like The Battle of Algiers. Its a period piece about a conflict I know nothing about so right from the get go, I need to spend most of my time learning what exactly is going on. What made me enjoy this movie so much is that this was easy to do.

I recently saw a highly acclaimed film called Army of Shadows which was about exactly what the title suggests but it too me nearly two thirds of the movie to figure that out. In the Battle of Algiers, there are not very many subtleties. It worries less about being perfectly specific and accurate (accurate... for all I know it could be spot on, but either way, its not important) than it does about creating the conflict and bring the audience into it.

France's hold over Europe and surrounding regions during the mid 20th century isn't something I'm very familiar with but it is something well documented in films. What these films so often do is portray France as not necessarily the enemy, but as the instigator. No one ever seems to have a choice but to fight back, thus regardless of how little we know, we're given our clear cut protagonist. The Battle of Algiers begins this way, but as the films progresses, it toys with our emotions and our loyalties.

Failing to choose a side is a dangerous move for a film to make, especially a narrative. While its important to give an audience its due credit, and audience goes to be entertained, not necessarily torn apart. The Battle of Algiers does this well because of who the aggressors and the victims are. Innocent people are harmed but for the sake of a just cause. The Algerian people seem to have a rightful cause for their aggression, but all the French are doing is fighting back in order to prevent further deaths of innocent people. How does one choose a side in that argument? The film makes this work because of the way it shows the emotions of all the characters. No one is one dimensional thus everyone has a purpose that can be understood if not condoned.

Something I found particularly fascinating about the film, something I've never really experienced before was the action of this film engaging me to the point where I often ignored the subtitles. It wasn't that the action was "action packed"... I mean the action in the truest sense of film language. Everything that appeared on screen told the story. It was a fine example of showing us the story instead of telling it to us. Its exciting having that in a movie since foreign films often work in the opposite way... that is one needs to pay such close attention to the subtitles that they miss action.

I think The Battle of Algiers is a great example of how a complex story can be told very simply. I didn't have to spend a lot of time learning the complexities. I could spend time learning the characters and their motives and I believe its important to have deep complex characters as opposed to a deep, complex story... at least in the case of this film.

****