In the montage sequence that plays out as the background for the introduction credits for Land of the Dead, a media commentator wonders what would happen should the zombies that have recently overrun the world evolve, become intelligent.
That it's starting to happen is established at the very beginning of the movie: the undead try to mimic their vaguely remembered mortality, and one of them even struggles with its, well, zombieness and tries for some sort of intelligence. But where a lesser film would have its hands full just exploring that tack on the genre, here it's just one of the many threads woven throughout.
The events center around a fortified enclave of humanity- an overcrowded, tightly policed ghetto sprawling around a huge building. This is Fiddler's green proper, where Kaufman, founder of the enclave gets to live in comfort with his cronies. Simon Baker plays Riley, the leader of a strike team charged with retrieving supplies from neighboring zombie-ridden communities. The raid that kicks off the movie goes a bit south, with two effects that set up everything that follows; Simon Baker has a falling out with his second in command, John Leguizamo, who hints that he's got a sweet deal staged for after the raid. And they manage to tick off an abnormally smart zombie, who raises a mob of corpses-in-arms and goes after them looking for revenge.
Zombies remain pretty much a background element until the final act, which is not nearly as bad as it sounds; all of the characters are extremely well developed (except for three standard, kick-ass soldiers with one defining trait), and the action is kept lively and interesting. And there's always Asia Argento to look at. It's hard to go into any detail without saying what happens, but suffice to say that the enclave is threatened with destruction not by the zombies, but a disgruntled ex-resident. It's surprising how, despite all the gore, this is not really a horror movie. It mixes and matches genres, but comes out pretty much as an intelligent action flick.
As I mentioned above, the character work is excellent- and they are uniformly well acted, with some truly great lines. Robert Joy stands out, and even the standard action hero has a real personality and a very healthy misanthropic streak. The gore is wonderfully abundant- people are torn apart in all sort of creative ways, and it's a treat to see the zombies pick up dismembered fingers from the floor and chomp them down with gusto. The action is very well choreographed and exhibits one of the most welcome traits that the movie shows in all its aspects- originality and inventiveness. It's also stylish but not too much so, and the effects are pretty good.
And, as with Romero's previous zombie entries, there is abundant social and political comment. While the dead are entranced and distracted by the living with fireworks, Dennis Hopper keeps control over the inhabitants Fiddler's Green with vice, military force and the specter of upward mobility. There are no easy outs, no deus ex machina, and the characters are true to themselves instead of following arbitrary scripting that serves only the plot. As 28 Days Later and Shawn of the Dead abundantly proved, the zombie movie is far from stagnant, but Land of the Dead trumps them all. It's an exhilarating, tight, brilliant little film that needs to be seen, even if you don't normally go for this type of thing.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Night Watch (Nochnoy dozor)
Apparently, there are others living among us. Special people with special powers who must chose between light and darkness and seem to feed on blood to power their gifts. (if they're good, animal blood, if not, well, they're vampires) After a disastrous confrontation hundreds of years ago, they coexist in an uneasy truce that has members of the light policing their dark brethren, and curbing their destructive impulses with regulations and paperwork.
And that is the titular Nightwatch. Events follow one of its members as he tries to rescue his son from a hungry vampire, and save the world from an ancient curse that is quickly reaching some sort of occult critical mass.
For all the fantastical elements, the action is fairly grounded by grittiness and a wonderful sense of humor. The action takes place in modern day moscow, and while the events and concepts in the background are high concept and world shattering, the action is kept relatively low key; the Nightwatch as an institution, for example, is underfunded and highly bureaucratized- it has more in common with a run down police station than with the hall of justice. The ideas the movie plays with are left frustratingly undefined, but imaginative and (perhaps because they are mostly left unexplained), intriguing. There are shapeshifters, an alternate mode of existence that all Others have access to that seems weirdly sentient and hungry, a mystic that plays out possible futures with beaten-up playstation 2, and echoes of a past confrontation playing themselves out in the present. All conveyed in a striking, highly stylized aesthetic vision that lies somewhere between arthouse and MTV. The effects are a mixed bag, but mostly succeed due to the artistic direction; the characters are likeable and fairly well defined, and that also helps overlook some weak acting.
The main problem with the film as it stands, is that it's quite unapologetically the first part in a trilogy. While events stand on their own, by the end it seems strangely lightweight, unsatisfying- but it's a good deal of fun while it lasts. As long as it keeps its tongue firmly placed in its cheek, its playfulness, and that wonderful balance between the fantastic and mundane, there are more than enough reasons to be optimistic about the next two installments.
And that is the titular Nightwatch. Events follow one of its members as he tries to rescue his son from a hungry vampire, and save the world from an ancient curse that is quickly reaching some sort of occult critical mass.
For all the fantastical elements, the action is fairly grounded by grittiness and a wonderful sense of humor. The action takes place in modern day moscow, and while the events and concepts in the background are high concept and world shattering, the action is kept relatively low key; the Nightwatch as an institution, for example, is underfunded and highly bureaucratized- it has more in common with a run down police station than with the hall of justice. The ideas the movie plays with are left frustratingly undefined, but imaginative and (perhaps because they are mostly left unexplained), intriguing. There are shapeshifters, an alternate mode of existence that all Others have access to that seems weirdly sentient and hungry, a mystic that plays out possible futures with beaten-up playstation 2, and echoes of a past confrontation playing themselves out in the present. All conveyed in a striking, highly stylized aesthetic vision that lies somewhere between arthouse and MTV. The effects are a mixed bag, but mostly succeed due to the artistic direction; the characters are likeable and fairly well defined, and that also helps overlook some weak acting.
The main problem with the film as it stands, is that it's quite unapologetically the first part in a trilogy. While events stand on their own, by the end it seems strangely lightweight, unsatisfying- but it's a good deal of fun while it lasts. As long as it keeps its tongue firmly placed in its cheek, its playfulness, and that wonderful balance between the fantastic and mundane, there are more than enough reasons to be optimistic about the next two installments.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Revolver
One would think one worthless movie that was universally reviled would be major wake up call, the kind of thing that'd save you from a rampaging ego.
In Guy Ritchie's case, it just prompted him to switch genres to one he had proved successful in before. And if Revolver is any proof, his ego is quite healthy... and his talent (luck?) is still on a holiday.
A more turgid mess is hard to imagine. The story follows a ex-convict who, two years after being freed from prison, is taken into confidence by two men that help him get even with a mafia big fish while they strip him of every cent. Sounds simple enough? Well, it is- the big twist in the movie is fairly clever, but easy to see coming. That's not the problem. The problem is that the film thinks it's absolute genius- from a stupefying voiceover that waxes philosophical over every inanity conceivable, to endless existential dialogues that never amount to anything, to scenes that don't have any reason to exist, stylistic choices that are there only to establish how edgy the director is, and plot twists and details that only make sense half the time.
What other explication is there for the animated segment, except that Tarantino did one in Kill Bill? Or... let's say you want to establish that a character has a split personality- would you explain it by showing him trapped in an elevator, with a dialog like this?
-Actor 1: I'm you!!!
-Actor 1: Noooooooooooooooooo!
-Actor 1: Yes!
-Actor 1: Noooooooooooooooooo!
-Actor 1: Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhh!
OK, I might be simplifying a bit, but the scene goes on for what seems like ages without being any more meaningful. A bit dismal for a film that thinks of itself as having the psychological acumen of a Bergman movie. Possibly the most excruciatingly painful scene I have had the bad luck to watch on the big screen this year.
On these grounds, it's quite easy to dismiss Revolver's self professed status as a mindfuck. Like most anime, it chooses quantity over quality by confusing complexity for depth. It's also overindulgent, wit-less, pretentious, and plain bad at moments. There is one extremely cool character- Sorter, a shy hitman with the face of an accountant and the moves of a Matrix stunt double. But apart from that, Revolver is a complete disaster from a would-be auteur who can't even blame the script, seeing as he wrote it...
In Guy Ritchie's case, it just prompted him to switch genres to one he had proved successful in before. And if Revolver is any proof, his ego is quite healthy... and his talent (luck?) is still on a holiday.
A more turgid mess is hard to imagine. The story follows a ex-convict who, two years after being freed from prison, is taken into confidence by two men that help him get even with a mafia big fish while they strip him of every cent. Sounds simple enough? Well, it is- the big twist in the movie is fairly clever, but easy to see coming. That's not the problem. The problem is that the film thinks it's absolute genius- from a stupefying voiceover that waxes philosophical over every inanity conceivable, to endless existential dialogues that never amount to anything, to scenes that don't have any reason to exist, stylistic choices that are there only to establish how edgy the director is, and plot twists and details that only make sense half the time.
What other explication is there for the animated segment, except that Tarantino did one in Kill Bill? Or... let's say you want to establish that a character has a split personality- would you explain it by showing him trapped in an elevator, with a dialog like this?
-Actor 1: I'm you!!!
-Actor 1: Noooooooooooooooooo!
-Actor 1: Yes!
-Actor 1: Noooooooooooooooooo!
-Actor 1: Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhh!
OK, I might be simplifying a bit, but the scene goes on for what seems like ages without being any more meaningful. A bit dismal for a film that thinks of itself as having the psychological acumen of a Bergman movie. Possibly the most excruciatingly painful scene I have had the bad luck to watch on the big screen this year.
On these grounds, it's quite easy to dismiss Revolver's self professed status as a mindfuck. Like most anime, it chooses quantity over quality by confusing complexity for depth. It's also overindulgent, wit-less, pretentious, and plain bad at moments. There is one extremely cool character- Sorter, a shy hitman with the face of an accountant and the moves of a Matrix stunt double. But apart from that, Revolver is a complete disaster from a would-be auteur who can't even blame the script, seeing as he wrote it...
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
A History of Violence
Call me soft hearted, but I'm partial to any movie that begins with a five year old girl being blasted point blank, even if the carnage is not shown. Oh, movie magic...
Vigo Mortenssen plays Tom Stall, owner of a small cafe in a small all-american town, loving husband and father of two adoring children. This may be the first mainstream movie I've seen that has an on-screen sixty-nine, but it tops that accomplishment by making it wholesome, somehow.
But it couldn't last, could it? Tom's ideal, placid life is interrupted by two crooks that stop by his diner with murderous intent; when it becomes clear that a bystander is in mortal danger, Tom springs into action and kills them brutally. He's hailed as a hero, and begins to readapt and try to live with the consequence of his actions. But now there are a couple of hoodlums tailing him and his family, calling him by another name and insisting that he come back to Philly with them. (A city Tom claims not to have visited in his life)
All in all, the story is a straight pulp one- by the numbers, even. Predictable and somehat heavy handed at moments. But the devil is in the details; in this case, David Cronemberg's quiet, naturalistic direction superbly contrasts what's going on plotwise. The action scenes, when they finally break out are realistic and utterly brutal, and the film as a whole lacks any stylization. This takes the action out of context, and gives it new meaning. At least, it would unless you're a jaded fucker like I am, in which case, it's all good fun- but I can still appreciate them trying. Too bad the script and the tone of the film don't match up like they do on one particular, brilliant scene (which can only be described as consensual rape).
Is it as good as the buzz it's been gathering says it is? Well, no, it's quite overrated- but it's still damn good, especially if you latch onto the small details, like the way these tough mafia goons are surprised by sudden explosions of violence. The fact that it does have a bit of depth, and how that depth is achieved,(by a clever director, not by a clever script) also elevate it and make it, at least in my opinion, a pretty damn good film.
Vigo Mortenssen plays Tom Stall, owner of a small cafe in a small all-american town, loving husband and father of two adoring children. This may be the first mainstream movie I've seen that has an on-screen sixty-nine, but it tops that accomplishment by making it wholesome, somehow.
But it couldn't last, could it? Tom's ideal, placid life is interrupted by two crooks that stop by his diner with murderous intent; when it becomes clear that a bystander is in mortal danger, Tom springs into action and kills them brutally. He's hailed as a hero, and begins to readapt and try to live with the consequence of his actions. But now there are a couple of hoodlums tailing him and his family, calling him by another name and insisting that he come back to Philly with them. (A city Tom claims not to have visited in his life)
All in all, the story is a straight pulp one- by the numbers, even. Predictable and somehat heavy handed at moments. But the devil is in the details; in this case, David Cronemberg's quiet, naturalistic direction superbly contrasts what's going on plotwise. The action scenes, when they finally break out are realistic and utterly brutal, and the film as a whole lacks any stylization. This takes the action out of context, and gives it new meaning. At least, it would unless you're a jaded fucker like I am, in which case, it's all good fun- but I can still appreciate them trying. Too bad the script and the tone of the film don't match up like they do on one particular, brilliant scene (which can only be described as consensual rape).
Is it as good as the buzz it's been gathering says it is? Well, no, it's quite overrated- but it's still damn good, especially if you latch onto the small details, like the way these tough mafia goons are surprised by sudden explosions of violence. The fact that it does have a bit of depth, and how that depth is achieved,(by a clever director, not by a clever script) also elevate it and make it, at least in my opinion, a pretty damn good film.
The Fog of War
For some reason I've always seen William McNamara as a bastard, a warmonger responsible for the evils of Vietnam. Old smear campaigns die hard, I guess, as I never really had a clear concept of who he was and what he did.
The Fog of War is a documentary on his life and work, beggining in the end of world war I but focusing on his work during the wars (cold and otherwise): the second world war, the cuban missile crisis, and Vietnam. The format of the film is that of a long interview, spliced together to forma a constant narrative; that's the backbone of the movie, McNamara's running narration- and if it works, it's not only because that man's story is intertwined with some of the most significant events in modern northamerican history. At 85 Mr McNamara is not only articulate, he's damn brilliant.
The film is no an apology, neither is it an indictment of his actions. This is the (seemingly) honest recounting of a very bright, very idealistic person, who, while fully admitting his mistakes, also provides the reason as to why they were made. The film's subtitle, eleven lessons from the life of William S. McNamara should be taken at face value; while the lessons are somewhat arbitrary (they don't quite do justice to the material that they are suposed to encapsulate), they are important nonetheless and quite timely. Consider this gem:
"If we can't persuade nations of comparable values of the rightness of our cause, then we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
The Fog of War is a documentary on his life and work, beggining in the end of world war I but focusing on his work during the wars (cold and otherwise): the second world war, the cuban missile crisis, and Vietnam. The format of the film is that of a long interview, spliced together to forma a constant narrative; that's the backbone of the movie, McNamara's running narration- and if it works, it's not only because that man's story is intertwined with some of the most significant events in modern northamerican history. At 85 Mr McNamara is not only articulate, he's damn brilliant.
The film is no an apology, neither is it an indictment of his actions. This is the (seemingly) honest recounting of a very bright, very idealistic person, who, while fully admitting his mistakes, also provides the reason as to why they were made. The film's subtitle, eleven lessons from the life of William S. McNamara should be taken at face value; while the lessons are somewhat arbitrary (they don't quite do justice to the material that they are suposed to encapsulate), they are important nonetheless and quite timely. Consider this gem:
"If we can't persuade nations of comparable values of the rightness of our cause, then we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
Collateral
It starts out promisingly enough, and for a while it's a solid, if unremarkable, thriller. Jamie Fox plays a likeable, professional cabbie that's hired for the whole night to take Tom Cruise (a hired killer) to the sites of five hits. When the Cab driver discovers what his fare is up to the standard cat and mouse games ensue, as the killer insists on using him as his personal chauffeur for the night.
While that goes on, there’s some uneasy character building going on between the two, and the movie also follows the police (and later, federal) investigation into the night’s killings.
And, as I said before, it works for a while. But keeping it up proves to be too much of a hassle. Even a workmanlike thriller like this one needs good craftsmanship, and it seems that everyone involved decided to wrap it up as soon as possible and go to the pub. Michael Mann has done some extremely good stuff in the past (Heat, The Insider, The Thief), but here he lazily follows a lousy script to increasing depths. The problems really start to show at a showdown in a discotheque, and when the final twist is revealed… oh what the hell, you can see this one coming a mile away, and besides, it’s in the trailer- it turns out that the cabdriver’s potential love interest (who he had a meet-cute with just that very night) is the final victim in the hit list. Fucking hell, what do they tell whichever fuck-wit that comes up with this shit? Insult the intelligence of the viewers as much as possible? Let’s see what’s the stupidest thing we can come up with and watch them gobble it up?
By the time Tom Cruise is unerringly tracking his prey in a subway complex (one assumes he’s using his scientologist superpowers to do it, why not?), the only thing that can conceivably keep you watching is morbidity. But then again, this movie scored 7.7 on IMDB… where’s my shotgun?
While that goes on, there’s some uneasy character building going on between the two, and the movie also follows the police (and later, federal) investigation into the night’s killings.
And, as I said before, it works for a while. But keeping it up proves to be too much of a hassle. Even a workmanlike thriller like this one needs good craftsmanship, and it seems that everyone involved decided to wrap it up as soon as possible and go to the pub. Michael Mann has done some extremely good stuff in the past (Heat, The Insider, The Thief), but here he lazily follows a lousy script to increasing depths. The problems really start to show at a showdown in a discotheque, and when the final twist is revealed… oh what the hell, you can see this one coming a mile away, and besides, it’s in the trailer- it turns out that the cabdriver’s potential love interest (who he had a meet-cute with just that very night) is the final victim in the hit list. Fucking hell, what do they tell whichever fuck-wit that comes up with this shit? Insult the intelligence of the viewers as much as possible? Let’s see what’s the stupidest thing we can come up with and watch them gobble it up?
By the time Tom Cruise is unerringly tracking his prey in a subway complex (one assumes he’s using his scientologist superpowers to do it, why not?), the only thing that can conceivably keep you watching is morbidity. But then again, this movie scored 7.7 on IMDB… where’s my shotgun?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)