December Marathon: Part 2 - Trouble in Paradise

After the first 20 minutes I wasn't sure I was going to like this movie because I was having a very difficult time following what the heck was going on. Despite it having a fairly straightforward story (con man and his wife infiltrate the world of a very rich society woman's world in order to rob her but things grow complicated when a love triangle begins to form) its very short running time (83 mins) means that there isn't a lot of time spent setting things up. Scenes move along at a very brisk pace and don't spoon feed you any information. You're expected to just keep up and fill in the blanks yourself. In fact that's one of my few complaints about the film, I wouldn't have minded it filling in some of those blanks on screen, but after the first 20 minutes I had a pretty good grasp on everything and started to really enjoy it a lot.

One thing that surprised me a great deal was the amount of innuendo, implied sex and sexual humor there was. I guess I just assumed a romantic comedy from 1932 would be fairly puritanical. Not sure why I thought that, but I was very wrong. I also liked the very rapid-fire dialogue between the 2 thieves (I suspect this paved the way for a lot of the screwball comedies of the 40s) and also the guy who plays the butler made me laugh a lot.

I'm surprised by how this extremely early romantic comedy seems so much more believable than most modern ones. By that I mean that the things the characters did and the situations they were in didn't feel contrived in any way, everything felt quite natural in fact. The ending (like the rest of the movie) seems pretty fast, but it works quite nicely.

I thought this was the first Ernst Lubitsch film I ever saw but upon inspecting his IMDB page I see that he also made "Shop Around the Corner" which I remember watching with my mom when I was younger. I remember very little about it, but perhaps I'll do a Lubitsch marathon at some point in the future.

2 movies into the marathon and we're going quite strong! I probably didn't enjoy this one quite as much as Rope, but it was wonderful nonetheless.

It's maaaaaaagic.....

Everyone has Harry Potter on the brain. I saw the newest film last week and while it's fresh in my mind I thought I'd share a couple of brief thoughts about each of the films in the series that have been released so far.

First, a tiny bit of background: I read the first Harry Potter novel when it was first released and I was age-appropriate for it. I remember enjoying it yet for whatever reason I never bothered to continue the series. Flash forward to the fifth movie being released and me having nothing to do. I went with my friends Oliver and Stefan (whom I worked with a a book store where Harry Potter fever was indeed in full swing). I dug the movie and went back and read the first 6 books in fairly rapid succession. At this point that's as far as I went, I've never read the 7th book (it's really long) but I have seen all the movies more than once at this point. I tell you this because I've noticed that moreso than most franchises the Harry Potter fans are REALLY generous about the movies. If you were to ask my sister they all should have won all the oscars each year (including best Documentary Short.) So I am a fan of the franchise, but I'm not exactly I lunatic die hard. (For die hard lunacy; see my defense of the Star Wars prequels.) Aw heck, I dun' introduced this enough...



Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (not fucking sorcerer's stone dammit...)
Directed by Chris Columbus
Grade: C


Disappointing. You have an amazing world of magic and creativity and you give it to Christopher Columbus. A very forgettable, middle-of-the-road kids movie that is saved by good casting. Can you imagine if they'd given this flick to someone with some style and creativity? Like Terry Gilliam? That's the first Harry Potter movie I wanted...






Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Directed by Chris Columbus
Grade: C+


See all my comments from above. Slightly better because the story of the second book was better than the story of the first. Still, very lowest-common-denominator adaptation. Possibly could have been higher but it also introduced the fucking "Jar-Jar Binks" of the Harry Potter universe in Dobby The House Elf.







Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Grade: A

BOOM! That's more like it! A director with some vision and style takes the reins and we get the first Harry Potter flick to be worthy of its source material. Continues the trend of having great casting to round out a very well paced and directed flick. I'd put the last 30 minutes of this one up against almost anything. Extremely well done.







Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Directed by Mike Newell
Grade: D-

It's hard to imagine I'd miss Chris Columbus, but even his crappy Harry Potter movies were better than this piece of shit. It's 100% unintelligible. I can't imagine a person who hadn't read the book having a clue what the fuck was going on. It's a complete train wreck. The only good thing I can say about it is that the cast does it's best and David Tennant is in it for about 6 minutes towards the end. Let's just forget this one ever happened.






Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Directed by David Yates
Grade: B+

My first Harry Potter movie and the one that got me to go and read the books. I like this movie. David Yates does a good job of deciding what to keep in and what to gloss over. Stylistically it's not quite as great as Azkaban, but it's still very good. Highlights for me are Gary Oldman as Sirius Black and Imelda Staunton as Delores Umbridge (she is fucking FANTASTIC in this role.) It loses a point though for being the film that introduces Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lastrange, easily the worst cast character in the HP universe. Apparently she thought her husband was directing this one and does this insanely annoying Edward Scissorhands bullshit and is so over the top that it's really distracting.


Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Directed by David Yates
Grade: B-

Another good Harry Potter movie. Not as good as Azkaban or Phoenix but still very good. Yates nails the darker tone and there are some really memorable sequences (the cave scene with Harry and Dumbledore looking for the horcrux comes to mind) There are a couple things that hold this one back. The biggest being the ending is very anticlimactic, it could have been a lot more exciting and action-centric but instead the ending just sort of lies there. Also the scene at the barrows in the middle where Beatrix Scissorhands shows up and blows up a building is completely out of place and makes no sense whatsoever.



Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Directed by David Yates
Grade: B+

I've already spoken about this but I'll say it's possibly the best one next to Azkaban (it's pretty close to Phoenix, but I'd have to see it again to decide which was better). The tone was just dark enough, there was enough going on that it didn't get boring (considering it's a lot of set up) and the acting is really good. Thank goodness those kids grew up talented. Once again Helena Bonham Carter's ridiculous over-the-top performance distracts me from an otherwise very good movie.





So there you have it. Bring on part 8!

Domino: A film reconsidered

When I first saw Tony Scott's 2005 film "Domino" I thought it was dreck. A complete trainwreck in every sense of the word. His usual kinetic (bordering on seizure enducing) visual style was amped up to the point where I never had a clue what was going on in any scene. I thought the story (at least I'm told there was one) was every bit as boring as it was impossible to follow and even the performances by actors I like a lot left me scratching my head.

This goes to show that every movie, no matter how much you think it stinks, is someone's favorite. My lovely wife LOVES this movie. It's in her all-time top 3 behind Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park so it's not as if she has poor taste (she married me after all.) She loved it so much that I figured I MUST have missed something or was being unfair in some way because how could I completely hate a film she loved so much.

It's incredibly interesting to me that 2 people can have such a polar opposite viewpoint about the same movie. How could I hate everything about a movie she loves everything about? Did we watch the same movie? I think so, we were in the same theatre after all. Perhaps it has to do with what different people look for in films, or maybe I'm too hard on the things I watch? Maybe I'm a pretentious snob? Maybe she's not as bright as I thought she was? Or maybe it's as simple as there being "no accounting for taste"

I decided to give it another shot; actually another couple shots. I have now seen the film 3 times, and you know what? After giving the film another chance and sitting through it with a completely open mind I can honestly say that every single complaint I had the first time I saw it... is completely true. This movie sucks.

December Marathon: Part 1 - Rope

We're starting the marathon off with a bang, or rather a gasp. The first film I've watched as a part of the 15 films in 30 days marathon I'm attempting is Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 underrated gem "Rope."


Rope tells the story of Phillip and Brandon, two intellectual young men who have decided that there are 2 types of people in the world; superior beings (intellectuals like themselves) and inferiors (everyone else.) The film opens as they murder a friend of theirs and hide the body in a chest in the sitting room in their home. It seems they've committed this crime just for the thrill of doing so and to prove their superiority by inviting friends (including the victims parents, girlfriend, best friend and also a teacher they all shared whose lectures seem to have sown the seeds of their nietzschean ideas played by the always brilliant James Stewart.)

The story is fairly straightforward (though never boring) but the real interesting thing about this film is the way it is shot. It's made to look as if the whole film is done in one take (wikipedia informs me that this is not the case, but all the shots are nonetheless very long, up to 10 minutes in fact) and the whole thing takes place in real time. The camera floats around the set while the action occurs around a single room. I'd love to watch the film again and again just to marvel at how well choreographed the whole thing is.

I think the reason I enjoyed this movie so much is that even without the incredible film-geek glee you feel watching how it's constructed, the performances and story are good enough that I probably would have been entertained regardless.

I had an excellent time with this film and can't wait to watch it again. I would recommend to anyone who is even the slightest bit geeky about movies. I can only hope the rest of the films in this marathon live up to the first.

Desert Island Discs, OR: How I Spent My Winter Vacation

The bride and I just returned home from a holiday in Phoenix where we saw Roger Waters perform "The Wall" (which was amazing) and the hotel we stayed in just happened to be across the street from an AMC theatre. Because of this (and because he had no car and cabs in Phoenix are absurdly expensive) we found ourselves in the (extremely comfortable) theatre on 3 of our 5 nights away! Here are some very quick thoughts about the three films we saw. I doubt I'll bother with full reviews of any of them (especially since everyone in the universe has already reviewed the one which ended up being the best of the three).




"Tangled" - Directed by Nathan Greno & Bryon Howard

Of all the films in the Disney Princesses catalogue, this is surely the most recent. It was fine. I would have preferred traditional 2D animation, but the CG animation was fairly good (though not Pixar good) the supporting cast was more entertaining than the main characters (which is usually the case in Disney fairy tales) and the jokes were pretty funny. Ok, some of them. Quite often a good way to gauge a Disney movie is by how good the music is. This one's music falls somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy of Disney's films. Which is what I'd say about the movie as well.







"Unstoppable" - Directed by Tony Scott

I usually like Tony Scott's movies but HATE the way he shoots and edits them. This movie is no exception. It is in fact better than the majority of Scott's output, but it features his trademark kinetic camera and uber-hip music video style editing. Of all of his films this one might suit that style the best (and it's the least distracting here.) Having said that, I still found myself frustrated sometimes by the way everything spun around and cut so insanely fast. If you like Tony Scott's style it won't bother you here, if you don't like his style it will probably still bother you here. Only real complaints I have are with an unnecessary subplot involving the hero's marriage (which is very tacked on and the stakes are high enough without it) and the overuse of "news reports", once was fine, twice was ok, 4007 times was overkill. But when Tony Scott likes something (like say spinning the camera around someone and then suddenly zooming in VERY VERY fast before cutting away to blurry speed lines like a Speed Racer cartoon) then overkill is usually what he seems to aim for.



"Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1" - Directed by David Yates

This was my favorite of the three movies we saw and also the one about which I'll say the least. I thought Yates did an excellent job of setting the tone for the film (spoiler: It's DARK) and setting up for what I am sure will be a hell of a lot of payoff in the next. He does all this without having this film drag, which is surprising given it's 2 hr and 37 min run time. I felt it flew by! How very very lucky we are that these kids grew up to be pretty decent actors! This is definately the best Potter film in the series so far.





So that's it. I saw a few other things on HBO (we had EIGHT channels worth of HBO... it was what I imagine heaven would be like.) but they were all either things I'd seen before or things that came out a while ago so I doubt anyone wants to read about (but if you're curious what I thought of "Whip It" I thought it was alright but not nearly as good as I'd been led to believe. B- ) Tomorrow is the start of December which marks the beginning of my December marathon. I'll be posting about the films in it as I watch them. Feel free to follow along and leave your thoughts in the comments if you're so inclined.

"Let Me In" (2010) - Matt Reeves

Here we go! My first review of this new blog. I always have so many thoughts after I watch movies and the 140 character limit on twitter doesn't allow me to express them adequately. Hence, this blog. There likely won't be any sort of schedule for updates. Just whenever I watch a flick and want to comment on it. I don't have a lot of experience writing movie reviews so I'm not sure how well they'll read, they may be kind of rambling at first until I figure out what I'm doing so bare with me. I love discussing movies whether we agree or not so please leave comments and tell me how incredibly wrong I am about the movies I review! Anyway, on with the show

.

WARNING: Here there may be spoilers. Read at your own risk.

I'm going to preface this review by saying that I am a very big fan of the original 2008 Norweigan film "Let The Right One In" of which this film is a remake of so a lot of what I have to say about it will be in comparison with the original. At first I was troubled about so much of my thoughts on this film being coloured by my reaction to the original, but I think that the two films are so similar (even sharing a lot of dialogue) that it's not unreasonable or unfair to compare the two as much as I'm going to.

"Let Me In" is the story of Owen (played by Kodi Smit-McPhee); a young boy tormented at school by a pack of bullies (more about them later) and largely ignored at home by a mother in the midst of a messy divorce (more about this later also.) Owen meets and befriends Abby (played by Chloe Moretz) a "12 year old... more or less" girl who moves in next door. As the two grow closer eventually Owen discovers that she is not a little girl after all, or rather she is, but that's not all she is. She's also a vampire. Spooky. There is also a police detective (played by Ellas Kotteas) investigating the murders that have been committed by the man who lives with Abby (played by Richard Jenkins) in order to supply her with the blood she needs to survive.

This is one of the better remakes of a horror film that I've seen done. Matt Reeves should be commended for "not fixing what isn't broken" for the most part. He maintains much of the atmosphere of the original and makes only very minor changes to the script (he changes 2 characters from the original and creates the character of the policeman who fills the role of one of the absent characters). A great deal of the dialogue is word for word (except for it being in english) the same as the original, as are a lot of the camera shots. They look good. Unfortunately whenever Reeves is doing something different from the original the results aren't quite so good, in fact they are often downright lousy. (A scene in a car is a good example of this.)

I really love that this film wasn't afraid of maintaining the slow pace of the original. My biggest fear going in was that we would lose so much by adding a bunch of ACTION, but Reeves doesn't really do that... ok he does it once or twice and both times it completely fails for me, but apart from two sequences I was very pleased with how restrained it was. Although there are a couple OHMYGODSOMETHINGSCARYJUMPEDOUTATMEANDMADEALOUDNOISE!!! moments (it's a modern american horror flick, of course there is...) for the most part the eerie silence of the original is maintained.

At first I wasn't sure what I thought about the addition of the police officer character replacing the neighbourhood guy in the original. Ellas Kotteas is very good in the role, he's just not given a lot to do.

Chloe Moretz is a excellent. She's almost as good as Lina Leanderson was in the original, which if you've seen the original you'll know is very high praise indeed. She's been the strongest aspect of both movies I've seen her in now (although this is a WAAAAAAYYYYYY better film that Kick Ass. Just sayin) Unfortunately, the movie goes out of its way to remove a lot of the "innocence" the character has in the original by removing a great deal of the ambiguity about her motivation in befriending Owen that there was in the original. The film really goes out of its way to show that she has somewhat ulterior motives for doing so. The beauty of that aspect in the original was how subtle it was, it was much more open to interpretation, this version it gets laid out for you a little too clearly. I was a little disappointed by Smit-McPhee as Owen. He lacked the naive sweetness of the original. He was always either looking mad or just staring with a blank expression, and he really has to carry a lot of the film because it's about him! I found I didn't really care that much about what happened to him (had I not seen Kare Hedebrant in the original I may have been much more impressed).

I worry it sounds like I didn't enjoy this film. That is SO not the case. It's a good movie to be sure, the problem is when you remake a truly great film good doesn't seem as good you know? The majority of my gripes with this version are small nitpicks, however there are a couple things that I think really fall flat that I feel I need to mention.

First, THE SCORE. So much of the atmosphere gets killed when the score starts to swell up to remind us "THIS PART IS SCARY!" It just sounds SO cliche and generic that it really annoyed me. It's just so intrusive and distracting.

Next, THE BULLIES. They are incredibly cliched over the top bad guys. I have trouble believing them for a second. Well at least the lead bully (and his older brother who shows up later) the other two are just props. They do NOTHING in the whole film. They add nothing to any scene that they're in. They just stand there. In the original the two sidekick bullies have limited screen time, and yet they are still interesting characters! These ones aren't characters at all.

Reeves does a good job of showing us how lonely and troubled poor Owen is (even though Smit-McPhee doesn't really) he does such a good job of this with the atmosphere and mood of the movie that the 5 or so minutes he spends showing us what his parents are like feels like an afterthought that is SO unnecessary. We see that the mother is quite emotionally absent from Owen's life (and I LOVE the way Reeves never shows her face clearly. That just worked SO well for me) so the moments where he calls attention to the fact that he's given her an problem with alcohol just feel unnecessary. Then there's a scene where Owen calls his father on the phone and the whole thing just FAILS. The conversation isn't believable to me for a moment. They just feel like really superfluous scenes that weren't needed.

My last major gripe comes at the climax of the film, it really falls into modern horror traps. The music is intense, the lighting is dark and everything is really kinetic (which is SO out of place in a film where much of the action is so static). It completely misses the point of that scene for me. It goes for OMGSCARY and I think it fails at that too.

It feels like there's 2 movies here. One is a slavish remake of the original, the other is standard modern american horror fare. It's quite troubling to me that when Reeves copies the original it works and when he tries something of his own it falls flat.

Overall, I liked this movie. It's quite good. But, if you're only going to watch one of them stick with the original which is great.

I debated whether or not I would bother assigning grades to my reviews on this site, but I think I will if only because after rereading this review it seems pretty negative and I did really like it. So, I will be using a letter grade system here and they will appear at the end of each review.

RATING: B- (and A for the original)