Hell's Angels though was undoubtedly his most ambitious film project, and it cost a staggering $3.8m to make, which meant it made no profit on it's original 1930 release, as well as being the most expensive movie ever made to date. It was also the film that launched one his most famous women: Jean Harlow. Whilst the acting is at times a bit primitive, the film coming in the early days of talkie, it helps highlight Harlow's star power. Here she plays a seductive temptress, and with her blonde bombshell look, it's easy to see why she would soon become the next big thing in Hollywood. Her low cut dresses and risque demeanour is very near the mark. Thankfully colour tinted scenes were found in John Wayne's private vault in 1989 and the film has been fully restored, allowing the world to see the stunning Jean Harlow in colour for the first and only time of her career.
As great as Harlow is, she isn't the real star of this picture. That accolade goes to the aerial stunt footage created by Hughes. It should be noted that Hughes' obsessive and perfectionist nature resulted in the deaths of 3 air stuntmen on this movie. His strive for realism even drove him to perform one of the film's stunt himself, one in which all other stuntmen refused to do, as they said it was impossible. Hughes' performed and filmed the stunt, but crashed the plane afterwards, one of the first of his ailments that would no doubt affect him for the rest of his life. The resulting aerial footage is nothing short of a masterpiece as a large German Zeppelin wreaks havoc over London and a squadron from the Royal Air Force launch their defence.
Admittedly plot wise it lacks any depth or sophistication, historically it's inaccurate and the German's are perhaps overplayed as nationalistic evil doers; but none of this matters, as the film's good, is nothing short of magnificent; with the climatic shots of the dogfight, being something to marvel at. Even over 80 years' later it remains a special effects stalwart. This was undoubtedly Hughes' finest hour in film.
Source Code was a cerebral thriller, brought to us by Duncan Jones (also known as David Bowie's son Zowie). Having yet to see his first wide release film Moon, this was my first Duncan Jones film, and it was both impressive and enjoyable.
A soldier (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up in the body of an unknown man, and is part of a covert government programme to try and track down a bomber in Chicago. It's fast paced and action packed, and it's probably best not to say to much about it, as it doesn't deserve anything to be given away. Whilst some of the films concepts are quite complex, meaning that you have to pause for thought when you can, to get your mind round the ideas; the ideas portrayed are intriguing. It does become a bit over elaborate in places, especially at the end, but for the most part it is coherent and understandable. On the whole though it feels more like an amalgation of ideas from film pasts, rather than an entirely new way of thinking, but it still comes across as original.
Gyllenhaal gives a consummate action thriller performance, and really does a great job of captivating the audience into his bizarre journey. Though Jones treads a bit to close to the lines of melodrama, especially in the scenes with Monaghan and Farmiga (both of who were good in fairly limited roles). However, the dialogue serves as a steadfast balance to the adrenaline rush of the rest of the film. Jeffrey Wright also gives a notable, if somewhat clichéd performance as the man who designed the programme.
Perhaps the film lacks a little variety and is a bit too succinct to make it fully satisfying; but I have a feeling any more depth would have hindered the plot. It may not be as profound as it tries to be, but it is certainly one of the best action films of the last few years, and should be able to entertain most adult demographics.
Red River was the film that made Montgomery Clift a matinee idol; and though it was also the first film he made, it was The Search, that was released first. The style of neo-realist cinema from Italy was evident in this film about the post-war rehabilitation of surviving children from the concentration camp. It was possibly the first time, this style of neo-realism had been brought to an American audience, and it's a style that was very befitting of the subject matter.
Another unique thing about The Search, is that I believe it is probably the only film I've ever seen that dealt with the difficulty of having to reaccommodate the child victims of the concentration camps; not only to new homes, but to post-war society. The film had a great power in showing these vulnerable children struggling to cope with a new world, where the alien notions of trust and understanding were hard to comprehend. The film was greatly helped by being filmed against the backdrop of a rubble-laden Nuremberg; as well as the exemplary performances from the actors involved.
The most compelling performance was that of child star Ivan Jandl, who spoke no English and learnt his lines phonetically. Despite this, nothing was lost in his performance, and his on screen relationship with Montgomery Clift felt as real as the debried laden backdrop. Clift and Jandl also worked together off screen in order to enhance their performances further. Without Jandl the film may have felt a bit false and the film would have lost some of it's authenticity. The same may also be said of Clift, who is at both his most paternal and fresh faced, he gives possibly his most endearing performance on screen, and this is without having to resort to overwrought melancholy. Aline MacMahon and Wendell Corey give appropriate, albeit a little stoic support. Whilst opera star Jarmila Novotna works well as the indigent mother longing for her son.
Director Fred Zinnemann would go on to become a Hollywood stalwart, but this was the film that propelled him to the forefront of studio projects. As such it is probably one of his few films that succumbs to the Hollywood magic element that were prevalent in their post-war films. It manages to remain grounded and naturalistic, in spite of it's broad and tragic subject matter.
It's certainly a film that's hard not to dwell on afterwards; but despite it's hard to watch scenes, they are rewarding on an emotional and intellectual level. This isn't just a storytelling exercise, it's a history lesson and very enjoyable and rewarding one at that, showing it's audience the often overlooked logistical difficulties resulting from the war.
Michael Haneke is probably German most respected director at this moment in time, and on the eve of his Oscar triumph I watched his 2009 film The White Ribbon. Set in a small German village before world war 1, a lot of strange events start occurring, that appear to be some type of retribution against the villagers themselves. Alongside these events we are showing the abuse and repression that is experienced by the children of this village.
For a film that has to rely on the performances of it's young cast, it really does excel. The entire cast delivers this emotionally packed screenplay to a tee, and it really is a privilege to watch so assured performances in so many child actors. The cinematography is also fantastic, and the black and white filming set up the dark tone of this film nicely. Some of the shots in the film are sheer beauty and serve as a reminder of what foreign language films offer over today's output from Hollywood.
For all the technical quality this film has, it does unfortunately lack in a few areas; it's well crafted nature seems to come at a compromise to the pacing of the film and it is a little arduous to watch. It's ambiguous nature, whilst obviously an intended device, may leave the viewer a bit let down at points. However, as an allegorical satire of German society during this period it works perfectly, and when you do ponder upon some of the ambiguous aspects, you will discover the films intellect. It's a film that's hard to watch, but easy to admire; and one that simply would never get made in Hollywood.
Marnie was a film that is probably regarded, slightly unfairly as the beginning of the end for director Alfred Hitchcock. It is probably fair to say though it did signal the end of his most high profile films and his subsequent films became quite low key after this.
Marnie is a film though that manages to maintain all the signature elements of a Hitchcock classic. Tippi Hedren plays the central blonde/ femme fatale, and her character shares elements of recent Hitchcock blondes Janet Leigh and Eva-Marie Saint's characters. Sean Connery play the role of the cunning love interest that tries to out manouevre the manipulative Marnie. Like most of his films, this tries to maintain the mystery and suspense throughout the movie, but despite the best efforts of the cast, it just lacks the electricity of his previous thrillers. Some of Hitchcock's technical elements and special effects in trying to inject more suspense and excitement into the plot, come off as over the top and it has the reverse effect in detracting from the film's story. Hedren also tends to overact in places, but this may be down to her director trying to stir up more suspense and drama.
That said, it is probably one of Hitchcock's most challenging films and he tries to push the boundaries in what is allowed on film here. Though most modern audiences won't be surprised by the end, of the film, I imagine that it was quite a revelation back in 1964. Though a good film by anyone standards, it is one that probably rightly gets overlooked in the Hitchcock catalogue, as it just lacks something that sets it apart.
Django Unchained has to go down as Tarantino's homage to the spaghetti westerns; with it's combination of heightened violence, it's matter of fact attitude, mixed with low quality film for flashbacks, as well as it's Ennio Morricone soundtrack; it was a film comparable to Death Rides a Horse, My Name Is Nobody and the eponymous Django. Django Unchained though, is ultimately a high quality rendition of it's inspirations.
Having been unimpressed with Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, I was hesitant about this, being such a fan of the same films that inspire Tarantino. I needn't had been so worried, as this film is everything it sets out to be, and manages to update the themes of the spaghetti western for today's modern audience. What I absolutely admire about this, is that Tarantino doesn't hold back for one single frame of film, and neither do any of his actors, who give it their all and really do immerse themselves into their roles and the script. Tarantino has been getting a lot of slack for his overuse of the 'N' word in this film, and as someone who hates gratuity, I was apprehensive about this in the film. However, it works brilliantly as the antithesis of those decades of Hollywood movies that have shied away from exposing America's sordid past. Even though the word is used over 100 times in the film, it never comes across as gratuitous; and although gratuitous violence is something which can be labelled at Tarantino in the past, it is appropriate here, as it tries to match those low budget European Westerns, which tried to compensate lack of finance with overwrought violence.
My one question in regards to the acting, is how Christoph Waltz was only nominated as a supporting actor. He has nearly 2 hours of screen time, more than the majority of past best actors winners, and he is seamless yet again for Tarantino, I've yet to see Lincoln, but surely he could have even challenged Day-Lewis. As someone who is ambivalent to Jamie Foxx, I thought he was superb in the title role, and really fit the role of "mysterious stranger" that was so prevalent in the original spaghetti westerns. Di Caprio and Samuel L Jackson were also revelatory in their performances, given them a bit of a departure from the roles they usually portray. With Di Caprio, he is on occassion guilty of over acting, but here he is so immersed in the role, that his method is never on show, and you feel as immersed in his character as he is. There are also some great cameos in this film from veterans such as Bruce Dern, Don Johnson (unfortunately Kevin Costner had to pull out again) and the original Django Franco Nero. The film is also littered with all the sycophantic nods to the films that Tarantino has grown up with and loved.
As for the film it is atypical of a Tarantino film, in terms of editing, style and direction; but the film's real technical strength is it's superb screenplay, which is soaked in jokes, satires and the monstrosities of the pre-Civil War south. The one real let down of the film, came towards the end, when a scene felt like it was shoehorned in to work as a plot device, which led to the film's climax. That aside, this is a very good film, and a fitting Hollywood tribute to the film's that reignited the Western genre: The Spaghetti Westerns. It's probably Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.
Frame for frame, you would be hard pressed to find a finer looking Hollywood film than Days of Heaven. Terrence Mallick's second film after his debut, the seminal Badlands (which is also the only other Mallick film I've seen). Set against the backdrop of a mid-west farmhouse, in a similar vain to the Benedict farmhouse in the film Giant, some of the shots in this are simply sublime. For some critics though, this seems to have detract from the film's plot.
Admittedly Days of Heaven isn't the deepest film to watch in a literal sense, however it offers a lot in the way of metaphor and imagery, that results in an experience that at times seems other worldly. The scenes a comparable to Visconti's best, including the locust ascending from the wheat farm, which is sublime. The accompanying score from Ennio Morricone and it's Saint-Saens motif from 'The Aquarium' sumptuously enhances each shot further. Leo Kottke's 'Enderlin' also fits the bill nicely for the more up beat moments in the movie.
It's stars also have also never looked more beautiful on film, especially the young Richard Gere and Sam Shepherd. What also doesn't help the film plot wise, is the fact Terrence Mallick destroyed the script a couple of weeks into filming, and decided in letting actors work the story themselves. What results is a rather simplistic tale of a couple, who moonlight as brother and sister in an attempt to steal a rich farmer's wealth. Some may argue that there is a far deeper meaning to this film, and it could be viewed as commentary on life itself, with it's lead characters representing natures elements. With the amount of shots of nature intertwined with the story, it's easy to see why people have alluded to this.
Whilst the narration from the vindictive couple's little sister can grate at times, it serves well as a guide to this simplistic story through the narrator's simplistic point of view. The films editing is also questionable to time, as it tends to jump during transitions, where as gentle fades would have been more befitting the cinematography and story. However, I think the brevity of some shots, sets it apart from other beautiful films of it's ilk, and helps move the story forward. Though this results in a short film, nothing feels underdone, and the film is left with that "rewatchability" factor, predominantly for it's sheer beauty; but admittedly also for it's poignancy. Maybe not as profound as his debut Badlands, but Days of Heaven is nonetheless a special film.
No comments:
Post a Comment