Saturday, December 30, 2023
Films from cheap DVD collections
Saturday, December 9, 2023
Every 2023 movie I’ve seen so far
Saturday, September 16, 2023
Don't waste time investigating Billy Jack
Because a collection was at Walmart featuring the character's entire legacy, I finally had a look at Billy Jack (1971), a movie I first heard about when investigating historic box office results. Until then I had no clue it existed, which is incredibly rare for a large box office hit, which is a phenomenon that happens because a movie makes a significant impact on the pop culture and will be referenced one way or another for years to come. The Oscars are a completely different matter. Most nominations are minor films featuring performances or production work Academy voters are keen for one reason or another to recognize, and it's always been that way.
Actually watching Billy Jack explained why this happened to it pretty quickly. It's a terrible movie. Its predecessor, The Born Losers (1967) is terrible. Its sequels, The Trial of Billy Jack (1974) and Billy Jack Goes to Washington (1977; which doesn't fail because it's an almost complete reshoot of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but because it retains the same hairbrained production values as the rest of the series, which has as its dubious legacy forcing the blockbuster concept on the wide release schedule movies have been following ever since), are terrible.
I mean terrible. The title character (which is itself terrible) is a macho hippy. But a hippy all the same. All his supporters are hippies. The real hippies, not the ones the media has tried for decades to sell on a gullible public in the post-hippy era. Basically the ones Quentin Tarantino features in Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood, only the Billy Jack hippies are presented as the counterculture heroes of legend, a huge emphasis on "heroes."
The most offensive part, for me, is that these hippies believe they make good music, but they seem fundamentally incapable of any such thing. The whole series features, proudly, the anthem "One Tin Soldier" which, if you're keeping up with me, is terrible. Just so completely convoluted it's difficult to understand how even one film, much less any audience member (it's described elsewhere online as iconic) could believe for a hot minute it isn't complete garbage.
Billy Jack himself is pretty awesome. He's a dude who can't help but get into fights, and he pioneered martial arts as a cinematic way to do so. He's worth rooting for, but nothing around him really justifies his actions except in the most cardboard way. It's like the charisma of Steve McQueen without the cool. Basically every successful Steve McQueen flick was all about selling the cool image. It was the whole point. McQueen went well out of his way to make sure he looked cool. He had an ego. In the right context, that's exactly all you really need.
Billy Jack desperately needed anything, anything at all to work. The success of the films, such as it was, owed everything to guerilla marketing. It worked. For that time. But no one in the Hollywood establishment respected the results. You don't need that. But you do need good filmmaking.
So do yourself a favor, and don't waste time investigating Billy Jack. It's not worth your time. Unless you have morbid curiosity.
Saturday, September 9, 2023
Always adding physical media into the collection…
I never stopped buying DVDs to my collection. I only started buying Blu-rays a few years ago, when I finally got a player upgrade. Yesterday (and today!) was pretty lucky. I always like to check out thrift stores to see what they’ve got. A local community college had apparently purged its collection (because, y’know, streaming platforms fall all over themselves promoting classic film…), had even tried giving their stock away for free, and, well…I ended up getting to benefit. I certainly don’t mind!
Here’s what I picked up:
-As You Like It, one of Kenneth Branagh’s later Shakespeare adaptations. Haven’t seen it yet.
-Blow Out, a Brian De Palma/John Travolta classic I also haven’t seen yet, in a Criterion Collection edition, no less.
-Cloud Atlas, one of those supremely ambitious novels/movies with an all star cast headed by Tom Hanks in probably (several) of his most interesting performances, which I’ve been wanting to revisit for a few years.
-Dog Day Afternoon, an Al Pacino classic I’ve never seen.
-Exit Through the Gift Shop, a documentary on Banksy. Back in yon Borders days, I learned about the graffiti genius through a number of books we always had stocked. A few years back I saw a different Banksy doc on a plane ride.
-Frost/Nixon, which is another movie I’ve long wanted to see.
-A doc on Hemingway.
-The Madness of King George, a ‘90s movie that I’ve also been interested in seeing for years.
-The Man Who Would Be King, which I’ve been wanting to add to my collection for years. Great movie.
-Tess of the D’Urbervilles, a BBC production starring Gemma Arterton I’ve had in my collection before and am glad to add back in, also so I can watch it again.
-Whale Rider, which I’ll be very happy to see again.
-White Christmas, which is a big family favorite I haven’t owned until now.
-Leading Men/Leading Ladies, one of those collections of material that would probably have not sold much individually. By far the production I’m most interested in, here, is The Night America Trembled, concerning Orson Welles’ infamous radio broadcast of War of the Worlds.
Dollar Tree is a surprisingly good place to find interesting things, including books and, yes, DVDs (and Blu-rays!). Today I found:
-Good Kill, a movie starring Ethan Hawks and Zoe Kravitz (which will probably be the first time I see her in something other than a genre performance).
-The Sun Is Also a Star/Everything, Everything, two adaptation of Nicola Yoon books.
-Killing Eve Season Two, a BBC series (Dollar Tree often has BBC programming, including generous helpings of Doctor Who) starring Sandra Oh and Jodie Comer (who stole The Last Duel from Adam Driver and Matt Damon). Haven’t seen the show yet, so this will be interesting.
-Spectacle: Elvis Costello with…, a TV series featuring interviews with and performances from a variety of interesting folks.
-Best of British, a box set of various documentaries and several facsimiles of historical documents, which was indeed an awesome find.
Saturday, September 2, 2023
Oppenheimer (2023) Review
rating: *****
the story: The director of the Manhattan Project discovers great achievements don't always have happy endings.
the review: Most of the time, when you see what's going to be your favorite movie of the year, there ought to be no doubt. Christopher Nolan has been one of my favorite directors since 2001, when Memento was released, and for a few years held the slot of my favorite movie, and in the two decades or so since, he's continued to make movies that I have very enthusiastically received, The Dark Knight, Inception, and Interstellar being my favorites from their release years (2008, 2010, 2014). Although it received a considerable amount of pre-release buzz, in part because it was scheduled to hit theaters the same weekend as Barbie, I had no idea what to expect from Oppenheimer. I loved his previous attempt at historical, WWII drama, Dunkirk, but it didn't feel like an achievement so much as an experience. Nolan is very good at experiences, and has at times been on the verge of letting his talents rest of that level alone (here I certainly think of Tenet, which is its own kind of great filmmaking, but not as clear a statement). Oppenheimer is a complete package. As social media personality Logan Paul famously lamented, it's pretty much nothing but talking, but it's a tonal masterpiece. The score certainly helps, but three hours of a perfect score is something even Terrence Malick can't necessarily reliably pull off. Eventually there needs to be some concrete substance, and that can be found in spades throughout Oppenheimer.
It certainly doesn't hurt the sheer embarrassment of talent, and this is something even I can sometimes get carried away being dazzled by, but Oppenheimer's cast is stuffed to the rafters, and most of its actors are in relatively small roles while the bulk of the film rests on Cillian Murphy (long looking for that one great role, which this is) and a little on Robert Downey Jr. finally proving, once again, he's not just a superhero great at making quips, very deliberately changing his look and most of the time sounding nothing at all like Tony Stark (though happily our Iron Man comes out of his shell now and then), and Emily Blunt resting comfortably in the background until she commands the screen, and Rami Malik echoing that, and Matt Damon playing first supporting role (the man is as near a genius at selecting material as modern cinema has ever found, so often willing to play whatever role he wants it's astonishing that he's also remained a reliable leading actor the whole time), and then there's also Casey Affleck, Gary Oldman and Kenneth Branagh, Jason Clarke...A pair of would-be next generation lead actors, Dane DeHaan and Josh Hartnett, they're here.
Tom Conti, a respected actor from a previous generation, turns in a chameleon role as Einstein, a pivotal if minor one in the movie. Einstein's role itself in the movie is genius, stepping away from the theatrics of The Prestige's Tesla though hinging on the same basic story structure, of a crucial moment between two characters that must be examined either by the audience or by the story itself to be understood as so crucial, the kind of storytelling Nolan employed in his first movie, Following, that had one of those twist endings that originally made Nolan himself seem as if he might after all be dismissed as a gimmick, as M. Night Shyamalan was for so long (and so many still believe so today), a fad.
Oppenheimer is the definitive proof that Christopher Nolan is no such thing. When Spielberg delivered Schindler's List and then Saving Private Ryan, his own one-two WWII punch, it opened new avenues of appreciation for his talent, and depth of talent. Nolan, even in his superhero movies, never went broad. He sought audience approval in scale of spectacle, the way Spielberg did it in the '70s, and never in mere thrills or childlike awe. For too long Nolan was easy to dismiss because he didn't pursue the "truly adult," the straightforward drama. Even Dunkirk relies on a series of timelines that robs it of a center beyond the central event. Oppenheimer is classic Hollywood, a biopic. Except no one's done it like this before.
In most of his films, Nolan studied the concept of not just identity but self-identity, and while his characters often find themselves misunderstood, he's never really allowed them to suffer for it, never quite left the impression of an unhappy ending, and yet that's exactly what he does with Oppenheimer, and is thus the answer to why Einstein's brief role in the film is so crucial, why the story keeps circling back to it. In criticizing the past, Nolan is of course giving us a damning metaphor about the present, since sometimes when you can't state things outright, you have to elucidate another way.
I've long since stopped worrying about what Christopher Nolan can possibly do next. Anything he wants. It's all possible. Of course he could never make another film, and his work will have already towered over his contemporaries, and the whole history of the medium.
Saturday, August 12, 2023
2022 Capsule Reviews
Saturday, July 15, 2023
2021 Capsule Reviews
Saturday, July 1, 2023
The Flash (2023) Review
the rating: ****
the story: Barry Allen attempts to rewrite his own history, and instead breaks the timeline.
the review: It's going to be completely impossible for anything resembling a reasonable popular consensus on the DCEU to exist for years, decades. Its proximity to the height of the MCU created a huge distorting effect in much the way DC and Marvel in the comics have competed for top placement for sixty years. Simply put, their coexistence could not be reconciled by the mere weight of pop culture. The Flash is a last attempt to conclude the DCEU, in the most dramatic way possible, and to my mind a hugely successful one, although it has features that are admittedly hard to appreciate.
Chiefly, its special effects, especially the crucial depiction of the Speed Force, where Barry Allen watches outside regular time the effects of his speedy travels. After the high water mark of Quicksilver's appearances in the X-Men movies, the superpower of speed was always going to be difficult to depict in a truly satisfying way. Actually, The Flash opens with a scene that tops them, improbably saving the lives of a bunch of babies while looking like it's the last thing on his mind. I work with babies. This is the kind of scene that will win easy bonus points for me. Otherwise, Barry looks unreal on his feet, in ways Spider-Man never did slinging through New York City in the Sam Raimi movies that set the new bar for the genre twenty years ago. But it's because, dude's ability is running. This is never going to look awesome. Not if you're forced to depict it.
There's really no way around that. But the story itself is absolutely killer. Geoff Johns first wrote this story in the breakthrough event comic Flashpoint, which has already been adapted twice, once in the Flash TV series (third season) and the animated movie Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox, which like the comic depicted Barry brutally electrocuting himself with lightning to try and get his speed back. For me this is iconic material. For me, when Barry has to say goodbye to his mom at the end of the film, it means more than Rocket Raccoon, the b-plot in his starring role for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, gets some kind of comeuppance. It's earned.
And around that, you've got Barry, the version of Barry Allen that could only exist as portrayed by Ezra Miller, essentially first and foremost essentially starring opposite himself. And then you've also got Michael Keaton returning as Batman. This was heavily promoted in exactly the opposite way as Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield showing up in Spider-Man: No Way Home (uh, spoiler?), since you can't hide such a crucial point. In a lot of ways, it's almost the whole point. We're in an age where seeing old stars in old roles is supposed to be the selling point. This isn't even nostalgia but awareness that some franchises were abandoned, or changed, too quickly. Keaton only made two Batman movies, and while one of them isn't as fondly remembered as the other, everyone was always bummed he didn't appear in the other two. It's the same impulse that brought Connery back to Bond, eventually, at least for one more movie (even if it's technically unofficial), forty years ago. This is really nothing new.
The movie climaxes on Barry's fight against himself, a third version who couldn't let go. It's not really the fight with Zod, the deaths of Batman and Supergirl, although this part of the movie is directly addressing the DCEU, the controversial way Man of Steel ended, the "original sin" that needed erasing a decade ago. Most MCU movies only ever have the one kind of ending. Guardians 2 had "Mary Poppins," which is what redeems it for some fans. That's a rare exception. Usually the villain is meant to be the villain, and the hero just needs to defeat them. They don't really learn anything. They just move on to the next one. For a long time, that formula worked, and a DCEU trying a different narrative was cognitive dissonance: "That's not what these kinds of movies should be doing!" They're supposed to be emotionally simplistic. Their ambition is just building to Thanos!
In a lot of ways, the implosion of the DCEU resulted in something far more interesting. The Flash might have been envisioned in its basic shape this way all along, but it has far greater symbolic meaning. You get to see all those digital cameos, and even the official ones, because this is an ending. Its story takes on greater resonance for it. Barry needs to let go, and figure out that it's better that way. Same, The Flash. Same.
Asteroid City (2023) Review
the rating: ****
the story: Young achievers are unexpectedly at the heart of an unlikely alien encounter.
the review: So I've really gotten into Wes Anderson, finally, and predictably it's just when critics have gotten over him. I mean, they've been over him for at least a decade, and I didn't get into him, really, until a few years ago, so it's not that surprising. Of course I had to see Asteroid City. Of course it was likely that I would enjoy it. I expected to like it more, but I definitely liked it. The appearances of Tom Hanks and Steve Carell actually created a kind of uncanny valley, that breaks the typical mold of total control on Anderson's part. Most actors who appear in his films fit the mold perfectly; Hanks can't help but be Hanks, and the same is true of Carell. Everyone else (Owen Wilson is atypically absent, but Jason Schwartzman, another longtime collaborator, is back in a starring role) very much fits in nicely.
"You can't wake up if you don't go to sleep."
That's how the movie ends. This is not a spoiler. Just as Amsterdam ends with each of the principle characters reciting the eponymous city name to the audience, and Cradle Will Rock builds to the climactic moment from the 1937 play it's built around, Asteroid City concludes with the cast of stage actors reciting this line. How much you appreciate the movie is likely tied to how much thought you put into it. The movie preceding it plays out along two separate tracks: one is a presentation of a play, and the other as if the play were happening in reality and not on a stage. Schwartzman's character pulls himself out of the play when he struggles to understand why his character chooses to burn his hand on a grill, and so clearly Anderson's intent is for his audience to figure out his intent, too.
"You can't wake up if you don't go to sleep." There will be plenty of speculation about it for those interested, and so maybe this review isn't really the place for it, but the story pretty happily busies itself with the story of Schwartzman's character in the story trying to have an honest reckoning with himself and his young family, something he's been avoiding for the past few weeks. Eventually an alien shows up (an absolutely perfect moment, a perfect marriage of Anderson's best live action and stop-motion instincts). Around all this, as Anderson movies tend to go, a niche community (well, in this case, two) is explored, although it's not really the point, but how the community(s) reacts to circumstances.
Me, I'd choose, if forced, to interpret the point of Asteroid City to warn against comforting complacency, that in order to make progress you have to challenge yourself. But this isn't possible unless you're first willing to admit your complacency.
At any rate, Hanks and Carell are the signifiers that although this acts and behaves like a typical Anderson movie, it really isn't. He is very obviously trying to make a point. It's very possible this will raise Asteroid City's value for me, later, when I will have more fully digested the results. But it's certainly another excellent effort on his part.
Marlowe (2023) Review
the rating: ****
the story: Private detective Philip Marlowe searches for a dead man.
the review: Some movies get dismissed by critics seemingly without their ever having watched them at all. I assume Marlowe was simply because it was another Liam Neeson movie in the era of Taken, when he's chosen to star in an endless series of movies of that ilk. The other reason would be the pointless crusade of the media to protect Old Hollywood by immediately rejecting anything that could possibly evoke it. Raymond Chandler's Marlowe was of course the character Bogart played in The Big Sleep, one of his Big Three roles alongside The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca.
At its heart Marlowe is of course evoking classic film noire, but not as obviously as, say, the Sin City movies. It isn't shot in black and white, for instance. The storytelling beats are all there. The end of the movie evokes Maltese Falcon, even Raiders of the Lost Ark, making a joke of the whole idea of the maguffin, since the real point was exploring the nasty secrets of Hollywood (apparently no way to make a living making movies these days). Having recently rewatched The Third Man, I couldn't help but think of Marlowe as more that kind of movie, although of course its inversion, since Third Man famously stars Orson Welles, whom we don't see until about the third act, whereas Neeson is obviously the star of Marlowe and its "third man" is another very capable Mexican actor doomed to be ignored by mainstreatm modern Hollywood (hello, Die in a Gunfight!), who just so happens to sound like Brad Pitt. The whole point of casting Neeson in a movie like this is to draw on the Taken mystique, to find Marlowe credible in all his story beats. But Marlowe is otherwise nothing like Taken. In fact, most of Neeson's Taken movies try to find some interesting variation. I remember Unknown finding interesting things. Marlowe has more in common with A Walk Among the Tombstones than Taken. But critics want Neeson to star in another sad Irish epic like Rob Roy or Michael Collins, or Schindler's List. Forget that they ignore stellar work in Silence, A Monster Calls.
The director is the reliable Neil Jordan, the screenwriter William Monohan, neither of whose work deserves such casual dismissal. Neeson has Jessica Lange and Diane Kruger as his dames to kill for, the likes of Danny Huston (born for this role, possibly his best iteration of it, in such a pure state), Alan Cumming, even Colm Meaney, Adawale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (playing the role Dennis Haysbert did in the second Sin City, but a heroic version).
This is a version of classic Hollywood, sure, but the version that was possible to make in 2023. You don't win any points by claiming "they did it better back then." There are so many versions of so many stories told over so many thousands of years, you don't win points by stating, "they did it a hundred years ago." Characters like Marlowe are liable to disappear if they don't resurface every now and then. Eventually no one will care Bogart played him. If he's no longer relevant, it doesn't matter.
This is an excellent way to bring him back around again. If the critics want to contradict themselves and claim there's no point bringing Marlowe back and that it's just another forgettable post-Taken movie for Neeson...It's their loss. For the art of film, this is everyone's gain. A movie I was very pleased to press "play" again when there were things I missed.