Hey Look I Actually Watch Movies!

[MadMan]

Or simply my 2013 Movie Review thread. I made a resolution to cover the movies I watch this year, and I figure that I should live up to that promise. Let's start with something I watched at the start of the year:


Beverly Hills Cop (1984, Breast)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8PFjJWoxnbg/TcmiJiM_SXI/AAAAAAAAFHk/SjIseMaY5VI/s1600/beverly-hills-cop.jpg

Once upon a time, there was this promising comedian named Eddie Murphy. He became famous thanks to SNL and his outrageously crazy stand up specials. Later on he ever recorded a song with Rick James. Then he unfortunately grew old and made really shitty movies later on, ones that we ended up forgetting. However in the 1980s the guy could really do no wrong, and he proves it with Beverly Hills Cop. This movie is rather standard, and yet thanks to Murphy's trademark laugh and high levels of charisma he makes this movie better than it has any right to be. There's plenty of action, too, right off the bat, which also covers for the film's less qualities and provides a higher level of entertainment.

Really there's not much I can further say about this film, and I imagine that reviewing a lighter fair style picture such as this one is more of a challenge than covering a terrible movie or a great one. Axel is a great character, and him screwing around with the LAPD is far more watchable than anything else in the actual movie. Too bad that the movie didn't have more of that, and less of some random bad guy who's boring and only there to move the plot along. Good film, I guess, but maybe I gave it a higher rating than it deserved. Perhaps this was due to my being influenced by the film's reputation as one of the best action-comedies of the 80s, when I discovered that was not the case.

[MadMan]

Look I hate to whore out my blog, but a while back I wrote a lengthy review about Lost In Translation. So instead of linking to that, I'll just do a third write up in the same year about the same movie. I think its a film that deserves plenty of words spent on it, particularly since Bill Murray fucking rules.

Lost In Translation (2003, Coppola)

http://www.welovemoviesmorethanyou.co m/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/LostIn.Translation1.jpg

The only other film I've viewed that is the companion to this excellent early 2000s film is another early 2000s film: In The Mood For Love. The comparison is largely apt since its two people stuck in existing relationships venturing into a strictly platonic affair with each other, creating a bond that they never violate despite the pair being great for one another. Naturally both movies take place in foreign cities, yet Lost in Translation is different in the end since it features two foreigners wandering around aimlessly in a land they really do not quite understand. This doesn't matter since young Charlotte finds Bob and connects with him on a level that is rather beautiful, slowly developing into this unspoken friendship that is rather special. The movie is literally Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson wandering around Tokyo, and despite a slow beginning when the movie finally gets to the two of them enjoying the Tokyo nightlife things pick up considerably. Yet the beginning is important, for it showcases their separate yet similar types of loneliness. Also neither one can sleep, a problem that I considerably relate to especially lately. Its tough when sleep becomes the enemy instead of an old friend, which I now realize is an obvious metaphor for Bob's wife and Charlotte's husband.

Plus Bob's drinking is something else I can relate to. Its funny how Charlotte's issues with her path in life and Bob's despair at how his turn out are easy to relate to by someone like myself, who has is still young. Charlotte laughs at Bob's midlife crisis and then only too late figures out that his crisis is not so far away for her own. The movie has many touching moments, primarily one where Bob and Charlotte hang out in Bob's hotel room, which is a date that is not a date. Currently the touching shot of Charlotte leaning on Bob's shoulder as he gives the trademark Murray deadpan look is my desktop background for a reason: I have viewed few movies that have a moment as impacting as that one. She hands him her cigarette, the two of them smoking and managing to be alone even at a party full of people doing karaoke. That feeling is something I've experienced numerous times in my life.

For some reason the discussion over what Bob says to Charlotte overshadows the rather perfect ending to the movie, and its thanks to people who can't handle ambiguity or a lack of Hollywood style resolution. Those people can go fuck themselves, because this movie was not made for them. I imagine this is the type of movie that despite being too much style over substance (and holy hell what style) is something built for multiple viewings. Thanks to Netflix that is possible, and I'm tempted to watch it over again instead of continuing on to a new movie. Such is the magic of a well crafted great film that stays in your head long after the final frame.

[Skitch]

Good luck! I've reviewed everything I've watched since Jan 1, 2011. I keep track in a notebook, and usually get so behind that I do all my catch up at the end of every month. Right now I'm only about 20 reviews behind...:)

[transmogrifier]

You should try Letterboxd - that has been the most effective way to get me writing about everything I see. I've got invites if you need.

[Dukefrukem]

You should try Letterboxd - that has been the most effective way to get me writing about everything I see. I've got invites if you need.

This. I'm close to giving up on my blog.

[Raiders]

You should try Letterboxd - that has been the most effective way to get me writing about everything I see. I've got invites if you need.


Yes please (unless this is only for MadMan).

[DavidSeven]

I believe Letterboxd actually opened up their registration to the public about a week or two ago. You shouldn't need an invite code anymore.

I recommend it, too.

[Raiders]

I believe Letterboxd actually opened up their registration to the public about a week or two ago. You shouldn't need an invite code anymore.

I recommend it, too.


I can confirm this as I just signed up.

Sorry MadMan for the derailment. Please proceed.

[number8]

I signed up without an invite last month.

[MadMan]

I don't know what Letterboxed is, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Regardless this thread will continue. And Skitch keep it up.

At some point I will pen a review that inspires some discussion, maybe ;) :P

[MadMan]

Valhalla Rising (2010, Refn)

http://media.salon.com/2010/07/valhalla_rising_what_to_see_in stead_of_inception.jpg

This is how it was in the old days, a time of extremity and desperate attempts at survival. Valhalla Rising is a nightmarish style look at the Middle Ages, a tale of a heathen with an appetite for destruction. One Eyed is good at only one thing: killing people, and when he finally takes his freedom its a gruesome display to behold. You cannot blame him for the brutality of his actions since he was trained to kill, and that is all he knows how to do. Mads Mikkelsen gives a startlingly effective performance, one made difficult by his character being a mute-and thus he is forced to do his acting through emotions and eye movements, although he rarely gives away what he is truly thinking. The dreams he has are prophetic and also creepy, existing as possible looks into the future yet also being rather cryptic.

What I love most though about this film is how strong the visuals are, despite the overall gray palate. When it comes to his films based on the two I've seen (Drive being the other one) Refn seems to have favor heavy atmosphere to the point where you either fully embrace his movies or you dismiss them as being empty and too dependent on style points. Since I've lately embraced 80s cinema and music a lot more lately I don't seem to mind style over subsistence as much as I used to, although you still have to have some steak to go with the sizzle. Whether or not the last act of the film is indeed a journey into Hell itself, with One Eye leading the way is up for interpretation really. The last scene left me a bit surprised even though it made absolute sense: Through death, One Eye achieves final absolution and lasting peace. Still what a horrible way to go.

Don't mess with hostile natives, and don't assume that your God won't forsake you in a strange land teaming with hidden dangers. Also keep in mind that survival of the fitness is not limited to just animals; that man is indeed the cruelest animal of them all. I wish I could say that our modern era is less violent than the old days, yet sadly we've just invented new ways to kill ourselves and ourselves. The savagery of the majority is far more fascinating than the peaceful ways of the few, at least most of the time on the silver screen anyways.

[MadMan]

Night Train To Munich (1940, Carol Reed)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/stills/89079/523_Filmw_NightTrain.jpg?13281 28301

Nazis. Bunch of assholes. Anyways Night Train to Munich is a James Bond movie before James Bond was even written. Carol Reed made better films later (primarily the amazing The Third Man from 1949) yet this one is entertaining and has its fair share of moments. Young Rex Harrison looks weird, but that's maybe because I'm used to the older version of him from the 1960s-the one was stern and more of a professor than a man of action, foiling Nazi plans and keeping a stiff British upper lip. Plus there's some good humor in this one, particularly since the pair of English train travelers from The Lady Vanishes pop up in this one as well. Honestly you would be better off viewing that one instead of Munich, although both are good movies and worthy of your time, I suppose.

Basically Nazis really suck, and hurray for the British. There's even a final sequence that is rather breathtaking, or at least exciting. Not much else to really note about this movie, since its rather simplistic and just gets the job done. The models were cool to look at, I guess, and in an era of bloated blockbusters a movie like this that's short and sweet does the trick.

[baby doll]

The only other film I've viewed that is the companion to this excellent early 2000s film is another early 2000s film: In The Mood For Love. The comparison is largely apt since its two people stuck in existing relationships venturing into a strictly platonic affair with each other, creating a bond that they never violate despite the pair being great for one another. Naturally both movies take place in foreign cities, yet Lost in Translation is different in the end since it features two foreigners wandering around aimlessly in a land they really do not quite understand.Maybe this is a super nit-picky thing to point out, but notwithstanding the closing scenes in Cambodia, Wong's film isn't primarily set in a foreign country.

Incidentally, I revisited Coppola's film a few months ago and found it was still a total snoozefest: Boring expats moping in ritzy Tokyo settings for two hours just isn't my cup of tea. (Yet I can't get enough of Marie Antoinette--go figure.)

On the other hand, I love Wong's film but more for its elliptical storytelling than its subject matter per se, whereas Coppola isn't much of a storyteller. In Lost in Translation, she doesn't even try to make Scarlet Johannson's character convincing as a philosophy major, suggesting that Coppola was less interested in Charlotte as a character than she was in Johannson as a kind of documentary subject. Bill Murray fares a little better because he's playing Bill Murray, but what does the movie do with him? Nothing.

[MadMan]

Maybe this is a super nit-picky thing to point out, but notwithstanding the closing scenes in Cambodia, Wong's film isn't primarily set in a foreign country.Ah you are right about that point. I guess I should have noted that instead but I was in a rush to compare the two films.


Incidentally, I revisited Coppola's film a few months ago and found it was still a total snoozefest: Boring expats moping in ritzy Tokyo settings for two hours just isn't my cup of tea. (Yet I can't get enough of Marie Antoinette--go figure.)Hah...well I haven't seen Marie Antoinette. I actually thought I would find LIT boring, but that wasn't the case.


On the other hand, I love Wong's film but more for its elliptical storytelling than its subject matter per se, whereas Coppola isn't much of a storyteller. In Lost in Translation, she doesn't even try to make Scarlet Johannson's character convincing as a philosophy major, suggesting that Coppola was less interested in Charlotte as a character than she was in Johannson as a kind of documentary subject. Bill Murray fares a little better because he's playing Bill Murray, but what does the movie do with him? Nothing.I acknowledge that really the two actors are playing themselves, and I didn't mind that at all. Anyways In The Mood For Love is the better film of the two, although the scores for them are separated by two points-it doesn't matter anyways since I slap random numbers up as ratings these days. My major issue with LIT is that Murray really steals the movie so much that Johannson is more just functioning largely in reaction to what he is doing, although there are scenes with her alone that feature her having inflection upon herself as a person. Murray is great in the movie not just because he plays himself, but because we get a side of Murray that we never get in his movies. Sure he cracks some jokes but he does as much acting with his emotions and his eyes, and that's one of the reasons why I love Bill Murray: he's able to be both a vocal and a physical actor, something that a lot of actors are not able to do. Its why I think he's at times rather underrated, simply because we expect him to be the Bill Murray from Ghostbusters, or Caddyshack, or Groundhog's Day. I'm a bigger fan of LIT, Rushmore, and The Life Aquatic Murray since that Murray is far more interesting.

[baby doll]

I acknowledge that really the two actors are playing themselves, and I didn't mind that at all. There's nothing inherently wrong with using actors as quasi-documentary subjects, though a lot depends on who the actors are and what they say and do. I thought Elle Fanning was enchanting in Somewhere, but if I were at a party with Bob Murray and Charlotte Johannson, I'd want to get as far away from both of them as humanly possible. I'm just not that interested in depressed losers who don't have anything interesting to say.

[MadMan]

There's nothing inherently wrong with using actors as quasi-documentary subjects, though a lot depends on who the actors are and what they say and do. I thought Elle Fanning was enchanting in Somewhere, but if I were at a party with Bob Murray and Charlotte Johannson, I'd want to get as far away from both of them as humanly possible. I'm just not that interested in depressed losers who don't have anything interesting to say.I'm pretty sure that Bill Murray would have something interesting to say...

Violent Cop (1989, Takeshi Kitano)

http://commentarytrack.files.wordpres s.com/2010/06/violent_cop.jpg

This film has been compared to other cop movies and therefore makes me reflect on why I've viewed so many over the past 5 years: they offer a fictionalized insight into why anyone would ever want to be a police office. The pay is often lousy, you have to deal with assholes and scumbags, and there are people trying to kill you. I guess I'm not heroic enough to risk my life to save people I don't even know, however Violent Cop doesn't concern itself with any of that. Instead its Takeshi "Beat" Kitano playing a character that makes Dirty Harry look by the book. This guy brutalizes suspects, doesn't care about the rules, and operates with limits. All of this leads to him going completely out of control (you even have a scene where he runs someone over, which ends up being strangely comical yet a reflection of his willingness to violate the law), a man who goes to the edge and beyond. Really the actual case he's investigating doesn't even matter, a simple MacGuffin to move the plot along.

Despite some of the movie being quite messy, I still liked Kitano's compositions and how he frames his shots. There is a stark visual style at work, and this being his first movie directing he clearly showed skill and a natural ability to get what he wanted out of his actors. "Everybody's crazy" is a line that perhaps best sums up how quickly events spiral out of control, all because of one cop and his inability to handle following clearly defined rules. Set to a jazzy score that is a new favorite of mine, one that underlines the film noir style final act that left me rather surprised. Corruption takes other forms, I suppose.