If you've stuck through at least a season of just about any western television serial, you'll be familiar with FORT MASSACRE's plot, involving a troop crossing Apache territory. As a fan of RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, I expected Joel McCrea would be the sole reason for reinvesting myself in this film's well-trodden set-up. While McCrea's performance is certainly a draw (especially given his character's hard edge, usually reserved for a supporting or villainous character) the real standout here was John Russell as Private Travis. I've never encountered a character like his--in this or any other film genre--solely driven by his indecision. You might expect that this is because such an arc wouldn't make for a compelling lead, but damn if FORT MASSACRE doesn't become his film by the end. Thanks to some interesting and revealing exchanges between McCrea and Russell, as well as superb cinematography by Carl Guthrie (BACKFIRE, THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL), this obscure "B" western deserves more recognition than it currently receives.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Wonder Showzen
(2005–2007)
The one that got away (from Adult Swim)
14 March 2012
Born in '92, I grew up a bit too late to enjoy MTV when the M was still accurate. However, I've recently gained some faux-nostalgia for the channel's heyday with shows like Daria as well as falling in love with musicians highlighted on Amp, such Mr. Oizo and Aphex Twin. I was just the right age when Wonder Showzen ran in 2006 and, wow, did it make up for the MTV I missed in 80s (as far as I know)!
Mocking the aesthetic of classic children's educational shows like Sesame Street, I was amazed to find this show(zen) appeared to be more than just a "parent's worst nightmare" blend of gross-out and shock- based humor, though it had plenty of that. The wonderful kid actors on segments like "Beat Kids" tricked me, in a good way, into thinking it has just as much heart, while the puppet ones nearly fulfilled my fantasy of an Oscar the Grouch/Triumph the Comic Dog team-up.
Wonder Showzen is undoubtedly one of those programs that people will envy you for if you're just discovering it for the first time, which isn't to say the laughter ceases after just one viewing. Since doing so myself, I've followed creators John Lee and Vernon Chatman through the their stints on Superjail! and The Heart, She Holler. While all their projects have their moments, this was by far the two's most successful one to date.
Mocking the aesthetic of classic children's educational shows like Sesame Street, I was amazed to find this show(zen) appeared to be more than just a "parent's worst nightmare" blend of gross-out and shock- based humor, though it had plenty of that. The wonderful kid actors on segments like "Beat Kids" tricked me, in a good way, into thinking it has just as much heart, while the puppet ones nearly fulfilled my fantasy of an Oscar the Grouch/Triumph the Comic Dog team-up.
Wonder Showzen is undoubtedly one of those programs that people will envy you for if you're just discovering it for the first time, which isn't to say the laughter ceases after just one viewing. Since doing so myself, I've followed creators John Lee and Vernon Chatman through the their stints on Superjail! and The Heart, She Holler. While all their projects have their moments, this was by far the two's most successful one to date.
The Take
(2009)
There Is Little to "Take" From Watching This
8 September 2010
As the film medium becomes over-crowded to the point it's truly impossible to see everything, "The Take" is one of those rare films, which are unfortunately becoming less and less rare as years go by, that bring with it the question of worth.
For one, the film (well, miniseries really, but one wouldn't be able to tell apart from the distracting theme music) is note-for-note "Once Upon a Time in America" if that film never flashed back to explain why its lead was imprisoned and was set in the decade it was made in, the 80s. Actor Tom Hardy even seems to be channeling Robert DeNiro's cocky demeanor in this as well. What Leone's also-flawed-but-classic film had to it's advantage was shock value, probably due to its coming from Leone, who was famous for his Westerns.
"The Take" is predictable; there's no getting around it. While predictability can be used as a tool, it's obvious that the creators had no idea how to use it. This black cloud of similarity over the gangster genre won't go away, especially in period pieces, because gangsters are inherently small-minded. They get by solely on playing the system, so of course to have enough drama for a gripping story, either the system must crumble or the conflict is within the family, where they're to close to consider the odds.
"The Take" involves the latter and that's to it's detriment. Every conflict happens too close. Since the film chooses to simply use rather than take advantage of the genre's tropes, the drama's punch relies on the shock value that Leone's film had in spades. But, it can't because it's too tight, thus doing the exact opposite of what the creators want: making the writing visible to the audience.
Each main character is part of the closely-knit family, meaning that if tragedy strikes, one of them is to blame. Instead of playing that for suspense all the way through, the writer lets you know who did a few things and then forgets that the audience knows process of elimination for the rest.
For example, toward the end, the audience is supposed to be surprised when a character who's been in the background the entire time finally makes his presence known by way of murder. But, since he's the only character who hasn't had his moment, of course an attentive audience would figure it out. Superior gangster films let things like this breathe by using non-family characters like henchmen as supporting characters, but "The Take" chooses to kill any of them off in the first half, before any of them become to interesting and outshine the clichéd main cast. That's sodding irritating.
Reliable talent such as Tom Hardy and Brian Cox are the only praise mentioned on the DVD package and that's pretty much where this reviewer stands. They do all do great, but they always do great. In fact, the question of worth comes in again when you realize that these actors aren't even stretching their chops. All are doing things here in which one would think made previous roles exclusively brilliant, Cox especially, who nearly made me think less of his turn in "The Escapist" after this. Perhaps this is because they're all playing more toned down characters then, say, Hardy's "Bronson." But still. . .
So, what's the answer to the question of worth? It's tough, seeing that everyone involved is talented beyond belief. It's just difficult when all of them seem to not be focusing in the right places, whether that be masking previous, similar roles (that goes for both the cast and writing) or anticipating their intelligent audience. After all, come on! Other than those following Hardy after "Inception", not many will see this who aren't film/TV buffs who will likely have seen the superior "Once Upon a Time in America" or "The Wire." For them, this is a skip. For the rest, who knows? The digital cinematography looks pretty.
For one, the film (well, miniseries really, but one wouldn't be able to tell apart from the distracting theme music) is note-for-note "Once Upon a Time in America" if that film never flashed back to explain why its lead was imprisoned and was set in the decade it was made in, the 80s. Actor Tom Hardy even seems to be channeling Robert DeNiro's cocky demeanor in this as well. What Leone's also-flawed-but-classic film had to it's advantage was shock value, probably due to its coming from Leone, who was famous for his Westerns.
"The Take" is predictable; there's no getting around it. While predictability can be used as a tool, it's obvious that the creators had no idea how to use it. This black cloud of similarity over the gangster genre won't go away, especially in period pieces, because gangsters are inherently small-minded. They get by solely on playing the system, so of course to have enough drama for a gripping story, either the system must crumble or the conflict is within the family, where they're to close to consider the odds.
"The Take" involves the latter and that's to it's detriment. Every conflict happens too close. Since the film chooses to simply use rather than take advantage of the genre's tropes, the drama's punch relies on the shock value that Leone's film had in spades. But, it can't because it's too tight, thus doing the exact opposite of what the creators want: making the writing visible to the audience.
Each main character is part of the closely-knit family, meaning that if tragedy strikes, one of them is to blame. Instead of playing that for suspense all the way through, the writer lets you know who did a few things and then forgets that the audience knows process of elimination for the rest.
For example, toward the end, the audience is supposed to be surprised when a character who's been in the background the entire time finally makes his presence known by way of murder. But, since he's the only character who hasn't had his moment, of course an attentive audience would figure it out. Superior gangster films let things like this breathe by using non-family characters like henchmen as supporting characters, but "The Take" chooses to kill any of them off in the first half, before any of them become to interesting and outshine the clichéd main cast. That's sodding irritating.
Reliable talent such as Tom Hardy and Brian Cox are the only praise mentioned on the DVD package and that's pretty much where this reviewer stands. They do all do great, but they always do great. In fact, the question of worth comes in again when you realize that these actors aren't even stretching their chops. All are doing things here in which one would think made previous roles exclusively brilliant, Cox especially, who nearly made me think less of his turn in "The Escapist" after this. Perhaps this is because they're all playing more toned down characters then, say, Hardy's "Bronson." But still. . .
So, what's the answer to the question of worth? It's tough, seeing that everyone involved is talented beyond belief. It's just difficult when all of them seem to not be focusing in the right places, whether that be masking previous, similar roles (that goes for both the cast and writing) or anticipating their intelligent audience. After all, come on! Other than those following Hardy after "Inception", not many will see this who aren't film/TV buffs who will likely have seen the superior "Once Upon a Time in America" or "The Wire." For them, this is a skip. For the rest, who knows? The digital cinematography looks pretty.
Louie
(2010–2015)
Welcome to the Pantheon, Louis C.K.
7 September 2010
I hate giving the 10-star rating because it appears exaggerated and the best I can do to avoid people looking down on the review/plea for people to watch this program is to say, "It's the best at what it's trying to be." I'm not going to use that statement to save my ass here because I'm not sure what this show is trying to be other than honest.
'Louie' is the first show I've come across that I absolutely refuse to let myself wait for DVD to see. It's the first show that I don't sit down to watch with the sole anticipation of having it either cheer me up with comedy or shock me with dramatic twists. 'Louie' is simply something I watch because it feels like I'm gaining life experience from it, which is impressive considering Louis C.K., or at least the Louie character's self-proclaimed life goals are to raise his kids and hold his title as World's Best Masturbator.
It's also impressive considering that I, and I'm sure many viewers, have already experienced nearly every situation this show covers, from being forced out of the house with no plans to being on a date with someone who thinks less of you for doing the right thing despite saying that he/she valued righteousness. So what's to gain from reliving these unpleasant situations every Tuesday evening?
Great shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm bank on this question by allowing the main character to vengefully act on his everyday irritations only to have it bite him in the ass by the episode's end. This way you can laugh at the absurdity while saying, "I know what he's feeling, man," followed by, "but I'm sure glad *I* didn't act on it." It's a winning formula because the audience always comes out unscathed. 'Louie' makes that show look like it's playing too safe (which it isn't, by the way.)
If the Louie character ever acts on his irritations, he does it in a way that almost feels like he's seen Curb, and thus trying to avoid any unnecessary harm while still following his gut instinct. In other words, he's a coward sometimes, just like we are. Curb's Larry David states in interviews that his eponymous character is more like him than he is. Louie is simply Louis, and perhaps, Louis is simply everybody, and PERHAPS that can be a little discomforting. But that's okay, because at least, just like when we look back on mistakes or simply situations that we wish we could have handled differently (so that we could've gotten laid that night), it's almost always hilarious. The difference here is that it's *always* hilarious. . . though it's still unbelievably discomforting.
For that, I'm more than happy to not save my ass on this one. Enjoy chewing on it, critics.
'Louie' is the first show I've come across that I absolutely refuse to let myself wait for DVD to see. It's the first show that I don't sit down to watch with the sole anticipation of having it either cheer me up with comedy or shock me with dramatic twists. 'Louie' is simply something I watch because it feels like I'm gaining life experience from it, which is impressive considering Louis C.K., or at least the Louie character's self-proclaimed life goals are to raise his kids and hold his title as World's Best Masturbator.
It's also impressive considering that I, and I'm sure many viewers, have already experienced nearly every situation this show covers, from being forced out of the house with no plans to being on a date with someone who thinks less of you for doing the right thing despite saying that he/she valued righteousness. So what's to gain from reliving these unpleasant situations every Tuesday evening?
Great shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm bank on this question by allowing the main character to vengefully act on his everyday irritations only to have it bite him in the ass by the episode's end. This way you can laugh at the absurdity while saying, "I know what he's feeling, man," followed by, "but I'm sure glad *I* didn't act on it." It's a winning formula because the audience always comes out unscathed. 'Louie' makes that show look like it's playing too safe (which it isn't, by the way.)
If the Louie character ever acts on his irritations, he does it in a way that almost feels like he's seen Curb, and thus trying to avoid any unnecessary harm while still following his gut instinct. In other words, he's a coward sometimes, just like we are. Curb's Larry David states in interviews that his eponymous character is more like him than he is. Louie is simply Louis, and perhaps, Louis is simply everybody, and PERHAPS that can be a little discomforting. But that's okay, because at least, just like when we look back on mistakes or simply situations that we wish we could have handled differently (so that we could've gotten laid that night), it's almost always hilarious. The difference here is that it's *always* hilarious. . . though it's still unbelievably discomforting.
For that, I'm more than happy to not save my ass on this one. Enjoy chewing on it, critics.
Divorce Italian Style
(1961)
You May Be Surprised By How Easily You Can Be Sold On "Divorce"
4 August 2010
"Divorce - Italian Style," released as the 286th addition to the Criterion Collection, is a film that is heavy on theme but doesn't preach to you. It's a film that is stylized but never calls attention to itself. Most importantly, it's a film that screams "classic" without so much as a subliminal whisper.
Marcello Mastroianni's Baron Fernando Cefalu is a man known by all and watched by all, like any celebrity, with judgmental eyes. This is probably why he's stayed with his overbearing wife (Daniela Rocca) for fifteen years. But, as his age shows through his suave looks, he begins to question how much longer he can take it. In comes Angela (Stefania Sanderelli), his much younger cousin whose ever-so-slight passes at him force him to decide to either take a risk and pursue her or accept his current situation as a dedicated husband with a reputation to uphold. While he makes up his mind. . . he fantasizes about various ways to kill his wife, eventually finding one that's practically achievable and sets forth to make it a reality.
Don't worry if this infidelity plot sounds familiar to you because the film is perfectly aware of that, even being nearly 60-years old. Also don't be concerned if such low-stakes social dramas don't interest you. In fact, that would actually make you the perfect candidate for this particular film for it's a satire, a damned great one at that.
The usual complaint for the films, or harlequin romances, "Divorce" satirizes is that if the characters aren't developed that well, it's difficult to care whether the situation works out or not, especially if it involves a murderer for which it's hard enough to have sympathy for as it is. Director Pietro Germi and screenwriter Ennio De Concini set up the film in a deceptively simple way that avoids this conflict, effectively making you root for the Baron based on the situation alone-- it's even said that American audiences who saw this in its original release were laughing throughout without the assistance of subtitles because of this technique. The viewer merely needs to be introduced to the Baron as a man who can't get a wink of sleep in his own bed without telling his wife how much he loves her until she's satisfied, which is never. With that, the viewer is already thinking about their own escape plan, not realizing that the most painless strategy is murder. In a sense, the film makes you forget this too as its coying sense of humor distracts you from the horrible end task.
An example of this is, after the Baron finds out that he must set up the murder to look like a crime of passion (in order to get the shortest jail sentence), he attempts to find an unknowing participant to pin an affair with his wife to. This results in him looking to anyone and everyone, from subtly alluded-to homosexuals to a man who's already having his own affair with the Baron's housekeeper, each time resulting in hilarity.
It also helps that the actors are so perfectly cast here. Marcello Mastroianna is akin to the Italian Pepe le Pew, balancing his cartoonish good looks (of which he's in denial of in the film) with just enough sympathy to make his bastard character seem almost noble. To avoid commenting on what less-than-attractive physical traits Daniela Rocca brought to her character as the wife *cough* facial hair*cough*, let's just say this reviewer was convinced by her very funny performance that the Baron deserved to aim higher. Also, the supporting cast, with a special shout-out to the man who played Angela's father, absolutely nailed it as the archetypal Italian characters you would picture while listening to Adam Ferrara's stand-up comedy.
The DVD, while lacking a commentary track that would be perfect for a film of this short-but-sweet length, features a good set of special features and a pristine transfer one would expect from the folks at Criterion. There were a few distracting scratches on the corners of some of the frames, but it's doubtable this was avoidable considering the film's age, though it still looks quite beautiful today. Martin Scorcese and others contribute essays to a booklet that rivals the short interviews on the supplementary disc as well, complimented by cover art by comic artist Jaime Hernandez of Love & Rockets fame.
Overall, this film is a masterpiece of comedy in the tone of later successes like Alfred Hitchcock's "The Trouble With Harry" and should not be missed regardless of whether you enjoy simple black humor or are looking for answers to why many of today's similar comedies ("The Bounty Hunter") fail.
Marcello Mastroianni's Baron Fernando Cefalu is a man known by all and watched by all, like any celebrity, with judgmental eyes. This is probably why he's stayed with his overbearing wife (Daniela Rocca) for fifteen years. But, as his age shows through his suave looks, he begins to question how much longer he can take it. In comes Angela (Stefania Sanderelli), his much younger cousin whose ever-so-slight passes at him force him to decide to either take a risk and pursue her or accept his current situation as a dedicated husband with a reputation to uphold. While he makes up his mind. . . he fantasizes about various ways to kill his wife, eventually finding one that's practically achievable and sets forth to make it a reality.
Don't worry if this infidelity plot sounds familiar to you because the film is perfectly aware of that, even being nearly 60-years old. Also don't be concerned if such low-stakes social dramas don't interest you. In fact, that would actually make you the perfect candidate for this particular film for it's a satire, a damned great one at that.
The usual complaint for the films, or harlequin romances, "Divorce" satirizes is that if the characters aren't developed that well, it's difficult to care whether the situation works out or not, especially if it involves a murderer for which it's hard enough to have sympathy for as it is. Director Pietro Germi and screenwriter Ennio De Concini set up the film in a deceptively simple way that avoids this conflict, effectively making you root for the Baron based on the situation alone-- it's even said that American audiences who saw this in its original release were laughing throughout without the assistance of subtitles because of this technique. The viewer merely needs to be introduced to the Baron as a man who can't get a wink of sleep in his own bed without telling his wife how much he loves her until she's satisfied, which is never. With that, the viewer is already thinking about their own escape plan, not realizing that the most painless strategy is murder. In a sense, the film makes you forget this too as its coying sense of humor distracts you from the horrible end task.
An example of this is, after the Baron finds out that he must set up the murder to look like a crime of passion (in order to get the shortest jail sentence), he attempts to find an unknowing participant to pin an affair with his wife to. This results in him looking to anyone and everyone, from subtly alluded-to homosexuals to a man who's already having his own affair with the Baron's housekeeper, each time resulting in hilarity.
It also helps that the actors are so perfectly cast here. Marcello Mastroianna is akin to the Italian Pepe le Pew, balancing his cartoonish good looks (of which he's in denial of in the film) with just enough sympathy to make his bastard character seem almost noble. To avoid commenting on what less-than-attractive physical traits Daniela Rocca brought to her character as the wife *cough* facial hair*cough*, let's just say this reviewer was convinced by her very funny performance that the Baron deserved to aim higher. Also, the supporting cast, with a special shout-out to the man who played Angela's father, absolutely nailed it as the archetypal Italian characters you would picture while listening to Adam Ferrara's stand-up comedy.
The DVD, while lacking a commentary track that would be perfect for a film of this short-but-sweet length, features a good set of special features and a pristine transfer one would expect from the folks at Criterion. There were a few distracting scratches on the corners of some of the frames, but it's doubtable this was avoidable considering the film's age, though it still looks quite beautiful today. Martin Scorcese and others contribute essays to a booklet that rivals the short interviews on the supplementary disc as well, complimented by cover art by comic artist Jaime Hernandez of Love & Rockets fame.
Overall, this film is a masterpiece of comedy in the tone of later successes like Alfred Hitchcock's "The Trouble With Harry" and should not be missed regardless of whether you enjoy simple black humor or are looking for answers to why many of today's similar comedies ("The Bounty Hunter") fail.
Inception
(2010)
If You Can't Possibly Go Into This Cold. . .
16 July 2010
Devin Faraci of CHUD.com claimed that "Inception" was everything director Christopher Nolan had been building up to in his film-making career. I disagree; this was everything he has been building to with his film-watching career. That's not a knock, either.
Nolan is cutting himself short in interviews when he says he was influenced by "The Matrix", but maybe he's using that to address the mainstream audience, since that's what they'll likely accuse him of stealing from. However, the rest of us know better (especially since "The Matrix itself owes its genesis to many other films before it, as most great films do.) Despite being, at it's most basic, a high-concept heist film, it doesn't rely on, nor does it emphasize its set piece(s), the big robbery, or in this case, the big. . . placement?
Instead, this film pays off through the emotions of the characters, which is awesome because it makes the set pieces seem like small, but visually stunning discoveries. Like David Fincher's "The Game", the movie makes effort to remind you that, as grand as the action and adventure can and will become, this all still happens in the heads of "real" people, all dealing with their own issues which, interestingly enough, can effect the adventure in ways that could help or hurt their goal. If I can find one fault in this, I wish they concentrated on more than just the lead, DiCaprio's, character when it came to emotions because he's honestly washed out in that department, and for good reason. When his tragic past is revealed, it is easily the most effective piece of the puzzle thanks in no small part to Marion Coutilard, whom I've never even heard speak English until this film. But too bad the film had to wear that piece out until it barely fit.
You see, as a high concept film, the set-up requires heavy, HEAVY exposition. It takes up the majority of the first hour and, although I didn't feel it, I saw people walking out of the theater by the mid- point. Even the aforementioned emotional piece is delivered in exposition. This would've been fine since you have to know the game before you play, but the exposition extends into the third act when DiCaprio's character has to face his demons, and goes on to the point of repeating a flashback from before which was unnecessary. This is the problem when one character gets all of the emotional development.
This leads me up to my main strike against this film: it shouldn't have been a film. Not that this gratuitous level of "tell, don't show" would be more acceptable in another medium, but it, like all of Nolan's stories, would be easier to digest in comic form. This way, you get the genius of Nolan's visuals and are able to turn back the pages to review pieces you may have overlooked instead of restarting the whole damn film. Going back to what I said about the non-emphasis on set pieces, I don't expect viewers to sludge through the explanation during a second viewing just to get to the toned down but entertaining action. It's not enough, for me at least because it's hard for me to rewatch a film a re- experience the same emotional jolt as the first time, which saddens me because their is some superb film-making that I'd like to re-explore just for learning's sake.
So, overall, see it. Support original (yes, despite the influences) material from great directors. I don't want to see Nolan reduced to superhero franchise films, regardless of how good they've been. The next Batman/Superman film will inevitably be made (or rebooted) with or without Nolan, so it's incredibly important that he gets a chance to stretch his legs and make something more individual and, ultimately, most resonant. And who knows, maybe with those future successes, he can do a franchise you enjoy right instead of, I don't know, M. Night Shyamalan.
Nolan is cutting himself short in interviews when he says he was influenced by "The Matrix", but maybe he's using that to address the mainstream audience, since that's what they'll likely accuse him of stealing from. However, the rest of us know better (especially since "The Matrix itself owes its genesis to many other films before it, as most great films do.) Despite being, at it's most basic, a high-concept heist film, it doesn't rely on, nor does it emphasize its set piece(s), the big robbery, or in this case, the big. . . placement?
Instead, this film pays off through the emotions of the characters, which is awesome because it makes the set pieces seem like small, but visually stunning discoveries. Like David Fincher's "The Game", the movie makes effort to remind you that, as grand as the action and adventure can and will become, this all still happens in the heads of "real" people, all dealing with their own issues which, interestingly enough, can effect the adventure in ways that could help or hurt their goal. If I can find one fault in this, I wish they concentrated on more than just the lead, DiCaprio's, character when it came to emotions because he's honestly washed out in that department, and for good reason. When his tragic past is revealed, it is easily the most effective piece of the puzzle thanks in no small part to Marion Coutilard, whom I've never even heard speak English until this film. But too bad the film had to wear that piece out until it barely fit.
You see, as a high concept film, the set-up requires heavy, HEAVY exposition. It takes up the majority of the first hour and, although I didn't feel it, I saw people walking out of the theater by the mid- point. Even the aforementioned emotional piece is delivered in exposition. This would've been fine since you have to know the game before you play, but the exposition extends into the third act when DiCaprio's character has to face his demons, and goes on to the point of repeating a flashback from before which was unnecessary. This is the problem when one character gets all of the emotional development.
This leads me up to my main strike against this film: it shouldn't have been a film. Not that this gratuitous level of "tell, don't show" would be more acceptable in another medium, but it, like all of Nolan's stories, would be easier to digest in comic form. This way, you get the genius of Nolan's visuals and are able to turn back the pages to review pieces you may have overlooked instead of restarting the whole damn film. Going back to what I said about the non-emphasis on set pieces, I don't expect viewers to sludge through the explanation during a second viewing just to get to the toned down but entertaining action. It's not enough, for me at least because it's hard for me to rewatch a film a re- experience the same emotional jolt as the first time, which saddens me because their is some superb film-making that I'd like to re-explore just for learning's sake.
So, overall, see it. Support original (yes, despite the influences) material from great directors. I don't want to see Nolan reduced to superhero franchise films, regardless of how good they've been. The next Batman/Superman film will inevitably be made (or rebooted) with or without Nolan, so it's incredibly important that he gets a chance to stretch his legs and make something more individual and, ultimately, most resonant. And who knows, maybe with those future successes, he can do a franchise you enjoy right instead of, I don't know, M. Night Shyamalan.
The Cooler
(2003)
It's Okay to Laugh
10 July 2010
It's a real travesty that the TV guide has this film listed in the Drama genre because "The Cooler" was clearly conceived as a comedy. . . maybe. I don't know. Perhaps this was supposed to be written seriously in the beginning and the writers ran out of plot points and had to switch at the last minute. I doubt it because, with everything else that counts--dialog, playing to classic noir tropes, and coming up with great comedic moments of comeuppance for these beat-down characters--they hit the screenplay out of the park.
What further helps sell the film is the acting, lead by William H. Macy, whom I feel is the next Cary Grant. While Grant was continually typecasts as the suave protagonist, Macy constantly gets the role of the loser whether it be this or "Magnolia". They both play to their strengths excellently, but both also has the ability to step and prove themselves outside of these roles (Macy did wonders in "Andersonville"). Alec Baldwin and Mario Bello don't really step out that much, but they are given great lines and deliver them with equal greatness as Macy.
But, as far as the story goes, yeah, I think this plays out better if you take it with a grain of salt. Macy's character's strength in this film is luck, and whenever you add a bit of magic, it also comes with a bit of silliness. This magic, however, is handled great in the final battle, which brings something completely new to the table (no pun intended) by making it completely dependent on that luck and out of the hero's hands.
Even with it's great execution, the very end does drag its feet a bit and I'm pretty sure I laughed at some moments I wasn't supposed to (at least I don't think you're supposed to laugh at expositional confessions about lost children. . .) Anyway, those are only minor nitpicks for a fun film of which I consider essential lazy Sunday evening viewing. Don't miss it.
What further helps sell the film is the acting, lead by William H. Macy, whom I feel is the next Cary Grant. While Grant was continually typecasts as the suave protagonist, Macy constantly gets the role of the loser whether it be this or "Magnolia". They both play to their strengths excellently, but both also has the ability to step and prove themselves outside of these roles (Macy did wonders in "Andersonville"). Alec Baldwin and Mario Bello don't really step out that much, but they are given great lines and deliver them with equal greatness as Macy.
But, as far as the story goes, yeah, I think this plays out better if you take it with a grain of salt. Macy's character's strength in this film is luck, and whenever you add a bit of magic, it also comes with a bit of silliness. This magic, however, is handled great in the final battle, which brings something completely new to the table (no pun intended) by making it completely dependent on that luck and out of the hero's hands.
Even with it's great execution, the very end does drag its feet a bit and I'm pretty sure I laughed at some moments I wasn't supposed to (at least I don't think you're supposed to laugh at expositional confessions about lost children. . .) Anyway, those are only minor nitpicks for a fun film of which I consider essential lazy Sunday evening viewing. Don't miss it.
In This Our Life
(1942)
An unexpected sophomore slump for Mr. Huston . . .
3 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Whether in real life or his films, John Huston was a man that oozed with style . . . which only makes it weirder that he directed Betty Davis's least stylish, and in turn, worst performances ever captured on-screen. Although this was relatively early in Davis's career, it's as if she saw this role had her name all over it and decided to ham it up to prevent it from seeming typecast; either that or Huston handed her a book of acting techniques during the filming that told her specific actions to do during key dramatic moments (i.e. "When offended, raise your chest and flare your eyes here.) Her dramatic timing is unfortunately, as subtle as a spit-take in a Judd Apatow comedy.
Within ten minutes, you know exactly how this story will play out. Davis's character is an spoiled brat who manipulates everyone in her rich family to get her way and, since this is 40's film, you know she'll crash and burn at the end (it's embarrassing how literal that turns out being.) With such an unlikeable lead and every other character being a victim of some sort, you need someone to root for (like the, plot-wise, very similar "Shattered Glass " has in Peter Sarsgaard) because there's already plenty to hate and plenty to sympathize with. But "In This Our Life" has none, for the entire family is either too oblivious or too forgiving to really get behind. The only character who comes close is Davis's lawyer ex, played by George Brent; but once we see halfway in the film that he successfully traded up for the much more worthy sister character, played by Olivia de Havilland, we no longer need to root for him.
With the rest of the film going downhill from there, I suggest you check out the aforementioned "Shattered Glass" or Christina Ricci in "the Opposite of Sex" for a more rewarding experience.
Within ten minutes, you know exactly how this story will play out. Davis's character is an spoiled brat who manipulates everyone in her rich family to get her way and, since this is 40's film, you know she'll crash and burn at the end (it's embarrassing how literal that turns out being.) With such an unlikeable lead and every other character being a victim of some sort, you need someone to root for (like the, plot-wise, very similar "Shattered Glass " has in Peter Sarsgaard) because there's already plenty to hate and plenty to sympathize with. But "In This Our Life" has none, for the entire family is either too oblivious or too forgiving to really get behind. The only character who comes close is Davis's lawyer ex, played by George Brent; but once we see halfway in the film that he successfully traded up for the much more worthy sister character, played by Olivia de Havilland, we no longer need to root for him.
With the rest of the film going downhill from there, I suggest you check out the aforementioned "Shattered Glass" or Christina Ricci in "the Opposite of Sex" for a more rewarding experience.
Tell Your Friends