For the first time ever, I saw a 35mm print of Jaws in a theater. It was awesome. It's one thing the see the shark on a TV screen, even a large one, but it's another to see it swim across the screen and actually be bigger than the car in which you drove to the theater. I'm unclear on how many times I've seen the movie, both in its edited, TV form and on DVD, but I assure you it's plenty. It says a lot about the film that even though I've seen it so much, it held my interest until it ended at 2:30 AM even though by all rights I should have been passed out asleep due to a baby that consistently wakes up between 7:30 and 9:00 AM. There's not much else to say critically about the movie, so I'm just going to pass on some observations.
-- Even though the Fourth of July revelers swim fairly close to the shore, the shark POV shots and incredibly deep. I don't know many people whose idea of beach leisure is treading water. Hell, when I'm in the ocean, I don't even like going out where I can't stand with my head above the water, let alone treading water fifteen feet above the ocean floor.
-- I can't imagine directing a movie with so many extras. It seems absolutely daunting. There's also several longer takes that require loads of background action from extras and cast and it's all pretty convincing. Consider me impressed.
-- Some of the people I was watching Jaws with mocked Quint's boat as being impractical for their purposes, but compared to everyone else who went shark hunting, Quint's bost is easily the one I would choose.
-- I'm a bit unclear as how Ben Gardner was killed by the shark. There was a breach in the hull of his boat, but he was still in the boat (albeit dead) when Matt Hooper found him. Did the shark come aboard, stab him, and throw him below deck?
-- Mrs. Kintner is easily the most annoying grieving mother I've ever seen in film.
-- I love that the movie has the gumption to kill both a child and a dog. It really raises the stakes.
-- Also that adults are so willing to plow over little kids and the elderly in order to save themselves.
-- "I saw one [a shark] eat a rocking chair once." That line stimulates my imagination in the best ways.
-- Best line reading:
-- The dolly-zoom is pretty overused, but you might get me to admit that Spielberg pulls off the best one ever (yes, even better than Vertigo).
-- Another great shot is the conversation on the ferry. Here's the end of the scene:
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Book Recommendation: Monsters in the Movies
John Landis has made a few of the most purely entertaining movies ever in several genres. An American American Werewolf in London, The Blues Brothers, Three Amigos, etc. He's also responsible for overseeing a shoot that ended in the deaths of two child extras and Vic Morrow (someone wrote a book about it). I'm not going to lie that learning about this and his flippant responses soured me a bit on the man who is incredibly interesting to listen to when he talks about movies but can seem like kind of a dick (unlike Joe Dante, who seems like the coolest guy on earth). I've learned to separate the man from his movies (as I'm sure most Roman Polanski fans have done).
Fortunately, Monsters in the Movies is all Landis talking about movies, horror movies at that! So it's right in my wheelhouse for enjoying the man and the material. The book is filled with hundreds of fantastic images be they promotional material or scenes from the movies. And the book is exhaustive! From Georges Melies to Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, it covers basically everything. It also features interviews with some of the greatest people to work in horror: David Cronenberg, Joe Dante, Sam Raimi, Ray Harryhausen, Rick Baker, and so on. There are fun observations (I love the collage of the Monster Carry), acknowledgement of tropes (i.e. Scary Kids), and details the evolution of some icons (Godzilla and King Kong).
Normally, I hate reference books, but this one has enough commentary and visual stimulation that it practically forces me to pick it up. And at 10"x12", that's a feat.
Normally, I hate reference books, but this one has enough commentary and visual stimulation that it practically forces me to pick it up. And at 10"x12", that's a feat.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
The Films of Nicolas Winding Refn
Drive was one of my favorite movies of 2011. Great performances (I'm a sucker for Bryan Cranston), awesome color, and amazing bursts of violence. Just a terrific time at the cinema. Shortly after Drive's release in Portland, the Northwest Film Center presented a Nicolas Winding Refn retrospective and knowing that I wasn't going to make it to any of the screenings, I decided to have my own, Netflix assisted Refn-spective (see what I did there?). Slightly complicating the planned marathon of the six previous films of Refn's available (Netflix doesn't have Bleeder), my son was born, so I had to do it over the course of a week. Instead of discussing each film in depth individually (Those films are: Pusher, Fear X, With Blood On My Hands: Pusher 2, I Am the Angel of Death: Pusher 3, Bronson, and Valhalla Rising), I'm going to give mostly overall impressions with some individual talking points.
The Pusher Trilogy impressed me insofar as through the first 40 minutes of each, I really didn't care much for the films. They all move deliberately with extended scenes of people acting like jerks and idiots. Not much happens and one wonders if anything will ever happen. To me, the title Pusher makes me think there's going to be a lot more drug pushing, but each of the films is about someone getting chewed up in the crime business and only tangentially related to pushing drugs. In this first film, this was unexpected and once I realized what was going on, I began to get invested in the fall of the character. Interestingly, the sequels follow different side characters from the first film a number of years later. While I'm not the biggest fan of sequels, I like this approach as it recognizes that every person in a film has their own story even if we don't see it. The concept expands the world of the trilogy (and also allows for an unending stream of sequels, should the need arise).
The Pusher trilogy has a very grimy aesthetic and very distinctive look, which is mighty impressive since it'd been almost a decade between the first and second movies. The camerawork is entirely handheld, which is probably part of why it took a while for me to get into the the experience. Because I'm a simple man, I watched Pusher 2 before Fear X. As a result, I was incredibly impressed with how different Fear X looked as I thought Refn was still learning his trade. In fact, Refn is quite accomplished over his filmography of varying his style as is appropriate for the subject. He's clearly influenced by Stanley Kubrick, but he lacks the trademarks that made Kubrick so distinctive. I don't believe this is a bad thing.
Fear X is where I first started noticing the Kubrickian flourishes. Refn's shot composition and the way he can milk tension out of holding an image or with the use of music makes the experience of watching Fear X more impressive than it is. It helps that John Turturro gives a strong and understated performance, but the film loses it when Turturro is no longer the focus. The movie does a lot to show that Refn had promise (much like Ti West) beyond the handheld Pusher aesthetic (even though he returned to the Pusher world for his next two features because Fear X bombed and ruined his production company).
Something about Refn's work cries out for me to pair it up with the films of other directors (aside from the Pusher trilogy, which obviously would be shown together). Even though the subject matter is vastly different, Fear X makes me want to show it with The Shining because of the influence mentioned above and the treatment of hotel space and the general creeping menace vibe (and possible slow decent into madness). Bronson, which is easily the best of his pre-Drive movies, probably leads to the most interesting and bizarre pairings (and the most options). Based on subject matter alone, I'd love to have a double feature of Bronson and Chopper (starring Eric Bana). Both are about charismatic, slightly bonkers criminals and both are immensely entertaining. However, the more interesting TRIPLE feature would be showing Bronson with A Clockwork Orange (once again, the framing frequently suggests Kubrick) and Rushmore (there are many shots that evoke Wes Anderson, as well). Just thinking of that triple feature makes me all warm inside.
Bronson takes one of the more interesting approaches to a biopic that I've seen. It's essentially narrated by Bronson (and Tom Hardy's performance as Bronson is utterly incredible), but it's in some fantasy world where he's on stage in front of a crowd performing his life story which make up and costume changes (for those who don't know, Bronson is famous in England for being sentenced to seven years in jail and spending thirty in solitary confinement, so he's not getting up on stage any time soon). To use a hackneyed expression, it's an electrifying film and immensely entertaining.
Finally, I made it to Valhalla Rising which was probably the most surprising movie I watched in this collection because it wasn't at all what I expected from a movie about vikings called Valhalla Rising. I thought it'd be some huge viking epic along the lines of Pathfinder, instead I got a slow, mostly silent exploration of a journey to death. So obviously, the movie pairing for Valhalla Rising would be Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man. Valhalla Rising isn't a great movie, but it looks terrific and kind of washes over you. The music is great, but I wish Refn had been able to secure Mogwai like he'd intended.
Part way through Valhalla Rising, I realized something about Refn's films. Thus far in his career, he's not to interested in exploring female characters. The only movie so far to have a woman of any substance is Drive and she's a bit of a a plot device to get the driver into a messed up situation. Valhalla Rising only features a cluster of naked women briefly. Likewise, there are very few in all of his other films. I don't think this is a problem, per se, as like in prison or amongst crusading vikings isn't necessarily where one would find women, but I hope that Refn starts to focus on some strong female characters to go with the varied subject matter of his films (while he doesn't have the distinctive look of Kubrick, I do enjoy that Refn similarly tackles a variety of genres). With that in consideration, I'm still glad that we have Refn making movies. The guy's got talent and a different sensibility that sets him apart from most other filmmakers.
The Pusher Trilogy impressed me insofar as through the first 40 minutes of each, I really didn't care much for the films. They all move deliberately with extended scenes of people acting like jerks and idiots. Not much happens and one wonders if anything will ever happen. To me, the title Pusher makes me think there's going to be a lot more drug pushing, but each of the films is about someone getting chewed up in the crime business and only tangentially related to pushing drugs. In this first film, this was unexpected and once I realized what was going on, I began to get invested in the fall of the character. Interestingly, the sequels follow different side characters from the first film a number of years later. While I'm not the biggest fan of sequels, I like this approach as it recognizes that every person in a film has their own story even if we don't see it. The concept expands the world of the trilogy (and also allows for an unending stream of sequels, should the need arise).
The Pusher trilogy has a very grimy aesthetic and very distinctive look, which is mighty impressive since it'd been almost a decade between the first and second movies. The camerawork is entirely handheld, which is probably part of why it took a while for me to get into the the experience. Because I'm a simple man, I watched Pusher 2 before Fear X. As a result, I was incredibly impressed with how different Fear X looked as I thought Refn was still learning his trade. In fact, Refn is quite accomplished over his filmography of varying his style as is appropriate for the subject. He's clearly influenced by Stanley Kubrick, but he lacks the trademarks that made Kubrick so distinctive. I don't believe this is a bad thing.
Fear X is where I first started noticing the Kubrickian flourishes. Refn's shot composition and the way he can milk tension out of holding an image or with the use of music makes the experience of watching Fear X more impressive than it is. It helps that John Turturro gives a strong and understated performance, but the film loses it when Turturro is no longer the focus. The movie does a lot to show that Refn had promise (much like Ti West) beyond the handheld Pusher aesthetic (even though he returned to the Pusher world for his next two features because Fear X bombed and ruined his production company).
Something about Refn's work cries out for me to pair it up with the films of other directors (aside from the Pusher trilogy, which obviously would be shown together). Even though the subject matter is vastly different, Fear X makes me want to show it with The Shining because of the influence mentioned above and the treatment of hotel space and the general creeping menace vibe (and possible slow decent into madness). Bronson, which is easily the best of his pre-Drive movies, probably leads to the most interesting and bizarre pairings (and the most options). Based on subject matter alone, I'd love to have a double feature of Bronson and Chopper (starring Eric Bana). Both are about charismatic, slightly bonkers criminals and both are immensely entertaining. However, the more interesting TRIPLE feature would be showing Bronson with A Clockwork Orange (once again, the framing frequently suggests Kubrick) and Rushmore (there are many shots that evoke Wes Anderson, as well). Just thinking of that triple feature makes me all warm inside.
Bronson takes one of the more interesting approaches to a biopic that I've seen. It's essentially narrated by Bronson (and Tom Hardy's performance as Bronson is utterly incredible), but it's in some fantasy world where he's on stage in front of a crowd performing his life story which make up and costume changes (for those who don't know, Bronson is famous in England for being sentenced to seven years in jail and spending thirty in solitary confinement, so he's not getting up on stage any time soon). To use a hackneyed expression, it's an electrifying film and immensely entertaining.
Finally, I made it to Valhalla Rising which was probably the most surprising movie I watched in this collection because it wasn't at all what I expected from a movie about vikings called Valhalla Rising. I thought it'd be some huge viking epic along the lines of Pathfinder, instead I got a slow, mostly silent exploration of a journey to death. So obviously, the movie pairing for Valhalla Rising would be Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man. Valhalla Rising isn't a great movie, but it looks terrific and kind of washes over you. The music is great, but I wish Refn had been able to secure Mogwai like he'd intended.
Part way through Valhalla Rising, I realized something about Refn's films. Thus far in his career, he's not to interested in exploring female characters. The only movie so far to have a woman of any substance is Drive and she's a bit of a a plot device to get the driver into a messed up situation. Valhalla Rising only features a cluster of naked women briefly. Likewise, there are very few in all of his other films. I don't think this is a problem, per se, as like in prison or amongst crusading vikings isn't necessarily where one would find women, but I hope that Refn starts to focus on some strong female characters to go with the varied subject matter of his films (while he doesn't have the distinctive look of Kubrick, I do enjoy that Refn similarly tackles a variety of genres). With that in consideration, I'm still glad that we have Refn making movies. The guy's got talent and a different sensibility that sets him apart from most other filmmakers.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Weekly Film Rec: Scott Pilgrim vs The World
It seems a bit too soon to be recommending this since it's only been out for a few weeks, but dammit, no one is seeing it! The only people I know who have seen it are the group that went with me. It's Edgar Wright! When has he ever gone wrong? Spaced? Shaun of the Dead? Hot Fuzz? Don't? All classics!
OK, so maybe Wright is still floating around the fringes of the mainstream as he deals in esoterica. While his films stand on their own, there are so many references geared to a specific audience that it'd be easy to feel left out (hell, the Spaced DVD comes with an "Homage-O-Meter" option that is sort of a Pop-Up Video for the pop culture references).
I don't want to get into why people aren't seeing Scott Pilgrim (I could right a few thousand words defending Michael Cera alone). The fact is, the movie was made and the only people who should care about the money are the ones who have money to lose in it. It's a bit disheartening to see Vampires Suck reaching more viewers, but that, too, is a discussion for another time.
The biggest reason I have to give for everyone to see it is that I can't remember ever leaving the theater thinking that I've legitimately seen something different. From the fights to the integration of the comic and references, Scott Pilgrim simply feels new (while paying homage to an earlier time). I wanted to applaud twice in the first five minutes. Once when the Universal logo came up in 8-bit graphics with an appropriate 8-bit Universal fanfare and immediately after the amazing opening credits. That the movie is funny as hell is a bonus (seriously, Chris Evans and Brandon Routh are unbelievable).
Despite any reservations you might have, trust in Edgar Wright. He is your friend in cinema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)