Dear loyal readers, Due to my impossibly heavy work load I have not been keeping up with this blog. I'm announcing here that a I am taking a hiatus from writing film reviews until the end of May. Once I get reviewing again, the reviews will flow all summer and hopefully beyond. Plus, there have not been any great thriller or sci-fi films released recently. I watched Divergent, and although the idea of the film was kind of cool, it's similarity in pitch to Twilight was not. 5/10 Can't wait for Transcendence. See you in a few months. - Mote
This post is a more personal than my usual because Philip Seymour Hoffman’s shocking death has caused me more sadness, just of any other performer, but any public figure I can think of. It’s not just that I was a fan of his work. I was, I am, but I haven’t even seen everything he
has appeared in (yet).It’s more than just his
absence as actor.It’s the fact that there
was a real truth to him, an essence of genuine veracity that made him so
compelling, and that he this used as part of his technique. I’m sad that Philip
Seymour Hoffman the actor is gone, but for some reason I am also very sad about
the departure of Hoffman the person.
I cannot think of an actor that exerts so much
of their natural selves in their roles, yet because of such talent, remains
totally immersed in the characters they play. Playing ever role flawlessly, and
so many different types of roles, yet each with a certain kind of signature
loneliness, a imperfection, a subtle flaw in the character that made them seem
more real and that much more worthy of our sympathy.
This led me to go on a watching spree. Going
through the various countries’ catalogues of Netflix, I found a good many of
Hoffman’s films. It has taken me until now to compile some sort of
retrospective of what I think are some of his greatest roles.
Never really good looking enough to be a leading
man, the majority of his roles were supporting. His tremendous ability as a
character actor led him to be cast in a very diverse array of roles, the best
of which are mostly small and in the middle of films. MoneyBall, Talented Mr. Ripley, Lebowski, The Ides of March….and
one such role I really enjoy is in Punch-Drunk
Love (2002). He plays the small-time hustler and mattress salesman
Dean Trumbell.
The role is brief and he appears just long enough to curse up a
storm. The phone conversation scene between Sandler and Hoffman is one of the
film’s highlights. Hoffman is in fine form as Sander tells Hoffman to go Fuck
himself.
“Shut up, shut the fuck up!...Did you just say
go fuck myself?...That wasn’t good, you’re dead.” There is this weird
cartoonish music in the background. It’s a very nice edition to the scene.
Anderson even made this ridiculous video feature Dean Trumbell-
As far as screen time goes, Jack goes Boating (2010) is much
more fulfilling, and with this film Hoffman makes his directing debut.Hoffman’s Jack is a lovable
introvert limo driver, who loves reggae. The plot is revolves around Jack, his
best friends Clyde and Lucy, and Connie, Jack’s potential love interest. The
dysfunction of Clyde and Lucy eventually reflects positively on Jack and
Connie’s courtship as they vie never to go down the road they see their friends
on. Mostly a sweet, quirky film, near the end a major catastrophe occurs, not
only in the plot, but also in the filmmaking. This scene mostly derails the
film, taking the overall quality down substantially, but still, a worthwhile
watch for Hoffman fans.
Obviously Capote (2005) was Hoffman’s piece de resistance, and the work
that made him a star, but having given it its second viewing, I’m not as
convinced that it’s really as great a performance as some of his others. It’s
just the drastic amount of skill he shows playing a character so truly unlike
himself that gets people so excited.
Of course there are scenes in Capote, particularly when Capote is
entertaining party-goers, friends, and fans, while they hang on his every word
that Hoffman’s Capote is truly at in his element, but in some of the subtler
scenes, where Capote describes his own difficulties of being different, these
scenes now come across as less convincing. After having watched most of
Hoffman’s catalogue I can’t help but contrast these scenes with others where he
perhaps does a better job of creating a real aura of sympathy for the “unusual
individual.” He is totally convincing in this role as Jack, and Jack is too an
unusual individual, but maybe that's just because Jack seems closer
characteristically to Hoffman himself.
Capote’s demeanor as a gentle intellectual, and
especially his voice, at times can be borderline unrealistic. However, what
does come across is the villain underneath the soft, outer veneer. Director
Bennet Millers’ vision of Capote. The exploitation, the façade, the doing-whatever-needs-to-be-done
to complete the book that brings Truman Capote worldwide acclaim. Promises
broken, truths twisted, relationship faked, and all witnesses executed.
After reading in Rolling Stone that Hoffman himself considered his performance
in A Late Quartet (2012) to
be his best, I had to check it out. I had been avoided it until then because I
just couldn’t imagine the actors getting the portrayals of professional string
players anywhere near accurate. Director Yaron Zilberman does a great job of
shifting the focus away from the actual playing of the instruments, focusing
much more on the psychology of being a professional classical musician, a New
Yorker, a parent; however when the actors do play, they play with very
convincing technique, and the pitfall of their faking badly is mostly avoided.
After watching A Late Quartet my initial reaction was one of nonchalance, but
like most good films, it took two days for it to set in. After sinking in, a
great film’s characters become real to me, and I think about them as if they
truly exist. This not something I do on purpose, rather it is the effect of
very affective filmmaking. The only other film that has blurred the lines
between fiction and reality so seamlessly is Soderbergh’s Side Effects (2012), which is one
of my favorite films. Sadly, the blurring of Hoffman’s character into
non-existence now hits too close to home.
The Hoffman film that I am most thankful for
is The Master (2012).
Working again with P.T. Anderson of Punch-Drunk
Love, the title of the film refers to the character Hoffman plays, but in
fact is really just an apt description to Hoffman’s performance itself.
The
plot itself is interesting, and the film very well made, yet it is the
performances by Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix that are the highlights. They steal
the glory from everywhere else. The chemistry is incredible and P.T. Anderson
produces some immaculate scenes where the two actors are simply sitting across
from each other, talking. The intensity makes the viewer uncomfortable. The
takes are perfect. Great scenes captured and now immortalized. This film truly
gave Hoffman the opportunity to play the role of the respected elder, a role he
deserved to play. But the Doctor is not a hero. He creates a movement that influences
thousands of people into believing in a doctrine of nonsense. Just as the
doctor is inherently flawed and crazy, he is also incredibly convincing. There
is no better actor who could have played this role than Hoffman.
In the same interview in Rolling Stone friends
of Hoffman’s claim that playing Willie Loman on Broadway in 2012 changed him.
The act of breaking down and crying night after night rewired his brain, some
said. Actor Ethan Hawke who was recalls meeting with Hoffman a short time after
the run ended noticing that Hoffman seemed different, more troubled, and that
he had started drinking again. As sad as this sounds, it is this kind of
investment in a role that makes watching Hoffman’s performances worth every
minute of time we spend watching them. I remember standing in line, trying to
get tickets to Death of a Salesman.They were sold out that day
and I never tried again. I a missed the opportunity to watch the role that may
have led to his death. In so many ways, another piece of sadness.
This is the final part of a four part retrospective reviewing all the majorworks major of David Fincher. Part Four- You've come a long way baby- The progression from the first feature to the latest production. Fight Club (1999)- Nearly everyone knows the rules, number one of which
I’m about to break.
What do you do if you’re sick of your boring, pathetic
life? In the most cathartic, DIY approach possible, Fight Club answers this question: you change it. The absolute specimen of an
existential thriller, it wouldn’t be taking too much of a leap to suggest that Fight Clubis one of the best films
ever made.
Jim Uhls’ excellently adapted screenplay of Chuck Palahniuk’s
novel (this is the only major work by Uhls that I can find), this thriller has
been exciting male audiences the world over since its release in 1999. Even
Palahniuk himself said the film was amazing. In fact, he admitted that film was
so good, the book in comparison made him feel ashamed.
A nameless, pitiful, seemingly friend and family-less Office
worker (Edward Norton) suffers from insomnia. True to Palahniuk’s style, the
solution to the insomnia comes in a bizarre way. He finds relief by attending
support groups for diseases, diseases he doesn’t have; these people really
listen to him, and afterwards, he sleeps. At these meetings he meets Marla
Singer (Helena Bonham Character), a nemesis and lover, and it is through her
that Mr. Office worker discovers his true self, but not until after he’s
transformed more than just his own life.
Mr. Pitiful Office worker meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Durden
helps Mr. Pitiful Office worker admit to his misery once and for all.
Channeling their suppressed male aggression in its rawest form, they start
fighting each other. Soon Mr. Pitiful Office worker realizes that he and Durden
are not alone.
Men, downtrodden, tired of their insignificance as worthless
individuals all aim to do something greater. They jump at the chance to vent their primal steam, and the solo
fights turn into group fights.
Durden’s vision eventually transcends aggression
in its physical form and becomes something much greater, a community where the individual
ceases to exist. As part of this whole, every unnamed member is an equal and significant
contributor, and it is through the whole that the individual finds meaning. As part of
the whole they are changing the future together.
This movie is a directing marvel. With time shifts, psychological
manipulations, and very meticulous scene planning, we are kept on the edge of
our seats for the entire film. Accompanied by the pounding soundtrack composed
by the Dust Brothers, Fincher achieves the rarity of making a movie better
than a book. Fincher turns the concrete basement of Lou’s Tavern into
perhaps the most famous arena in all of modern film. The house on Paper Street,
a lone abandoned mansion, becomes a factory of redefinition, of reinvention. In
the final scene an amazing mesh between the visuals and the music, The Pixies’
“Where is my Mind,” Fincher creates one of the most stunning combinations of
sight and sound in all of film. And it's a pretty damn good ending to the plot
too.
The most memorable scene is when Durden is behind the wheel of a
car full of passengers. He buckles up, pins the gas, and lets go of the wheel.
The car veers off the road and crashes, flipping multiple times. We are force
fed the hard truth here. The Fight Club mantra:
to change to our lives we need to rid ourselves of our past failures, forget
the job, the kids, the car, the living room, the flat screen HDTV, and just let go.
You are not your fucking khakis.
9.5/10
Alien 3 (1992)- Fincher's firm hand of creative direction is not there as the
actors visibly struggle through scenes. Sigourney Weaver is okay but doesn’t mesh well with a
cast that just doesn’t cradle her character; they have no idea what she has
been through in the first two films and how tough she is. For some reason too she
is very cryptic about her past, and reveals little information about the alien
situation. Why wouldn’t she just tell them the truth?
The relationships she does form with the cast are shaky and
forced. Almost every character ends up dead, but it doesn’t matter because we
didn’t know them anyway.
As Fincher’s first major feature film, the style of Alien 3 bears the least resemblance to
his other films. It is his most inexpertly made film. AKA, his worst film, technically
anyway. I still prefer Aliens
3 to The Social Network any
day, but after investigating the production of this film I came to realize that
Fincher was not totally responsible for the lackluster film that made it to
theatres.
When David Fincher was brought into direct Alien 3, it was after another director
had already begun production, and was fired. There was not even a finished
script. As one contributor wrote in the IMDB Alien 3 FAQs about, Fincher “was forced to effectively
write, shoot, and edit the film, all at the same time.[1]
There were millions of dollars worth of sets built and many takes and scenes
had already been shot. Twentieth Century Fox insisted Fincher incorporate these
into his production to save money.
The shadows of the masterminds behind the first two Alien films,
Ridley Scott and James Cameron, must have been looming over the production,
because as Fincher completed a rough cut of film, Twentieth Century Fox
panicked. They began started dictating that certain things were going to have
to be re-shot in certain ways, essentially stripping Fincher of all creative
control. He would eventually walk away from the film. The version that was
released in theatres was his rough draft, completed by a new crew in LA.
In 2003 editor David Crowther took up the task of assembling what
was of the original draft, and re-edited it in a way he though was most likely
the way the Fincher version would have turned out. This release was called the
Assembly Cut (I have yet to see it).
All that drama of the film’s production aside, the story had real potential.
Even following Cameron’s greatness on Aliens
(1986), enough time has past that Cameron’s production was no longer fresh, and
this third installment could have made a significant contribution to the
series. The idea of a pod crashing on a giant prison planet bringing with it an
alien that threatens to wipe out all life there, and possibly even all mankind
is a cool idea, right? What would have become of this rough draft had studio
execs not meddled? All we’ll ever have is the Assembly Cut.
The most modern incarnation of the Alien series lives on
in the amazing contemporary film Prometheus directed by Ridley
Scott, and on November 27th, 2015 the second installment of the Prometheus series is set be
released with both Ridely Scott and Jack Pagen, the man who wrote Prometheus 1 involved. This is a
film I’m counting down the days for.
House of
Cards (2013)- Episodes One and Two- Congressman Francis
Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is the smartest guy in Washington, but we meet him
just as he suffers a devastating betrayal shifting his career into neutral, but
this is only the beginning. We can tell by his acute composure and his stiff
body language that even though he is extremely distraught, he is very far from
defeated. He will never reveal his distress. That would be a sign of weakness.
Underwood will even play his subservient role, for now, but eventually, his
time will come, with the help of reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) Perfectly cast
as here, Mara has a unique allure as an actress, and as with all her roles, she
is unassumingly engulfing.
The congressman makes it loud and clear that he yearns for power.
Using off-stage, to-audience-only recitations, he shares his real thoughts and
objectives; it’s like getting inside the head of a sociopath, making an almost
trite connection between pathology and politics, but Spacey is so convincing as
an individual, he doesn’t speak for the masses, fuck the masses, that the
intended commentary on the sociopathic political mindset actually becomes more ingrained
and powerful than trite. It works cleverly it all its glaring obviousness.
We observe characters alone, watch them move, interpret their body
language. Especially Underwood’s lovely wife Claire (Robin Wright). A fog of
loneliness wafts over the show even as characters embrace, make alliances, and
settle debts. Everyone competes neck-in-neck for Washington’s top spots, of
which there are few.
When Netflix, supposedly nothing more than your friendly neighbourhood video store, started making its own productions, the stakes were
low. But Netflix has officially hit the ball outta the park. Way Out. Both of
its debut seriesHouse of
CardsandOrange is
the New Blackare blazing successes, and not just commercially, but as
statements themselves: artistically, emotionally, and stylistically unique,
they are really very good.Orange is the New Blackespecially has come up with some ultra-creative plots and
characters that are a blast to watch.
How did a first time production company, that was observably not-at-all
subtle in its blazing out of the gate with such pomp and circumstance over it
new shows’ greatness, make such great debut shows? With very deep pockets, they
hired the expert help. Not just movies stars like Kevin Spacey, but veteran
film directors.
As the debut director for the seriesHouse of Card,David Fincher sets the tone of intrigue and shadows that shroud
his dark thrillers. Post-HBO renaissance, Fincher achieves what any great
director working in upscale TV does: he makes the episodes come across as
mini-political thrillers, pieces of cinema unto themselves. The newsroom scenes
are vaguely reminiscent ofZodiac.But as he directs the first
episodes, it is his footsteps all others must follow.
With so many scenes,directors of this kind of TV work hard. Big shows need a surplus
of directors.Breaking
Badhad
a different director for almost every episode. Most directors work in other
capacities on other episodes as writers or producers. Compared to film, how
much does the director of the cinematic TV show’s vision actually make it to
the screen?The
Sopranoshad dozens of directors, but none really left a distinct imprint
on the show. Do we remember their names? Not really. It was the show itself
that had a style.
It seems like with shows likeHouse of Cards, The Sopranos,orBreaking
Badthat
the momentum of the cast, combined with writers great scripts, makes the job of
the director to step in and to channel this momentum, rather than drum it up
from scratch as in film. But Fincher’s first two episodes ofHouse of
Cardsare
the force that starts the momentum. It is his footsteps that all others must
follow in what continues over the season’s following eleven intriguing
episodes.
So that's the end of my Fincher Retrospective. From now on I think I'll just do "the best of's."
There is not much of a storyline toLone Survivordirected by Peter Berg. Just based on the title alone, we are
already fully aware of the film’s ending. A Four man team goes into battle.
Three of them die. Only One survives.
The pre-action first act is pretty weak. It’s the same old
ultra-patriotic, Navy Seal prestige banter complete with a rookie giving a
front-of-the-class speech defining his role as a Seal Diver. In the mission
briefing the target Afghans are portrayed as cliché plot devices. Never is
there a mention that these Afghan’s are actual humans whose country the Seals
are currently occupying, and are currently planning to kill. Scenes like these
are not usually later redeemed, but as soon as the four Seals drop into the field,
the tone of the film changes.
What makes the filmLone Survivora good film is 100% in its execution. The performances of all the
actors, the special effects and stunts, the lighting and the sound, the fancy
camera work and exotic scenery, the violence, equal the actual enactment: a very powerful, non-partisan,
grim portrayal of modern ground combat.
Once dropped in the field, the Seals encounter innocent civilians.
Faced with the ethical decision of whether to execute them or free them, the
Seals let them go. This is truly a controversial choice. Acting differently
surely would have produced a different, less deadly outcome (for the Seals at
least). Any logical viewer will afterwards struggle to justify why the Seals
made the choice they did. Why would they sacrifice themselves for the innocents?
It is almost nonsense, but in war decisions are made on the fly, and this is
what happened.
Within minutes the freed civilians alert the troops, and an army
of hundreds of heavily armed men surround the group of 4. This when the action
starts.
It begins with the exchange of long-range rifle fire but soon the
Seals are surrounded and flanked fiercely. As the battle shifts positions we
encounter scenes where Seals must make split second decisions between
particularly gruesome tasks. Which is less likely to kill me? Pushing forward
and engaging in fire where I am extremely outnumbered, or throwing myself down
this 50 foot rock face?
The unfolding of this battle, and that is to say two-thirds of the
film, really cannot be described in words. The battle trulyisthe film. It is an attempt
at the depicting the intensity of real combat, and myself having zero
experience in real combat, I think Peter Berg is very successful in portraying
it.
Their radio signals having been lost, their back-up firepower
having failed them, and every other piece of bad luck imaginable having
occurred, the battle ends. The Seals literally having fought to their deaths.
2013’s
most surprisingly awesome film wasPacific
Rim.How
did I miss this? Well…
Even
though it was directed by Guillermo del Toro, who has to date made only
excellent films,thetrailers
and the marketing forPacific Rimdid
not do the film justice. There was only a bare-bones connection linking del
Toro’s star power to this film. For the average person who may know del Toro’s
other films,Pan’s LabyrinthandHellboy 1 & 2, but not
his name, the little “directed by” box at the bottom of the promotional poster
would not have rung any bells, at least not in the same way a giant “From the
Director of…” promotion would have. Still, I know del Toro by name and I still
didn’t realize this was his film. Wayyy after it was already out of theatres I
watched it on a plane. It was great.
Not
only did the marketingnotexploit
any of the film’s star power, it didn’t even really give us any idea what it
was about. The trailer just showed huge metal warriors battling Godzilla-like
creatures, much in the fashion of recent mindless action movies such as Battleship(I
did actually enjoyBattleship)or
anything from the recentTransformersfranchise.
I hypothesis that this complete disconnect must have been intentional. In this
wayPacific Rimattracted
the same audience as the previously mentioned movies. A huge audience base that
is easily swayed and turned on by special effects, battle scenes, and stuff
blowing up, but they are potentially turned off by something that could be
considered “cinema,” or too arty. This audience needed to be brought in from
the beginning.
As
for the more savvy movie-goers, although turned off by the meat head marketing,
they are generally more inquisitive than the averageTransformers fan, and
so it seems the producers relied on these movie-goer’s inquisitive nature.
Since it’s an actual good film, the savvy will find their way to it eventually.
This film’s crappy marketing was actually a ploy to lure multiple demographics
in subliminal ways, and thus mucho bank was made. Just a hypothesis.
FYI:
According to Slashfilm.com,Transformers2was
the highest grossing, most negatively rated film in history, so getting theTransformersaudience was just good business. The
fact that the movie is also good is just a rare and wonderful freak, but not
accidental, occurrence for the Transformersaudience.
What
makesPacific Rimso
great? Using a montage
sequence and voiceover, in the first five minutes of the
film we learn all about the world that Earth has become. Monster Kaijus have
invaded from a dimension shifting portal in the ocean, humans have built
fighting machines called Jaegers to combat the Kaijus, and this on-going
threat, the conflict between the two entities has eventually just becomes a
routine part of common culture. Then suddenly things change.
The
set designs are spectacular. Hong Kong is specially tailored here to fit a
Kaiju bashing society. The encampments where the machinery and pilots are based
is a gloomy complex that looks like the inside of a submarine. Being a big budget
action film,Pacific Rimrelies
heavily on computer-generated graphics and spectacular special effects for its
visual telling. Truthfully I have no idea how any of these action scenes would
have been shot as almost every one is an epic between giant monsters, earthy
and not. But it is not the visuals alone that make this a great movie.Transformershas great visuals.
It
is the script that is so awesome. Co-written by Travis Beachman and del Toro,
it is a sci-fi monster movie, but it is the nuances that make the film so much
fun to watch. All the intricacies of the world. For instance, two people whose
brain functions combine in a process called “the drift” pilot Jaegers. Pilots’
ability to drift effectively in unison is what creates great pilots. The drift
is probably the single coolest thing about this film, and the idea is used
later for purposes even crazier.
The
Kaijus become so powerful that mankind is forced into a final standoff using
all the remaining Jaegers against multiple super strong Kaijus. The prospects
for humanity’s survival look grim. In final act of the film a spectacular twist
takes place thanks to some unlikely scientists, and the fate of all humanity
hangs on their wild hunch, the functioning of the aging military machinery, and
the drift between the last two standing Jaeger pilots. I wish I had seen this
film in theatres. Let's see if Pacific Rim 2 ever makes it from the hard-drive on Travis Beachman's desk to the screen. This time, I'd give it a chance. 8.5/10