Showing posts with label 1999. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1999. Show all posts

Friday, September 10, 2010

Flashback: Sleepy Hollow

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day that drifted to Tim Burton. I was swearing at the brilliance of Big Fish – Burton’s second-best (says me) and she was swearing by Edward Scisshorshands. Afterwards I wondered why Sleepy Hollow never factored into the discussion. When I recapped the brilliance of 1999 there was a host of great films and I’m unembarrassed to say that Sleepy Hollow was one of the best. Despite its excellence, technically and otherwise, I rarely hear it mentioned when discussions on Burton arise. Save for Corpse Bride I think Burton’s brilliance lies in adapting stories and twisting them into the strangest ways (see Beetle Juice, Batman, Big Fish, Sweeney Todd). He’s not a Woody Allen who thrives on doing his own work, and that doesn’t make him any less of a marvel (when he gets it right).
The original tale of Sleepy Hollow is eons away, plot wise, from its cinematic counterpart. The most startling deviation is – of course – to be found in Johnny Depp’s Icabod. I find the original story to be only vaguely interesting and Burton’s variations work well. Though I don’t consider Sleepy Hollow his greatest I’d easily call it his most technically proficient – and that’s saying something in itself. The film is the sort of anomalous thing that attempts to blend comedy, drama, tragedy, mystery, horror and yes, even romance into something dark and broody and very Burtonesque. I’d also wager that it’s the strongest performance Depp has given under Burton, even though it’s ignored for being so obviously under the radar unlike other usual suspects (like Sweeney and Ed). As manic as he can go, there’s something that seems right in seeing Depp play the straight man before he turned into Jack Sparrow and whatnot and his performance is the thing that keeps us centred on the (dubious) reality of the strange world we’re experiencing.
True to Burton form, though, Sleepy Hollow is no one man show. Though I’m decidedly fond of his visual madness and I’d like to see Burton handle a straight dramatic ensemble, because he has a way with large casts. Miranda Richardson and Christopher Walken have a thing for showing up in long films to steal scenes (The Hours, Catch Me If You Can) and they work splendidly in the madness of Sleepy Hollow. Sleepy Hollow is a fable in the best of the sense and though I may not consider it as his greatest it’s up there with the good Burton films.
               
Is Sleepy Hollow proof enough that adaptations don’t make Burton any less inventive?

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Movie Meme, Day 26: Freakishly Weird Endings…

Freakishly weird…what exactly does that mean? An ending that was inadequate? One that I didn’t see coming, one that was bizarre…some endings deliberately try to shock you and make you go “a-ha”. Most often they fall flat, it wasn’t that I didn’t see this ending coming – I didn’t – the delivery of it was just eerie – brilliant – but weird.

SPOILERS – obviously (Haven’t seen it? Don’t read it)
Unlike the runaway for The English Patient Minghella’s 1999 masterpiece The Talented Mr. Ripley wasn’t wholly loved (REVIEWED). Based on the eponymous novel it tells the story of the nefarious body snatcher (not literally of course) Ripley, played excellently by Matt Damon in probably his best performance. Ripley is at first infatuated with Jude Law’s deliciously mean Dickie Greenleaf, but eventually he murders him when Dickie gets tired of his friendship. He adopts Dickie’s personality for some time before having to kill again. Along the way he meets Meredith Logue (Cate Blanchett in a beautifully understated performance). After convincing most of his innocence in Dickie’s disappearance he makes his way out of Italy on ship with Peter, a mutual friend of Dickie’s who Ripley may, or may not, start a love affair with. Unfortunately, Meredith Logue is on the ship – she still think he’s Dickie, and so is Peter. He can’t kill her, she’s with her family – but he can’t be revealed so in the final scene Tom kills Peter. It’s more than a rote killing because he does love Peter, but he loves his freedom more so as Peter tells us all the great things about Paul Ripley we see him sitting in the dark and hear the murder as he begins to cry tearfully and the screen fades to black. No ending will be creepier, even if they try more overtly. I’m repulsed, fascinated and moved by Ripley’s plight, which he of course brought on himself – that ending is definitely something special.
      
Am I the only one who was creeped out by this?

(More of the MEME)

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The First Rule of Fight Club...

...is you don't talk about Fight Club.

Don't you just love that quote. It's been spoofed so often since then...but which movie started it all?
                           
There are some films that have been written about so much that there isn’t much left to say…and it really is tough doing a list of one hundred films and I sense a burnout coming on. Still, I have to celebrate this film featuring two of my favourite actors [Helena Bonham Carter and Brad Pitt], David Fincher’s 1999 Fight Club, which is #64 on my lists of 100 Favourites.
                      
If I ruled the world Fight Club would have been up for ten Academy Awards. Actor [Norton], Supporting Actor [Pitt], Supporting Actress [Bonham Carter], Picture, Director, Screenplay, Sound, Editing and Cinematography. It would have won for Sound, Supporting Actress and Editing. But that’s just me. Let me just say before I get into what may or may not be a real review that Helena Bonham Carter was scorching in this film. As the seductive and mysterious Marla Singer she has a burning chemistry with both Norton and Pitt. The fact that this talent was overlooked all season long… Oh, the horror. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Helena just does not get the love she deserves and I'm so mad at Tim Burton [just like I'm mad at Warren Beatty] for taking their women and shutting them away from me... and the world. But I digress.

Fight Club tells the story of an unnamed narrator who has serious psychological issues. One of the weird idiosyncrasies he has is going to different meetings nightly – for alcoholics, cancer survivors, smokers etc. It’s there that he meets the aforementioned Marla Singer. After his house burns down he moves in with his new friend Tyler Durden, who quickly guides him into a world of wantonness in the eponymous Fight Club. This Fight Club is ostensibly a place for men to blow off steam. But what you think Fight Club is really about is all up to you. I'm sure psychiatrists could have a field day asking their patients what was their response to this movie.
                              
Although it never occurred to me [I saw this when I was thirteen] Fight Club is probably not a movie for the faint hearted. The fight scenes, the sex scenes, the language – it’s all particularly adulterated. But if you’re of age [or just don’t care] you need to go get this movie, if you haven’t before. It’s jolly good fun. David Fincher does some ridiculously great directing in this fast paced adaptation of the novel by Chuck Palahniuk. But don’t be fooled into thinking that Fight Club is some vacuous action/violent picture. The underlying implications and themes of this movie are very unnerving. Ed Norton, Helena Bonham Carter and Brad Pitt are outstanding in their roles. I mean I like them all [the former two a lot more], and maybe…just maybe I’m a little biased. But they just act the hell out of their roles.
I’m biased towards actors and I always come out of films thinking more about the acting and less about the writing, directing &etc. Anyhow, what’s so great about the acting in this movie is that the actors are obviously enjoying themselves. The amount of glib line readings that had me rolling with laughter despite their macabre premise are just too much to mention. And there is much hilarity in this movie. It’s not some grim film. The humour is deliciously dark, which is just the way I like it. But even if you aren't able to establish the underlying implications of this movie, I still think it exists a wickedly fun romp in the park. That's the thing with movies like this. Even if there is a serious underlying message beneath all that satire; the film needs to function as a piece without the underlying message. That's what makes Fight Club good. It's both a fun film and a psychological thriller of sorts.
If there’ anything that I didn’t like about Fight Club it’s that Helena Bonham Carter couldn’t do a little fighting herself. That wouldn’t have been super hot…but I digress. This is just a short rant, and not a full review worthy of this wonderful film. But I must say this movie is great. If you haven’t seen it…and I really don’t know what to tell you if you haven’t except – go and see it…NOW!!!
          

In addition to the TV Meme, I shall be doing a few reposts and recaps of the TOP 100 thus far....
               
(This is a repost, I shall be unveiling my top ten films some time next week and exams are finally here YAY...so revel in some of my earlier favourites and enjoy the Summer)
                         
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF FIGHT CLUB?

Friday, June 11, 2010

Forgotten Characters 2:12: Finale

I like to have my own weird ideas of continuity, so it makes sense that my final entry in Forgotten Characters* will be a continuation of the original entry. So many months ago I covered a performance that I would have given an Oscar nomination to from an excellent 1999 entry. It is weird how one exceptional could manage to have so many excellent – and forgotten performances. I’ve been having this woman on my mind for some time, so it makes sense…
                         
Gwyneth Palthrow in The Talented Mr. Ripley
 As Marge Sherwood
Gwyneth really impressed with that 1998/1999 one-two punch of Viola DeLesseps and Marge Sherwood. It’s also more than a little ironic that she was once again in direct contention with a certain Ms. Blanchett. Marge plays the girlfriend to Dickie – Jude Law in a performance for the ages. When the duplicitous Tom Ripley wheedled himself into the duo he becomes a contented confidante to both Dickie and Marge and it’s the portion of the performance where Palthrow thrives. With it’s obvious feeling of overt darkness in the latter portion, there’s something oddly enticing about the film’s first half and Gwyneth is a large part of that. It’s easy to think she’s doing too little but it’s just her character of Marge (an excellent one, I might add). She manages to make Marge’s inclination to Tom unromantic and believable and perhaps it’s this reason that her performance in the second half doesn’t hold up quite as excellently.
The only false note I can find in the performance is her hysterical confrontation of Ripley towards the film’s end which is not exactly her fault – it’s also Minghella’s only false note, and I forgive her for it nonetheless because she’s so willing to portray Marge as self-deprecating it ends up working even when it shouldn’t. Like Jose, I hope that Palthrow’s familial duties eventually subside so she can return to the big screen. She’s not given enough credit for her natural cadence and affability which is something that’s decidedly difficult to forge. Of course with Jude and Matt giving performances of their lifetimes it’s not difficult to forget Gwyneth (and her psychological doppelganger) but it doesn’t hurt to take a few moments of your time to recall her brilliance. Like her costar, she would have rounded out my Supporting Actress line-up that year with Jolie, Bonham Carter and either Keener or Diaz. But, oh well, such is life.
                   
*as the post title implies, Forgotten Characters will be in recess for the next few months. Next week I’ll debut a new feature.
  
Did you remember Gwyneth’s subtle performance? Or were you too caught up in the main duo?
            
Forgotten Characters: Season 1
Blanchett in The Talented Mr. Ripley
Richardson in The Hours
Hawke in Training Day
Monroe in All About Eve
Castle in The Lion in Winter
Bean in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings

Payne in Walk the Line
     

Forgotten Characters: Season 2
Mulligan in Pride & Prejudice
Law in The Aviator
Poehler in Mean Girls
Firth in The English Patient
Bates in Revolutionary Road
Farmiga in The Departed
Richardson in Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire
Noni Rose in Dreamgirls
Beymer, Tamblyn et al in West Side  Story
Ryan in Changeling
Friend in Pride & Prejudice

Monday, March 29, 2010

American Beauty...Just About Americans?

It’s a fact that even when The Academy makes decisions that are ostensibly good they get flack for it. It happened with The Departed, The Lord of the Rings and with American Beauty. On the superficial level American Beauty (as the name suggests) is somewhat of an irreverent ode to America. Yet that doesn’t mitigate its relevance to the world’s populace. No other recent Best Picture winner (or nominee, even) has been as evocative of the times we live in. It sounds like a trite statement today, but as prosaic as Ball’s script it, it still exists an articulate representation of the changing values in our time, and yet American Beauty is more than that.
                
If memory serves me right, the moment that many remember most from American Beauty is the effusive image of the floating plastic bag. Excellent as it is, subtle is not the word I’d use to describe American Beauty. It is a pity that none of the cast members (save for Annette and Chris, to an extent) were able to follow up their performances here with better things. Wes Bentley’s performance as the intrepid loner, of sorts, gives the best performance that is not from Annette or Kevin. The blatancy of his artistic nature as indicated by his “movies” is a bit humouring, but it’s in keeping with the black comedic style of the entire film. American Beauty is so excellently obvious I’m never sure if it’s a farce or indicative of Greek Tragedy. To assess it from the ending I’m always surprised at how satisfying the ending is – even though we’ve lost our protagonist. I’m never sure if I should accuse the filmmakers of being too pat. What will happen to the living afterwards? Will Lester’s death really catapult an epiphany of sorts in Carolyn? I’m not sure, but Annette’s reaction to his death does cause me to wonder. She hasn’t been playing a stereotype throughout the film; she really does care for her family in that (perverse) way of hers.
                
I suppose, if I’m honest with myself, the entire film is working against her. Isn’t it? Spacey is excellent, and he has no trouble making us believe Lester because we see ourselves in each schmuck-like action he does. But few have as much self awareness to recognise the features of themselves in Carolyn. Take for example her line reading “There’s a lot about me that you don’t know, Mr. Smarty Pants.” It’s – in some ways where the metaphorical separation of Carolyn and Lester occurs. And as much as the script is working against her (do they have to make her seem like such a bitch? She just doesn’t want to destroy her couch.) she has no qualms about completely decimating Carolyn (even if the damage is only superficial). If any Annette scene sticks out in American Beauty (truthfully, they all do) it’s her manic monologue of sorts as she prepares to sell that house. In a film of obviously harrowing scenes this one sticks out as most disturbing. It’s more than the slaps, the faux cheerfulness or the repetitive monologue. The look in her eyes as she goes through it all is just scary.
            
I should try to avoid turning this piece into homage for Annette; she’s not the only radiance in the film. Although Kevin’s win is not completely loved, I’m a big fan. There’s an almost even split between Lester, the douche and Lester, the dick – and Kevin convinces me of both. One thing I always regret is that unlike Mendes’ Revolutionary Road, American Beauty is not as laced with prime episodes of rapport between the two leads. It’s when American Beauty reaches its peak for me. The two have such a splendid chemistry together. The thing with American Beauty is that it’s easy to miss its brilliance while we’re being caught up in the seeming triteness of it all. The machinations of the children are played so glibly we are almost fooled into believing it’s as mundane as they think. It’s the point of the film though, we’re supposed to know people like the Burnhams or Chris Cooper’s neurotic father. It’s a stereotype he takes and turns into something almost special.
      
I wouldn’t say that I’m biased towards American Beauty. I’m as aware of its faults as I am of its merits, but I adore it still. As aware as I am of its blunders I’ll still maintain that it’s almost perfect. Mendes has become underrated as the years have gone by, and so as the film, but I continue to be a fan. It’s #37 on my list of favourites.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The Talented Mr. Ripley

I’ve never read the novel on which The Talented Mr. Ripley is based; however it’s one of those rare instances on the internet where I’ve heard fans convinced that the adaptation was better than the original. I’m a prejudicial fan of Anthony Minghella, I’d be hard-pressed to say that each of his films has been a masterpiece; but I’d also be hard-pressed to trash them either. Minghella is just one of the directors [along with Lean, Scorsese, Cukor and a few others] that work for me, and whom I defend regardless. The Talented Mr. Ripley was released three years after Minghella’s amazingly successful The English Patient, and even if preference would entice you more to Ripley, we could hardly have expected lightning to strike twice as far as critics and the Academy were concerned. We could not expect it to be as massively successful as its predecessor, and it wasn’t. After spotty appearances at precursors it earned four Oscar nominations [Screenplay, Art Direction, Supporting Actor and Score]. It won none. But to look at The Talented Mr. Ripley from this excessively superficial stance belies the beauty and the maturity with which the film is made, and though it’s not my favourite Minghella film I do believe it’s his most accessible.
                                      
Tom Ripley is the protagonist of the story, protagonist he may be but not the hero. He is a young man of mean circumstances who upon chance is thrust into a world that begins dangerously enticing to him. It is the world of Dickie Greenleaf – a charismatic youngster – who ranges from Tom’s tyrant, his best friend and perhaps even the object of his affection. We can’t be too sure. It’s up to Matt Damon and Jude Law to promulgate this relationship. Matt must play a variation on a role he continued in the Oceans’ series. He must be a man who is charming enough but fails to make a lasting impression you, a man with his back against the wall who sees the most ridiculous of all means of escape. And Jude is a man who has lived his life in such luxury that he fails to realise just how desperate some are to enter it.

As good as this film is, and it is good, it seems that the scenes with Matt and Jude are just very well done. Two scenes with them come to mind immediately. The first is early on, Ripley takes off his spectacles and Dickie says, without the slightest trace of callousness “You know, without the glasses you’re not even ugly.” It’s a cold moment, and I don’t think even Dickie realises the meanness of this statement. It’s as if it’s already been ordained, Ripley is unattractive and definitely beneath Dickie…that much is certain. The second is later and much more chilling. On a train ride, Dickie lies sleeping as Tom sinisterly watches over him. He motions as if to caress Dickie and almost as if this were some psychological thriller [and who’s to say it’s not] Dickie wakes up right then, oblivious it would seem, though I’m not sure. He looks at Tom weirdly, “Why do you do that thing - with your neck. On trains you always do that thing, it's spooky.” I love Jude’s delivery, but Matt’s reaction too is a gem.
                    
But the way I’m gushing, you’d think that only these two gentlemen lend their talent to the film; and that couldn’t be more inaccurate. One thing Minghella has been known for is his casts of good but not always overly popular actors. In addition to Matt Damon and Jude Law, Cate Blanchett, Gwyneth Palthrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jack Davenport lend their services – and each in their own way is effective in their roles. I singled out Cate, a few months back, as a potential candidate for a Supporting Actress Nominee in 1999. Her Meredith should be the thinnest character but her little acting idiosyncrasies make a true character that's better than she's given credit for. Gwyneth Palthrow’s Marge has been unfairly treated as time goes by. She’s taxed with more than just looking pretty. She plays Marge with a bit of gumption that just may have been residual from Viola De Lesseps; and it works. I’m still not convinced that her confrontation with Tom towards the end of the film is the right choice, but whenever I’m tempted to doubt her shrillness I remember that this is exactly how Marge would have behaved, and I acquiesce.
                            
The Talented Mr. Ripley always made me wish that Minghella could have tackled some Hitchockian drama and done his worst with it. It’s not that this film is so frightening, but it’s that final scene that is so unnerving that it always leaves me with my insides a little upset. As we hear Tom kill Peter and listen to his sickening crying you can’t help but sympathise. It’s what makes The Talented Mr. Ripley such an uncharacteristic film. The prototypical villain does not end up dead, but then there is not a single character in the film – save for Meredith, and maybe not even her – who does not act solely for themselves. This movie should be seen for much – Minghella’s superb direction, the astounding technical achievements, the excellent performances of the cast – Hoffman, Blanchett, Palthrow, the amazing Jude Law and Matt Damon in the greatest thing I’ve ever seen him do. This film should not be missed. That’s why it’s my #54.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...