The Player

I have to admit that when I heard that Robert Altman died, I was shocked. It's not that I was ignorant of how old he was (though I was clueless about that); it was just that it happened at the same time that I was beginning to get into his work. Sure, I hadn't liked "Gosford Park," but maybe I just didn't have enough patience for it, as Altman has said (he tried to keep kids out of his films because he didn't think they'd have the patience for them).

So I watched "The Player." I definitely liked this one better, though whether it's because it's a better film or a more interesting subject is up to debate--I'm one of those people who dislike Hollywood and think studio executives are like Griffin Mill, the main character.

He's the "writer's executive," yet he blows off writers and never calls them back. He starts an affair with a dead writer's girlfriend without breaking up with his current girlfriend. And he's the "hero" of the film. The "villain" is one of the writers he never called back, and is threatening to kill him.

But the story is not the point of the film. "Satire" of Hollywood is the point, so don't get too wrapped up into the plot and you'll have fun. If you're looking for a smart thriller, this isn't it (and neither is "Gosford Park," come to think of it). If you're looking for a witty Hollywood story, this is it.

(Possible spoiler sub-note: Is it a rule that every Hollywood film has to have a reference to itself near the end? "Singin' in the Rain" implied that they were making "Singin' in the Rain," this one implies that a writer is pitching "The Player" near the end...)

Superman Returns

A quick confession: I'm not a big superhero fan. I don't know why; maybe it has something to do with my dislike of action films (at least the ones where the action doesn't do anything different or interesting--there's only so many exposions and uncommented-on deaths you can take before it gets old). I didn't even like "Superman II," and considering that lots of people seem to love that, you should see why I'm not big on it.

Nonetheless, I did give "Superman Returns" a chance. It's all right, I guess (and if I revisited "Superman II," I'd probably say that about it, too), but it's not a particularly important film. It's got some good set-pieces, but there's not enough substance to it.

So Superman returns from Krypton, and I have to wonder about that: How did he survive being around the remnants of his homeworld if, on Earth, those same remnants rob him of his powers? Did he need a spaceship? And why did he need to go back? Did I miss something? Because really, if your father recorded a message that tells you that it's destroyed, I'm not sure why you'd need to check it out.

Anyway, Superman returns, and strangely, it seems Lex Luthor hasn't been up to much in the 5 years since he left. So he's romanced an old lady to her death--would that really take five years? Actually, on second thought, it could. Still, all that and he's only come up with one evil plan to take over the world? I don't know about you, but if I were taking five years off from trying to take over the world, I'd be brainstorming for all sorts of new ways to do it. Heck, that could have been interesting: Lex has so many different plans being put into consideration that Superman has to deal with all at once.

Alas, his superplan now is kinda odd: Krypto-Land floods over America and he's got prime real estate. Ignoring the strangeness of plotting to go into real estate, you have to wonder why he'd use kryptonite if what results is so ugly. Why doesn't he put in some grass? At least then, people would want to live there instead of drowning in America (today!). And I have to ask why they seem to make such a big deal out of Parker Posey's character seeming to realize how evil Lex's plan is when nothing ever comes of it; the way they showed her reactions, I expected her to turn on Lex, but the film seems to forget it. (And why is a Queen of Indie-Film Land doing superhero films like this and "Blade 3?" Does she just accept every script her agent sends her?)

Maybe I'm being picky here, and there are logical explanations for everything there, and that's why I'm not good at reviewing superhero films. Or maybe it's all just Comic-Book Science, and I shouldn't ask why all this happens, as long as it does. Hell, I don't know.

The Saddest Music in the World

Make no mistake: This isn't really all that sad a film. Despite the title, and the premise (a contest to see who can play the saddest music in the world in 1930's Winnipeg), it's actually kind of a silly film.

It's also bizarre as heck. There's no other way to describe a film where, at a funeral, somebody sadly sings "Skip to My Lou." It's a film where somebody is so drunk, when they have to amputate their love's leg to save her from a car wreck, they cut the wrong leg off first. It's a film where, when they win a round of sad music, contestants get to slide into a vat of beer.

The plot does show why they get to go into a vat of beer: It's 1930's Canada, and the contest is being supported by a beer baronness (the one who got her wrong leg cut off, and now has none until near the end). But why waste beer like that? The film doesn't ask; at only an hour and forty minutes, it doesn't have time to ask about little details like that. Besides, why not?

Few films tend to take strange things like this and take them as seriously as you can while still having them be funny, so I'd recommend that if this sounds like the kind of thing you'd like, you seek it out. If you're into normal films, you may not want to bother.

It's a fun film while it lasts. It's not necessarily a great film, but hey, how many films are?

The Best of Youth, Part 2

In re-reading my review of "The Best of Youth, Part 1," I feel like I may have written about it in too-romantic terms. You probably feel that way, too. And yet, it's all true. It's epic, it's joyful (although it's sad as well), it's beautiful. I guess that everything I said about Part 1 is true for Part 2.

I think that's where I'll stop. There's really no more to say about the film than I've said already.

Before Sunset

Two warm, beautiful films in two days. (Well, 1 and a half films, but you get my point.) This is some kind of record for me.

I can't really express why this film is so great. The warmth of it just enveloped me, and I guess that's what film is all about for me.

I guess my entire review can be summed up like this. You know how sometimes, people just do and say things and you laugh at them, and sometimes you don't even know why, it's just that, well, life's funny that way? That's what this film is like. Jesse and Celine get together and talk again, and they just do and say things that make you laugh, and it's all just so romantic.

I guess it's the lack of any real romance that makes me love this film so much, and yet, I can say that if I did have a girlfriend, this would probably be one of the first movies I'd show her--along with the predecessor, "Before Sunrise."

The only two complaints I have about the film: One, there's a lot of dirty talk, which I don't mind, but it really gets in the way of fantasizing about watching it with a girlfriend (and I just realize how strange that makes me sound); and two, it's only 80 minutes long. It's true what Ebert says: No good movie is long enough. (And no bad movie is short enough, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.)

I'd recommend this film if you want to get in the mood for love. (Which reminds me, I should probably see "In the Mood for Love" sooner.) However, if you're impatient and/or don't like movies where people just talk, no matter how great their conversation is, you'll probably want to avoid this. You'd be missing out, though.

The Best of Youth, Part 1

I'm going to start this review off like pretty much every other review of this film: It's not really a film, but a six-hour Italian miniseries. And now, for two revelations: One, I've yet to start watching it (this first paragraph came to me before I started); and two, this review is going to be in two parts thanks to NetFlix shipping the discs one at a time, and due to the backwards nature of a blog, this means that in the archives, Part 2 will come before Part 1. Weird, but what can I do? Now, on to the movie.

--

Most kids these days are impatient. They want what they want, and they want it now. How would they sit through something like "The Best Of Youth," which I just finished the first part of, without pausing for a drink, a snack, a bathroom break, or anything? Well, I managed. Sure, there were brief interruptions (when you live with your family, that happens when you watch DVDs), but not once did I pause the film. I never got bored with it, something that didn't happen with a slightly shorter film, "Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." And if I had the second disc right now, I'd start watching it after only a brief intermission.

It is, as Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, an ambitious film. It's six hours long and it follows two brothers over four decades of their lives. You could easily think that such a film would be exhausting, maybe gloomy, or any other negative adjectives that come to mind. And yet this is one of the most moving films I've seen in quite a while (and keep in mind, I'm not even finished with it yet).

Matteo and Nicola start their journey away from home by planning to go to Norway for the summer with two of their friends, but they get sidetracked when Matteo discovers that a patient at an asylum he works for, Giorgia, is being electroshocked. So he breaks her out (a rare instance of cliche in the film, the old "the-patient-would-be-better-off-out-of-the-asylum" bit, but here there's actually a reason for it) on an ill-fated quest to take her home to her father. However, when she refuses to produce her nonexistent ID when asked by policemen, she is taken away and the brothers may never see her again.

That, on its own, could make for an interesting film, yes? Well, that's just in the first hour of "The Best of Youth." Matteo leaves for home and joins up with the army, while Nicola goes on to Norway alone... but to give away more would be wrong. There's so much story here that it's no wonder it had to be a six-hour miniseries: Compressing it into the form of a two or three-hour film would not only be fundamentally wrong, it's probably too difficult a task to contemplate. Oh, sure, you can summarize the events, but for their full impact, they need the time to develop.

And oh, what a time it is. This is a joyful work so far. It is almost like watching select moments from the lives and times of two real brothers instead of two fictional ones. The film has an eye for those moments in life where you chuckle at the little jokes life plays with you--not "on" you, realize, but with you. Sure, there are sad moments, but they're woven in just as they would be in life.

I may have to watch this part again before I send it back to NetFlix and get the second act, both to keep the events in mind and to experience them all over again. I almost wish I'd rented it at a traditional rental store, so as to get both discs and to absorb it all as a whole instead of as two parts. Alas, such is life.

As for recommending it, if you think you have the patience to sit through it, you probably should see this film. If you're the kind of person who enjoyed "Jules & Jim," I think you'll probably enjoy this.

The Prestige

My favorite film critic is Roger Ebert. (I mentioned him in my first post as the kind of writing I aspire to get to with this, so you see what I mean.) One thing he resents is having to rate films by stars: His reviews do a much better job of telling you about a movie than how many stars a film gets. "The Prestige" is a good reason as to why numbers, stars, thumbs, etc., aren't good ways to show what you thought of a movie.

The movie is, taken at face value, well-done. The film gets your interest and it rewards it. But when you think about it, there's a problem. Here, it's the characters, specifically, the main characters, Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman. (I barely recall their characters' names, which is unfortunate, considering my annoyance at people who see an actor in a movie and say, "Hey, it's that-guy!") Their characters have pretty much no redeeming qualities: They're driven by obsession, revenge, and vengeance for their revenges. They're not likeable at all.

I know main characters don't have to be likeable. There are lots of movies, some of which are good and a few of which are great, where the main character is unlikeable. But the good ones at least give you something to sympathize with. There's nothing underneath the two characters here to give you anything. They do what they do without a single motive with which we can identify. (And before you can say that we've all felt obsessive or vengeful, these guys take it to an extreme you probably haven't felt unless you're in prison.)

So I don't like the main characters. The others are mostly sympathetic: From Michael Caine to Christian Bale's daughter (and no, I can't remember their names, either) to Nikola Tesla (played by David Bowie... yes, I remember his name, but mainly because it's how I found out, not to mention it's the only name the movie leaves in your brain), they have some kind of sympathetic characteristic. But you don't really get into their brains. You're stuck with the two main characters.

Not helping matters is that about 3/4 of the way through, the film reveals a plot twist that takes itself from "involving but hateful" to "damn near ridiculous." The spoilers shall be hidden, so don't highlight if you haven't found out for yourself and you care about it: Eventually, it turns out that the two can end up essentially cloning themselves using electricity and Comic Book Science (where science functions in ways unexplainable without saying "the plot requires it"). Not only is this preposterous, especially considering that this story takes place in the 19th century [!!], it sets up an ending where we're nearly cheated out of a resolution because there seem to be just enough versions of the two of them that they're able to get away with everything. It also makes the characters more unlikeable, because really, how can you sympathize with someone who's apparently killed dozens of versions of himself? Sure, it makes for some interesting plot twists, but if you think about it enough, you'll figure out all but one of them. But for the most part, the story is interesting enough to keep you guessing. It's just too bad that it has to end the way it does, to satisfy everyone at the expense of actually resolving everything.

So, could I recommend it to you? Probably not. It's nearly impossible to get on the side of either of the two main characters; otherwise, it's an interesting film that 'works,' but without sympathetic characters, what good is it?