Feed for ClydeUmney.net, personal webpage of Josh Mauthe. You can read book and movie reviews, get my infrequent thoughts, or browse picture galleries. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0311c Thursday, 11 Mar 2010 19:40:02 CST Up until now, my only exposure to Peter Greenaway was Prospero's Books, a film I found to be tedious and incredibly pretentious (I hate the word, but sometimes it's all that applies). So I put off watching The Cook... for a long time...and now I'm kicking myself for the wait. My friend Ryan described the film as pure opera, and it's an appropriate description in many ways. Of course, it applies to the story, which spins its four titular characters into a story of jealousy (the thief), lust (his wife), honor (her lover), and barely contained distate and hatred (the cook), to say nothing of bloody, bloody revenge. But it also applies to the lush, jaw-dropping visuals, which encompass a dark and intimidating street, a massive kitchen that feels like a castle dungeon, an incredible blood-tinted dining room, and a blindingly white restroom, all while Greenaway alter the character's clothes to match the colors of each room they enter. And. to be sure, it applies equally well to the performances, all of which shoot for the rafters and succeed, but none so much as Michael Gambon as the thief, a vile, brutish boor whose constant speech and abuse make him into a terrifying force of nature to be reckoned with. There are any number of takes on the movie - from political allegory to social commentary - but even without it, the film works as pure Grand Guignol opera, and it's completely riveting from the first frame to the end. The characters are compelling, the visuals astonishing, the story riveting, the violence and cruelty revolting (seriously - this is not for the faint of heart), and the impact incredible. One of the best films I've seen in years, and one that makes me feel like I need to start trying every other Greenaway to see what I've missed. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0311b Thursday, 11 Mar 2010 18:03:06 CST The worst idea anyone ever had for the Marx brothers was attempting to shoehorn them into a plot, and A Day at the Races is pretty full of such plot decisions. Trying to make Groucho into a character who feels bad for his anarchic actions or making Chico into a noble helper...well, it robs the brothers of the pure joy they bring to their actions, and it makes their antics feel forced into the story, which isn't very interesting to begin with. Add to that too many musical numbers and you have a Marx brothers comedy that's pretty colossally disappointing to Marx brothers fans. To be sure, there are some great scenes here and there, but even the best moments feel as though they're missing that spark, that sense of true giddiness of "I can't believe we're getting away with this!" It's no surprise that this is the beginning of the end for the true Marx brothers comedies, but it's a shame that studios never seemed to get a handle on exactly what they had and let it loose more often. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0311a Thursday, 11 Mar 2010 17:01:16 CST In which Matthew Vaughn makes a better Guy Ritchie film than Guy Ritchie ever did. Layer Cake has all the earmarks of Ritchie's take on the gangster film: colorful characters, a complex and interweaving plot, a kinetic sense of style, nice use of music. But where Ritchie makes his tales intentionally a little light and clever, Vaughn's world is far more serious and dangerous, and there's a more palpable sense of danger that permeates the film. What's more, there's Daniel Craig as the protagonist, bringing an uncommon sense of intelligence and shrewdness to the gangster film, instead of the simple "street smarts" or viciousness that most bring (although Craig definitely brings both of those to the table as well). The plot is a satisfying one, and it all builds up to an absolutely great ending, but the whole film really ends up working remarkably well. I popped it in, planning on hopefully enjoying a solid B-movie, but I was really blown away by Vaughn's slick style and willingness to create characters that have more personality than their one quirk. An absolutely great ride. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0310d Thursday, 11 Mar 2010 16:55:05 CST When I first left The White Ribbon, I fully admit: I was a little disappointed. Part of what I loved about Haneke's earlier works that I've seen is the visceral impact of them, the willingness to push boundaries and get a reaction out of the audience. Instead, The White Ribbon is muted in its telling, allowing much of the impact to come through subtext and implication. Over two and a half hours, Haneke tells a slow but engrossing tale about a small pre-war German village where strange crimes are committed by persons unknown. A tripwire is erected to trip the doctor's horse. The Baron's cabbages are destroyed. And as the crimes continue, the paranoia and concern mount as we start to learn the hidden depths behind the village's charming facade. Much like with Cache, Haneke is far less interested in the "who" behind the crimes so much as watching their effect on the victims and the community. From the village priest, whose religious discipline of his children borders on fanaticism, to the isolated farmer and his family, The White Ribbon ends up creating an involving and immersive world, and it becomes fascinating to watch the subtexts and ideas play themselves out. The further I get from the film, the more I find myself thinking about it and pondering it, and the more I find myself appreciating it. I still miss the impact of Haneke's best work, but The White Ribbon is intelligent, complex filmmaking, and I can't deny that its mood of unease and uncertainty makes for an intriguing experience, one whose power and impact seem to deepen as I think on it more and more. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0310c Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010 16:06:10 CST Classic piece of film noir that owes more than a little bit of its style to Citizen Kane, even though the camera work and lighting are pure noir. Opening with an absolutely riveting scene involving two hired killers waiting in a diner for a target who turns out to be very passively awaiting their arrival, The Killers follows an insurance investigator as he meets various friends and acquaintances of the dead man to see how he came to meet his end. It's all stylish and well-written, and it's no surprise that it launched both Lancaster's and Gardner's careers, as both are absolute knockouts here. Still, for all the double and triple crosses and all the machinations of the plot, there's little here you haven't seen before, and the plot that unfolds isn't ever quite intriguing enough to make the investigator as fascinated as he seems to be. That being said, so much of noir is all in the execution, and this one is pure style all the way. And seriously, enough good can't be said about that opening sequence. http://www.clydeumney.net/booklog.htm#0310a Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010 15:54:41 CST She Wakes is unique among the Jack Ketchum books that I've read in that it's his first genuine supernatural horror novel. Typically, Ketchum's horror is more human, based in the depravity and violence people can show to each other, whereas She Wakes becomes a complicated tell involving Greek mythology and a vengeful deity. I was a little curious to see how Ketchum would fare outside of his typical material, and it turns out that he handles it all pretty nicely...once he gets to the point. There's a lot of setup in She Wakes, and without some of the realizations and details you get in the second half of the book, some of the early action just seems petty and cruel, to say nothing of borderline misogyny. The book's second half allows you to look a little differently at some of the characters, but you can't help but wonder if some of the book could have been trimmed without losing much of the impact. That being said, I've always argued that Ketchum succeeds because of his strong willingness to focus on characterization, and She Wakes has lots of it; unfortunately, when the horror is more supernatural, that characterization seems to matter less and ultimately feels a little discarded by the end. I feel as though I'm doing nothing but complaining, when in fact, I enjoyed the book quite a book; the absolute mayhem that breaks out in the book's closing half is superb, with a true sense of terror and creepiness that testifies to Ketchum's talent. And that says nothing of the ending, which Bentley Little should take some notes on to see how to handle his (often similar but weaker) climaxes. It's not typical Ketchum, and it's not his best, but it's still a damn good horror novel, and I'm all about finding those. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0310b Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010 15:43:32 CST It kills me that, between The Woods and his directorial debut May, Lucky McKee has put out two of the best modern horror films I've seen in years, and both have been unceremoniously dumped to DVD and disappeared without much of a trace. Set at an isolated boarding school in the 1960s with a history of witchcraft, The Woods is a cluster of homages and nods, from the obvious Suspiria influence to the casting of B-movie icon Bruce Campbell in a small role. If it were all references, though, the film wouldn't work; luckily, McKee takes the solid script and brings it to life, creating some great characters (with the help of some great character actresses) and bringing a true sense of unease to the film. There are all sorts of staples of the genre here - unusual visions, disturbing dreams, slow builds to unsettling reveals - but McKee uses them well, and almost entirely eschews jump scares in favor of a more unnerving and disturbing feel to it all. And it all builds to one hell of a finale that reminds me of the much-vaunted House of the Devil except done right, with infinitely more fear and nightmare fuel present. Okay, there are some missteps - the "bully" character feels as though there are some scenes missing, and the final shot/caption are pretty bad. But all in all, I absolutely loved this; McKee shows off a knack here for some great images that unsettle without feeling cheap, and his commitment to the story is a refreshing find after watching the genre descend into plotless mayhem all too often. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0310a Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010 15:36:51 CST Although it's mainly remembered today for being Francis Ford Coppola's directorial debut, Dementia 13 is actually a pretty fun little Corman horror movie. The plot is pure B-movie silliness, involving a conniving wife, a grieving mother, a spooky Irish castle, a deceased daughter, and a series of axe murderers. But the characters, goofy though they may be, are all some memorable ones, and it's fun to have a movie where absolutely everyone is either deranged or hateful, adding to the bizarre atmosphere. And there's no denying Coppola's knack for framing and composition, even here; there's a long sequence involving the exploration of a bedroom with some great shots in it. No, it's little more than B-level horror, but it's a fun example of that, and worth checking out either for Coppola fans or horror junkies. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0309c Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:00 CST I wish, I wish, I wish I could see what everyone else apparently sees in Odd Man Out. Where other people find the film, with its tale of a dying IRA (presumably) member's travails as he seeks shelter in Ireland, all I found was a meandering, dull series of interludes that all followed the same basic formula (Johnny arrives, they debate on whether to let him stay or kick him out, he leaves). Where other people found rich characters throughout, I found characters with little personality, all serving the exact same "moral dilemma" as the others and having the same conversations. Others praise the dark humor; I found tedium, with what humor there was feeling forced and farce-like (I'm thinking here particularly of the awful barfight scene, but also of generally anything involving the painter). I'll concede that it's beautifully shot, but to say that it's a better film than The Third Man? I just don't get it at all. http://www.clydeumney.net/movielog.htm#0309b Tuesday, 9 Mar 2010 23:49:06 CST It's really no surprise that Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner cut his teeth on The Sopranos; much like that show, Mad Men excels in capturing the day-to-day life in a very unique world, eschewing a focus on an overarching plot in favor of telling episodic stories about its characters. The world here is Madison Avenue ad executives, circa 1960, complete with rampant cigarette usage, casual sexism in the workplace, and the rise of a young upstart named Jack Kennedy (a man with no use for hats). It's hard to explain the impact of Mad Men to someone who hasn't seen it, because it's a show that lives in the small moments: watching children re-enact their parents' arguments as they play; finding a man sleeping in his office after being thrown out by his wife; watching a man walk away from his family and knowing the long-terms effects of that situation; and so on. There are moments of melodrama throughout, sure, but in the end, Mad Men creates a vibrant, living, breathing world that lingers after every episode. We care about these characters, and as they have their epiphanies, live their lives, make their pitches, we see ourselves in them: the anxieties about work versus family, the doubt about ourselves and our places in the world, the effort to define ourselves by our own works, not our families. And there are moments in the show - primarily an ad pitch in a very late episode - that rank not only as the finest moments TV has ever made, but as something that makes us think differently about the way we approach the world and our lives. And I can think of no higher praise than that to give a show.