Rashomon (1950)

5/5

Rashomon was the first Kurosawa movie I'd ever seen, and it blew me away. The movie is based on a short story called "In a Grove," which describes an incident that takes place in the woods. The incident involves the death of a samurai (Mori) and the rape of his wife (Kyo) after an encounter with the bandit Tajomaru (Mifune). But the exact details of what transpired there we may never know. The movie proper begins at Rashomon Gate in a torrential downpour. We see a priest (Chiaki) and woodcutter (Shimura), who both witnessed the court hearings and walked away baffled. After hearing each individual's conflicting account of the incident, each more self-incriminating than the last, the priest is on the verge of losing his faith in mankind.

The movie I remember is better than the movie I saw. The movie I analyzed is better than the movie I saw. That is not to disparage Rashomon at all, as it is a great film that has stood the test of time, but rather a mark on its characteristics. It is more art than entertainment, more stimulating to discuss than enjoyable to see. Whereas I could rewatch No Country for Old Men 100 times for the sheer fun of it, Rashomon more appropriately aims to contribute through its complex thematic possibilities. It is a movie that discusses insight and ideas first and foremost and then tries to tack on the human element afterward. The acting serves to advance the plot, and fails at realism or empathy. Unlike The Rules of the Game, the dialogue contains hardly any quotable gems. But there is something inimitable and profound about this movie that I cannot shake, something that sparked a fire in me and inspired me to search out art house cinema. Rashomon turned me on to Kurosawa, and to the moving pictures as works of art, and for that I will always be indebted to this film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042876/

Double Indemnity (1944)

5/5

Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity is the definitive film noir, perfecting all the elements of the genre while somehow surpassing all expectations. The byzantine plot follows the seedy underbelly of insurance fraud, as insurance salesman Walter Neff (MacMurray) is approached by Phyllis Dietrichson (Stanwyck) to set up an accident insurance policy for her husband and then kill him. She serves as the femme fatale, really little more than a representation of man's greed and lust, wrapped up in a sexy little package called opportunity. We start the movie at its chronological conclusion, giving us a sense of fatalism inherent in all noirs, a realization that no matter how many times we see it, it will never end the way we want it to. And the ending rivals the best that cinema has to offer. With one simple sentence and one small gesture, we gain such a terrifying depth of understanding about the relationships between the main characters that are absent in typical noirs. Where most depend on archetypes, Double Indemnity separates itself from the rest of the flock by giving everyone such unique, personal characteristics that it is impossible not to feel for them. Especially when they lose it all.

"I killed him for the money. And for a woman. I didn't get the money. And I didn't get the woman." MacMurray speaks the stylized dialogue of the intro with the necessary coolness of a true antihero, and continues to deliver the hard-boiled jargon as if there were no other way to talk. The subtlety hiding beneath the words echoes the suspense and deepens our understanding of each personality: "I don't like [carrying matches]. They always explode in my pocket." Each word and each glance drowns you in information you will not comprehend until a second or third viewing. The cinematography is just as good, if not better, than the impeccable script. It uses harsh lighting to brilliant effect, often shadowing our protagonist in bars cast by window blinds. And Wilder ratchets up the tension with simple set pieces and efficient editing. I guarantee you will be watching this movie on the edge of your seat.

I simply cannot praise this movie enough. Film noir is my favorite genre and this is the reason why. Watch it, and then watch it again and again and again. You will not be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/

City Lights (1931)

4.9/5

Charlie Chaplin's City Lights is a marvelous film, filled with cutesy charm and sharp wit. The story follows Chaplin's lovable tramp, who meets a blind flower girl (Cherrill) and falls in love with her. He also meets a drunken millionaire (Myers), who proceeds to forget their nights out together the next morning when he sobers up. That is, for the most part, the extent of the plot. Most of the movie feels very episodic in nature, with vaudevillian set pieces interspersed here and there with little connection or relevance to the story. And yet somehow it all flows together fluidly and expertly.

Yes, it is a silent film. But to me that seems an arbitrary distinction that sheds no light on how good the movie is. It's like describing The Godfather as a 2D movie, or Casablanca as a black and white movie. More importantly, it is a ceaselessly entertaining film that delights and surprises at every twist and turn, even today. Chaplin possesses an impossibly precise sense of comic timing. Every joke is just the right length, straining the scenario to the breaking point without every going past it and delivering on all its promises. It does not have the same social imperative as Modern Times or The Great Dictator, but it has a tenderly human element that just makes your heart melt.

And yet, for some reason, I remembered this movie being funnier. Maybe I am just coalescing all the good parts of all his movies into some imaginary perfect film, but I was expecting even more than what this movie provided. Still, this is an impeccably-made film by a true auteur and one I cannot recommend highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021749/

The Hunger Games (2012)

4/5

The Hunger Games is more of a phenomenon than a movie, based on the first of Suzanne Collins's trilogy of books that took the world by storm. I won't bore you with the movie's plot, because you've probably already figured it out from the seemingly endless tide of people around you who have already read the books and can't stop chattering about them. The series is essentially a love story between Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) with a little bit of action, violence, and political intrigue thrown in to spice it up. The story involves all three basic formulas for romance: 1) love triangle, 2) two people forced together by circumstance who fall in love, and 3) two people who love each other torn apart by circumstance. No wonder it's so successful.

As far as adaptations go, this one is fair. It takes no risks, aiming right in the middle of mediocrity to offend nobody, and indeed it fails at just about nothing. Unfortunately, it could have been really spectacular if helmed by a director with a vision. Instead, the director seems to harbor some sort of foolish fondness for over-editing and Shakicam shots, a term I coined myself to describe the silly trend of ignoring the revolutionary invention known as the Steadicam and going ultra-Bourne Supremacy on everything. The editing was by far the worst part about the movie, with Hemsworth's acting taking a close second. Not only is there split-second splicing of every action scene--making it impossible to tell what was going on--but the movie could have been cut to a more manageable 2 hours and have been just as satisfying, if not more so. As for the actor who played Gale, he was atrocious at line delivery. The only thing he did well was look down mopingly whenever Katniss and Peeta kissed, because apparently he has mastered that one skill set of neck flexion.

There are, however, some moving parts that carried over well from the book. One, my favorite, is Peeta's interview with Caesar (Tucci) and Katniss's subsequent reaction. Another is Katniss's first kill in the games, with an emotional tug that was cleverly flipped around from how it occurred in the book. The movie also added the character of Seneca Crane (Bentley), the Head Gamemaker, in a surprisingly intelligent way. Bentley, along with Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, were absolutely fantastic in their roles and brought the characters to life. The movie itself is a must-see for anyone who's read the book. It's also a must-see for anyone who doesn't like being out of the loop, as this is the kind of movie that everybody will be talking about. If you don't care about any of those things, well, then you're probably not reading this review anyway. So go out and watch the movie; it's an entertaining ride and does its fair share to bring the book to life.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/