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/

Bob le Flambeur (1956)

2/5

Jean-Pierre Melville's Bob le Flambeur is a character study of the titular gambler (Duchesne). As the movie begins, we see him enjoy hefty winnings from a racetrack bet only to lose it all on roulette that night. Out of money and burdened with debt, he collects a team of thieves to help him complete a heist on a casino. But things don't go as planned.

The movie has alternately been described as a film noir and a precursor to the French New Wave, preceding both Godard and Truffaut. I can see elements of both, but I feel that they embody opposite ideals and disparate moods. One deals in archetypes, the other in innovation; one in seediness, the other in rejuvenation. The movie has a fractured tone as a result, and prevented me from really getting into it.

Plot-wise, much of the movie reminded me of Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven. Where that movie had slick editing, this one had amateurish camerawork. Where that had wit and cleverness, this has the occasional stray joke and just one real surprise. The acting is bare-bones and basic, serving the story instead of the characters. But despite all those negatives, this movie has a truly remarkable ending that almost makes up for its technical flaws. Almost.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047892/

Young Adult (2011)

3/5

Jason Reitman's Young Adult is somewhat of a diversion from his earlier comedies (Thank You for Smoking, Juno). It follows the story of young adult fiction writer Mavis Gary (Theron), who returns to her small town of Mercury after learning that her high school boyfriend (Wilson) has just had a child. Aiming to ruffle some feathers and win him back, she accidentally bumps into someone else she went to high school with: Matt Freehauf (Oswalt). Matt walks with a cane, after having been beat up back in high school for supposedly being gay, and tries to convince her not to ruin the new couple's life. But he can only do so much, because he's not the only one with old wounds.

Ultimately, I think this movie takes a sobering look at the terrors of high school relationships, how awful and cruel those interactions can be, and how they can stir up primal emotions our evolutionarily-mature cerebral cortices should be able to inhibit. High school can be painful, and filled with painful memories, even in the most well-adjusted graduate. It's where we first develop a sense of superiority, a sense of insecurity, or a sense of dependency--and also a sense of self. It's a far more complex movie than any trailer could do justice to, and perhaps than even the film itself can. It is a funny movie, in the sense that there are sarcastic jokes and awkward moments, but it's also a very sad story, in the sense that we are faced by depressing realities. But for me, it was just hard to get into. There is more focus on the editing than the dialogue, more emphasis on the representation of the characters than the people who live these lives. It's a dark comedy, intelligently told, and wholly unlike Reitman's earlier works. If you decide to watch this movie, just go in knowing what to expect.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1625346/

King Kong (1933)

4/5

The original King Kong was a monumental achievement in filmmaking for its time. Made almost 80 years ago, it still manages to tell an engrossing tale of hubris, humanity, and love. The movie starts with film director Carl Denham (Armstrong), about to set sail into uncharted territory with a film crew and enormous supply of tranquilizing gas bombs. He won't tell any of his compatriots the exact location until they near it, but he plans to shoot his newest adventure film there. He brings on a young Ann Darrow (Wray) as his lead actress to act against Jack Driscoll (Cabot). And so begins the story that inevitably ends in disaster.

The movie is remarkably efficient (especially in comparison to the remake that almost doubles the running time), and serves as an example of impeccable storytelling. We are immediately placed in the mystery of the moment, buffeted along by every twist and turn in the plot. The titular ape does not appear until almost halfway through the film, but our eyes are glued to the screen the entire time. It turns into an epic love story, one of unrequited love and sacrifice. We watch as our antihero protagonist builds up a tribute to himself and to mankind that eventually comes crashing down. Literally. The plot is so thick with multiple thematic meanings that it becomes a joy to analyze.

Unfortunately, the movie has more than its fair share of faults. The performances are rather stilted and bland. The dialogue itself isn't bad--when it's not racist or sexist, that is--but the delivery absolutely kills it. It's not such a bad thing the first time you watch it, but it seems to lose a little of its luster with every repeat viewing. There is also a large amount of obvious green-screening. But the most glaring problem is the stop motion animation. While hailed at the time as being unbelievably, unexpectedly realistic, it just looks comical now. This would have been more bearable if the effects simply stayed in the background, but the director spends exorbitant amounts of time showing off the latest and greatest like he's Michael Bay. It's as if the director forgot the focus should be on the story and the characters, and chooses instead to focus on the novelty of the animation. It doesn't help that the computer-generated effects in the remake easily outperform all the hard work put into the original.

All in all, the film is somewhat of a mixed bag. It was clearly a labor of love, and involves a richness and depth you wouldn't expect in this type of film, but it just doesn't hold its weight against modern cinema. It's hard to watch knowing a better-looking version is available, although I feel a twinge of nostalgia every time I think of this movie. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024216/

Footloose (2011)

2/5

This 2011 remake of Footloose is kind of a funny movie, although not always intentionally so. It purports to be a movie about an out-of-towner (Wormald) who discovers that public dance has been outlawed in his new small town home and attempts to overturn that silly law. It is also about a foolish, old-school preacher (Quaid) who must learn humbling life lessons from his far wiser, far sassier, daughter (Hough) and her precocious teen friends. I guess it's also supposed to be a dance movie, but there are about 3-4 scenes total that involve any kind of dancing. I say that it's funny because I can't wrap my head around the plot enough to suspend my disbelief. A group of drunk teens gets into a car accident while leaving a party that involved dancing, and the next logical step is to outlaw dancing. A high schooler gets so fed up with the unfairness and oppression leveled at him by adults that he has to go to an abandoned warehouse and dance his heart away. Most preposterous of all, however, is the drag race involving schoolbuses that ends in flames. Honestly, I'm not quite sure that the filmmakers were going for, but whatever it was, I don't think they succeeded.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068242/

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010)

3/5

Tsui Hark's Detective Dee movie has a ridiculously long title and a preposterous plot to match. I was suckered into watching this because it was on Time's list of the top ten movies of the year, as number 3 behind The Artist and Hugo, and I was surprised that I had never heard of it. Honestly, I didn't know what to expect, but I certainly hoped it would be good, especially since it had been lauded as "Crouching Tiger meets Sherlock Holmes." The movie starts with the mysterious death of two men who are working on a gigantic Buddha for the coronation of China's first female emperor (Lau), two men who literally explode into flames when the sun hits their skin. The empress enlists the titular detective (Lau) to solve the crime, but sends her aide (Li)--a martial artist with a whip--and an official from the Royal Court (Chao)--a martial artist with an axe--to keep an eye on him.

The story includes transfiguration, fighting puppets, and talking deer. But it also includes a surprisingly affecting love story and a clever mystery. So what that some of it makes no sense, that the line work is simplistic, and that the special effects are laughable? Nothing impresses, nothing offends. It's mindless entertainment in the cinematic style of old Asian dramas. It is what it is and nothing more. Watch it if that's the kind of movie you like, but don't go in hoping to be converted to a new genre you've never tried before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1123373/

Drunken Angel (1948)

3/5

Drunken Angel is an early Kurosawa film, billed as a film noir but playing more like a character study. The story follows Dr. Sanada (Shimura), a gruff physician working in a poverty-stricken district with a trash-infested swamp serving as the centerpiece for the village (and thematically probably much more, although I can't figure out what). He works not for money or prestige, but for the inherent reward of helping people in need. He begins an uneasy friendship with a gangster named Matsunaga (Mifune) after diagnosing him with tuberculosis. Tensions heighten when Okada (Yamamoto) returns from prison, declaring power over Matsunaga's turf and claiming ownership of a young woman who works for Dr. Sanada (Nakakita).

The movie is surprisingly unique, and for whatever reason I could not predict what would happen next. Kurosawa has a way of making movies that envelop you in them, that place you in the action, so that you enjoy the story instead of analyze it. Even so, I was disappointed in the film. Some characters were written flat while others felt like explosive caricatures. The titular doctor has an unusual habit of throwing bottles at his patients and calling them fools. The compositions were second-rate (made worse by the sub-standard Criterion transfer), the camerawork was shoddy, and the editing was choppy. Much of the medicine in the movie is unintentionally comic, likely because it is old medicine and not because of bad writing. Overall the movie just felt a little less put-together than his later films. You could see sparks of genius and the direction he wanted to take it, but without the proper tools to get him there. A fine effort, but there is much better Kurosawa to be had.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040979/