Furious on Film 11.30.06: Issue 65
Posted by Arnold Furious on 11.30.2006
Nothing sucks this week, its all gravy
The aim of this ongoing column was simple. I've been watching films for a long, long time but along the way I've somehow found myself watching some absolute crap on a regular basis. I've seen every episode of A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Halloween. Is there any real need for that? Should I have seen Police Academy: Mission to Moscow? The Blair Witch spoof movie that was just a bunch of Blair Witch spoofs hung together by a terrible TV show called The Woods? It's Pat? I'm appalled at my own decisions. So I'm now on a crusade to try and be more adult about my film watching. It's time to spread my wings and watch a wider range of films. The biggest problem I've encountered when taking on this challenge is my choices of viewing material aren't always at the level I'd hope for. There are times when I abandon my high and mighty campaign and instead watch whatever my brain decides I need. This can happen at any time but I'll still try to keep up a turnover of films that are challenging in some way.
Warning could well contain minor spoilers throughout. Films are rated on a ***** scale. This week we have
Night Watch, Dead Zone, 21 Grams, To Catch a Thief
Night Watch (2004) or Nochnoy Dozor as it is in Russia
EXPECTATIONS It's weird tuning into an honest to God blockbuster from another country. While France, China and Japan have taken their shots at such a venture one of the last places I expected to follow suit was Russia. It seems the entire country has taken an interest in following the Western World. First Roman Abramovich buys up Chelsea and now this. What's even more amazing is they made a special effects movie for less than $5M. Now let's see how many studios line up to make a film in Russia. It promptly made a tonne of money in Russia, breaking all box office records, and $31M worldwide thus making it a huge success financially. So much so two sequels have now been green lighted Day Watch and Dusk Watch. In fact Day Watch is already available if you live behind the old Iron Curtain. Dusk Watch is planned for next year. Predictably I've never heard of any of the actors nor the director attached. When I watch foreign films there's normally something very different about them compared to the Hollywood mentality of film making. Whether it's an Italian, Swedish, English, French or Japanese feature. There are distinct parallels between this film and a recent Hollywood blockbuster. That being Underworld. In Underworld it's a battle between vampires and werewolves. For Night Watch it's a battle between light and dark with "others" on both sides.
PLOT Hundreds of years ago the forces of light and dark met on a bridge and battled to a draw. Since then there has been a truce. Both sides have their own police force to ensure that no one breaks the terms of the truce. On the side of light is the Night Watch. After discovering he has special powers Anton joins the Night Watch. We move on a few years and the balance between light and dark is becoming unstable. Anton is forced to kill a vampire on the side of evil putting himself in the bad books of Zavulon, the controller of the dark. He seeks the assistance of the head of the light side Geser who informs Anton that the Prophecy is set to come true. A child will discover his powers as an other and choose between dark and light. His decision will forever affect the ongoing battle.
OPINION The first thing that struck me about Night Watch is that it didn't suck. I was fully expecting another Underworld. I ended up being quite pleased that it wasn't the case. For starters it's less silly and takes itself far more seriously. There is no daft Romeo & Juliet overtones. Night Watch also doesn't come off as a cheap Blade knock off. That's two points up on Underworld right away. What amazes me is if you look the two films up on IMDB.com Underworld has the slightly higher rating. All the kids voting it a 10 just shames them and makes them look stupid. Night Watch has a great deal more going for it. The mood is better. The plot is marginally more coherent. The only disappointment is there's a lack of an ending. There is an ending but it's not what you'd want from sitting through two hours of cinema. The reasoning for this being that its part one of a trilogy. But you look back at some other trilogies and they had strong endings. The only one that leaves itself up in the air is Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Other flicks like Back to the Future, Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark had really strong endings that you could get behind. Night Watch isn't Lord of the Rings. It doesn't have such an epic tale to tell that it can leave me with such a mediocre conclusion to the first film. And *SPOILERS* even worse so it's not even upbeat. It's a downbeat ending, which is frankly crackers because everyone knows that's how you finish the middle section of your trilogy. *SPOILERS END*. That said I actually enjoyed Night Watch a great deal because it created a genuine sense of scope. Like what we're watching is merely a little section of a bigger story. It's been compared to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in that there's a boy who has amazing gifts and the forces of light and dark are battling for control of him. Yeah, I see how that works but at the same time the powers of light and dark here are very clearly drawn. The dark side in Phantom Menace was rather vague and hidden. Only Ray Park with bits sticking out of his head was visible. There was no real threat to Anakin or the pushing of power onto him. Night Watch moves at a much faster pace. Quick to tell the back-story of Anton then of the boy before rushing into some tremendous action sequences. There's a lift from X-Men with Zavulon being introduced by flipping over a speeding truck. There's a pitch battle between light and dark on the bridge where both commanders are splattered in blood. There's a great scene with a young female vampire walking along the road inside a tunnel with the odd car hitting her arm. It has to be all CGI but it looks terrific. There's Olga transforming from owl to human. There's plenty to amuse the avid sci-fi/fantasy crowd that's for sure. On the budget they had it looks AMAZING. I don't think I've ever seen a film shot on so little that manages to get so many great sequences into itself. The plot struggles to come together, which hurts it slightly but this is the first of three films. There's every chance that the plot will come together in the other two films. We might also get to see the character "Bear" actually show why he's called that. Solid opening to a trilogy but I'd need to see the other two films before really passing judgement as to whether it's a total success.
BEST BIT A plane circles Moscow unable to land because of a city wide power cut. As it continues to struggle a rivet shakes loose from the wing. We follow it on its descent thousands of feet down onto the roof of a building. It lands on a grate before a crow lands there and kicks it down a shaft. The rivet continues to fall and rattle around until falling into a woman's apartment landing in her coffee while she stirs it. All in one shot although it's mostly CGI. It doesn't stop it looking any less impressive.
RATING - ***1/2. Significantly better than Underworld for many reasons. It's far more memorable and merits a sequel based on the film makers desire to push the budget as far as it'll go. The action scenes are often quite fresh although the ones in "the Gloom" are a bit odd. It is nice to actually praise a film for its use of CGI though. I don't even remember the last time I did that. Imaginative film making that puts some Hollywood films from the same fantasy genre the shame. In particular I'm thinking of Underworld but you could shoehorn in a great deal of fantasy films from the past too. Blade: Trinity for example. Odd that this film would be better than those it almost seeks to mimic. Anyway, I enjoyed it and I'll be looking out for the sequels especially as the concept does appear to be that light does not necessarily equal good. Keep it interesting!
The Dead Zone (1983)
EXPECTATIONS There is some serious talent associated with this picture. First off it's an adaptation of a Stephen King book. He's had literally a hundred projects come from things he's written. The best of include the Shining, Shawshank Redemption, the Green Mile, Stand By Me, Misery, Carrie, the Running Man and Apt Pupil. Dead Zone was converted to the screen by Jeremy Boam. While he's not the best known of screenwriters he did do Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade, Innerspace and the Lost Boys. Director is David Cronenbourg. He's had a string of popular underground movies dating back to Shivers and Rabid in the late 70's. He's since made Scanners, the Fly, Videodrome, the Naked Lunch and Dead Ringers. Oddly enough his most successful venture into film in terms of commercial reward was an adaptation that he didn't write: A History of Violence. I didn't think it was up to much but it did a lot of money. It's that same formula that takes shape here. On the producer side of things is Dino De Laurentiis who also has a history of making good with smaller budgets. Army of Darkness, Manhunter and Flash Gordon spring to mind. He was also responsible for Barbarella, Death Wish and the Conan movies. In the acting stakes we don't let up in terms of quality. The main character is played by Christopher Walken. The man has an astounding pedigree and has churned out some terrific performances over the years without ever being in anything really great. I guess the closest he's come was with his memorable turn in the Deer Hunter or his small but memorable part in Pulp Fiction ("I carried this watch up my ass"). He also had memorable bad guy roles in True Romance, Batman Returns, A View to a Kill and Wayne's World 2. I generally like him in everything.
PLOT Johnny Smith (Walken) awakens from a coma to discover he's lost five years of his life but gained strange psychic powers. He struggles to come to terms with the loss of his fiancé Sarah (Brooke Adams) who moved on and married someone else, a campaigner for would be Senator Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen). After aiding local cop Sherriff Bannerman (Tom Skerritt) Smith starts to find out what happened with Sarah but in the process accidentally discovers that Stillson is destined for great evil.
OPINION The Dead Zone is probably even more relevant now than it was in the early 80's. I'm sure there was a degree of intent to ape the leadership of the time in the United States and connect it to the genuine nuclear threat that existed under the Cold War. Martin Sheen's Stillson shares a great deal in common with present American president George W. Bush. Without wanting to delve too deeply into politics the comparison is there. Sheen and Walken both play their roles superbly well. Everyone else is merely there to support them as they have the flashy parts. Even Herbert Lom, normally seen chewing up scenery in Inspector Cloiseau movies, is reduced to a mild mannered doctor studying Smith's case. Sheen's Stillson is a real driving force. He must have based some of the public speaking on Adolf Hitler or someone similar because it's powerful and yet the character is so incredibly dangerous. The idea behind Smith seeing the future of what Stillson becomes is that this could be the last chance to stop him. While he's still small and relatively powerless. Only running for senate rather than having a government office. Stillson is entirely crazy convinced he's doing the right thing all the time and convinced it's his destiny to become the president of the United States. He's a complete lunatic but he believes he's right and everything he's doing is justified, which makes him all the more dangerous. Like Ranse Burgess in the Firefly episode "Heart of Gold". Walken's Smith on the other hand is a character not based in reality. Smith should be dead and certainly shouldn't have these crazy powers but he is and he does. So with the hyper-real nature of Stillson it takes something equally as fantastically artificial as Smith to even things out. What the Dead Zone becomes is one of the best King adaptations to hit the big screen. Certainly before this it had very little competition. If you're a fan of King's work, like I have been in the past, then the Dead Zone is one of those films that converts the book in just the right way. It's kooky and unpleasant but it's also very real. It's absolutely how I'd envision a King book taking shape onscreen. Walken and Sheen help make the Dead Zone as good as it is with two differing but equally strong performances. A strong recommendation even if horror isn't your thing because, quite frankly, this isn't a conventional horror film.
BEST BIT Smith's happiness at discovering he's made a difference/Stillson's reaction during the same scene.
RATING - ***1/2. A great adaptation although perhaps not the greatest of films. Some of the creepy kids haven't aged well nor the weird parents that Smith is sporting. The central roles are still just as powerful though, which shows you how strong Walken's performance was in the first place. It's a fine example of how good he can be and how he can carry a film on his own if needs be. I think it's a shame he's never really had that big hit film where he was the star because he was good enough to be a leading actor.
Sidenote Martin Sheen's character believes he'll go on to be president, which he did! He played the president in the TV series the West Wing.
21 Grams (2003)
EXPECTATIONS If I had paid attention to this when it came out then I'd have watched it at the time. What I didn't realise when another Sean Penn movie slipped by me (easy done) was that the director was Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. The name might not mean anything to you but it probably should. He directed one of the best foreign films in recent memory when he made 2000's Amores Perros (Love's a Bitch). That film is incredible. I've yet to meet someone who didn't love it. If you're wanting review of said film then click here. You'll have to keep in mind that was way back in FoF #27 so I was somewhat less verbose. Although it was the post Christmas edition so that's to be expected. Once again this year there's a chance my post Christmas column will be bitty or perhaps non-existent. My brother is coming over on January 6th, which means drinking. Two weeks of it. Oh, my liver is complaining already.
PLOT This is one of the hardest plots to explain. Ok, here goes. Cristina Peck (Naomi Watts) loses her husband and two daughters in a hit and run accident. Because of this she goes back to her wild life of old, returning to the ways that had her on the verge of drug addiction. Her anchor on reality has gone. When her husband died he donated his heart to the terminally ill chain smoker Paul Rivers (Sean Penn). When he recovers from surgery he makes the effort to track down the family of his donor and somehow make it up to them for the life he's been given. Meanwhile born-again ex-convict Jack Jordan (Benicio Del Toro) is having trouble with his life at home because of his former sins. All three end up influencing each other's lives.
OPINION It takes a while to get into 21 Grams. If you're even slightly drunk then don't attempt it. The story is told in what Inarritu describes as "emotional order". Which means it's totally non-linear and for the first 15-20 minutes it's hard to tell what takes place in what order. I was basing most of my guesses on how much facial hair Sean Penn had and how much hair Benicio Del Toto had. We start near the end, then jump back the middle, then the end, then the start, and so on. If that sounds like a total headfuck don't panic. It really starts making sense after about 20 minutes and getting there is incredibly rewarding. There are similarities with Amores Perros in the telling of the story. While AP was more linear in its approach it took a traffic accident from the perspective of three different people. 21 Grams has the exact same approach only the telling of the story is from almost random points in time. Sometimes we know what will happen to a character before they do. Sometimes the character knows what has already happened to them before we do. We have to figure it out as they discover what we already know. Hollywood directors almost never do this because they assume the audience isn't bright enough to follow something so complex. Inarritu wants to challenge his audience, which is part of the reason why Amores Perros worked so very well and the reason why 21 Grams has the chance to succeed. But the reason why it does succeed is three terrific lead performances. Del Toro and Watts were both Oscar nominated for their performances and rightfully so. Sean Penn missed out but his role was the least showy. He only really has one scene, where he asks his doctor what the chances are of him being "saved", where he really gets to push his emotions to the limit. Del Toro has a series of scenes where his character shows just how close he is to snapping. He tries to instruct his children in the name of the Lord but does so literally. He takes Bible passages and enforces them on his family life infuriating his wife. But he also has scenes of such tenderness and understanding that he shows the world the range he's capable of without making the character unbelievable. Often Del Toro's roles are scene stealing cameos (The Pledge or Usual Suspects) but here he gets to be a real person but one with extremes of belief and attitude. He must have been thrilled to get the part. That probably goes the same for anyone else in the film. Whether they were as thrilled to watch it back, I don't know. Inarritu clearly believed in this project but would it have been a superior film if events played out in chronological order? The performances would still be there. The tension would remain. After all it ends at the end. We don't have anything quite as radical as ending at the beginning (like in Memento or Irreversible). Maybe the film is only shot in this manner in order to challenge the audience. If that's the case then, why not? Aside from the fact that it'll drive some of your audience away in the first place. The box office doesn't lie and 21 Grams came up short in terms of getting bums on seats. Its $20M budget was not recouped at the US box office. Things don't look much better for Inarritu's follow on film Babel, which takes in six different strands and tries to weave them together.
BEST BIT Jack Jordan complains to the reverend that comes to visit him in prison. He points out he's done everything for Jesus and this is how he's been rewarded. The reverend tries to tell him this is only an accident. "God knows when a single hair moves on your head. You told me that" Jack rants back. The preacher tries to accuse him of blasphemy but Jack has only followed the words he's given him. Religion isn't for everyone.
RATING - ****1/4. Challenging and thought provoking with three immense leading performances. 21 Grams isn't as good as Amores Perros but it does establish that Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is an important film maker already. Here's hoping he can score an actual hit soon so studios keep financing his terrific films.
To Catch a Thief (1955)
EXPECTATIONS An Alfred Hitchcock film, you think this will be any good? I mean it's not like anyone rates Hitchcock. To Catch a Thief is generally rated up in Hitch's top 20. Check out Rottentomatoes.com where it has a 100% freshness rating. Although, let's face it, it takes a pretty strong minded critic to take shots at Hitchcock movies. Here the stars are Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. You don't hear much about Grace Kelly. Probably because her career was so short. For those who don't know Kelly acted for about six years before giving up her profession when she married the Prince of Monaco. She basically saved Monaco from returning to French rule in the process. She ended up giving birth to three royal children. You may have even heard of them: Princess Caroline, Princess Stephanie and Prince Albert. Had she not chosen to marry Prince Rainer there might not even be a Monaco on the world map. A sacrifice I'm sure those in Monaco, who now pay less taxes, appreciate but the film loving world lost a star. She was gone for good in 1982 when she died in a car crash. To Catch a Thief features footage of her driving at dangerous speeds on the very road on which she was killed.
PLOT John Robie (Cary Grant) is The Cat, a notorious burglar who made his name stealing from the rich of Europe before helping France fight the German occupation during World War II. Now retired he's suddenly accused of a series of new burglaries when several important pieces of jewellery go missing. In order to prove his innocence he decides to capture the real thief and works his way into the Riviera's high society. He befriends the Stevens family who he believes will be a target and becomes romantically involved with Francie Stevens (Grace Kelly).
OPINION Unlike the standard film from Hitchcock, To Catch a Thief isn't so much about tension and the building thereof. Hitchcock usual suspense gives way to a more subtle route. To Catch a Thief is a thriller but it delves into comedy more than once. Hell, even Hitch's cameo is a comedy one. Robie makes his escape from arrest early in the film by boarding a local bus. He sits between a lady with a small bird in a cage and a very uncomfortable looking Hitchcock. Perhaps he'd tired of films in his own idiom after a series of them ending in Rear Window the previous year. While To Catch a Thief is lacking in Hitchcock's usual suspense it's not lacking in charm. This is no doubt helped by the strong performances from the two leads. Cary Grant is Cary Grant, which had become the norm for him by the mid 50's. He'd continue to basically play himself for the remainder of his career although that didn't hinder him having great success with North By Northwest four years later. Kelly on the other hand didn't have quite the same level of presence that Grant had so she has to do more work. Initially her character is a virtual ice maiden but as she thaws out while she warms to John Robie she shows a little more character with each passing minute. By the end she's transformed the character without really altering it all that much, which takes quite a lot of skill. Apparently Hitchcock allowed Grant & Kelly to improvise certain lines allowing a level of double entendre to slip into the film and passed the notoriously tough censors. Like Kelly asking Grant if he'd prefer a "leg or a breast" at their picnic before breaking out pieces of chicken. "You decide" deadpans Grant back at her. And the line about conjugating irregular verbs has to be the weirdest sexual innuendo I've heard in a while. The two stars have superb chemistry, even better than Kelly had with Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window. It's almost a pity that Kelly gave up her acting career or she'd almost certainly have been in North By Northwest too making that film even better. So they're great and Hitchcock is content to let them be just that cutting back on his usual directorial control. He's content to let the camera take in the scenery making this almost a love story between Hitchcock and the Riviera as much as between John Robie and Francie Stevens. To Catch a Thief won't drag you in psychologically like many of his other thrillers but it doesn't need to. For once there's an easier and far more simple film to be made that's just as good. I'm sure there are a few modern directors who could learn from this lesson.
BEST BIT Robie chasing the new Cat across the roof near the films conclusion.
RATING - ****. While it's not one of Hitchcock's best it's a tremendously slick and well made film boasting two excellent star turns. An easy recommendation.
You got a movie query? Then Ask 411 Movies is the place for you. Leonard Hayhurst has the time and the energy to deal with your concerns. He also runs through the Star Trek movies. I did that once. I felt like such a nerd.
Flamingo has the Bullseye and aims it at Superman II. Everything he says is instantly over ruled by shouting "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD" at him. I insist you do so immediately.
Top 5 this week has the Top 5 Worst Bond films. I got slightly worked up typing that one up. If you're one of these "why is he called Arnold Furious?" people then this would be for you.
James R. Huff has his tribute to Tom Hanks in chick flicks. I don't think the Money Pit is a chick flick unless having Shelley Long in it just makes it a chick flick by default. And I really like A League of Their Own. I often recite the "there's no crying" line directed at whatever I'm watching at the time. "There's no crying horror movies" etc.
Sidenote Where's Tim O'Sullivan? I know he's around somewhere. I demand a new Round Football column instantly if not sooner.
NEXT Last years Oscar winner Crash, Switchblade Romance and much, much more in Furious on Film #66.
