tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11135772680235437852024-03-16T02:08:41.410-05:00Coffee Bean CinemaAll reviews by Stafford Christensen.
Film is a powerful but subjective medium; this is a personal take on movies both classic and contemporary....Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.comBlogger338125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-25516891704048825662013-10-14T14:16:00.000-05:002013-10-15T14:17:25.535-05:00A Study in Scarlet (1933)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><u><b>A Study in How Not to do 'Holmes' on the Big Screen</b></u></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HPaGU73Y-ac/Ulv0aaIZcwI/AAAAAAAAAd8/H0-bSfKP6iM/s1600/a-study-in-scarlet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HPaGU73Y-ac/Ulv0aaIZcwI/AAAAAAAAAd8/H0-bSfKP6iM/s320/a-study-in-scarlet.jpg" width="201" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Quite a bit of variety exists within the plethora of screen versions of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories since the early years of film. The 21st Century viewer in particular does not need to look too long to recognize this fact with <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-07-10/benedict-cumberbatch-i-want-to-have-a-cup-of-tea-with-rival-sherlock-holmes-actors">three</a> very different modern Sherlock Holmes screen franchises in progress. So, for this reason, it feels strange to slam one particular 30s Sherlock Holmes feature for what I consider severely lacking in anything resembling a Sherlock Holmes adventure. But slam it I will.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The 1933 film <i>A Study in Scarlet </i>looks on paper to be a worthwhile Sherlock Holmes film. The title derrives from the first Sherlock Holmes novel, cinematographer Arthur Edeson was a fixture in Hollywood (shooting such classics as <i>All Quiet on the Western Front </i>(1930), <i>Frankenstein </i>(1931) and <i>Casablanca </i>(1942)) and major film and Broadway star Reginald Owen plays the legendary consulting detective. Unfortunately this 1933 Holmes adaptation offers little in the way of interest or entertainment value.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>A Study in Scarlet </i> is practically a non-Holmes Sherlock Holmes film, featuring everything but anything associated with a good Holmes tale. No mystery can be found since the film almost immediately alerts the viewer to who the bad guy is (for the most part), very little visual style can be seen since director Edwin L. Martin (<i>A Christmas Carol </i>(1938)) and cinematographer Edeson employ mostly medium straight-on shots throughout the entire film and, as a result of both of these Sherlockian anomalies, little atmosphere can be felt at all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The cast offers no solace from the weak atmosphere. Alan Dinehart and Ana May Wong both overact terribly and Warburton Gamble is easily one of the finalists for the most pointless screen Watson in history. As Sherlock Holmes, Reginald Owen is clearly the standout within the cast as one of the few actors with any sort of screen presence but does not create an interesting character. Outside of reaching for a violin once or twice through the film, Owen does not even let on to the fact that he is playing the iconic Sherlock Holmes with his flat and dry performance of a character that is often described as an eccentric. The only thing that begins to designate Reginald Owen as a standout among the many actors to play Holmes is his double chin. Yes, that's right, Owen is easily the fattest actor ever to play Holmes; a flat, fat Holmes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Plot-wise, the film uses little to no material from the notable Doyle story from which its title derives. However, to be fair, the film states upfront that the story is "suggested by the book by A. Conan Doyle" and not necessarily a purposeful adaptation (suggesting to me that the rights to the title was purchased but not the actual story). Holmes and Watson are introduced to one another in Doyle's novel <i>A Study in Scarlet, </i>offering a lot of substantial character exposition/development; however, the 1933 film sees Holmes and Watson as established sleuthing partners and does not take much time to dig into the characters, let alone focus on them at all. The novel also features a murder-mystery based around a love story, Native Americans and Mormonism while the 1933 film sees a much more conventional murder-mystery that borrows more from Agatha Christie's <i>And Then There Were None </i>than any other literary source. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the film is the choice to set Holmes and Watson's residence at 221A Baker Street instead of their well-known 221B address. Was this done on purpose or were the filmmakers really that clueless about the franchise they were so effortlessly attempting to profit from?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I recognize that I am slamming a Sherlock Holmes film for not being "Sherlockian" enough. Let me be clear: I enjoy the variety of Sherlock Holmes adaptations for both the big and small screens. But it is one thing to take the 100-year+-old characters in a completely different but interesting/clever direction, which many screen versions have done, and quite another to take Doyle's brilliant world and reduce it to banality. The 1933 <i>A Study in Scarlet </i>is an example of the latter.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I cannot recommend this film to anyone except fellow Holmes enthusiasts trying to take in all of the screen adaptations they can before the big sleep. Many more Sherlock Holmes screen stories exist as options for those looking for a worthwhile viewing experience and most of these at the very least offer something recognizably Sherlockian. Meanwhile, no mystery, no atmosphere, no style, no nods to Doyle and no focus on characters can be found in this movie. Perhaps the answer to why 1933's <i>A Study in Scarlet </i>has Holmes and Watson living at 221A Baker Street (instead of 221B) is simple, elementary even: clearly this is not the Holmes and Watson that Arthur Conan Doyle created.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>4/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-27987901707813121472013-06-14T12:21:00.000-05:002013-06-17T16:00:45.283-05:00Man of Steel (2013)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><u><b><span style="font-size: large;">Not Bad but Not Super </span></b></u></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BBv4OVDPupk/Ubc4paXH8nI/AAAAAAAAAbw/Oy1zX18imw0/s1600/ManofSteelFinalPoster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BBv4OVDPupk/Ubc4paXH8nI/AAAAAAAAAbw/Oy1zX18imw0/s320/ManofSteelFinalPoster.jpg" width="219" /></a>- Moviegoers have a long list of comic book superhero films to cherish and look forward to in the coming years.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Just about every bankable character from the most notable comic brands has either been made into a film series or is currently in development for one. After </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Christopher Nolan's
Dark Knight Trilogy caused a </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">critical reevaluation of the comic book superhero genre; in the recent wake of the unparalleled ambition, variety and <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=avengers.htm">success</a> of Marvel Comic's
shared cinematic universe and continuing with Sony and Twentieth Century Fox's current rebooting and regenerating of the
<a href="http://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider-man_movies/">Spider-Man</a> and <a href="http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bryan-Singer-Shares-Look-X-Men-Days-Future-Past-34417.html">X-Men</a> characters (respectively), it was only a matter of time before DC Comics jumped into the mix. Written by Christopher Nolan and David S.
Goyer (the writing team behind the Dark Knight Trilogy) and directed by
Zack Snyder (<a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/11/300-2007.html"><i>300</i></a> (2007), <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/07/watchmen-2009.html">Watchmen</a> </i>(2009)), <i>Man of Steel </i>(2013) is meant to be the first of a series of films inside a </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://screenrant.com/superman-man-of-steel-shared-universe/">connected DC cinematic universe</a>.
What better character could begin a DC film franchise than one of DC's
oldest and longest-lasting heroes? Look out film buffs: It's a bird!
It's a plane! It's a Superman reboot!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I do not think the world was longing for another Superman origin film but DC and Zack Snyder give us one anyway - and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">the film does a good job</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> translating the well-known story for a 21st Century audience. Superman is a unique superhero in that his alter-ego is a normal, seemingly unexciting front for hiding his real identity. Quite unlike other superheroes like Batman or Spider-Man, in which the main character adopts an alter-ego for fighting crime, Superman's alter-ego is the straight-laced everyman Clark Kent used to conceal his real identity as an alien being. Superman - named "Kal-El" by his birth parents - was sent to Earth because his home planet Krypton was falling apart. The Earth's sun fed Kal's body in a way that made him different from all humans: blessed and cursed with incredible strength, speed, flight, heat rays, x-ray vision and an extra-sensitive sensory perception. Believing the world was not ready for the realization that life existed outside of Earth, Kal keeps his identity a secret - to an extent. The reasons why Superman is "super" do not end with his extra-ordinary abilities but extend to his character and particular desire to help others at any cost. This of course tends to expose his super abilities.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">However, these indestructible and incorruptible components of Superman make it difficult for the audience to truly relate and stay engaged with the character. Other screen heroes like James Bond, Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark are especially relatable and engaging superheroes due to the fact that they are not really <i>super</i> heroes but flawed people who are capable of great, heroic things. Superman is super because he can basically do anything he wants all of the time with little danger to himself - for a good cause.<i> Man of Steel</i>, however, manages to make the character of Superman far more interesting than ever by creating a story that shows Superman, Kal-El, as a misunderstood outcast on Earth. Kal had to learn how to adjust to life on Earth the hard way as "Clark Kent" from rural Kansas. When a group of fellow Kryptonians </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> led by General Zod</span> threaten Earth, Kal finds that the only way to save the world is to reveal himself to it. The film does an extraordinary job making Superman's abilities as convincing as it ever could within the parameters of a recognizably real world and the character's journey effectively embody the film's important themes.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The main themes of the film consist of self-determination and rising above the obstacles placed in one's way by others. Although the extent of the relatability of the Superman character is limited due to the limitless "super" part of this "hero," the film stresses the importance of rising above how society might define you and the limitations we put on ourselves. <i>Man of Steel</i> reminds us how sometimes the most valuable contributions to others are done by those considered outcasts by an establishment, something that has definite <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance">application</a> to today. I can only guess that the effective nature of the film's themes
originate from the Nolan/Goyer writing/production team because the
film falters the most at the hands of director Zack Snyder.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Although clearly his best film to date, usual hang-ups associated
with other Zack
Snyder films are apparent in <i>Man of Steel</i>. The claustrophobic
framing, poor color choices and manic camera movements cause one's eyes
to strain in a futile attempt to follow the progress unfolding on
screen. A certain synthetic quality also exists within the aesthetic content that often took me out of the film. <i>Man of Steel </i>is no <a href="http://youtu.be/M8dDb39MtpI"><i>Superman IV</i></a> but, </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">while some of the special effects create some visually spectacular scenes, much of the effects do look rather obvious </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">and hokey. This happens a lot when Superman is in motion through the air and one scene in particular featuring a sea of skulls </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">unexpectedly </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">takes the film into strange Roger Corman B-movie territory. I find this rather odd considering the large number of other modern films that have been able to successfully incorporate special effects into real
photography that, more often than not,
completely suspends the audience's disbelief.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Zack Snyder however does incorporate something new into his visual style for <i>Man of Steel</i>. Unfortunately, it is not exactly original but just a re-branding of JJ Abrams' <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/05/star-trek-2009.html"><i>Star Trek</i></a>
(2009) rebooted-throw-back <a href="http://youtu.be/paPT4iHUjFQ">lens flare</a> technique. Snyder seems to struggle with
originality in general, as we have seen many of the scenes in <i>Man of Steel</i> before in other films. Many moments summon memories of <i>Independence Day</i> (1997) as well as the recent films of the Marvel Studios films (such as Jor-El putting armor on <a href="http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1444121600/tt1228705">Iron Man-style</a> and Zod agents ripping apart jets <a href="http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3961631744/tt0848228">Hulk-style</a>). Other problems with <i>Man of Steel</i> arise from simple
blockbuster genre traps: an under-developed love story between Superman
and Lois Lane, bloated action set pieces, lackluster dialogue, a lack of
tension due to the fact that the audience knows nothing bad will happen
with Superman on watch, a seemingly never-ending final series of fight
sequences, etc. I am particularly waiting for
the day when filmmakers will realize that a character screaming out one
word or sound has rarely worked successfully on film except when it is done for comedic effect.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Luckily, Snyder could only go so far in ruining the film because, in addition to how certain plot points and themes are handled within the film, the cast is also simply great. Henry Cavill is a terrific Superman who brings much
needed subtlety to the role of a practically indestructible alien
do-gooder, Amy Adams is about as flawless as one could expect as Lois Lane, Kevin
Costner gave a heartfelt effort as Pa Kent, Michael Shannon is an imposing force
(even if he does begin to fray as the film goes on) as the evil General Zod and Russell Crowe
steals every scene with what I thought was the best, most thoughtful and
graceful performance of the film as Superman's father Jor-El. Also making a huge impact in the film is Hans Zimmer's powerful yet not overbearing score, which tends to provide the source of the film's atmosphere and momentum. Along with Goyer and Nolan, Zimmer proves to be an additional indispensable <i>Dark Knight</i> contributor within this expanding DC film universe.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Although <i>Man of Steel </i>has its noticeable flaws, it is enjoyable for the most part as a good but not great or ground-breaking superhero genre film.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The failure to make an impact as the first of a series of films inside a shared DC film universe, as <i>Iron Man </i>(2008) did for Marvel's cinematic universe, does raise a few questions. How can this DC film universe unfold with the largely by-the-numbers superhero movie <i>Man of Steel </i>as a foundation? How can DC make things interesting later if their creative team failed in chapter one? All I know is that </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Zack Snyder should not be asked to contribute anymore i</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">f DC hopes to produce something even remotely similar to </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">the quality, scope and success of </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Marvel's <i>The Avengers</i> cinematic universe.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating:<b> 6/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-85027368715788181762013-05-31T07:00:00.000-05:002013-05-31T07:00:04.491-05:00Across the Pacific (1942)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>Our Man Bogart</b></u></span></span></div>
<br />
<a href="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i47/acrossthepacific_1942_mp_1sht_1200_080120060540.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i47/acrossthepacific_1942_mp_1sht_1200_080120060540.jpg" width="220" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Humphrey Bogart starred in six John Huston-directed films (and a couple of others that Huston wrote but did not direct) during his career and if he had not passed away before his time the two would have surely produced more. Many of these Huston and Bogart collaborated films<i>,</i> such as <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/maltese-flacon-1941.html"><i>The Maltese Falcon</i></a> (1941) and <i>The Treasure of the Sierra Madre </i>(1948), have been brilliant classics but the two did not strike gold every time. The wartime spy thriller <i>Across the Pacific </i>(1942) is easily the worst of these collaborations.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Huston reunited much of the cast of <i>The Maltese Falcon </i>for <i>Across the Pacific. </i>Bogart stars as Rick Leland, a military intelligence agent undercover as a disgraced and disgruntled ex-Coast Guard captain looking for any army that will hire him. Leland goes into the field aboard the Panama-bound Japanese freighter <i>Genoa Maru </i>in November of 1941. His target is Dr. Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet), a Filipino citizen of British origin and Japanese loyalties, but he also meets and falls for Alberta Marlow (Mary Astor) whose purpose on board is mysterious.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Across the Pacific </i>was one of the many </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">World War II</span> propaganda films created by or in complete cooperation with the Roosevelt Administration, Leland's individual prevention of a Japanese assault signifying the power of one during the war effort. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The story never goes across the pacific; the title derives from an eerily prophetic original storyline of Rick Leland stopping a Japanese plot to attack Pearl Harbor. Of course, Japan did attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 so the story had to be changed to Leland trying to thwart a Japanese attack on the Panama Canal. Considering the circumstances, the plot change makes complete sense but one would assume that a title change would have been wise as well.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The propaganda element can be seen throughout the film but the way that the film tries to show that Japan wanted to start a war with the United States for seemingly no reason is especially overbearing. Of course, it is well known now that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a foundationless attack but the result of the <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs184.html">economic warfare</a> perpetuated against Japan by the Roosevelt Administration. Propaganda films rarely stand the test of time and the shallow, incorrect and sometimes racist portrayal of an unprovoked Japanese attack on the US in <i>Across the Pacific </i>does no justice to the <a href="http://mises.org/document/3130/Back-Door-to-War-The-Roosevelt-Foreign-Policy-19331941">facts.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Unfortunately, <i>Across the Pacific </i>has worse problems than just its feeble propaganda mission. Huston very uncharacteristically weaves a generally lifeless and uneven story. Spy films that feature a slow-burning pace often work very well but the plot and pacing never seems to go anywhere here<i>. </i>The fluffy comedic banter and abrupt romance between Bogart and Astor also feels absolutely out of place in this spy film even before it is revealed that Leland is a spy.<i> </i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Across the Pacific </i>is not a complete waste of time however. A few scenes of note (including an especially thrilling few minutes in a movie theatre) pass by from time to time and the excellent cast of Bogart, Astor and Greenstreet are enough to make the film watchable.<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i> </i></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> So while <i>Across the Pacific </i>lacks intrigue and thoughtfulness, it does work on a semi-entertaining level as a Humphrey Bogart vehicle. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This however does not prevent <i>Across the Pacific </i>from ending up as the worst of the</span> six of the Humphrey Bogart-starred John Huston-directed films.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>6/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-1645874405886578652013-05-30T10:45:00.000-05:002013-05-30T10:46:21.086-05:00In the Bleak Midwinter (1995)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>Branagh's Band of Misfits do the Bard </b></u></span></span></div>
<br />
<a href="http://content6.flixster.com/movie/52/63/38/5263388_det.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://content6.flixster.com/movie/52/63/38/5263388_det.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Although a general financial success, Kenneth Branagh's 1994 film adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic book <i>Frankenstein </i>was largely panned. The film's reputation has grown since its original release but Branagh's <i>Frankenstein</i> was at the time labeled "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/maryshelleysfrankensteinrhowe_a01afc.htm">uneven</a>," "<a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19941104/REVIEWS/411040302">manic</a>" and supposedly residing in "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/maryshelleysfrankensteinrhinson_a01af8.htm">dullsville</a>." Once hailed as the next Laurence Olivier or Orson Welles after <i>Henry V </i>(1989), Branagh was being torn apart over <i>Frankenstein </i>only five years later<i>. </i>Obviously, it would be nice for Branagh if his next project was </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">more affectionately </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">received by critics. Branagh's sixth feature-length film <i>In the Bleak Midwinter </i>(1995 - AKA: <i>A Midwinter's Tale, </i>depending on what side of the Atlantic Ocean one lives on) achieved just that.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Written and directed by Branagh (who chose not to act but to write parts specifically for his buddies), <i>In the Bleak Midwinter </i>follows seemingly cursed actor Joe Harper (Michael Maloney) who puts on an off-beat Christmastime production of <i>Hamlet</i> </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">in an attempt to save his sister's church</span><i>. </i>The play is seemingly doomed from the word "go" as Joe's agent (Joan Collins) does not approve of the idea and the best he can even recruit on such short notice during the holidays is<i> </i>a rag-tag bunch of misfit actors. To make matters worse, everyone brings their own variety of baggage to the set (brought out by the play's content) and the landlord is even more impatient (or greedy) than everyone originally thought. But as the production goes on, this band of misfits begin to grow close and their <i>Hamlet </i>takes on an identity and atmosphere of its own.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is a surprisingly fun and
impressive film - "surprising" only because I did not expect this
largely (and unfortunately) forgotten little independent flick to be so
enjoyable and impacting. <i>In the Bleak Midwinter </i>is very well written with an extraordinary sense of humor and heart at the center of the story. Branagh did a superb job composing the lightning-fast dialogue and creating some very enjoyable characters, memorable not just for the humor they bring to the film (John Sessions as a gay man cast as Queen Gertrude, for example) but for the chemistry they share and warmth they bring to the story.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The fact that the film is well cast helps make Branagh's characters very enjoyable. Every actor is terrific in their roles; the fact that Branagh wrote each character specifically for certain actors no doubt accounts for this. Michael Maloney is a great lead as Joe Harper, Joan Collins is fantastic as Joe's enabling manager Margaretta, Julia Sawalha is a cast highlight as the cute but troubled Nina and my favorite performance of the film is Richard Briers the seemingly pretentious and cantankerous thespian elder Henry Wakefield.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When viewing Branagh's entire filmography, <i>In the Bleak Midwinter </i>perhaps stands out most notably for restoring Branagh's professional profile after <i>Frankenstein. </i>It was cheap to make (its under-the-radar success yielding a sizable profit as a result) and was a hit with critics, prepping them to also anticipate and hail his next film <i>Hamlet </i>(1996). Branagh is justifiably known best for his brilliant and faithful cinematic productions of Shakespeare such as <i>Henry V </i>and <i>Hamlet. </i>However, a film like <i>In the Bleak Midwinter </i>not only proves that Branagh can also play loose with Shakespeare but displays his genuinely diverse talents as a screenwriter and director.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Unfortunately, this gem has largely been relegated to resting in cinematic obscurity<i>. In the Bleak Midwinter </i>is really witty, fun, warm and, if one can find it, should not be missed.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>8/10</b></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-64607356200037559952013-03-26T15:49:00.000-05:002013-03-26T15:54:02.924-05:00Moonraker (1979)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b><span style="font-size: large;">"Ta</span>ke me around the world one more time?"</b></u></span></span></div>
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-199w_HvqJwE/T9ng6hwfouI/AAAAAAAAGr8/oq9rWyQSs60/s1600/Moonraker+(1979)+Original.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-199w_HvqJwE/T9ng6hwfouI/AAAAAAAAGr8/oq9rWyQSs60/s400/Moonraker+(1979)+Original.jpg" width="256" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Space... The final frontier. These are the voyages of James Bond 007 licensed to kill. His continuing mission: to explore strange new girls. To stop Drax from destroying Earth's life and start his own new civilization. To boldly go where no Bond has gone before.....</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wait a second! Hold the freaking phone! Bond in outer space saving the world? This can't be a James Bond film can it?! Well, yeah it is, and despite its goofy aspects and completely ridiculous space-based climax, <i>Moonraker </i>is one of the better films of the James Bond series.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Outside of its title and name of the main villain, very little connects this movie to Ian Fleming's original novel of the same name. <i>Moonraker </i>was not even supposed to happen when it did, the planned James Bond adventure for 1979 was actually <i>For Your Eyes Only </i>(which finally happened in 1981). 1977’s <i>The Spy Who Loved Me</i> even promised at the end credits that “James Bond will return in <i>For Your Eyes Only</i>” but the phenomenon that was 1977’s <i>Star Wars</i> changed the minds of Cubby Broccoli and those at EON. The box office had spoken (it worked too, <i>Moonraker</i> <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm">remains</a> one of the highest-grossing Bond films): Bond would venture out into space.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Moonraker </i>has a reputation of being way too silly and completely out there with the outer space component. A few too many Merry Melodies-type sequences are certainly sprinkled here and there throughout the film and, although they do not overwhelm the film for me, they certainly do not allow the viewer to take things 100% seriously. A few times throughout the film, there will be a great scene that features Bond doing something amazing and avoiding certain death that ends with something absurdly wacky. Also, because of extreme popularity among Bond fans, Jaws returns as one
of Bond's enemies. But the problem with his return is that the filmmakers turned him into
a cartoon character, nowhere near as threatening as he was in <i>The Spy
Who Loved Me</i> (though he still does have his share of creepy moments in <i>Moonraker</i>). All
that is missing from Jaws' scenes are some spinning wheels and
"ah-oo-ga!" noises. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But where there are flashy gadgets, silly quips, and wacky sequences there is also violence, beauty and Bond lurking in the dark trying to unravel the mystery of a missing "Moonraker" shuttle-craft. The best example of the hidden darkness of <i>Moonraker</i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> is the scene where Drax's the dogs chase the double-crossing henchwoman through the woods. The way that scene is lit, shot
and set to music easily makes it quite dark and powerful; it is easily the best scene in the film for me.</span> I believe people focus too much on the cheesy sequences and outer space aspects of the film and do not notice the other atmospheric elements that make up the entire film, the brilliant Ken Adam sets, luscious Jean Tournier cinematography, beautiful John Barry score, awesome Roger Moore 007 showing, and the overall clever film craftsmanship by director Lewis Gilbert.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The director of <i>The Spy Who Loved Me</i> and <i>You Only Live Twice</i>, Lewis Gilbert returns to direct yet another huge Bond epic and, with cinematographer Jean Tournier, creates an absolutely terrific looking and fun action-filled Bond flick. The way that the film is colored is the film's biggest highlight: the bright colors of South America, the mellow nighttime tones and the darkness of space - <i>Moonraker </i>is a gorgeous film. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Also returning to
the Bond series is composer John Barry who writes a gorgeous Bond
score that really enhances every scene. Barry also brought back Bond theme veteran Shirley Bassey (who also sang "Goldfinger" and "Diamonds Are Forever") to the series as well, returning for a third and final time to sing the very underrated "Moonraker" song.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/gt3oQN0cAv0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Although perhaps the most criticized piece of the film, I find that the outer space aspect of the film is actually handled very well. Outside of the dated way that the laser guns are portrayed, <i>Moonraker </i>sees Bond in space in a plausible fantasy sort of way. Also, the film was rightfully nominated for the Best Special Effects Oscar and the outer space section of the film is the best place to look for these effects: the space station, the outer space battle, and the shuttle crafts - all very impressive for late-1970s special effects. As one might expect with a James Bond film, <i>Moonraker </i>features many terrific action scenes. The very exciting pre-credits sequence is definitely a plus for the film and the </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">fast-paced </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
chases through the waters of Venice and the jungles of South America
would set the new standard for scenes with Bond in a boat (and there are
many of those!).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The film's exciting action scenes, the amazing score and the lush photography certainly make <i>Moonraker </i>a worthwhile Bond film but at the center of it all is Roger Moore's Bond. After really finding his niche with the character in the previous film, <i>The Spy Who Loved Me</i>, Roger Moore gives a very strong performance as James Bond in <i>Moonraker</i>. Unfortunately the film's larger cast is hit-or-miss. Michael Lonsdale has a brilliant screen presence and is given many wonderful things to say throughout the film ("Mr. Bond, you persist in defying my efforts to provide an amusing death for you....") but Bond Girl Lois Chiles is incredibly wooden in her role as the cheekily-named Dr. Holly Goodhead. No matter who Moore is playing off of, he is a splendid James Bond from beginning to end. Moore employs his own interpretation of the Bond character in the film with humor and charm but he is still not above brutally taking out bad guys and seducing women to get information. The entire film is underrated but Roger Moore's performance especially seems to not get enough credit.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Despite its overly silly components, <i>Moonraker </i>does not exactly live up to its <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1014217-moonraker/">apparent reputation</a> as a poor Bond outing. <i>Moonraker </i>is not one of the great down-to-earth Bond thrillers but it certainly is one of the great fun and epic Bond adventures - looking great and being a very fun two hours.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>8/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-27315460165486398872013-02-26T16:09:00.001-06:002013-02-26T16:09:43.955-06:00Despicable Me (2010)<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><u><b>Merry Maniacal Melodies </b></u></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PFAVy57RNak/US0unwhNqUI/AAAAAAAAAMo/0Sxtllw22Sg/s1600/Despicable_Me_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PFAVy57RNak/US0unwhNqUI/AAAAAAAAAMo/0Sxtllw22Sg/s320/Despicable_Me_Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- The list of heroes on film is not a short one, especially in this day and age with the many superhero blockbuster franchises that populate the summer film season. While many films take the time to explore the nature and adventures of the super*hero*, few have looked exclusively at what gives every superhero his or her purpose: the super villain. Well, the 2010 animated film <i>Despicable Me</i> takes a look at the life of the super villain for a change.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Super villain Gru (voiced by </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Steve Care</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">l</span>l</span>) was once at the top of the evil pecking order only to be recently shown up by the latest villainous up-and-comer. With a plan to steal a device necessary to steal the moon, Gru will once again be the best villain in the world! But the love of three little orphan girls Margo, Edith and Agnes may change all of that – and Gru himself – for the better.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In this Golden Age of animated films dominated by brilliant big studio blockbusters and clever independent projects, <i>Despicable Me</i> fills a unique spot in the animated genre’s modern standing. Epic films from Pixar (<a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/07/up-2009.html"><i>Up</i></a> (2009)) or DreamWorks (<a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-train-your-dragon-2010.html"><i>How to Train Your Dragon</i></a> (2010)) beautifully seize our imagination while dark independent films like <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/07/9-2009.html"><i>9</i></a> (2009) force us to reevaluate the possibilities of the entire animated genre. However, <i>Despicable Me</i> sets on a fresh path for a feature length animated film by reimagining the classic cartoon for a 21st Century audience.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Despicable Me</i> features some of the most famous (though not necessarily best) comedic actors of our time (Steve Care</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">l</span>l, Jason Segal, Russell Brand, Will Arnett and Kristen Wiig) but it is hardly a completely modern movie. In my opinion, this is its greatest strength. In striving to be classic inside a genre that often goes for ultra-timely elements for quick box office bucks or a specific niche audience, <i>Despicable Me</i> manages to be one of the most entertaining and warm animated films of the past few years.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Although certainly up to modern standards as far as the quality of its animation goes, <i>Despicable Me</i> chooses a classic direction and timeless themes. Rather than follow in the footsteps of many of its contemporaries that offer a very timely style of humor which tumbles out of style by the next year, the witty humor and outrageous slapstick (where a character will not only survive a mushroom cloud explosion or shark attack but walk away with only a sooty face) of <i>Despicable Me</i> is more akin to classic cartoons like “Merry Melodies” and “Tom and Jerry.” The film’s many memorable minion characters especially embody this aspect of the film.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Also following this timeless direction is the film’s central themes of familial love. Sure, Gru begins as a mean, albeit instantly likeable, super villain but his father-like relationship with the three orphan girls touches him to the core. This relationship between the main characters gives the film a big heart and ends up making <i>Despicable Me </i>more than just a fun cartoon.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>7/10</b> </span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-59420180939693798342013-02-23T12:46:00.000-06:002013-02-24T06:43:45.941-06:00Haywire (2011)<div style="text-align: center;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 115%;"> Visually Stunning - Ass
Kicking - Star Making</span></u></b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Haywire_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Haywire_Poster.jpg" width="200" /></a><span style="line-height: 115%;">- Have you
ever felt, looking back, that a film was practically tailor-made for your
tastes? I felt this way about Steven Soderbergh’s
little-recognized 2011 action/espionage film <i>Haywire</i>.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Mix Martial
Arts (MMA) icon Gina Carano stars as Mallory, a world-class professional thief,
killer, spy, liberator; whatever the job calls for, she will do. She kicks ass
and takes names, if she needs to bother taking them at all. After much time aiming
her talents at the targets designated by her employer and former lover Kenneth
(Ewan McGregor), Mallory suddenly becomes a target herself when a line of
seemingly unrelated assignments thread into one big strange event. On the run
from nearly every criminal, private and governmental organization within reach,
Mallory turns her talents inward for this struggle for survival and vendetta
against those responsible.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Action films
can be great – but not just any action film will do. One can employ the finest
physical performers and stunt people on the planet but a film requires more than convincing action scenes to be worthwhile. </span><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">With notable exception, I have had it with the
massed-produced bloated action-packed blockbuster. </span>I enjoy a
well-done big, sweeping action film like <i>The
Avengers </i>(2012) and <i>The Lord of the
Rings </i>or <i>Star Wars</i> Trilogies as
much as anybody but when it comes to more conventional ideas of an "action film" give me something slick and stylish like <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/taken-2008.html"><i>Taken</i></a> (2008) and most of the <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/12/skyfall-2012.html">James Bond</a> series;
or, if you really want to thrill me, throw in a strong sense of character into
the story as well like in <i>Blood
Diamond </i>(2006) or <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/01/yakuza-1974.html">The Yakuza</a> </i>(1974).</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">By this criteria,
<i>Haywire </i>is simply my kind of action
film. Slick and cool from the action to the cinematography to the way the film flows; <i>Haywire</i> is a fun, action-packed but also thoughtful ride.</span> The action is extremely well done, realistic but also fresh and
expressive with its inclusion of MMA moves and great visual flare. Of course, a
film rarely disappoints in the style department with director Steven Soderbergh
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">(<a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/07/oceans-eleven-2001.html"><i>Ocean’s Eleven</i></a> (2001)) </span>at the helm. Choosing a strong but subtle sub-contextual presentation, where
what is unsaid is more important in creating a thick atmosphere of mystery and
intrigue, Soderbergh forms a stand-out action film. Although producing an
unquestionably modern feel, <i>Haywire </i>includes
a tangible throwback sense that channels the espionage atmosphere of the 60s
and 70s with its focus on visual style over explosions or other sensationalist
action film clichés. As an admitted fan of Mr. Soderbergh, I found the intricate
but refined style of <i>Haywire </i>quite
thrilling. From the sharp camera angling, swinging soundtrack and deep color palette, <i>Haywire</i> is
classic Soderbergh.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">One of the
most notable aspects of <i>Haywire </i>is
its star, who is new to Hollywood: Gina Carano. <i>Haywire
</i>actually owes its very existence to Gina Carano. Director Steven Soderbergh caught some
of Carano’s MMA fighting on TV and was so impressed by her that he wanted to
craft a film around her – hence <i>Haywire </i>was
born from talented screenwriter Lem Dobbs (<i>Dark
City </i>(1998)). Creating a film from scratch completely around one person
hardly even happens with actors, let alone athletes! Soderbergh obviously saw
something real in Carano because, for someone who is not an actor by trade, she is extraordinary here in <i>Haywire</i>. Carano is undoubtedly well suited for the film’s unique
action pieces as a world-class MMA fighter but as she thrills audiences with
her raw athleticism, she also captivates with her incredible beauty. Whether
this is a natural talent or the working of Soderbergh himself, Carano has a very strong and expressive and screen presence; she is quite convincing and
compelling on screen, effortlessly selling her character and the story as a
whole. Despite the fact that Carano is surrounded by an amazing cast (with the
exception of a mumbling, vacant Channing Tatum) – Ewan McGregor, Michael
Fassbender, Antonio Banderas, Michael Douglas, Bill Paxton – all of whom give fantastic performances, she absolutely holds her own as the focal
point of the film.</span> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">With its stunning style, compelling story, unique action scenes and fantastic cast, <i>Haywire </i>has a lot to offer the often deficient action genre. I look forward to what is next for Gina Carano, as I think she has a lot to offer movies in general as well.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">CBC Rating: <b>8/10</b></span></span></span>
</div>
Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-57240348078619596122013-02-22T12:05:00.000-06:002013-02-22T12:05:23.149-06:00Quantum of Solace (2008)<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>"I never left...."</u></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/dvdcovers/qos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/dvdcovers/qos.jpg" width="227" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">-</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> After 20 Bond films and the franchise's low point with the decade of 007 disappointment known as the Pierce Brosnan-starred James Bond films, it would not have been unjustifiable to doubt the likelihood of the Bond films ever returning to the danger and plausible fantasy of the films seen in the 1960s and late-1980s. However, the twenty-first Bond film, <i>Casino Royale </i>(2006), did just that and more - being one of the best Bond films ever made as well as breathing new life into the Bond franchise. The twenty-second film of the 007 series, <i>Quantum of Solace</i> (2008), continues what <i>Casino Royale</i> started and, although perhaps not eclipsing its predecessor, is a very fine follow-up for the 007 series. Picking up where <i>Casino Royale</i> left off (seriously, the story beings somewhere around a half-an-hour where we last left <i>Casino Royale</i>), <i>Quantum of Solace</i> sees Bond dealing with events from <i>Casino Royale</i> as well as investigating a newly discovered evil organization.<br />
<br />
<i>Quantum of Solace</i> is a brilliant 007 entry: an energetically stylish and magnificently unusual addition to the James Bond film series. Not bogged down by any particular franchise cliché or formula, <i>Quantum of Solace</i> is a unique film within the Bond franchise. If you are looking for over-the-top gadgetry, pointless banter with Moneypenny or Q, catchphrases, bimbos, or megalomaniacal villains in your Bond films, <i>Quantum of Solace</i> may disappoint. In this Bond film, the story is dark and grounded with Bond lost on his own in a dark place and mad as hell. Unlike some films within the Bond series, James Bond is not an action-hero caricature, he is a human being who does great things. In his second James Bond outing, Daniel Craig somehow manages to equal his previous amazing performance in <i>Casino Royale</i>. Here in <i>Quantum of Solace</i>, Craig is at the top of his game with a cool but subtle performance of his very human James Bond: tormented, dangerous, and serious about what needs to be done.<br />
<br />
Craig is supported very well - with many of the supporting actors reprising their roles from <i>Casino Royale</i>. Judi Dench makes a great showing as M, her character having a very entertaining role to play; Giancarlo Giannini returns as Bond's ally Mathis, giving one of the most emotional performances of the film; and Jeffrey Wright comes back to the Bond franchise as Bond's CIA friend Felix Leiter, developing the character further and just being as cool as can be. Bond Girls Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton go beyond the stereotypical Bond Girl eye candy role and give impressive acting efforts - Kurlenko especially. Also, Mathieu Amalric plays the film's main villain: Dominic Green. Perhaps one of the least quirk-filled Bond villains, Amalric's Dominic Greene character is nonetheless one of the best villains of the series: he is sublimely entertaining as the weasel-like evil and completely insane villain.<br />
<br />
The shortest Bond film ever to date (clocking in at 106 minutes); <i>Quantum of Solace</i> is also one of the most stylish, action-packed and character-oriented. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span>Having never done an action film before, director Marc Forster proves that he was the right man to sit in the director's chair. Forster creates a stylish, taut, thrilling, moving, adrenaline rush of a Bond film. Luckily for us viewers, along with Forster putting his directing talents to great use, he also brings along his long-time collaborated cinematographer Roberto Schaefer to light the film. What a fantastic looking film <i>Quantum of Solace</i> is! It has a grainy and gritty yet bright and classic look to it - and Schaefer must have had fun bouncing light off of the fantastic art direction. <br />
</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Casino Royale</i> writers
Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (with a little help from Paul Haggis)
produced another wonderful script. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even though the film's<i> </i>title is based on the Ian Fleming short story of the same name and the script borrows a chapter from Ian Fleming's <i>Casino Royale </i>novel, <i>Quantum of Solace </i>is a mostly original story that piggy-backs onto the story seen in the previous 2006 <i>Casino Royale </i>film.<i> </i>Despite being created during a writers strike, <a href="http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=9607&catid=106&t=dn&s=dn">burdening</a> the remaining filmmakers who were left to finish what was written for the film<i>, </i></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Quantum of Solace</i> is easily one of the best written Bond films with an array of i</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ntelligent,
character-centered, funny and thrilling elements.</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No better example of the quality in the writing, direction and acting within <i>Quantum of Solace</i> exists than the film's beautiful finale. Giving a powerful end to the story that began in <i>Casino Royale</i>, it also gives a taste of <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/12/skyfall-2012.html">what is to come</a> with the franchise. Bond is now a more seasoned agent with valuable experience; he has grown as a person and has put his armor back on: JAMES BOND WILL RETURN.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CBC Rating: <b>9/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-6506021924722589242013-01-18T12:27:00.003-06:002013-01-18T12:27:52.114-06:00My Fair Lady (1964)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><u><b><span style="font-size: large;">Hardly the Fairest of Them All</span></b></u></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/My_fair_lady_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/My_fair_lady_poster.jpg" width="227" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>****This review contains spoilers**** </b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Reputations often precede themselves, especially when it comes to film.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I often watch a film because I heard from multiple sources that it is a good movie or because this-or-that award ceremony brought it to my attention.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> D</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">irected by Golden-Age legend George Cukor (<i>The Philadelphia Story </i>(1940), <i>A Star Is Born </i>(1954)), the eight-time Oscar-winning film (including Best Picture, Director and Actor), <i>My Fair Lady </i>(1964) is considered a true classic. With a</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> reputation as one of the best musicals in the history of film, getting around to <i>My Fair Lady </i>was somewhat of a priority for me</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. However, finally viewing the film proved once again that reputations can be deceiving. Although I enjoyed certain aspects of this highly regarded musical, <i>My Fair Lady </i>ultimately left me rather disappointed<i>.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Director George Cukor presents a stunning visual motion picture. <i>My Fair Lady </i>is a dazzling film; wonderfully framed and colored with some very clever choreography. The scenery is over-decorated and the characters are overdressed - but beautifully so. Just about every major player associated with the look of the film was honored by the Academy: Cukor, cinematographer Harry Stradling (who had actually shot the 1938 version of the story <i>Pygmalion</i>) and costume designer Cecil Beaton (<i>Gigi </i>(1958)) each took home a gold statue for their work on <i>My Fair Lady</i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Naturally, this<i> </i>being a musical, Frederick Loewe's songs are the primary feature of the film. <i>My Fair Lady </i>features a number of classic songs including "Wouldn't It Be Loverly," "I Could Have Danced All Night," "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face" and my personal favorite "On The Street Where You Live" (though I prefer Bobby Darin's arrangement). Of course, for every one good song in the film two or three other songs can be found that die on impact. Despite offering a few unforgettable tunes, </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">most of the songs in <i>My Fair Lady</i> failed to move me; some were down-right boring.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Unfortunately, a lackluster music selection is the least of the film's problems.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Based off of the
1956 Broadway musical starring Rex Harrison and Julie Andrews (which is
itself a musical take on George Bernard Shaw's play <i>Pygmalion</i>), <i>My Fair Lady </i>follows Cockney "gutter snipe" Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) who is taken under the tutelage of phonics professor Henry Higgins </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(Rex Harrison). Henry has accepted a bet that he can transform Eliza into a proper English lady in only six months' time. In the end, all it took was the promise of shiny new clothes and all the chocolate she could eat to keep Eliza cooped up in Henry's house for half-a-year learning "proper" English. It was a tough road but Eliza defies all odds (all in one night, believe it or not) and gives an unshakable performance at the Ambassador's Ball as a "proper" English lady. However, when Henry fails to rest even a sliver of the credit for the achievement upon her, Eliza runs away out of Henry's care and back to the streets. Henry tracks her down and, despite a long valid list of grievances against Henry and even after a devastating and seemingly decisive fight, Eliza returns to Henry indefinitely. The story contains a number of aspects that holds one's attention throughout but also holds some peculiar elements that, in the end, fail to satisfy.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The first thing that fails where story is concerned is any part of the film that involves the overbearing performance from Stanley Halloway as Eliza Doolittle's father Alfred. The filmmakers' first choice for the role, James Cagney, would </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">certainly </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">have improved the character immensely. Unfortunately, Cagney was determined to remain retired in the 1960s; he would not return to the screen until <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/08/ragtime-1981.html">1981</a>. However, the problem with the character of Alfred P. Doolittle is that he is absolutely pointless inside the film in the first place. One could literally cut out every scene featuring the character of Alfred and it would not impact the story of Henry and Eliza one bit. Taking Holloway's Alfred out of <i>My Fair Lady</i> would have affected the film in a very positive way as it would have made the story more focused, shortened the very long runtime and saved the audience a lot of annoyance.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The other negative aspect of the story that jumped out at me is the general relationship between Henry Higgens and Eliza Doolittle. Henry is no charming </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">misogynist </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">who learns the error of his ways after falling in love with a good woman - or something like that. No sir, Henry Higgins is a dyed-in-the-wool verbal abuser. Henry wastes no time in calling Eliza names from their very first meeting but the relationship evolves from simple name-calling to general belittling and dismissing. Henry is eventually very happy with his work transforming Eliza into a completely different person - into the person he decided she should be - and by the end of the film is kicking back, demanding that she fetch his slippers. Some cheeky soul will no doubt come at me with some kind of flimsy retort along the likes of, "it's a snapshot of the times!" To that I say: can you picture Barbara Stanwyck or Bette Davis fetching some old jerk's shoes? I think not - not without that guy coming to a pathetic and particularly grisly end.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Rex Harrison's performance of the verbally abusive Henry Higgens</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> won an Oscar. I am flabbergasted as to how this was achieved (especially considering the great list of names he nudged out for Oscar gold, including the legendary performance from Peter Sellers in <i>Dr. Strangelove </i>(1964) which saw him play three different characters).</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Although occasionally amusing, Harrison's work on <i>My Fair Lady </i>is extremely overblown in general due to the absence of anything resembling depth in his portrayal.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On the other hand, Audrey Hepburn's performance of Eliza Doolittle is fantastic (despite her singing being overdubbed during post-production) and makes the film worth a look all by herself. Hepburn flawlessly convinces in the part, running the gamut as this doppelganger character: absolutely hilarious as the "gutter snipe" version of Eliza, delicately elegant as Eliza's lady counterpart and genuinely engaging and sympathetic in both halves of the role. When people think of Audrey Hepburn, some of the images that immediately spring to mind originate from <i>My Fair Lady</i>: Hepburn gazing from under that great white hat and her graceful figure standing at the top of the staircase. Naturally, Hepburn's classic performance in <i>My Fair Lady </i>was overlooked by the Academy as they were falling all over themselves to honor the lesser members of the cast.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Audrey Hepburn's strong performance goes a long way in redeeming much of the film; however, the abusive relationship between Henry and Eliza still poisons the overall story. <i>My Fair Lady </i>is nearly three hours long and yet the relationship between Henry and Eliza is incredibly underdeveloped. The fact that Audrey Hepburn has even less chemistry with Rex Harrison than she did with the also much older and miscast Humphrey Bogart in <i>Sabrina </i>(1954) does not help create a relationship between their characters but the problem runs even deeper. The film spends plenty of time watching Henry verbally beat down on Eliza but features nothing that bears a resemblance to a flowering relationship. Yet Eliza is seen at the end of the film - after finally standing up for herself against Henry, ready to marry the young Freddie (played by the great Jeremy Brett) - trotting back to Henry's home, preferring to stay with him. The conclusion makes no sense and is completely frustrating due to Henry's abusive nature. The fact that the film failed to define much of a relationship at all leaves the audience irritated and asking the question: is it love or simply the desire for empty but soothing familiarity that brings these characters together at the end?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So.... Mirror, m</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">irror on the wall - which is the fairest musical of them all? Unlike many critics and film buffs, my pick is certainly not <i>My Fair Lady</i>. Audrey Hepburn and George Cukor's visual team put on an enjoyable show; however, plenty of negative aspects exist within the film to take me out of the picture and leave me generally disappointed.</span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>6/1<span style="font-size: large;">0</span></b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-64142543569912421632012-12-28T07:00:00.000-06:002012-12-28T07:00:05.429-06:00The Bishop's Wife (1947)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>Angel<span style="font-size: large;"> With a Wandering Eye</span> </b></u></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://trueclassics.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/the-bishops-wife-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://trueclassics.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/the-bishops-wife-poster.jpg" width="239" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Christmas is indeed the most wonderful time of the year! One of the many reasons that Christmas is a special time of the year for me is all of the many great Christmas films just waiting to be watched (again and again) that enhance the season. Based on Robert Nathan's novel (and unfortunately poorly remade in <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/ThePreachersWife-movie.jpg">1996</a>), <i>The Bishop's Wife </i>(1947) is one of these films. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cary Grant stars as Dudley. Of course, since he is personified on screen by Cary Grant, Dudley is a charming, good-natured fellow; but Dudley is no ordinary man. In fact, he is not a man at all: he is an angel. All in the line of divine duty, Dudley brings </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">smiles to people's faces as well as </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">direction and enlightenment to people's lives; though most are oblivious to his holy foundations. When Bishop Henry Brougham (David Niven) prays for guidance amidst a time-consuming and stressful effort to build a new cathedral in a wealthy part of town, straining his relationship with his wife Julia (Loretta Young), Dudley is assigned to help facilitate the Bishop in both his professional and personal life. But as much as Dudley helps, he also impedes when he begins to fall for Julia.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Production on <i>The Bishop's Wife </i>was far from heavenly. Producer Samuel Goldwyn was dissatisfied with what original director William A. Seiter (director of many classic comedies, including installments of legendary Marx Brothers, Laurel & Hardy and Shirley Temple films) had shot, replacing him with Henry Koster (<i>Harvey </i>(1950)). Even this change at director did not equate smooth-sailing for the film, feedback from test audiences was less than perfect so Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett were hired for some final uncredited rewrites.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i> </i>The many personnel changes did not negatively affect the film however, <i>The Bishop's Wife </i>is very well assembled. Gregg Toland (<i>The Grapes of Wrath </i>(1940), <i>Citizen Kane </i>(1941)) does an incredible job photographing the film and replacement director Henry Koster received an Academy Award nomination for his work.<i> </i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Although the story generally makes me stop and pause, as the idea of an angel falling for another man's wife at the very least strays into unhallowed territory, <i>The Bishop's Wife </i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i></i>contains a lot of spirit and value.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Dudley helps the Bishop to see that he not only needs to pay more attention to his family but he must also gain perspective on where his ministry is focused. Sometimes what is big, bold, beautiful and well-intended does not meet the spiritual needs of the many. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Of course the story has plenty of room for great comedy, of which the cast and filmmakers did not waste! </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The many different thematic and comedic elements of the film make <i>The Bishop's Wife </i>a very fun and warm experience. The cast helps this too. Film legends Cary Grant, David Niven, Loretta Young and Elsa Lanchester are absolutely excellent in their roles; Grant's strong presence but humble comedy, Niven's sniveling but sympathetic demeanor, Young's angelic grace and Lanchester's quirky energy really brings the characters and story to life in a fun, engaging way.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Christmas </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2&version=NIV">means</a> </span>more than lights, snow, presents or any other material thing but sometimes the right films go far in completing the joy of the season. <i>The Bishop's Wife</i> is one of the better Christmas films around; its wonderful characters, comedy and thematic value make it a seasonal must-see. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>8/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-28958077737623084482012-12-26T10:52:00.002-06:002012-12-26T16:46:09.150-06:00AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;">When <span style="font-size: large;">(Cinematic) </span>Worlds Collide</span></span></b></u></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Avpmovie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Avpmovie.jpg" /></a>- <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/08/aliens-1986.html">Aliens</a> </i>(1986) director James Cameron <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060219012748/http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22405">described</a> the <i>AVP </i>(<i>Alien vs. Predator</i>)<i> </i>franchise perfectly. One the one hand, Cameron said <i>Alien vs. Predator</i> (2004) is just like "Frankenstein Meets Werewolf." Cameron is absolutely 100% right! A franchise stemming from two originally unconnected films (<i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/08/alien-1979.html">Alien</a> </i>(1979) and <i>Predator </i>(1987) - fully materializing after a <a href="http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/02/20/will-ripley-rise-again-sigourney-weaver-on-alien-saga-i-just-dont-feel-that-its-quite-finished/">5th <i>Alien</i> sequel</a> fell through), a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_versus_Predator_%28comic_book%29">comic book</a> series and <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/alien-vs-predator/platform/snes/">video game</a>, <i>Aliens vs. Predator </i>was created superficially by Universal Studios. With dollar signs in their eyes, the studio execs hoped that <i>AVP </i>would rake in the dough from the young demographic with its promise of action and gore. However, Cameron continued by saying "then I saw <i>Alien vs. Predator </i>and it was actually pretty good!" Cameron hits it right on the mark again! Despite what one might assume (I surely did), <i>Alien vs. Predator</i> ends up not as bad as it is supposed to be.<br />
<br />
The story (developed by original <i>Alien </i>writing team Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett) takes place in 2004 (the earliest setting for an <i>Alien-</i>related<i> </i>film) when an archeological phenomenon in Antarctica gets the attention of the Weyland Corp., Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Hendriksen) assembles a team, led by Alexa Woods (Sanaa Lathan), to investigate the discovery. What the team soon discovers however is that they are trapped in the middle of an ancient battle between two alien races.<br />
<br />
Paul W.S. Anderson's 1997 film <i>Event Horizon </i>is often compared to Ridley Scott's <i>Alien </i>so Anderson was an ideal choice to helm a crossover between the <i>Alien </i>and <i>Predator </i>worlds. His direction, while not particularly impressive, does not exactly disappoint. <i>AVP </i>is not without its obvious problems. Most of the characters are pretty flat, acting out the most predictable plot points and squeezing in a stupid one-liner before either killing aliens or getting killed themselves. Although a lot of very noticeable flaws exist in the film, the photography and special effects are quite enjoyable. Perhaps a little too in-love with the slow-motion technique, Anderson generally assembles a pretty good-looking and exciting picture out of <i>AVP. </i>So the viewer is left with a mixed bag: the characters and script are a bit dodgy but look of the movie is kind of a hit. I would say that the special effects and look of the film alone make <i>AVP </i>at least not awful and at best marginally worthwhile.<br />
<br />
The film sees both sides of the quality spectrum with its poor script but enjoyable visuals. The cast coasts in the center of this spectrum, being serviceable at best. Sanaa Lathan does a genuinely good job working around the generally poor dialogue and weak castmates she was forced to work with, creating a believable character out of the adventuring Alexa Woods. Lance Henderiksen (who co-starred in both <i>Aliens </i>and <i>Alien 3 </i>(1991)) is also fairly impressive as Weyland Corp. head Charles Bishop Weyland largely thanks to his naturally commanding screen presence. The film is full of recognizable supporting faces: Tommy Flanagan (<i>Gladiator </i>(2000)), Ewen Bremner (<i>Black Hawk Down </i>(2001)) and Colin Salmon (<i>The World Is Not Enough </i>(1999)). Unfortunately, Lathan and Hendriksen give the only two performances that are worth any kind of praise. <br />
<br />
But what I found particularly enjoyable about <i>AVP</i> was how the film depicts the interaction with the predators, (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)">xenomorph</a>) aliens and humans. Perhaps an odd couple on original consideration, the predators and xenomorph aliens are a good match for one another. Both aliens were actually (at least partially) developed by special effects artist Stan Winston and there is a clear match between the phallic facial features of the alien and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_dentata">vaginal</a> features of the predator. The film attempts to give a backstory that intertwines the three races throughout history (to be slightly <a href="http://screenrant.com/prometheus-alien-connection-benk-176223/2/">borrowed</a> from by Ridley Scott's <i>Alien</i> prequel <i>Prometheus </i>(2012)) some of which works and some of which does not. Part of the story that does not work is not the fault of Anderson for the whole of <i>AVP, </i>it just ends up clashing with what Ridley Scott decided to develope for his <i>Alien </i>prequel <i>Prometheus. </i>I would argue that Scott's vision for the series ends up the more interesting of the two but <i>AVP </i>can only be faulted so much.<br />
<br />
However, the best aspect of the film is that we see much more character out of the predators than what has been portrayed on film in the past, which makes <i>AVP </i>a much more important film for the <i>Predator </i>series. In the great original <i>Predator, </i>the predator was a mysterious hunter but the race was unfortunately not further explored in the mediocre sequel. However, in <i>AVP </i>the predators are shown to have a culture and moral code which gives depth to the series. Naturally, the exact opposite occurs for the Alien creatures. Unlike how the film appreciates the culture and honor of the predator aliens, the xenomorph aliens are presented as little more than animals. While this depiction of the alien creatures is partly accurate in the series, it also goes against a lot that is seen in the previous <i>Alien </i>series which hints at a clear alien intelligence.<br />
<br />
I feared the worst as I began my journey into the back allies of the <i>Alien </i>series known as the <i>Alien vs. Predator</i> franchise but the 2004 Paul W.S. Anderson film was surprisingly entertaining. One could suggest that perhaps my expectations were so low that nothing could have been bad enough to disappoint. To that I say - OH YEAH? Well, maybe *your* standards are just too high?! Certainly not as interesting, stylish or impressive as other films in either the <i>Alien</i> or <i>Predator</i> series, <i>AVP </i>does manage to entertain as a bloody blow'em'up sci-fi flick.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the <i>AVP </i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/12/avpr-aliens-vs-predator-requiem-2007.html">sequel</a> could not match strides.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>6/10</b></span></div>
Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-45465069938786510952012-12-26T10:52:00.001-06:002012-12-26T16:44:40.430-06:00AVPR: Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem (2007)<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>Mass <span style="font-size: large;">of </span>a Dead Franchise</b></u></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Aliens_vs_Predator_Requiem_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Aliens_vs_Predator_Requiem_poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
- <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/12/avp-alien-vs-predator-2004.html">AVP: Alien vs. Predator</a> </i>(2004) should not have been a good movie. But, going against all forms of human reason, it kind of was - in a B-movie-charming way. Unfortunately its sequel, <i>AVPR: Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem </i>(2007), could not follow in its predecessor's footsteps. The plot for <i>AVPR</i> follows <i>AVP</i> directly: the predator/alien hybrid seen at the very end of <i>AVP</i> attacks the predator ship, causing it to crash-land in a small Coloradan town. Naturally, a predator heads to earth to try and wipe out the growing alien infestation that preys upon the multitude of innocent townspeople.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
The story does not really matter in a film of this nature (the back of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B001451HX4/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_3?ie=UTF8&index=3&isremote=0">DVD case</a> promises "MORE BLOOD... MORE GUTS... MORE GORE") but nothing redeems this terrible movie. The dialogue is atrocious and the acting is even worse; even Steven Pasquale (of "Rescue Me") cannot escape the embarrassing effects of the pathetic script.<br />
<br />
Directed by The Brothers Strauss, who have a background in visual effects production, <i>AVPR </i>is a gory action effects-driven film. Considering their claim to fame, one would have assumed that the film would have been visually spectacular - or at least clever. Unfortunately, <i>AVPR </i>is not even a fun bad movie. <i>AVPR </i>looks absolutely terrible with sub-par visual effects, poor cinematography (sometimes so dark and closed in that one cannot tell what is happening in a scene) and especially bad framing. The characters are extremely poorly written and not remotely likable - the best character moment of the film occurs when one reacts to her husband being killed by saying "I'll be fine." Well, in her defense, I guess she did say "until death do us part."<br />
<br />
But by far the most unlikable aspect of the film is its graphically violent nature. Every other alien or predator film has been violent - but <i>AVPR </i>takes both series to new heights in shameful, pointless gorenography. Some scenes are just downright sickening.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br />
Although the original <i>Alien vs. Predator </i>works in some ways as an entertaining horror/action film, <i>Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem </i>is just a horrific movie. <i>AVPR</i> is so bad in fact that the Alien-meets-Predator franchise has virtually disappeared from entertainment culture following its release. It will not be missed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>3/10</b></span></div>
Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-77208437966823035242012-12-04T10:19:00.001-06:002013-06-26T12:54:13.900-05:00Skyfall (2012)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>"007 <span style="font-size: large;">r</span>eporting for duty."</b></u></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span>
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1LNpaPLP87M/ULzDxwtICtI/AAAAAAAAALk/UlwX5GcBkRI/s1600/skyfall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1LNpaPLP87M/ULzDxwtICtI/AAAAAAAAALk/UlwX5GcBkRI/s320/skyfall.jpg" width="214" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>****WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS****</b> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Four long years in the making amidst MGM's splintering financial <a href="http://screenrant.com/mgm-bankruptcy-the-hobbit-james-bond-ross-27635/">mess</a>, the 23rd James Bond film arrived just in time for the 50th anniversary of the 007 film franchise. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Despite the shallow <a href="http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/08/05/this-weeks-cover-is-james-bond-dead/">claims</a> that the series was finished, </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">James Bond would return as he always has; but the public would not tolerate anything less than a really good film due to 007's time away from theaters and the not-overly warm <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quantum_of_solace/">reception</a> of <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2013/02/quantum-of-solace-2008.html">Quantum of Solace</a> </i>(2008). Well, <i>Skyfall </i>(2012) is a great film; </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">easily one of the most intricate, thrilling, character-centered and visually
brilliant films of the series</span>. Most who followed <i>Skyfall</i> since its inception had a good feeling that </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> the amazing group of people working on it </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">would </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">create something fairly decent</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Director Sam Mendes, cinematographer Roger Deakins, composer Thomas Newman and a cast comprised of Daniel Craig, Judi Dench and an impressive list of Oscar-caliber supporters could produce nothing less than worthwhile.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The plot for <i>Skyfall </i>is daring, relevant and altogether Flemingesque. Beginning with an opening shot that puts the classic 007 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBRzxSZe6o0">gunbarrel sequence</a> into the context of the film itself, the pre-titles sequence witnesses an action-packed chase scene ending with the apparent death of James Bond. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Of course, Bond
cannot be dead within the first 10 minutes of the film (unless it was going to turn in a <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/07/sunset-boulevard-1950.html">Sunset Boulevard</a> </i>(1950) direction) but it certainly
sets the plot off on an interesting footing
despite fooling no one. The idea of </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bond dying only to return later is reminiscent of <i>You Only Live Twice</i> but is </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">realized in a much more gripping and effective way in <i>Skyfall</i> than that seen in the 1967 Connery-starred film.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The roots to Fleming go deeper than this however. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ian Fleming's <i>You Only Live Twice </i></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">provides anchoring material for the film, M writing Bond's obituary is pulled directly out of </span>the novel, and other aspects of <i>Skyfall</i> echo Fleming's final Bond novel <i>The Man with the Golden Gun </i>as well.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Naturally, Bond is not dead but </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">quietly </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"enjoying death" nonetheless with babes and booze in the tropics.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> But Bond's removed attitude changes when MI6 itself is the victim of a cyber-terrorist attack, the culprit of which continues to expose highly secret and volatile information. MI6 is not a country club and Bond therefore has to prove himself to M and the intruding bureaucratic network before he jumps back into action.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> As was the case with both <i>Casino Royale </i>(2006) and <i>Quantum of Solace</i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, loyalty and duty are at the forefront of <i>Skyfall</i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>;</i> the story sees Bond's sense of purpose on an evolutionary journey from fed-up to selfless, culminating to a more permanent attitude and worldview certain to carry on to the next films. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The strong sense of character is one of the finest aspects of <i>Skyfall. </i>The film focuses on Bond's commitment to the job and actually goes back into Bond's past further than any film of the series. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Most of the Bond actors have all given great performances but Daniel Craig seems to be the most consistent of them all, performing at the same high level in every film. Craig<i> </i>is just as intense and cool in <i>Skyfall </i>as he is in any of his other Bond films and yet there are certain circumstantial nuances that make this top-notch performance unique. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The trail to MI6's attacker leads Bond to some very interesting places, the most memorable of which is China. Macau is a stunning location and the scenes in Shanghai will be forever fixed as some of the best moments in the Bond series. One of the biggest reasons why these scenes are so great derives from the talents of cinematographer Roger Deakins, who brilliantly captures the Far East on screen. Shanghai in particular looks amazing. Looking more like a futuristic asphalt jungle along the lines of <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/07/blade-runner-1982.html">Blade Runner</a> </i>(1982)</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> than any conceivable modern-day metropolis</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, Shanghai is painted in the film as a foreboding albeit technologically remarkable place. Bond's fight scene with the globe-trotting hitman Patrice, seen as silhouettes clashing on top of Shanghai's liquid neon lights, is an especially brilliant scene. Deakins' entire work on <i>Skyfall</i><i> </i>is a visual marvel the likes of which the Bond series has never seen; the scenes in China are but the most memorable, the entire film looks fantastic.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bond discovers that the mastermind </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">behind the assault on MI6 is Raoul Silva, a former agent whose evil deeds are motivated by a personal vendetta against M. Although Javier Bardem's performance of Silva seems to have been thoroughly embraced by critics and fans alike, I find myself unable to echo similar sentiments. Effectively creepy and convincingly evil, Bardem's Silva is very blunt and subsequently not very interesting.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The character</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> is on paper not especially intriguing because he is simply out for M's head. Silva's motives begin on an ambiguous note, as his beef with M momentarily looks credible. However, he is revealed to be a certifiable bad guy with a one-track mind when M's so-called betrayal seems to hold merit on the grounds of Silva's own previous betrayal of MI6. Silva is not made any more interesting through Bardem's performance. Definitely creepy and unnerving at times, Bardem </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">is not particularly subtle in his characterization and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">hardly offers a fresh or unique take on Bond villains.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Bardem is an effective villain without a doubt but not to an extent in which I can agree with the existing level of praise.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I found the rest of the supporting cast to be far more enjoyable to watch than Bardem. Of course, Bardem's role was a one-shot; the rest of the cast had to be better because they will be back in the future! </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Naturally, Judi Dench exits the Bond series with grace after style taking the role of M to new levels throughout <i>Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace </i>and <i>Skyfall</i>. As Dench exits, new actors move into the franchise to carve out their own legacies. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Naomie Harris assumes the iconic role of Miss (Eve) Moneypenny in <i>Skyfall </i>with much more of a character to play than any previous actress and a fantastic chemistry with Daniel Craig that will surely be fun to watch in future films. Q is also brought back to the series and updated in <i>Skyfall. </i>Desmond Llewelyn portrayed the character for decades in a way that made Q all his own; one reason why John Cleese never worked in the role was because he tried in vain to recapture the magic. So, in <i>Skyfall, </i>the character is simply revamped. Ben Whishaw gives a great performance as the modern-day Q; a young, gifted and enthusiastic</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> techno spy with a licence to program and a sharp wit that will also be fun to watch in later installments. The reliable Ralph Fiennes also makes a good showing in <i>Skyfall</i>, enough to make us all want to see more of what he will do in the role of M in the future, and the great Albert Finney is clearly having a good time playing the role of Kincade, another unique piece of <i>Skyfall </i>within the larger 007 franchise. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Casino Royale</i> and <i>Quantum of Solace</i> proved
that a Bond movie did not need Moneypenny, Q or anything else on the franchise
checklist to be a great Bond movie but <i>Skyfall </i>also proved
that the new Daniel Craig era could use them well in the 21st Century.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The story is one comprised of elements deeply prevalent in modern times but <i>Skyfall </i>still
manages to incorporate many classic Bond elements into its reels. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The o</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">riginality of the story is undeniable yet <i>Skyfall </i>pays
homage to every Bond era in a variety of ways as the story unfolds. Gadgets, deadly animals, nasty villain teeth and other
classic Bond checklist items make notable appearances after a
significant time away from the series.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Thomas
Newman's
great underplayed score goes a long way into the film's larger recognition of
the 007 series, </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">drawing from the franchise's rich history of terrific music and, specifically, </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">once again making full use of the Bond theme throughout. Of course, p</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">aying homage is worth nothing in and of itself (case and point: the silly, pointless nods to past Bond films in <i>Die Another Day </i>(2002)). However, <i>Skyfall </i>not
only finds interesting ways to honor the history of the James Bond
series but it does so in a way that cements itself in a classic
standing. The creative way in which the classic Aston Martin DB5 is used in the film is the best example of this point.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Skyfall</i> is a film for the
modern world and yet Mendes and company also incorporate much of how
Ian Fleming and 50 years of cinema defined James Bond to make a great
Bond film for the ages. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Director Sam Mendes forms a character-centered, atmospheric, thrilling and stylish Bond film with the perfect mix of emotion, action and humor. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">A major complaint from some fans is that <i>Casino Royale </i>and <i>Quantum of Solace </i>just do not feature enough humor. I always found both films to contain the right amount of thrills and humor but <i>Skyfall </i>finds an even better mix. The mix of tone throughout is great but </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Skyfall </i>also remains, in my mind at least, undoubtedly the most dark, violent and sadistic film in the series. However, everything that comprises the dark aspects of the film grow naturally out of the plot and are not done for the sake of shock value or cheap thrills. Ian Fleming's Bond novels were quite dark and violent at times though too, so cruel and unspeakable violence is not unprecedented in the world of James Bond. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Skyfall </i>is a great Bond film but that does not preclude it from falling into some genre traps. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For example, some of the plot points are quite predictable. Bond's failure of the tests but M's acceptance of him anyway is anticipated as soon as M speaks of the need for Bond to be tested for admittance into MI6. Also, </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I knew that it was only a matter of time before Silva escaped his cage </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">as soon as Q started messing around with Silva's computer. Perhaps I have just seen too many movies.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The quality of
the film's climax can be measured in two conflicted parts. On the one hand, the
final act is one of complete satisfaction since it is so well-executed on screen and simply unique within
the franchise. Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is one of over-the-top
proportions - even for a Bond film. Bond made a logical move in taking M to Skyfall because it was a secluded place
that he knew like the back of his hand; an ideal spot for baiting Silva. However, the idea of Bond taking M to his parent's
old estate to hold out against an inevitable attack, blowing it up and
then emerging from its bowels reborn (another one of Bond's favored
resurrections) is a bit too on-the-nose to be particularly effective. The metaphor is simply too obvious and in our face to be taken to heart.
The <i>Home Alone</i>-meets-007 nature of the preparation for Silva's attack
does not help the matter.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So <i>Skyfall </i>is not without an occasional eye-brow raise or two. But I dare you to find a Bond movie (or any movie, for that matter) that
is without the inevitable blemish that results from human-created art or that does not momentarily drift away from the shackles of
reality. Even if the film's climax does not fire on all cylinders,</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> the film's epilogue ends <i>Skyfall </i>on a great note that holds significant implications for the future of the franchise. Bond follows Moneypenny into an <a href="http://screenmusings.org/Thunderball/pages/Thbll_188.htm">office</a> well-known to those who are familiar with the series, engaging in banter of which we are accustomed, proceeding through a back-padded door to greet M who is sitting at the focal point of the dark-wood-paneled <a href="http://screenmusings.org/DrNo/pages/DN_086.htm">room</a> holding a top secret document. Ah, just like old <a href="http://screenmusings.org/ForYourEyesOnly/pages/FYEO_0155.htm">times</a>! </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Daniel Craig era seems to have positioned itself towards more recognizably classic territory; a</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">ll Bond was missing was a <a href="http://screenmusings.org/FromRussiaWithLove/pages/007FRWL_098.htm">fedora</a>! Considering the amount of time that the Bond series has effectively offered up films that operated outside the traditional tone of the series, this is technically unnecessary but nonetheless welcomed ground. The more things change, the more they stay the same. James Bond will return.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>9/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-92104942695781519242012-11-27T16:56:00.000-06:002012-11-29T09:45:42.546-06:00My Dark Sense of Cinematic Beauty<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- I think it is safe to say that beauty is important to the human race. While a certain number of people probably exist who do not care about beauty, I am sure they are the exception that proves the rule. People all around the world wake up hours before going to work to make sure that their appearance is in order, whether it is regarding hygiene or clothing; people choose mates based on beauty, or at least partly based on beauty; people take time off from their normal lives to enjoy the beauty that nature has to offer – and these are just a few examples. Of course, people want to experience beauty in a film as well; visual beauty of a movie is part of the magic, escapism, and fun of the movies. But what is beauty? Specifically, what is beauty in film? Because film is such a subjective art form, beauty can only be defined in terms that pertain to an individual.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If the old adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” applies to anything, it applies to film. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Beauty certainly exists within film and, just like the many ways that a film can be analyzed; beauty is seen and understood in ways that differ from person to person. The Merriam-Webster dictionary <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beauty">defines</a> the word “beauty” as “the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit.” Two important things are said about beauty in this definition: one is that the amount of beauty, or general pleasure, that someone or something gives to someone else depends on the person experiencing that someone or something; the second is that beauty is more than simple aesthetics. Beauty is subjective, pure and simple. Ludwig von Mises correctly <a href="http://mises.org/etexts/mises/anticap/section4.asp">notes</a> that, "</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">the judgment about the merits of a work of art is entirely subjective.
Some people praise what others disdain. There is no yardstick to measure
the aesthetic worth of a poem or of a building."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Although definitely differing from person to person, society does seem to hold some commonly held definitions as to what makes something beautiful. Clean and picturesque natural scenery, such as the South American rainforest or Yosemite National Park, come to mind right away as something that most people would find beautiful. Natural scenery complete with lush coloring, a big bright sun, a majestic mountain background, and a quiet flowing body of water would only enhance the beauty of an area. A great example of this type of conventional beauty in a film is the opening to the 1965 musical <i>The Sound Of Music</i>, in which Julie Andrews belts out the title song on top of a rolling sea of green Austrian hilltops.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But pretty scenery is only one example of something that most people would find to have beauty, a similar commonly held definition of beauty could simply be something that gives a person a warm feeling inside. People like it when they get to experience a warm sunny day, rather than a cold cloud-filled rainy day, for example – it is not often that you hear one say “boy oh boy, what a beautiful day it is this morning: nothing but clouds in the sky, rain everywhere, and how about that tint of grey in everything you see!”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I have come to discover however that my definition of beauty is a little bit different than what beauty means to many other people – I might even be inclined to even find a rainy day beautiful. While beauty, for me, can certainly be something that is traditionally pretty or is something that gives me a warm happy feeling but more often than not, especially in regards to film, the chilling feeling of awe, tension, or tragedy is what I find beautiful. <br /><br />A great example of not only my perhaps unconventional sense of film beauty but also the different ways that beauty is perceived in film can be seen in the differences between how my wife and I reacted to a certain scene in the Martin Scorsese-directed film <i>The Departed</i> (2006). The later half of film features a scene in which Martin Sheen’s character, Cpt. Queenan, has been pushed out of a multistory building and is falling in semi-slow motion down to the pavement below. It lasts only for a few seconds and is book-ended by two other very violent scenes but I find the way that Queenan falls to his death has a certain visual beauty to it. Queenan’s death is still shocking and ultimately unwanted because the character is so likable but the very operatic death scene holds some real cinematic beauty for me. During my wife and my viewing of the film I said, “wow, what a cool scene” out loud during Queenan’s fall. My wife was appalled. “How can you say that?!” she exclaimed, “He’s dead! What’s wrong with you?” Here we have two very different ideas of what beauty is. I tried to explain how the way Queenan’s body falls and how the camera moves makes the scene visually pleasing to me but she was not in agreement. There exists no clear cut definition of what cinematic beauty is: my wife finds cinematic beauty to be more in line with what <i>The Sound Of Music</i> (1965) has to offer - my opinions on the greatest cinematic beauty are a bit different. <br /><br />No better light can be shone upon my dark sense of cinematic beauty than the minimalist light that can be seen in <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/p/film-noir.html">film noir</a>. No other genre of film offers up the same kind of beauty that film noir does for me. The greatest films noir have brilliant, beautiful photography; having a deep black-and-white picture that captures the undesirable reality of a cruel world while incorporating a surreal escapism is something that I find truly captivating. Rolling hills and Austrian castles can be beautiful indeed but I will take the dark and smoky grit of film noir over any scene in nature any day. Give me the scratchy silhouette of Robert Mitchum leaning up with his back against the wall, still as a mouse, listening in on an enlightening phone conversation in <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/out-of-past-1947.html"><i>Out Of The Past</i></a> (1947). Look towards the exhausting fight scene between Robert Ryan and Hal Baylor in the dirty smoke-filled snake pit of a boxing arena in <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/set-up-1949.html">The Set-Up</a></i> (1949) or check out the bold textures and cascading shadows of Harry J. Wild’s cinematography in the Philip Marlowe detective story <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/09/murder-my-sweet-1944.html">Murder, My Sweet</a></i> (1944). <br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Simply put: there is no way to define cinematic beauty in black-and-white terms (excuse the pun). A kind of personal criteria for film beauty differs from person to person – even fans of film noir might not agree with me that the high-contract lighting on the deep shadowing in <i>Out Of The Past</i> is particularly beautiful, they might find it more jarring or tense than beautiful. I, on the other hand, would agree with them while still finding the film to be beautiful. But, then again, while I find the more traditional examples of cinematic beauty to be beautiful much of the time, I tend to see cinematic beauty in more unconventional forms. <br /><br />Cinematography makes all the difference much of the time for me, a film can be slightly low-budget and therefore not have top-notch art direction, costumes, or set designs but still have striking picture thanks to the featured lighting, coloring, and framing – this is seen in many films noir, much of which were made on a lower budget. However, I will even go as far as saying that cinematic beauty transcends the visuals – it is the feeling and atmosphere that specific visuals give off that makes a specific film beautiful. The cinematography, art direction, and other visuals often receive help from other elements that make a scene even more beautiful. <br /><br />Music contributes greatly to cinematic beauty as it heightens the viewer’s overall film experience. If the images on-screen are beautiful, beautiful music will make the film even more beautiful. Take <i>The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King</i> (2003) for example: the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6LGJ7evrAg">scene</a> in which all of the mountaintop towers are lit for the first time in centuries, marking a reuniting of the human race in the mythical Middle Earth, would not be nearly as beautiful and stirring as it is without Howard Shore’s powerful score to accompany the incredible aerial shots of the New Zealand landscape. Another example can be found in film noir, yet again, with the children’s fearful ride down the starlit river in <i>The Night Of The Hunter</i> (1955) – a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFzTBPy7nl8">scene</a> in which would not be nearly as moving without the eerie lullabies. <br /><br />Other factors can contribute to the beauty in film as well. Sometimes simply knowing what is at stake in the story can heighten the beauty of a particular scene. Other times the way a scene builds up and finishes, both visually and emotionally, create cinematic beauty. Good acting can even heighten the beauty of a certain scene, whether it is the way an actor moves within a frame or a well-timed and well-delivered piece of dialogue. A great example of all of these elements at working with the bare visuals to create cinematic beauty can be seen in <i>Star Trek: Generations</i> (1994). In a very exciting and beautiful scene, a sun explodes it creates a giant shock wave that begins to head straight for the starship Enterprise as well as a starbase with two Enterprise crewmen aboard trying to get to another crewman who is in danger. The two crewmen rescue the one in danger and are transported back aboard the Enterprise, immediately continuing with a tense and powerful Patrick Stewart jumping out of his chair and giving a golden delivery of the lines “Warp one! Engage!” as the Enterprise makes a just-in-time escape as the shock wave destroys the star base. The lives of the entire film’s cast are at stake, the film’s special effects visuals are striking, John A. Alonzo’s spot-on cinematography colors each frame, and Patrick Stewart’s acting and line delivery act almost as lyrics to Dennis McCarthy’s stirring score playing throughout the scene – this scene in <i>Star Trek: Generations</i> exciting and fun but it is also very beautiful in my opinion, with every detail inside the scene folding together in perfect rhythm to create a powerful sense cinematic beauty. <br /><br />Everyone has their own ideas of what makes a film beautiful or not. While traditional ideas of beauty do strike an emotional chord with me, I tend to define cinematic beauty more unconventionally and in more ways than just visuals. My perhaps darker sense of cinematic beauty is my own and is one of the many things that define me and how I watch movies and every individual has their own sense of cinematic beauty that does the same thing for them. Cinematic beauty, just like every form that beauty takes in the world, certainly resides in the eye of the beholder.</span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-91392423893817736082012-11-27T16:55:00.001-06:002013-05-31T13:26:51.103-05:00A Sense of Authorship: Joel and Ethan Coen<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Although not particularly cemented in film history yet (as their careers are still unfolding before us) my favorite filmmaker is the cinematic two-headed monster of Joel and Ethan Coen. I have enjoyed literally every single film the Coen Brothers have produced (to varying degrees, naturally) and they have yet to let me down, a trend that continues through my viewing of their latest film <i>True Grit </i>(2010). A sense of authorship can be clearly seen in all of the Coen Brothers’ films but I will specifically address this regarding three specific films that the Brothers have created. <br /><br /> One of the many great things about the never disappointing Coen Brothers is that they simply leave little room for disappointment. It might sound a bit trivial, but I have had my experience of viewing other films ruined by the hype and/or my own personal expectations that surround them for a variety of reasons. This never happens with the Coen Brothers however. One never knows what a Coen Brothers film will deliver as seen through the way that audiences often laugh out loud during one of their most suspenseful thrillers or are frozen in suspense during one of their most laugh-out-loud comedies. Also, whether or not one particularly enjoys every film that Joel and Ethan Coen have produced, great credit must be granted to the Brothers for the way they continuously create very original films. Even their screen adaptations of unoriginal work have more of a Coen Brothers signature than the signature of the original author, such as their adaptation of Homer’s<i> The Odyssey</i>: <i>O Brother Where Art Thou</i>? (2000).<br /><br /> Despite the consistent uniqueness of every Coen Brothers film, a thread entwines throughout each Coen Brothers film that binds their filmography together. Some directors make one film after the other that differs from their past films in almost every way. Ron Howard and Sydney Pollack come to mind right away as directors whose new releases were 180 degrees different from their past work (tell me that <i>Willow </i>(1988), <i>Ransom </i>(1996), and <i>Cinderella Man</i> (2005) or <i>They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?</i> (1969), <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/01/yakuza-1974.html"><i>The Yakuza</i></a> (1974), and <i>Tootsie </i>(1982) have anything in common). The Coen Brothers, while delivering one unique film year after year, do have many similarities stylistically and content-wise that tie them all together despite many differences. This factor plays into why the Coen Brothers are so revered and popular: no one else makes films like Joel and Ethan Coen and no one else can. One could argue that other directors make better or worse films but the fact remains that Joel and Ethan Coen are one-of-a-kind pair of filmmakers. <br /><br /> Perhaps no better example of this Coen trend of filmmaking can be seen outside of the Coen Brothers’ works from 2007-2009. If the Coen Brothers can claim <i>O Brother, Where Art Thou?</i>, <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/07/intolerable-cruelty-2003.html"><i>Intolerable Cruelty</i></a> (2003) and <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/burn-after-reading-2008.html">Burn After Reading</a></i> (2008) - related only by the presence of actor George Clooney - as their <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-503143_162-4388525.html">unofficial</a> “Idiot Trilogy” then I will claim <i>No Country For Old Men</i> (2007), </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Burn After Reading </i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> and<i> </i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/07/serious-man-2009.html">A Serious Man</a></i> (2009)</span> as their unofficial “Life Sucks Trilogy.” These films are very different from one another but they also have a lot of similarities; presenting related messages that link them together while also remaining unique stand-alone Coen Brothers films. <br /><br /> This unofficial Coen Brothers trilogy does have some fundamental differences between them. For starters, <i>No Country For Old Men</i> is an adaptation of a novel by Cormac McCarthy, unlike <i>Burn After Reading</i> and <i>A Serious Man</i> which are original stories written directly for the screen. Another obvious difference rings loud and clear: the three films are a part of different genres. <i>No Country For Old Men</i> is a straight-up thriller with the Coen Brothers flare; a lot like the Brothers' first film, <i>Blood Simple</i> (1984), in that each nook and cranny of every scene is not drenched in the Coen Brothers visual and emotional atmosphere but is driven by their great talent of creating an eerie sense of suspense. <i>Burn After Reading</i> is a deliberate attempt to make the audience laugh, presented in a spoof-like manner (in this case, it is shot as a serious espionage thriller, except the main characters are generally clueless). Unlike <i>No Country For Old Men</i>, gravely serious content with a few laughs peppered throughout the film,<i> Burn After Reading</i> is a no-holds-barred comedy but with a few dramatic gasps peppered throughout the film. <br /><br /><i>A Serious Man</i> is different from both films entirely and is actually very difficult to categorize. The film is neither completely dramatic nor completely comedic, some scenes are as shocking as <i>No Country For Old Men</i> and other scenes are as hilarious as <i>Burn After Reading</i> but the entire film never really takes a particular path to walk. Also, <i>A Serious Man</i> has more Biblical parallels in its story - not only is the story almost a direct adaptation of Book of Job, other Biblical scenes are transferred from scroll to film (such as main character Larry’s (Michael Stuhlbarg) rooftop glancing at the naked Mrs. Samsky (Amy Landecker) being similar to King David’s rooftop noticing of the bathing Bathsheba). <br /><br /> However, in a typical Coen Brothers fashion, their Oscar-winning no-nonsense thriller <i>No Country For Old Men</i>, ensemble oddball comedy <i>Burn After Reading</i> and humorously tragic moral tale <i>A Serious Man</i> have some major similarities even though they fit into three completely different genres. Stylistically speaking, all three films are very similar. Both <i>No Country For Old Men</i> and <i>A Serious Man</i> were shot by the same director of photography, Roger Deakins (a frequent collaborator of Joel & Ethan’s), and all three of the films in question have a similar lighting scheme of high contrast within a more mellow-colored palette. Also, the Coen Brothers employ a similar wide-use of camera angles for each scene (never staying with flat-angled shots for very long) and all three films feature what I like to call the Coen Camera Creep. The Coen Camera Creep is quite simply a shot in which the camera, ever so slightly, creeps up to confront a character/object or follows a character/object from behind. Now, other filmmakers use and have used a slow-moving close up or follow-along technique in many films but the Coen Brothers add a unique touch to make a technique all their own.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The role of money in the plot as a catalyst for catastrophe is seen in <i>No Country For Old Men</i> (money being the reason why Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) is chasing Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin)), <i>Burn After Reading</i> (in hopes to fund her plastic surgeries, Linda (Frances McDormand) unwittingly sends two men to their death looking for information to sell to the Russians) and <i>A Serious Man</i> (moments after accepting a bribe and changing his student’s grade, Larry gets a bad phone call about his health and the tornado forms outside of his son’s school). This goes for much of films that are a part of the Coen Brothers filmography – the best example of which is <i>Fargo </i>(1996) and <i>The Man Who Wasn’t There</i> (2001). The old <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/p/film-noir.html">film noir</a> adage that money can take an average person down into a dangerous situation permeates throughout the work of the Coen Brothers and is particularly evident here in the Coens’ “Life Sucks” trilogy. </span> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /><br /> Other similarities, ones that I would say are the greatest similarities between the three films, can be found in the film’s themes. The main underlying theme found in each film can be applied to either film: What is the point? My unofficial Coen Brothers “Life Sucks Trilogy” beings in 2007 with <i>No Country For Old Men</i> and I wonder if the Coen Brothers got to thinking long-term about the unexplainable nature and randomness of life after working on <i>No Country For Old Men</i> as their next two films, <i>Burn After Reading</i> and <i>A Serious Man</i>, also explore such themes. The Coen Brothers address three oddities of life: violence in <i>No Country For Old Men</i>, chaos in <i>Burn After Reading</i> and uncertainty in <i>A Serious Man</i>. At one point or another, some or all of the characters in the films cannot understand these oddities that life offers. In <i>No Country For Old Men</i>, Sherriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) cannot understand the intense series of violent acts he has witnessed – and neither can Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) and Carla Jean Moss (Kelly MacDonald), who expressively say as much, ending up victims of such violence. The CIA supervisor (J.K. Simmons) in <i>Burn After Reading</i> cannot fathom the bizarre chaotic events propelled by vanity, paranoia and stupidity; and, in <i>A Serious Man</i>, Larry Gopnick cannot come to terms with why all of these bad things are happening in his life. All of these subjects point to a randomness of life that the Coen Brothers expose – seen best in Anton Chigurh’s coin tossing in <i>No Country For Old Men</i> and in <i>A Serious Man</i> when Larry Gopnick says that the uncertainty principle means “we don’t really know what is going on.” <br /><br /> The main point that each film makes can be interchangeable: Ed Tom Bell could have said “what did we learn?” in<i> No Country For Old Men</i> when reflecting on the unexplainable violence he has witnessed, rather than the CIA Chief saying it in <i>Burn After Reading</i> in response to the chaotic set of events he experienced. The other CIA officer </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(David Rasche) </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> could have responded to the Chief’s question with the line spoken in <i>A Serious Man</i>: “accept the mystery.” Who can honestly explain the oddities that occur in life? Also, the bluntly honest line from <i>No Country For Old Men</i>, “you can’t stop what’s coming,” might as well have been said at the end of <i>A Serious Man</i> as the tornado materialized in front of Larry’s son’s eyes. There is truth to the stories that the Coen Brothers tell: inconceivable violence is nothing new to society; stupidity, paranoia, and vanity go hand in hand to a chaotic end; and sometimes bad things just happen in life for unknown reasons. The themes that are shared by <i>No Country For Old Men</i>, <i>Burn After Reading</i> and <i>A Serious Man</i> show a distinct sense of authorship from Joel and Ethan Coen. <br /><br /> Authorship: some filmmakers have it and others do not; but the Coen Brothers definitely own a unique signature style and theme. Take a look at any one of the current Coen Brothers films and you will find something to compare, Joel and Ethan present original works that always contain their own style of filmmaking. <i>No Country For Old Men</i>, <i>Burn After Reading</i>, and <i>A Serious Man</i> carry the distinguishable Coen Brothers style with them, finding creative ways to ask life’s big question: What’s the point?<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-5491933224502991732012-10-30T15:13:00.000-05:002013-05-31T14:42:27.213-05:00Sherlock Holmes (1922)<div style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Case of the Lost Film</span></b></span></u></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x0Ssx5gv_UA/UI_gY5dfl8I/AAAAAAAAALE/u78AMwOO6Bk/s1600/Sherlock_Holmes_1922_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x0Ssx5gv_UA/UI_gY5dfl8I/AAAAAAAAALE/u78AMwOO6Bk/s1600/Sherlock_Holmes_1922_poster.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- The character of Sherlock Holmes has been featured in so many film adaptations that he is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6789921/Sherlock-Holmes-pipe-dreams.html">credited</a> as the most portrayed film character in history. Personally, I cannot get enough of Sherlock Holmes on screen and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I enjoy viewing the cinematic Holmes antiques as much as</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> I anticipate the newest screen adaptations of the character</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Based on William Gillette's play "Sherlock Holmes" (assembled with significant input from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself) the 1922 silent film <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>holds a unique position within Holmes history but only moderately succeeds as a mildly entertaining film.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Sherlock Holmes </i>is a unique addition to the large collection of screen versions of the world's most famous detective in that it is an adaptation of the famous play of the same name rather than one of Doyle's stories. The play itself wa</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">s basically a composition of a number of Doyle's Holmes stories but it is not remembered for any kind of faithfulness to what Doyle created. Instead, "Sherlock Holmes" </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">played a substantial role in how the character of Sherlock Holmes would be remembered for generations; most significantly introducing the character's trademark deerstalker cap and calabash pipe (which were in fact absent from Doyle's original books) and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">further cementing Professor Moriarty as the most recognizable villain in the world of Holmes. "Sherlock Holmes" would define the character for decades ahead of Doyle's own writings and its 1922 silent film adaptation <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>followed suit.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The story as presented on screen in this 1922 adaptation of the play however can only be described as.... 'huh?' The plot is convoluted, jumps around a lot and hardly makes enough sense for the viewer to keep up. I can say for certain that Holmes' arch enemy Professor Moriarty definitely has some sort of evil scheme in play and that Holmes has a thing for the damsel in distress at the center of it all.... Other than that, I am not exactly positive as to the specifics of the plot.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is possible that <i>Sherlock Holmes</i> made a bit more sense to its original 1920s audience due to the fact that the only currently available version of this film is incomplete. <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>was considered a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_film">lost film</a> for decades. The only reason that the film is even accessible today is because a number of the film's negatives were discovered in the 1970s. It took many decades afterward to restore <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>to a viewable product and a number of reels were never even found. The film subsequently exists in its present incomplete state</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The sketchy plot aside, <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>is not a complete write-off when it comes to screen incarnations of Sherlock Holmes. Silent star John Barrymore makes a convincing Sherlock Holmes in this film. His physical qualifications give him a great advantage with the character, with his lanky physique and sharp facial features screaming Sherlock Holmes, but Barrymore also carries an energy and air of thoughtfulness essential to the character. However, the character that Barrymore plays is but a shell of the literary Sherlock Holmes. Barrymore gives Holmes a refreshing visually tangible sense of vulnerability but his is a romanticized early Hollywood Holmes, a hopeless romantic lacking the definitive calculating complexity and eccentricity. Perhaps not one of the screen's best Sherlock Holmes, Barrymore does leave a notable mark in Holmes history with his undoubtedly strong screen presence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The rest of the supporting cast fits their roles just as well as Mr. Barrymore. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gustave von Syffertitz plays a very creepy Professor Moriarty. The Moriarty depicted in this film is not a very good recreation of the character in Doyle's books, presented as an almost walking dead-type figure; but the character is effective at representing the latter side of this tale of good vs. evil. </span>One of the proteges of silent film legend D.W. Griffith (of <i>The Birth of a Nation </i>(1915) fame), Carol Dempster makes for a good damsel in distress for Holmes to save but not much of an interesting individual character. Future Oscar-nominated character actor Roland Young makes his film debut with a very satisfying performance of Dr. Watson. The character of Watson had not yet fallen into the dull role of playing Laurel to Holmes' Hardy and Young portrays a strong, capable Watson. Also making a memorable film debut in <i>Sherlock Holmes</i> is future Hollywood legend William Powell who would go on to star in his own <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/12/thin-man-1934.html">series</a> of detective films.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The character of Sherlock Holmes has a relationship with silent film that I feel yielded mixed results. One major advantage of silent film in the telling of a Sherlock Holmes story is the attention to detail in the visuals and atmosphere. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Workhorse silent era director Albert Parker does not create anything ground-breaking for the time but he certainly does not disappoint when it comes to the photography and tone of the film. The silent quality of <i>Sherlock Holmes</i> contributed greatly to the film's cold Victorian atmosphere and brought about some great moments of disturbingly quiet </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">tension. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">However, what I enjoyed the most about <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>was its incredible look. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Absolutely essential to the success of a medium </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">that has no sound is the effectiveness of the lighting and production design of each scene and <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>is complete with exquisite mood-setting black-and-white lighting and </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">rich detail-laden mise-en-scene. Although Doyle never wrote Holmes as a hopeless romantic, he did write him as untidy and 1922's <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>brings this aspect out of the character better than the vast majority of Holmes screen adaptations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The characters and especially the look of <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>are quite entertaining; however, one major problem exists with this film that exists in <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/10/sherlock-holmes-dying-detective-1922.html">other</a> silent film Holmes adaptations.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Sherlock Holmes
stories simply do not translate well onto the silent screen. This is
what I deduce, anyway; although I will admit that I am biased
as not just a </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">21st Century film viewer </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">but as a fan of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books.</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The character of Holmes is very cerebral. To display Holmes' incredible abilities of observation through such flat means as dialogue on title cards simply does not do the character or story justice. <i>Sherlock Holmes </i>at least valiantly attempts to display Holmes' deduction skills but still commits the same errors as other silent Holmes films by failing to unravel an engaging mystery through Holmes' mindful methods. Although the likable characters, strong visuals and place within Holmes history definitely makes </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1922's <i>Sherlock Holmes</i></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> worth checking out, the patched-together story and unsuccessful depiction of what makes the stories of Sherlock Holmes great equals a middling Holmes screen adventure at best.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>6/10</b> </span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-18990300603619752712012-10-30T08:51:00.001-05:002013-05-31T14:45:52.276-05:00Sherlock Holmes: The Dying Detective (1921)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>Deathly Silent</u></b></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Currently 125 years old, the Sherlock Holmes character holds the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0026631/maindetails#1920">record</a> as "the most-portrayed movie character" with over 200 screen appearances. Despite Basil Rathbone's reputation as the most definitive screen Holmes, Eille Norwood was in fact the most prolific of any Sherlock Holmes actor, appearing in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0026631/maindetails#1920">47</a> silent serial and full-length movies produced by Stoll Pictures over a three-year span<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. Norwood was a perfect fit for a silent era Holmes; Arthur Conan Doyle was even <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/articles/2007/02/27/sherlock_holmes_huddersfield_feature.shtml">quoted</a> as saying </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Norwood's "wonderful impersonation of Holmes has amazed me." C</span>onvincing easily as the iconic detective, Norwood brought an imposing and mysterious presence as well as a clear passion to the role (reading all the stories, which <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JvU9Lry9Q4&t=8m">accompanied</a> him on set, and even learning to play the violin) on both the stage and the screen.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the first of the Stoll-produced and Norwood-starred Sherlock Holmes pictures, <i>The Dying Detective </i>(1921) is also one of the few surviving and currently accessible ones (<a href="http://archive.org/details/TheAdventuresOfSherlockHolmes-TheDyingDetective">online</a> & on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sherlock-Holmes-Archive-Collection-Vol/dp/B003Z8ZCCK/ref=pd_cp_mov_1">DVD</a>). This 1921 screen version of Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Adventure of the Dying Detective," in which Sherlock Holmes contracts an exotic Asian illness, is interesting because of its place in Holmes history but also an enjoyable, albeit blemished, silent Sherlock Holmes movie.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Silent film might seem pointless and avoidable to the modern film viewer who is used to vibrant, intricate sound in movies. However, I encourage everyone to give silent movies a try as silent film has a definite mood that can support a story and bring special focus on the visuals. The silence of <i>The Dying Detective</i>,<i> </i>for example, in some respects heightens the suspense and mystery of the story. On the other hand, film was not much of a writer's medium back in the silent era. Subsequently, <i>The Dying Detective </i>features a plot that is a bit difficult to follow at times and pitches dialogue, if one can call it that, which can come off as cheesy to most 21st Century audiences. Also, silence can significantly contribute to a film's atmosphere but it does not necessarily aid the actual look of the film. In the case of <i>The Dying Detective, </i>while not necessarily dull or amateur-looking, the photography is not particularly dazzling and the aged print is understandably rough.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Still, although perhaps enjoyable only to a limited group (comprised mostly of hardcore film buffs and Sherlock Holmes fanatics, like me) as a historical deep cut of the Sherlock Holmes film legacy, <i>The Dying Detective </i>does make for a fun, short viewing.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating:<b> 6/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-14938734492537561342012-10-30T08:51:00.000-05:002013-05-31T15:18:12.226-05:00Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1943)<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>For England, Holmes?</b></u></span><i><br /></i></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Sherlock_Holmes_and_the_Secret_Weapon_-_1943_-_Poster.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Sherlock_Holmes_and_the_Secret_Weapon_-_1943_-_Poster.png" width="206" /></a><i>-</i> The longevity and effectiveness of Arthur Conan Doyle's iconic Sherlock Holmes character has been proven after 100 years of different adaptations, interpretations and re-imaginings on the big and small screens. One of the most famous screen versions of the Holmes was Basil Rathbone's interpretation of the character, adapted for Hollywood's Golden Era in different Victorian and 1940s settings. Rathbone's fourth Sherlock Holmes film, <i>Sherlock Holmes</i> <i>and the Secret Weapon </i>(1943), follows the World War II setting established in <i>Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror </i>(1942) and is especially notable for being the first of eleven Holmes films directed by Roy William Neill. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
In the early 1940s, every sector of society and the economy was used for the war effort - even the movie business. <i>Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon </i>was born out of the film industry's wartime propaganda machine to boost moral for the war effort; however, the propagandist tones are significantly watered down compared to the nearly overbearing nationalist beat of the previous <i>Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror.</i><br />
<br />
Arthur Conan Doyle was cold in the ground before the British entrance into World War II but Sherlock Holmes feels oddly
at home amidst the blitzkrieged rubble of 1940s wartime Britain. Borrowing from Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Adventure of the Dancing Men,"
the plot is not particularly special but it makes for a good
MacGuffin to set Holmes' unparalleled powers of deduction in motion for
about an hour. In <i>The Secret Weapon, </i>Holmes must find a missing scientist with a secret weapon
before his grand nemesis, Professor Moriarty, unlocks the secret first
and sells it to the Axis Powers.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
The film has its hiccups, including some pretty cliched elements and instances of stupid character decisions (even from our infallible Mr. Holmes!). However, director Roy William Neill begins his Holmes tenure off on a good footing, creating a swift flowing and (with cinematographer Les White) nicely shot wartime mystery thriller. A number of memorable scenes can be found in the film despite the short runtime; especially good is the daring plan in Switzerland and Holmes choosing the method of his own potential demise. Of course, the cast also does not disappoint: a fine group including Nigel Bruce's slightly bumbling but mostly helpful Dr. Watson, Lionel Atwill's cruel Professor Moriarty, Dennis Hoey's enjoyable Inspector Lestrade (pretty much accepting his inferior role as head of Scotland Yard) and Basil Rathbone's confident and intense Sherlock Holmes.<br />
<br />
Fourteen Sherlock Holmes films were made by the time Nigel Rathbone was finished playing the legendary character on the big screen and <i>Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon </i>is unfortunately not one of the top-tier films made during this time. However, this film is certainly an entertaining caper that is sure to entertain fans of Arthur Conan Doyle's immortal character. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>7/10</b></span></div>
Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-15241040324956131662012-10-04T11:10:00.000-05:002012-10-04T11:10:21.826-05:00Dick Tracy, Detective (1945)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>Fun 40s Pulp</b></u></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Dick_Tracy_(1945_film).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Dick_Tracy_(1945_film).jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Dick Tracy is one of the most memorable detective characters in the history of film and print. The yellow coat-wearing, by-the-book star of Chester Gould's famous comic strip "Dick Tracy" that <a href="http://www.dicktracymuseum.com/chester-gould/timeline/">ran</a> from 1931-1977 also built a number of feature films, the first of which was <i>Dick Tracy </i>(1937) starring Ralph Byrd. The 1945 RKO Radio Pictures film <i>Dick Tracy, Detective </i>was the first of two films to feature Morgan Conway in the title role. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Dick Tracy, Detective </i>attempts to capture the spirit of the comics with a mixture of dark thrills and goofy comedy. Largely entertaining while getting its foot stuck in the usual 1940s B-movie hang-ups, the story sees Tracy face the
unmentionable horror of the serial killer "Splitface" while also trying
to balance a home and love life in this pulp RKO Radio picture. Much
of the plot is ridiculous and includes a significant amount of clunky
and forced humor. However, although initially appearing stenciled from
the usual 40s B-movie fair, <i>Dick Tracy, Detective</i> gets credit for its surprising move into unexpected territory as the story unfolds. The film also gets some credit for a few nice shots within its generally run-of-the-mill visual style.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The second of only three actors to ever play the part of Dick Tracy on film (Warren Beatty would resurrect the character for his 1990 film), Morgan Conway is an unexciting but serviceable Tracy. While not necessarily unconvincing in the role, Conway is rather stiff, nasally and not as charming as he assumes. Basically, Conway feels like a functional stand-in for a better actor. He would not last long in the role either; Conway did one more Dick Tracy film before the original screen Tracy, Ralph Byrd, returned to the series.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The supporting cast fits their roles much better than headliner Conway. Anne Jeffreys is very enjoyable as Tracy's girlfriend Tess Trueheart, a then-unknown Jane Greer</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> proves that she was sharp, strong and striking even before her knockout role in <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/out-of-past-1947.html"><i>Out of the Past</i></a> (1947) as suspect Jane Owens and Mike Mazurki (fresh from his great turn in <i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/09/murder-my-sweet-1944.html">Murder, My Sweet</a> </i>(1944)) is perfectly cast as the menacing maniac Splitface.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">All things considered, RKO's 1945 film <i>Dick Tracy, Detective </i>is a fun 1940s pulp flick but not much more<i>. </i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>6/10</b></span><i> </i></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-24765392495589832292012-10-04T11:07:00.001-05:002012-10-04T11:12:21.247-05:00Sweet Liberty (1986)<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>Sweet Misery</u></b></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Sweetlibertyposter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Sweetlibertyposter.jpg" width="209" /></a>- Somewhere between <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1&version=NIV">Genesis 1:1</a> and the current date, Alan Alda got famous. Do not ask me how it happened - it is more of a mystery than the inner workings of the universe.<i> </i><i>Sweet Liberty </i>(1986) was Alda's first directed film since his days on "M.A.S.H." came to an end and the "sweetness" of the film, if it has any, is defined by brand of pretension and awkwardness that only Alan Alda can deliver. It is not enough that Alda writes and directs this pretentious bore, he also plays the shallow lead role. <br />
<br />
Michael Burgess (Alda) - a winy know-it-all author who is in love with himself more than anything else - did not write his scholarly work on the American Revolution to make a movie. But how could he pass up the opportunity to make some extra cash through selling film rights? Michael's Hollywood experience brings him more than just some mailbox money however, as he clashes with eccentric back-stabbing movie stars (Michael Caine, Michelle Pfeiffer) and a pair of Hollywood hacks (Bob Hoskins, Saul Rubinek) who prefer to pander for box office success rather than produce an accurate historical screen account of the American Revolution. Naturally, Michael needs none of this as his mother (Lillian Gish) is slowly dying of dimentia and his relationship with girlfriend Gretchen (Lise Hilboldt) is beginning to suffocate him. Laughing yet?</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br />
<i>Sweet Liberty </i>has one great sweet spot: its cast. Alan Alda headlines a terrific group that completely overshadows him and could do so with one hand tied behind their backs. The film's clear highlight is Michael Caine's hilarious performance as the charming but demanding, tom-catting movie star Elliot James but <a href="http://screenmusings.org/Moonraker/pages/Mnrkr_939.htm">Bond girl</a> Lois Chiles, the underrated Saul Rubinek, a young Michelle Pfeiffer, the great Bob Hoskins, the legendary Lillian Gish and an impressive unknown Lise Hilboldt are all fantastic in the film as well. With a great supporting cast such as this, only the writing, direction and lead performance could possibly ruin this film.... Enter Alan Alda.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem with "M.A.S.H" once Alan Alda gained more creative control was that the show became more pretentious, preachy, saccharine and less funny than it already was. <i>Sweet Liberty </i>likewise suffers from similar problems; actually getting worse as it goes on through to the strange bubbly ending. The film appears to be an attempt at a satirical jab at the Hollywood machine but the themes never really materialize and the jokes do not land much of a blow. Alda's own individual writing and acting style that defines the film feels on the one hand too reminiscent of Neil Simon and Woody Allen (Alda having experience with material from both writers throughout his career) except that it lacks the wit and engaging characters threading throughout the works of both writers. And the only thing more damaging to the film than the writing is Alda's direction. The photography and general style fail to excite and the frequency of which Alda inserts cliched 80s scene montages (set to what sounds like Mannheim Steamroller playing at a Chuck'E'Cheese) is puzzling to say the least. Not without its enjoyable moments (mostly thanks to a great supporting cast) but hyped up on its own misplaced sense of self importance, <i>Sweet Liberty </i>ultimately ODs on the triple dose of Alan Alda.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>5/10</b></span></div>
Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-67423741981499058082012-08-21T15:56:00.001-05:002012-08-21T15:56:33.171-05:00Aliens (1986)<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">"This Time It's War"</span></u></strong></div>
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4BPHVO-jd6k/UCpWz5qal6I/AAAAAAAAAFg/KDUXNoKEbwQ/s1600/Aliens_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4BPHVO-jd6k/UCpWz5qal6I/AAAAAAAAAFg/KDUXNoKEbwQ/s320/Aliens_poster.jpg" width="203" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- When we last left Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), she had disposed the alien that had killed her entire crew and was heading back to earth. <em>Aliens </em>(1986) continues the story of Ellen Ripley when, 57 years later, she is found by a deep space salvage team.... it seems as if her shuttle had flown off course. Displaced in time, distrusted by the authorities and altogether deeply disturbed from her encounter with the xenomorph alien, Ripley finds it understandably difficult to re-enter society. But Ripley's account of her dealings with an alien onboard the <em>Nostromo </em>begins to become more believable to the powers that be when a terraforming colony on LV-426 (the planet that the <em>Nostromo </em>discovered the alien) suddenly disappears into radio silence. Enlisting the services of Ripley, a team of elite marines lands on the colony to investigate.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
Ridley Scott's <em><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/08/alien-1979.html">Alien</a> </em>(1979) was a brilliant stand-alone film that required no sequel. However, Scott created such a mysterious and fascinating world in <em>Alien</em> that a sequel was certainly possible. Unfortunately, Scott's world was expanded upon by the would-be master of the big and the bloated: James Cameron. Promising that "this time it's war," <em>Aliens</em> builds upon what Ridley Scott and team created in <em>Alien </em>by delivering a bigger, badder but brainless action-packed <em>Alien </em>film.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A good sequel should not be a carbon copy of its original. Like any good sequel, <em>Aliens </em>incorporates much of what audiences enjoyed about the original <em>Alien </em>while also forging new ground. Cameron's most obvious contribution to the <em>Alien </em>series is expanding the xenomorph alien race. The audience is shown more of how the aliens live and behave as a group within the context of the story and the truly fantastic special effects (lead by legendary effects wizard Stan Winston) allow the aliens to move in new ways. The best aspect of the film is how the character of Ripley is explored. The many dynamics that play into Ripley's role in <em>Aliens </em>is quite satisfying, especially the relationship between Ripley and the child "Newt" (played very well by Carrie Henn). Naturally, Sigourney Weaver gives a powerful Oscar-nominated performance of the tough but vulnerable heroine.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While <em>Aliens </em>is a generally high-quality and entertaining movie, a number of potent flaws exist; most of which flow directly from writer/director James Cameron. One can notice the large number of predictable and lame Cameronisms that populate the film's reels immediately from the </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brEzYdLrPws"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">trailer</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. The military caricatures, the badass Hispanic female character, Michael Biehn, Pill Paxton, trademark Cameron camera movements, etc. - which is great if you like Cameronisms but awful if you do not. Cameron's trademarks would naturally exist since he directed the film, one might say. I will buy that. However, Cameron's departure from the thriller direction of Ridley Scott is something I cannot embrace.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nobody wants to watch <em>Alien </em>remade - however, while the direction that <em>Aliens </em>takes could have been great, the execution of Cameron's vision is not. While there are inventive, tense and arguably scary moments in <em>Aliens</em>,<em> </em>Cameron basically crafts an action film out of his <em>Alien </em>picture and the film's general visual style suffers as a result. The visuals are certainly of a professional production quality. However, <em>Aliens </em>focuses on capturing supposed spectacular action scenes while featuring little in the way of interesting style or photography to heighten atmosphere and suspense. The original <em>Alien </em>film was defined by its incredible visual and atmospheric style; its sequel, <em>Aliens</em>,<em> </em>is defined by gunfire and explosions. And what is worse? The gunfire and explosions are not presented on screen with any more excitement or style than any other number of better films.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cameron also makes the film feel very cheesy at times. Ridley Scott was able to make the characters in <em>Alien </em>compelling without any unnecessary and dishonest tugging of the heart strings - even Jones the cat never descended into such a role. <em>Aliens </em>on the other hand includes many forced emotional moments, especially in the "director's cut" version of the film. Even the most powerful emotional element of the film, regarding the character of Newt, feels forced and inauthentic in certain parts of the film. The cliched nature of the film's dialogue is atrociously cheesy - much of it coming off worse than it was on paper by some truly bad performances. Most of the cast (save for Weaver, Henn, Lance Hendriksen as the android Bishop and Michael Biehn as Cpl. Hicks) are pretty hard to take in. The most egregious thespian offenders are William Hope, who overacts his role to hilarious levels as Lt. Gorman; Paul Reiser, who gives a weak performance as the mischievous Weyland crony; and Bill Paxton, who is infuriating to watch as the loud, irritating and painfully unfunny Pvt. Hudson.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The root of the flaws in <em>Alien </em>comes from its very formulaic nature. <em>Alien </em>was different all-around. The film begins as an ensemble piece in which Ripley slowly rises to become the character at the center of the story. The first half of <em>Alien</em> moves at an eerily leisure pace (Ridley Scott recounted how people would complain that "<a href="http://alienexplorations.blogspot.com/2008/05/raw-transcription-of-ridley-scot.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">nothing happens [in <em>Alien</em>] for 45 minutes</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"); it continues to </span>speed up, with calming moments peppered throughout, becoming electric and very exciting up until the largely quiet final act.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Suffice it to say, <em>Alien </em>is an unusual and brilliant film all around. <em>Aliens</em>,<em> </em>by contrast, basically follows the studio-approved Hollywood blueprint for an action/adventure/thriller in story structure, character outlining and general pacing. Cameron structures <em>Aliens </em>well but it is much more of a traditional, familiar film than <em>Alien - </em>I found this aspect particularly disappointing<em>.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">James Cameron's<em> Aliens </em>has a strange <a href="http://www.empireonline.com/50greatestsequels/default.asp?c=1">reputation</a> as one of the greatest sequels in film history. It seems to me that <em>Aliens </em>features all the usual sequel trappings which makes me wonder how the film achieved its noble but unworthy title. Taking the <em>Alien </em>story in a starkly different direction from what Scott created is not damning in and of itself as a different direction could have been interesting. However, while generally entertaining, <em>Aliens </em>features little that is compelling or interesting. Rather than creating an engaging film world through style and suspense, which made the original <em>Alien </em>such a great film, Cameron focuses on special effects and gunplay in a way that makes <em>Aliens </em>a largely forgettable action flick. Although ending up an enjoyable film overall due to the professional quality of its production value and Sigourney Weaver's strong performance of a more fleshed-out Ripley character, <em>Aliens </em>dramatically pales in comparison to Ridley Scott's original 1979 <em>Alien</em>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <strong>7/10</strong></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-91143535525346823222012-08-16T10:01:00.001-05:002013-06-26T13:07:08.049-05:00Alien (1979)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>"In space,</u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>no one can hear you scream...."</u></b></span></div>
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Alien_movie_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Alien_movie_poster.jpg" width="228" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Monster movies.... Been there.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Space movies.... Done that.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A monster movie in space? .... Now I have never seen that before!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic <i>Alien </i>(1979) is often <a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/11/01/alien_4/">summarized</a> as "a haunted house movie set in space" but, although not without a logical footing, this description is not entirely accurate. <i>Alien </i>continues to shock new generations of viewers but it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBZu0X9Mbyc&t=2m45s">terrified</a> 1979 audiences to their very souls. But why? How did some "<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1322732/Sigourney-Weaver-Alien-I-thought-little-independent-film.html?ITO=1490">scrappy little independent film</a>" turn out to be a alarming and dramatic genre game-changer? One reason for this was because <i>Alien </i>was technically innovative and effectively scary but the other reason is the completely unprecedented nature of visual and thematic content which makes the film so much more than a futuristic haunted house picture. The first of Scott's amazing sci-fi films (<i><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/07/blade-runner-1982.html">Blade Runner</a> </i>(1982), followed much later by <i>Alien </i>prequel <i>Prometheus </i>(2012)) and only the second feature film Scott had even directed, <i>Alien </i>is a stunning and suspenseful attack on our delicate senses. Nothing prepared me for what I was about to see - not even having seen <i>Prometheus </i>first and <i>Alien </i>second.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><i>Alien </i>begins with the seven member crew of the commercial spaceship <i>Nostromo </i>waking after a long mission. The crew unhappily wakes to news that, although originally en route back to Earth, their ship has been re-directed by its command center, "Mother," towards a planet emitting a distress signal. Investigating, the crew encounters an unexplainable and deadly organism that turns their standard ride home into a desperate fight for survival.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The story is quite simple but what makes <i>Alien </i>hypnotically compelling are the absolutely mind-blowing visuals and atmosphere. <i>Alien </i>does not build upon a western blueprint as other sci-fi films do (like the <i>Star Wars </i>series (partially) or "Firefly" (literally)) but instead forges new ground in the sci-fi genre by combining a cruel yet awesome wonder of space discovery similar to <i>2001: A Space Odyssey </i>(1968), the suspense of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Then-There-Were-None/dp/0062073486/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344543475&sr=1-1&keywords=And+Then+There+Were+None">And Then There Were None</a> </i>and the unimaginable horror of <i>The Texas Chainsaw Massacre </i>(1974). Space is depicted as quiet, cold, ruthless; and space travel not as exciting as "Star Trek" which naturally lends itself well to a sci-fi horror film. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Director Ridley Scott assembles every scene with creative and truly powerful camera work; however, my favorite thing about the film is the incredible photography from Scott and cinematographer Derek Vanlit. A stellar distribution of color gives this dark story visual dimension that deepens the mood. The use of light throughout the film is also especially remarkable, bringing a very strong visual style to <i>Alien </i>through brilliant high-contrast lighting and the occasional lens flare (a technique unfortunately reduced to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/lens-flare-the-movie-jj-abrams-parody_n_881395.html">parody</a> these days due to overuse by some directors).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">One of the most vocalized assertions from critics of <i>Alien </i>is that the film is paced too slowly; that "</span><a href="http://alienexplorations.blogspot.com/2008/05/raw-transcription-of-ridley-scot.html"><span style="font-family: Arial;">nothing happens for 45 minutes</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">." However, I would argue that the unhurried pace is a powerful piece to the overall atmosphere, which is one of the film's biggest strengths. Unlike other horror films, <i>Alien </i>is not filled with a lot of heart-pounding thrill moments (although there are plenty of those). What makes <i>Alien </i>a scary movie is the slow, creeping mood that creates an uncomfortable eeriness throughout the film. <i>Alien </i>burns slowly, building the sense of uncertainty and apprehension in the viewer as the story evolves from an uneasy but tranquil voyage into an eye-opening and frightening terror. A general silence strengthens the dark, uneasy feel of the film - even Jerry Goldsmith's </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F1BA82B4A5704B4"><span style="font-family: Arial;">score</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> features more austere sounds and creepy tones than melodies. <i>Alien </i>proves that silence is often the scariest volume. Ads for the film whisper "In space, no one can hear you scream." ....Indeed.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><i>Alien</i> opens with a gentle camera tour of <i>Nostromo</i>, <span style="font-family: Arial;">serenaded only by the haunting sounds of the clanging vessel, which plants the audience directly in the middle of Scott's established world<i>. </i>The design of <i>Nostromo </i>is interesting because the production team did not bend their minds to create something entirely unimaginable. The ship is clearly something of futuristic fiction but also feels somewhat familiar with its dirty and practical factory design. This connects audiences to an identifiable featured film world rather than alienating them with something completely unrecognizable. At the same time, a certain uncleanliness and tangible feeling of claustrophobia accompanies the <i>Nostromo </i>which makes even the familiar ship feel intimidating. It is a fascinating world and I am in no hurry to rush through it to get to some blood and action.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The other side of the design coin of <i>Alien </i>is the look of the iconic alien creature and everything else that is seen in the film, designed by artist <a href="http://www.hrgiger.com/">H.R. Giger</a> who won an Academy Award for his work. Giger's work as an artist proves that he has a unique talent and his contribution to <i>Alien </i>was invaluable. Everything seen in the film, from the unknown ship to the look of the actual creature, is phenomenal. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Based on some of Giger's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necronomicon_(H._R._Giger)">previous works</a>, the alien organism is unlike anything previously seen in film and s</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">ome the most and controversial themes of the film stem from the alein's anatomy and behavior. The alien (later to be known as a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)">xenomorph</a>") has multiple stages of life: first an egg then the other stages commonly known as the facehugger, the chestburster and then the full-grown alien. Once hatching, it must first violate a person by entering down the throat and implanting an embryo inside the host's body. It then bursts forth from the inside out and begins to grow into a deadly terror. A fully grown alien looks somewhat like an asexual human but is pitch black, slimy, having jagged snake-like features, a shaft-like head, nasty teeth, acid for blood and a deadly tail to boot. The shape of its head gives the alien a phallic look but its protruding toothed tongue especially evokes this idea. The phallic nature of the alien, combined the act of "impregnating" its host, adds a sexual side to the terror the creature generates which not only makes the alien more unique but also scares on a whole plane. It is a terrifying creature, its very traits horrifying us on a very primal level.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Unlike other horror films that do not take the time to allow the audience to get to know its characters, Scott takes <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/06/birds-1963.html">the Hitchcockian route</a> and sets up his characters and atmosphere first before the action and the scares begin. <i>Alien </i>begins as an ensemble film - no one character being singled out as the main protagonist until later in the story. The film's seven characters are all a bit older than the traditional route most horror films seem to take (casting nothing but twenty/thirty-somethings), often referred to "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjDpg0UTPtg">truck drivers in space</a>," which adds a certain maturity to the film. The recognizable cast is great from top to bottom: John Hurt (<i>The Elephant Man </i>(1980)) as Kane, Yaphet Kotto (<i>Live And Let Die </i>(1973)) as Parker, Veronica Cartwright (<i>Invasion of the Body Snatchers </i>(1978)) as Lambert, Harry Dean Stanton (<i>Paris, Texas </i>(1984)) as Brett<i> </i>and Tom Skerrit (<i>M.A.S.H. </i>(1970)) as Dallas all do not act simply as horror movie fodder but embody their characters perfectly as authentic and interesting human beings. Ian Holm (<i>The Lord of the Rings </i>Trilogy) is a particular stand-out among the cast with a layered performance of the intriguing Ash. Holm had little experience with film prior to <i>Alien </i>and, with a background largely as a Shakespearean actor (see <i>Henry V </i>(1989) for a great example of Holm's Shakespearean prowess), had done little to prepare him for this very different kind of role; so his performance is that much more impressive.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Of course, Sigourney Weaver shot to stardom with her involved and intense portrayal of Ripley. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/13/ridley-scott-alien-ripley">Hailed</a> as a ground-breaking character for women on film, Ripley is shown to be a vulnerable human being but also a very resourceful survivor and a tough, capable leader - and, being a woman, Ripley is the perfect protagonist to square off against a phallic beast. Ripley would later be the character to carry on through most of the <i>Alien </i>series and Scott too would continue to feature strong women leads throughout his career, most notably in <i>Thelma & Louise </i>(1991), <i>G.I. Jane </i>(1997) and <i>Prometheus.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><i>Alien</i>, like many Ridley Scott films, leaves a number of events unexplored and questions unanswered. This trait alone returns viewers to <i>Alien</i> again and again and feeds the desire for sequels to expand upon the film's universe and fearsome creature. Although some would occasionally touch upon elements that made <i>Alien </i>great, no other film in the <i>Alien </i>series comes close to the quality of style, theme or feeling of the Ridley Scott original. Scott's <i>Prometheus </i>would come the closest to re-capturing the essence of his original but was largely its own film; the following sequels to <i>Alien - </i><i>Aliens </i>(1986), <i>Alien 3 </i>(1991), <i>Alien: Resurrection </i>(1997) and the <i>Alien vs. Predator </i>series - took a largely action-oriented approach to the world that Scott created while also taking an interesting look closer at the character of Ripley. The rest of the <i>Alien </i>series, with a mostly fantasy/action direction, have their place as entertaining films but pale when compared to Scott's <i>Alien.</i> Many of the sequels are exciting and fun movies but they lost the focus on style, theme and mood that defined the very real-feeling <i>Alien </i>and made it<i> </i>such a brilliant movie. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>10/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-59254528880233973172012-07-31T10:13:00.000-05:002012-08-16T12:07:56.267-05:00Blade Runner (1982)<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>Film Noir Futurism</u></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border: currentColor; clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VQWBhb73NpQ/UAgYNs5y-SI/AAAAAAAAAEA/aoTT967qfx8/s1600/Blade_Runner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VQWBhb73NpQ/UAgYNs5y-SI/AAAAAAAAAEA/aoTT967qfx8/s400/Blade_Runner.jpg" width="265" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Some movies remain ingrained in our minds because of how much fun we had watching them, who we watched them with or what point in our lives we first watched them. Other films are unforgettable after the first viewing and demand to be re-watched year after year because of their beauty and the way they make us think and feel. Ridley Scott's sci-fi noir <em>Blade Runner</em> (1982) is one of these types of extraordinary and entertaining films, leaving an immediate and permanent impression on the viewer.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Based on the Philip K. Dick novel <em>Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Blade Runner</em> has a deceptively simple and very captivating overall story. Set in an alternative 2019 A.D. future, a special police outfit - the "Blade Runner" unit - has the job of killing human-like androids called "Replicants" who have grown dangerous in their dissatisfaction with an unequal labor-class status and expiration date. It just so happens that four nasty Replicants have recently come back to Earth and need to be whacked - and the best needs to be called in to eradicate them: former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford). The story is a simple one on the surface but it becomes profound and complex when one looks deeper.<br />
<br />
Both </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QcyX9JWMMo"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Harrison Ford</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and </span><a href="http://www.philipkdick.com/new_letters-laddcompany.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Philip K. Dick</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> have described <em>Blade Runner </em>not as "science fiction" but as "futurism." For all intents and purposes, <em>Blade Runner </em>rightfully belongs inside the sci-fi genre; however, the distinction between "science fiction" and "futurism" is that the world we see depicted in <em>Blade Runner </em>is not supposed to be viewed as scientific fantasy but as actually containing concepts that are destined to come to fruition in the foreseeable future. The </span><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul665.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">corporatism</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, </span><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson240.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">class divide</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, </span><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/01/31/252-police-state-usa/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">police state</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and runaway </span><a href="http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/drone-in-your-neighborhood.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">technological dangers</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> are very apparent in our society today and similar entities exist throughout <em>Blade Runner</em>, the film means to not simply entertain but also comment on the present state of life and society and the direction it heads. <em>Blade Runner </em>is deeply thematic and character-centered at the same time. Replicants are machines created by humans - but they view their existence as life and hold the same questions that humans do: "why were we created?" Clearly a film noir detective story inside a recognizable science fiction setting, themes about identity, love, the dangerous of playing God and the preciousness of life are what really define <em>Blade Runner</em>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The story is excellent but the atmosphere generated by the featured setting and visuals - thanks to the amazing art-direction, score, cinematography, and, of course, the direction under Ridley Scott - is the most </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">interesting aspect of the film. <em>Blade Runner </em>was not Scott's first foray into the cinematic world of science fiction; his second film, <em><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/08/alien-1979.html">Alien</a> </em>(1979), was a horror/sci-fi hybrid that would become regarded a classic. The differences between <em>Alien </em>and <em>Blade Runner </em>speaks to Scott's diverse range as a director but one feels regret that Scott did not return more often to the sci-fi genre as both films are two of his finest films. Scott has a unique way of transmitting his cinematic vision and creating atmosphere through visuals. One of the reasons for this (on top of the fact that he usually chooses talented people to work with him) has to be related to the fact that Scott </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">actually </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Scott#Early_life_and_career"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">began</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> his career as a set designer as opposed to a director and subsequently has a particularly keen eye for visuals - and <em>Blade Runner</em> features one of the most striking and memorable settings ever created for a film. Gathering from a number of behind-the-scene documentaries and quotes from various writing, production, cast and crew members, <em>Blade Runner </em>seems as if it was a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu3RrnA7fno">tough shoot</a> due to stress and confrontations from creative disagreements as well as time and budgetary constraints. The hard work of the cast and crew paid off however, as <em>Blade Runner </em>is one of the most visually-stunning films ever made.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Despite this futuristic LA being buried under a technological nightmare, a certain beauty shines through <em>Blade Runner </em>in a way that is simply <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">unparalleled</span></span>. The special effects (lead by the man behind the effects of such science fiction films as <em>2001: A Space Odyssey </em>(1968), <em><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2011/08/close-encounters-of-third-kind-1977.html">Close Encounters of the Third Kind</a> </em>(1977) and <em><a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/2012/03/star-trek-motion-picture-1979.html">Star Trek: The Motion Picture</a> </em>(1979): Douglas Trumbull)) and art-direction teams put together a very interesting film universe for <em>Blade Runner. </em>The creative structures, brilliant effects and clever set dressings that make up a futuristic L.A. had a profound impact on author Philip K. Dick, </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFjPWwRwG1c&t=53s">saying</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> that the film depicted the setting "exactly as how [he] imagined it." Likewise, the cinematography by Jordan Cronenweth (<em>Peggy Sue Got Married </em>(1986)) is some of the finest ever achieved in film history. Scott and Cronenweth create a futuristic film noir-like atmospheric look that compliments the very film noir-like story. The degree of light and shadow in each scene is simply stunning and many grand shots of the giant futuristic city fill the film's reels. <em>Blade Runner </em>works as one of the best post-1950s films noir as well as one of the best sci-fi films through the incredible look assembled by a very talented group.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The sights are breathtaking but the sounds are emotionally commanding as well. The </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV95Yu6gZSY"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">score</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> for <em>Blade Runner, </em>written by Vangelis (<em>Chariots of Fire </em>(1981))<em>,</em> is one of the most powerful and memorable elements of the film. I will even take that one step further and declare it one of the finest scores ever composed for a film, acting as both an integral part of <em>Blade Runner </em>and as a stand-alone piece of music. The </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Trilogy-25th-Anniversary/dp/B000Z0OX9O/ref=pd_sim_m_1"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">soundtrack</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> is almost a companion piece to the film itself; the score that can be heard in the film barely scratches the surface of the amount of music that Vangelis actually wrote. Really the only aspect of <em>Blade Runner</em> that is recognizably 1980s (as the film itself is pretty far removed from anything else released in that decade), some say that Vangelis' score dates the film. I disagree. The score sounds to me like the perfect type of music for a futuristic setting, especially for the very contemplative, dark and manufactured nature of <em>Blade Runner</em><em>. </em>Then again, I like progressive rock bands like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4">Rush</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eAfUp8RRbo">Genesis</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1i-RKqOFxQ">Pink Floyd</a> and most of Vangelis' <em>Blade Runner</em> score is basically a synthesized psychedelic groove - so it is practically tailor-made for my tastes. Even if one considers the score dated, it is clear that <em>Blade Runner </em>is not complete without Vangelis' mood-setting melodies.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The story, themes, visuals and music really define the emotional aspect of <em>Blade Runner </em>but the first aspect some may notice about the film is the now-recognizable cast led by Harrison Ford. As "Blade Runner" Rick Deckard, Ford is at his personal career best in my mind. Ford delivers a classic portrayal of a film noir detective set in 2019: smart, cynical, intense and unrelenting in the completion of his mission, Ford's detective Deckard fits in perfectly with other classic film noir greats like Humphrey Bogart and Robert Mitchum (who screenwriter Hampton Fancher originally thought of for the role), while also remaining unique unto himself. Ford would </span><a href="http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=14567"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">grumble</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">through the grueling shoot but his largely quiet and subtle performance in <em>Blade Runner </em>is particularly unique among his filmography.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Blade Runner </em>features a number of recognizable faces: M. Emmet Walsh (<em>Blood Simple </em>(1984)) is very memorable as the ball-busting, smarmy cop Bryant; Daryl Hannah (<em>Splash </em>(1984)) is great in one of her first film roles as the deceptive Pris, a "pleasure model" Replicant; and a Edward James Olmos ("Battlestar Galactica") had a unique contribution to the film as Gaff with a scene-stealing and almost creepy presence and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EabLwq_4mjo">basically inventing</a> the film's street language. A very young Sean Young gives a soft and touching portrayal of Rachael in this film. Disconcerted over her recent life-changing discovery, Rachael is introduced to a life of fear and conflicting feelings for Deckard. The audience begins to really understand and empathize with the life and feelings of a Replicant through Rachael thanks to the wonderful performance from Sean Young. Rutger Hauer nearly runs away with the entire show as the dangerous and desperate Roy Batty. Unlike Rachael, Hauer's Roy is the embodiment of the frightful dark side of the Replicant. However, behind his murderous actions and feverish state of mind, Roy's passion for life and fear of death is a very powerful part of the film. Hauer gives an unforgettable performance; balancing the many different facets of Roy to create a very interesting character. Back in 1982, this extraordinary cast was made up of virtually unknown actors (outside of Ford) but all are uniquely excellent as they bring life to their characters and the film as a whole.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<br />
<em>Blade Runner</em> is actually available in three different versions:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) the original theatrical cut</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) the director's cut</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) the final cut</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The original cut of the film was released theatrically in 1982 but, because of dissatisfied test audiences and subsequent studio pressure, Scott was forced to add clarifying 40s noir throwback-style narration throughout the film, edit out various scenes and create a different ending than what was originally intended. Although Scott was unhappy with this original cut and many fans do not prefer it, I really enjoy the original cut. As a big fan of <a href="http://coffeebeancinema.blogspot.com/p/film-noir-reviews.html">film noir</a>, I dig the narration.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A "director's cut" was assembled and re-released in 1992 and is easily my least favorite of the three versions. This so-called "director's cut" is actually not much of a director's cut at all because director Ridley Scott had little to no input as it was rushed through production. The "director's cut" was important to the film's legacy however; the narration was removed and some deleted scenes were included that introduced audiences to the film's </span><a href="http://www.blade-runner.it/p-repl-e.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ambiguous elements</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> that were forcibly edited out of the original theatrical cut. Unfortunately, the "director's cut" features pieces from other films, does not add in enough of the deleted scenes to make a coherent picture and subsequently looks and feels strange compared to the other versions.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A "final cut" of <em>Blade Runner</em> was released on DVD as a part of the film's 25th anniversary and is the superior cut in my opinion. Scott was finally able to, after 25 years, edit the film the way he wanted! This final cut features no narration (as much as I do like it in the original cut, it is not needed), many originally deleted scenes were restored and an ambiguous nature results, creating an opportunity for the viewer to come their own conclusions about the story and characters.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Blade Runner</em> was met with a lukewarm reception by critics and audiences during its 1982 theatrical run. However, like many great films misunderstood at the time of their original release, many critics are now </span><a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071103/REVIEWS08/71103001/1023"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">reassessing</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> their earlier criticisms and new audiences are being introduced to <em>Blade Runner</em> with each passing year. The various versions </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">have helped moviegoers grow to appreciate the film and, really, every cut of the film is great: all have their own merits and the fact that there are even three cuts of the film adds to its overall unmatched uniqueness. The 80s have a reputation of perhaps not being the classiest decade as far as fashion, music and artistic style are concerned but a number of films stand out as really timeless works of art. Films of the 1980s by and large had a certain discernible look and feel to them but some films, like <em>Amadeus</em> (1984) and <em>Henry V</em> (1989), have a particular timelessness about them; <em>Blade Runner</em> is an easy addition to this list as the cinematic crown jewel of the 1980s. Combining two of my favorite film genres - film noir and science fiction - <em>Blade Runner</em> is a remarkable film and one of my personal favorites no matter which way you "cut" it.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CBC Rating: <strong>10/10</strong></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-9261544631844822732012-07-30T23:53:00.000-05:002012-10-04T10:10:20.917-05:00Less Than Zero (1987)<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>Sex, Drugs and Cheesy 80s Rock'n'Roll</u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Less_than_zero_1987_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Less_than_zero_1987_poster.jpg" width="215" /></a>- The large number of 1980s teenaged coming of age films like <i>St. Elmo's Fire</i> (1985) and <i>The Breakfast Club</i> (1985) defined a generation of actors as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brat_Pack_%28actors%29#Filmography">the Brat Pack</a>." While often addressing serious issues, the Brat Pack genre was known more as a genre of comedy and romance. <i>Less Than Zero</i> (1987) is often associated with the Brat Pack films because of its cast, timely themes and then-modern atmosphere. However, this film contains a style, subject matter and edge that makes it a unique stand-out in the company of John Hughes productions.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">The story centers around three friends that grew up and recently graduated together in upscale Los Angeles, CA: Clay (Andrew McCarthy), who has moved onto college with a bright future ahead of him; Blair (Jami Gertz), dodging college for a budding modeling career and ever-growing drug habit; and Julian (Robert Downey Jr.), who has one foot in his grave and the other on a banana peel after getting in deep with the L.A. drug underworld. The three have shared good times and bad - but Julian's current situation tests the bands of friendship to the limit.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i>Less Than Zero</i> is a deadly serious and cautionary Brat Pack tale; the strong sex and drug content within makes <i>The Breakfast Club</i> look like "Blossom." Themes prevalent in many Brat Pack films such as friendship, the responsibilities of adulthood and family troubles are present but the drug use and sexual content is depicted in <i>Less Than Zero</i> in a far more real and honest way than other Brat Pack films. The character and story of Julian Wells serves as a dark parable of what can happen when drugs become a problem in one's life (screaming for 80s audiences take heed!). Also, the high class L.A. backdrop makes for an interesting and noticeable setting, exposing the lifestyles of the rich and famous to contain such seedy activities as drug use and prostitution. The themes regarding friendship and the consequences of drug use seen in <i>Less Than Zero</i> are unique for an 80s coming of age movie but as often as the themes strike strong they often miss the mark. College, for instance, is portrayed in the film as some sort of Mecca were one must go to secure success, safety and stability in one's life and those who do not go end up drug-using losers.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i>Less Than Zero</i> both benefits and suffers tremendously from its notable Brat Pack alumni cast. Although perhaps not quite as iconic as other "Brat Pack" casts, Andrew McCarthy, Jami Gertz and James Spader all have impeccable Brat Pack credentials. McCarthy attained official Brat Pack status by starring in both <i>St. Elmo's Fire</i> and <i>Pretty In Pink</i> (1986) but is hit-or-miss in <i>Less Than Zero</i>. As the main character, Clay, McCarthy convinces as a smart, successful young man and even has an old-school crooner-type (especially reminding me of Bobby Darin) presence that can be enjoyable. Unfortunately, McCarthy is often too dry and stiff in his delivery to really make the character work regardless of his screen presence. Jami Gertz (known for more quasi-Brat Pack films such as <i>Solarbabies</i> (1986) and <i>The Lost Boys</i> (1987)) is also somewhat convincing as the scared party girl but has the opposite problem of McCarthy in <i>Less Than Zero</i>: she is, more often than not, overplaying her part as the confused Blair. McCarthy and Gertz have a kind of bizarre chemistry together despite the hot-and-cold mix of stiff-and-spastic. Opposites attract though, I suppose. Also Brat Pack-certified is James Spader (from <i>Pretty In Pink</i> and <i>Mannequin</i> (1987)) who is perfectly cast as the evil Rip with his now-trademark creepy charm.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Many of the main cast members are not some of the film's strong points but if there is one reason to watch <i>Less Than Zero</i>, it is to catch Robert Downey Jr. as Julian Wells. Roger Ebert <a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19871106/REVIEWS/711060305/1023">describes</a> Robert Downey Jr.'s performance as Julian in <i>Less Than Zero</i> as "so real, so subtle and so observant that it's scary." He is right, Downey took his performance to new heights of method acting; he would later <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLMxyc0ANXs&t=10m30s">reflect</a> "I actually researched the role of Julian 10 years following the completion of the movie." Life would get tougher for Downey in the 90s but at one point during the <i>Less Than Zero</i> shoot Andrew McCarthy mirrored the role of his screen character when <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtXv3OE9fiM&t=4m26s">he actually had to bail</a> Robert Downey Jr. out of jail when a night of partying went too far. One line in the film even alludes to Downey's future <a href="http://www.people.com/people/gallery/0,,20509577_20986927,00.html">time</a> at the Betty Ford Clinic!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">The allusions to the real Robert Downey Jr. experience from the character of Julian Wells in <i>Less Than Zero</i> are staggering but this is not to say that his performance itself is not defined by some truly top-notch and amazing acting. Perhaps difficult to imagine nowadays, Robert Downey Jr. was a lesser-known member of the cast; his Brat Pack resume featured <i>Weird Science</i> (1985) and <i>The Pick-Up Artist</i> (1987) but did not compare to the fully Pack-vetted Andrew McCarthy or James Spader. Yet, today, Downey's performance as Julian is the most remembered aspect of the film. Downey's Julian is so destructive, selfish and lost that he should be impossible to like. However, Robert Downey Jr. plays him with such passionate care and nuance that Julian becomes the most real and sympathetic character of the film. Funny, tragic, warm and involved; Robert Downey Jr. delivered a masterful and altogether powerful performance that made the world take notice of his unmatchable talent.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of Julian is clearly the highlight of the movie but <i>Less Than Zero</i> is also recommendable due to its engaging visual atmosphere. Directed by Marek Kanievsk (<i>Another World</i> (1984)) and shot by Edward Lachmann (<i>Far From Heaven</i> (2002)) <i>Less Than Zero</i> is one of the most stylish films of the 1980s.The deep, bold color schemes are especially striking and many different camera angles and movements are employed to create a potent atmosphere. <i>Less Than Zero</i> really sticks out among the Brat Pack films in terms of content and theme but also in terms of quality and inventiveness of this visual style.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Of course, no 1980s coming of age film would be complete without an overbearing soundtrack. <i>Less Than Zero</i> is filled nearly wall-to-wall with music; memorable for its combination of the cool and the hilarious mostly then-contemporary rock, pop and hip hop tunes from the likes of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjNbmT4H8v0">Poison</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFRx4PkXeVM">The Bangles</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWhtdYq3B1I">Aerosmith</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR07r0ZMFb8">Run D.M.C</a>. A particularly hilarious yet awesome few seconds from the underrated <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPzy6ueivwY&t=24m50s">David Lee Roth and Steve Vai</a> 80s collaboration is one of the most memorable musical moments for the film but <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6EieqgGA-8">"You And Me (Less Than Zero)"</a> (written specifically for the film) is a textbook example of unbearable 1980s rock/pop. Future Hollywood heavyweight Thomas Newman (<i>Road To Perdition</i> (2002), <i>Finding Nemo</i> (2003)) adds a light synthetic orchestral score that adds a bit here and there, hinting at his future iconic style, but is also largely forgettable. One certainly has to take the good with the bad when watching <i>Less Than Zero</i>; this is especially apparent in the soundtrack department.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i>Less Than Zero</i> is an enjoyable and interesting Brat Pack-era drama; however, its flaws operate in plain sight. The themes are poignant but also spotty, Robert Downey Jr. is amazing as Julian but the rest of the cast flounders and the soundtrack fits the times but can get very cheesy - <i>Less Than Zero</i> is less than perfect. Perhaps not reaching perfection, <i>Less Than Zero</i> is a unique and superior addition to the Brat Pack legacy nonetheless because of its ambitious themes and subject matter, striking visual style and unforgettable performance from Robert Downey Jr. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;">CBC Rating: <b>7/10</b></span></div>
Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1113577268023543785.post-25442905085459686772012-07-28T11:45:00.000-05:002012-10-30T15:24:02.770-05:00Brave (2012)<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b><u>Fate, Family & Fun</u></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Brave_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Brave_Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- Disney/Pixar Studios has been a consistent source for quality entertainment, a staple in Hollywood since <i>Toy Story </i>revolutionized animation in 1995. But throughout the years on top of the box office and critics' lists with many incredibly entertaining and visually brilliant films, Pixar never featured a story with a lead female protagonist. The fun and moving 2012 film <i>Brave </i>has changed this with its story of Princess Merida. However, it would be a shame if all <i>Brave </i>will be remembered for is its female lead character because the entire film is very touching and beautiful.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Princess Merida is not like other princesses seen in film, waiting on a windowsill singing songs about getting married to Prince Charming. No, Merida (voiced by Kelly MacDonald) defines tenaciousness and independence. She loathes her obligations as Princess forced upon her by her mother, Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson); preferring the company of her horse and bow-and-arrow and the freedom of the Celtic countryside. Merida's strong-willed nature suits her well in the great outdoors but it ends up threatening the ruin of her father's kingdom when she defies the betrothal custom of the allied clans. Merida's bravery and dedication to her family is tested when she </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">relies on the hidden magic and sorcery of the land to change her fate.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><i>Brave </i>continues the Pixar tradition of amazing audiences with a terrific balance of beauty, excitement, humor and theme. The animation seen in <i>Brave </i>is one of the finest feats in the Pixar pantheon. Merida's fiery locks fly through a peaceful and palatial Celtic landscape to the magical mysteries of the deep woods, carrying her dreams and our imaginations away with her. A powerful soundtrack accompanies the glorious picture. I am very biased in favor of Celtic music and <i>Brave </i>certainly does not disappoint with a number of toe-tapping pop/folk <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WzJUb4Su54">songs</a> and a soaring orchestral <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tGeqkK3rw">score</a> from the great Patrick Doyle (<i>Henry V </i>(1989), <i>Thor </i>(2011)). Within the context of the Disney/Pixar feature films, the music in <i>Brave</i> is only bested by Thomas Newman's musical contributions (i.e.: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szZKsYZzw0M">this</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O3dV2iwdJw">this</a>) in my view.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What if you could change your fate? I believe <i>Brave </i>answers this question exquisitely; but the family element to the film is also quite moving. The DunBroch clan is the source of some incredible tenderness and humor: Merida's father King Fergus (voiced by Billy Connolly) and Merida's triplet terror brothers give dimension to the love within the family and particularly embody the film's clever sense of humor. Similar to how Pixar great <i>Finding Nemo </i>(2003) was a powerful film about (among other things) the love between a father and a son, <i>Brave </i>is a very touching story about the love between a mother and a daughter. It may be a cliche but mothers and daughters often have a.... complicated relationship. Merida's youth and free-ranging spirit often clashes with her Queen mother's experience and graceful appreciation of tradition. Both love but hurt one another out of a lack of understanding; however, their adventure together opens their eyes towards a new respect for one another as well. The animation, music and humor all contribute significantly to the entertainment quality of <i>Brave </i>but the relationship between Merida and Queen Elinor makes the film especially emotionally investing and altogether special.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">CBC Rating:<b> 8/10</b></span></span>Stafford Christensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10136895728329967319noreply@blogger.com1