The Graduate (1967)

Yep, I hadn't seen The Graduate. If your at all cinema conscious however you can't help but be aware of the film, its so iconic. In fact I thought its virtual ubiquity in cinematic circles, as well as its subject matter, might turn me off of this film, but I was surprised to find out how truly good it really is.

It is and was one of those turning point films, it captured something of the time in which it was made, but also something more universal. I'm not entirely sure what the metaphor is, it might simply be about that place in life, just post adolescent, where you don't know what you want or what your doing, but you know you want something. 'I'm worried, generally, about my future', as Ben Braddock might say. I think this is a movie about the obstacles in the way of your goals, even if you don't know precisely what those goals are, or why you might want them, or what to do when you've achieved them.

I was really surprised by how funny this movie is, I wasn't expecting that. It's a dry, kind of odd ball, almost surreal humor, and it blends in well with the films surprisingly interesting visual style. It's also kind of an unsettling picture, which again ties into the whole post-grade anxiety theme of the film. All the leads, and even the supporting players are excellent, the cast magnificent, as is the writing, performances, and of course that music. I think this is pretty close to a perfectly realized film, I can't think of anything they could have done better. I can tell, even having just finished it, that this is the type of film that's gonna dwell in my mind for awhile, there's a lot there, and as I've intimated above, I don't think this film is truly about what it seems to be about. I think perhaps its about exploring, at its most rudimentary, or maybe rebellion. Anyway, I was pretty amazed, this deserves its place in the cannon. Grade: A+

Mean Frank & Crazy Tony (1975)

Frankie and Tony are mobsters, Frankie and Tony become friends. I guess this is considered to be one of the better of the grindhouse Italian mobster films (in English, but set and filmed in Italy, I suppose largely as a cost saver, along the lines of the spaghetti western). Tony Lo Bianco is Tony Breda, born in Italy but raised mostly in New Jersey, Tony has returned to his native country to hang around in pool halls and aspire to be a mobster, like his hero Frankie Diomede.

Frank Diomede (Lee Van Cleef) is an established mob boss who journeys to Italy to visit his legally legit brother (he's some kind of research scientist), and take care of members of his outfit who seem to be defecting. When Tony hears that Frankie's in town, he chooses to neglect his beautiful and eager girlfriend to try and spend some time with Frankie, whose none to interested.

There's a plot where Frank intentionally gets himself arrested, so that he'll have an alibi when he goes to kill a turn coat associate (he's temporally and secretly let out of prison by a corrupt cop). In the course of events Tony gets swept up in a police raid on a gambling establishment and ends up in prison with Frankie, where he saves his hero's life from hierd assassins. Frankie then takes a shine to the kid, and after Tony's release he helps Frank escape during a prisoner transfer. They take off after Franks enemies (who've now killed his brother), and the movie becomes sort of a wacky chase comedy for awhile. The duo eventully end up in the south of France for a final shoot out with Franks old gang, after which the vetern mob boss heads off to self imposed exile in Tanagers, but not before giving Tony a parting word of advise, namely to stay out of organized crime.

You know I actually liked this movie, it grows on you, though the back and forth between wacky comedy and violent mob picture can become a little jarring. The two lead characters develop a genuine and enjoyable, if not amazing chemistry, and I find that I'd like to see a toned down version of this movie remade. Possible light homosexual overtones in Tony's obsession over Frankie. Grade: C

Machete (2010)

"They call him, Machete." I first became aware of 'Machete' from a sort of fake trailer that was attached to the 2007 Rodriguez/Tarantino outing Grindhouse. I quickly became aware that director Robert Rodriquez actually wanted to make this movie, but I was kind of surprised when he actually did.

Machete (Danny Trejo) was a legendary Mexican Federales whose wife and daughter were killed by a former associate turned drug kingpin (Steven Seagal). Three years after there deaths Machete is reduced to working as an illegal day-labourer in Texas. After witnessing Machete's victory in a street fight, corrupt businessman Michael Booth (Jeff Fahey) heirs him to assasinate a stringently anti-immigration state senator (Robert De Niro), but the whole things a rouse to simply wound the Senator (by aid of a second sniper) and frame an illegal immigrant for the crime (thusly insuring the senators re-election, and ability to push through legislation desired by Booth).

Unfortunately for Booth, and a whole host of baddies, Machete survives and sets out for revenge. He is assisted in this by his brother, a priest played by Cheech Marin, and hotties Michelle Rodriguiez, Jessica Alba, and Lindsay Lohan, as well as a bunch of other minor characters. It's over the top bloody fun, full of surprising cameo appearances (Don Johnson!), but feels very much pulled from the Planet Hell playbook, with some scenes rather reminiscent of ones in that previous film (such as the holding cell scene, the whole 'legendary agent down on his luck' aspect, and some of the love scenes). Yes Rodriquiez can make a 'grindhouse film', but it all felt just a little bit blah. Still I'd rather see this then most any straight action picture they make now days. Grade: C+

Also, was this all a sly commentary on the unsustainablity of the Republican coalition?

The Animal Kingdom (1932)

Pre-code film, which I suppose you'd call a melodrama, is about an independent minded heir to a publishing house and his somewhat complicate personal life. Tom Collier (Leslie Howard) has long been a disappointment to his father Rufus (Henry Stephenson), having dropped out of Harvard and Cambridge, bummed around with his friends, lived with a women for three years (Ann Harding), insisted on the publishing house printing unprofitable artsy fair, and having an ex prize fighter for a butler (William Gargan). Rufus thinks his son might be on the verge of reforming when he's invited to Tom's country house to learn of his engagement to proper lady socialite Cee Henry (Myrna Loy).

Tom is in love with Cee, but still feels a deep connection to Daisy (Harding), a women with whom he apparently once had a 'friends with benefits' type relationship. When Tom visits Daisy, recently returned from a long trip to France, to inform her of his engagement it results in a rupture in their relationship. Tom takes to essentially holing up with his wife in the country and neglecting the reset of his old bohemian friends.

Less then a year after his wedding Daisy returns from an extended absence in Mexico where she was practicing to be a painter. Tom looks her up in an attempt to rekindle their friendship, but Daisy pushes him away, because you see she's really in love with him. Cee also loves him, but she actually gets along with his father and encourages Tom to make more practical business decisions. This is apparently too much to ask and in the end Tom leaves Cee and returns to Daisy, whom he's always really loved.

This was kind of ridicules, Tom just proves that he wants to regress, because he views 'growing up' to be 'selling out'. I thought Cee was perfectly nice, and not unreasonable, of course she was a little uncomfortable with Tom and Daisy's previous relationship, but why wouldn't she be (on the whole she's very understanding about it, epically given the period). If Cee was perhaps a little too comfortable around Rufus's assistant Owen (Neil Hamilton, who played Police Commissioner Gordon in the 1960's Batman TV show), it's because they once dated, and she never even kisses the guy, which is more then can be said for Tom who kisses Daisy throughout the movie. I don't think there was any good reason to leave Cee, he could have just told her that he didn't want to sell the family publishing house, and I think she would have accepted that. Anyway Myrna Loy's prettier then Ann Harding, but the latter was the bigger star at the time.

This movie's okay I guess, but there was disappointingly little to it, and other "scandalous" films of the period certainly had more guts. The more I think about it, the more of just a waste of time this movie feels, for both the viewer and the actors, who are all capable of doing so much more. I don't think a lot of thought went into this thing, which was very workman like in its execution and little more. No sir, I did not like it, Grade: D-

Animal Kingdom (2010)

Joe F. thought I was too critical of Australian cinema (based on that one movie) and insisted that I see this. Now I don't think I would have ever sought this movie out. When It started I was ill disposed towards it. It seemed like it would be a too typical crime drama, it even felt a bit like an episode of Prime Suspect. The lead character Joshua 'J' Cody was one of those too silent people, the kind your kind of disappointed even exist, showing no emotion and seeming to just not care about most anything. Josh watches the Australian version of 'Deal or No Deal' while the paramedics tend to his mother for a heroin overdose. She dies, he calls his grandma, and moves in with her and his uncles.

The uncles, well there robbers. In association with family friend 'Baz' they've done pretty well, but the cops suspect that there the ones behind a crime spree, and periodically stake out there residence, primarily in search of the particularly violent brother 'Pope'. The film takes about 20+ minutes to really get going, but when 'Baz' is killed, something I didn't expect to happen, not that early in the film at least, things change. 'Baz' was murdered by some particularly violent cops, so 'Pope' and his brothers set a trap and kill some patrolmen. Some members of the family are arrested, but there is no real evidence so they are released. Brother Craig gets paranoid and decides to hid out with an old accomplice, but the cops have bugged the guys house and Craig is killed. An honest cop played by Guy Pearce tries to get 'J' to turn on his uncles, and succeeds when an increasingly paranoid 'Pope', convinced that 'J' has already turned, kills his girlfriend Nicole and tries to kill him. Also something is defiantly not right with family matriarch Janine, who has connections (i.e. dirt) which make it so 'J' is neither safe in witness protection or with any member of his family.

I can't remember the last time I saw a film that I so disliked at the beginning and was so impressed with at the end. Animal Kingdom is about the savage in man, brute animal instinct and cruelty, the strong preying on the weak, panic and heard instinct. A few might rise above this bestiality, Detective Leckie, maybe 'J', perhaps even 'Baz' had he lived. It's rare to see a film that progresses so naturalisticly, like life it doesn't seem planed out so much as just played out. The characterizations are all fine, unusually real seeming, and even nuanced in a strange way. I almost can't say that I liked it, no one to truly invest in or connect with, but I was impressed by it. It leaves a certain taste in the mouth that's hard to accept, to embrace, or to even enjoy. But it leaves a strong, pungent impression, its deep even as its base. A film that can be worth reckoning with, but with which I can not bring myself to love. Grade: B

The Tales of Hoffman (1951)

A Powell/Pressburger film I hadn't seen. I've long thought it was interesting how P & P, a team perhaps best known for making films about World War II, would so often counterpoint their film making with movies about ballet, or nuns. The Tales of Hoffman is defiantly in the pairs latter tradition, an adaptation of Jacques Offenbach's 1879 Opera of the same name, which in turn was based on the writings of the German Romantic author E.T.A Hoffman (who is best known for being the author of the novelette from which came Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker).

From the opening of the film, with its surprisingly long 'program notes', to its expressionist sets that would be at home in an F. W. Murnau film, you know this movie is going to be something different. It's a stage production on an impossible set, the story of three doomed romances in the life of Hoffman the poet. The palate is that typical bright and vivid brand of technicolor so characteristic of The Archers films. The set and costume design by Hein Heckroth runs from the classical and childlike, to the Salvador Dali. The cinematography and the staging is superb. Visually its impressive, the dancing often compelling, and the music pretty good, but its also kind of boring.

It's kind of hard to rate this as a movie, it feels more like a stage play with camera angles. The operatic style of singing renders the English verse hard to understand, and the plot is abstract. I think I might have enjoyed any one of the films three acts more separately. I think this would be a wonderful film to have as background on a busy day doing things around the house, but to sit and watch it all, for me and I'm sure many others, simply requires a certain mood that I don't think I was fully in when I watched this. I can tell its a very good piece of work technically, as an adaptation of Offenbach I don't know enough to tell, as a film a piece of art, as a movie not so swell. Again its good, but I had periodic difficulty keeping it the center of my attention. As a balance of its artistic merit and its movie watchability I give it a C+

Hoffman (1970)

"Reality betrays us all."-Hoffman

Peter Sellers is best known for his often bazaar, quirky character parts that can sometimes boarder on being impressions. I remember from his bio-pic The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, that he was a little frustrated by this and longed to do more conventional, leading man type roles. Could he possibly have thought this would be one of those? Sellers plays a sexually frustrated, middle aged blackmailer, who forces a pretty young blond women (future Mrs. Jeremy Irons, Sinead Cusack) to spend a week with him in his flat, or else he'll revel to the police her fiances involvement in a crime.

Sellers came across perhaps his greatest role as Chance the Gardner, in the 1971 Jerzy Kosinski novella Being There, so we can assume the actor was in something of the habit of looking into eccentric works of literature for roles for himself, but what about Enrest Gebler's novel Shall I Eat You Now? convinced him to make this movie? Or perhaps I might rephrase that as why didn't he resist? Later in life Sellers reportedly commented that he hated Hoffman, because the lead characters personality was too close to his own (Sellers hated himself, for more on this see The Life and Death of Peter Sellers).

It's the story of a 'plain sad faced man', who 'missed the boat, but still needs love'. So he forces his secretary whom he's long been obsessed with to spend a week with him. It's a fantasy of a dirty, middle aged man. Given Sellers history of obsessing over beautiful women its even more disturbing as a film choice. He essentially kidnaps the woman, because 'he knows what she needs', and feels that if she's forced to spend time with him, she might fall in love with him. And in the movie it works!

Sellers gives a creepy performance, at first strongly implying an intent to violate the women, but never acts on it and gradually reveals different layers to his character. It is actually one of his strongest, most strangely subtle performances. Cusak is good, though I think her character changed a little too quickly. A little!? Perhaps the worst thing about this film is I kind of liked it, it's very unique, almost stage play like, but its hardly believable and it shouldn't work. But it does just enough, and intrigues just enough, and the musics good enough, that I've got to a give it a B-. Do not do the things in this movie, but if you watch, you might be surprised that it's kind of satisfying, in a weird, vaugly creepy way. Strange.

Hoffa (1992)

In this current time of union busting, perhaps it is fitting to take a look back at Jimmy Hoffa. Hoffa was the union leader who best epitomized what the opponents of unions most hated about them. Was he corrupt? Yes. Did he have mob ties? Yes (though he may or not have had mauve ties). Was he a son of a bitch? Yes. Was he effective? Hell yes.

The movie Hoffa isn't a bio-pic in the strictest sense. I don't get the impression that its makers cared that much about name or dates, and there are perhaps too many composite or fictional characters, but what the movie is trying to get across is an impression of the man. Hey, I know practically nothing about Jimmy Hoffa, but it feels like he would be like this, it feels like he would be a man of contradiction, if he wasn't there really wouldn't be a lot of point to this movie.

The framing story is of course fictional, liberties are taken about the man's final hours, and I'm okay with this because no one (whose talking) knows about the final hours of Jimmy Hoffa. His death is the second half of the 20th century's Amelia Earhart story, nobody knows exactly what happened, but I feel we have a pretty good idea.

Some have commented that the life of Jimmy Hoffa is a pretty good summation of the arc of organized labour in America over a roughly fifty year period, it started out idealistic, ambitious, and a little corrupt, and it ended cynical, ambitious, and very corrupt. The merits and draw backs of unions can be debated endlessly, though in many ways I don't think that the film makers particularly care, as this is a surprisingly nonjudgmental movie.

The screenplay by writing god David Mamet of course has his trademark violence, ambiguity, and elaborate story structure. He makes of the life of Jimmy Hoffa a series of vignettes, often fictional flashbacks (even had by a fictional character), on the life of a man, on whom it has no particular take other then 'these are the kinds of things that he did'. They must add up to the kind of man that he was, but its up to the viewer to make the call on what that means.

I add in closing only that Danny DeVito is a pretty good director. You get the sense that he has a great affinity for the style of films made under the old studio system. Some of his sets really look like sets, and I think that's intentional. He plays with conventions of style and genera type (gangster, bio-pic) and gives you a satisfying picture, that though it doesn't stray too far from the expected, definitely bears the unique imprint of it impresario. Though maybe it was just a little too long. Grade: B+

Becoming Human: Nova (2009)

Three part PBS documentary series on human evolution. Now we all know the basics of this from school, apes become humans, but I've never heard it in such detail, where the hows and whys of this process are really explained. For example, what would be the advantage of being a hairless ape, well this documentary explains that, the ability to sweet. Also among the strongest evidences for human evolution, lice, though you have to see it to understand. Anyway while the presentations a little repetitive, the information really is quite fascinating. If you want to understand human evolution, this is a good place to look. Grade: B-

The White Ribbon (2009)

The White Ribbon is the most realistically disturbing movie I've seen in ages. It feels like a Bergman film, in both cinematography and subject matter. It follows, mostly through the eyes of a 31 year old school teacher from out of town, events in a small north German village from the summer of 1913 until the start of World War I. ' It must have started with the doctor,' says the narrator, our protagonist teacher later in life. 'I tell the story of the happenings in our little village because I feel it might shed some light on what happened later', and I believe it does.

The incident with the doctor involves a wire deliberately set to trip him on his horse as he returns from a visit with the local barron, the not well liked, but respected employer of half the town. What it sheds light on is the zeitgeist in turn of the century Germany, and how it feeds into that country taking the world into a global war twice in the space of thirty years.

'I don't want our children to grow up in this environment' says the barron's wife, after returning from a long stay in Italy, helping her oldest son recover from a sever betting, and being tied up in the communal barn (which later mysteriously burns down). The village she says is a place full of 'malice, envy, apathy, and brutality, of petty revenge'. It is all these things, but bellow the surface, and nothing is to be mentioned about them, as the towns pastor says 'we don't want respectable families to be maligned'.

A parable of how a society can breed monsters, both from a crushing moralism, and out and out abuse. There is fornication, sexual abuse, physical abuse, spiritual abuse, animal abuse, murder, incest, inequality, and hypocrisies of all types. All this counterpointed by the tale of the town teacher, and his remarkably chaste courtship of a young women who moved to town for work. These, the most sympathetic characters, are of course strangers to the village, normally I might protest such an obvious story telling choice, but I think the audience needs it, we need someone to root for. The town pastor comes close to being sympathetic, but though you can tell that he does mean to do well, he is also too committed to a failing system to really lift men's souls, even in his own family.

This is a remarkable picture, its two and half hours long, in black and white, and with subtitles, but it is well worth it, even to those who might not usually view such fare. Grade: A

Stripes (1981)

Bill Murray and Harold Ramis decide to join the army, hilarity ensues. Old school concept well executed. This is a little bit of a dirty movie at places, so now I know why I never saw it growing up. Good supporting cast, always glad to see John Candy. John Larroguette role very similar to the one Phil Hartman would play in Sgt. Bilko (1996). A young Sean Young pretty cute. Generally a straight comedy, it gets a little bit spoofish towards the end. Grade: B

Brothers (2009)

This was more then just a little bit raw for me given the year I've had. Loss, of any type, is so uniquely the experience of the person having it, its hard for me to feel right generalizing, or judging. We deal with things, whether rightly or wrongly, the way we feel we need to, or the way that's left open to us.

I don't know much about the military life, as depicted in this film, but that strange sense of a bizarre mundanes that can permeate the weeks and months after someones gone, that I know. I hate to see brothers torn, families frayed, expectations unmet, unbalance. We can sense when things are off kilter, try to bring them to parity, try to right ourselves, that's all we can do. Sometimes we can't succeed, sometimes its feelings of guilt, a paranoia concerning others, or a desperation born from the unthinkable, but inevitable, coming to be.

Families are complicated, a source of pain and joy, a bond. This movie makes that point, the characters judge themselves, and find themselves wanting. Jim Sheridan has some insight, and I'm grateful and moved each time he displays it. This film is not mine, or anyone else's story, but as in all things mythic, we can see some of our selves in it, and I think that helps. Grade: A-

Inception (2010)

Christopher Nolan is one of the most creative and successful of our current crop of blockbuster filmmakers, and his first film post The Dark Knight certainly meets both those standards. Inception posits a roughly contemporary world in which corporate espionage is conducted largely in the minds of business men, literally. Leonardo DiCaprio is Don Cobb, a man particularly skilled at such ventures, only he caries with him a particular liability for a man who hops into the subconscious of others, deep guilt over his wife's tragic death.

Given that the movie takes place mostly inside peoples dreams, and that there are even dreams within dreams, I was particularly on the lookout for the films twist or catch throughout, and perhaps that's one of the reasons that I never felt fully invested in the proceedings. Inception wasn't the 'blow your mind film' that I gather it was for many, I don't think it even had anything really deep to say. It does however work as pretty decent, and visually interesting, action thriller. I was particularly impressed with the films pacing, it didn't feel like it was 2 1/2 hours long, and now that I think about it that seems to be a hallmark of Nolan's films, they play shorter then they are.

Inceptions creative, its got a good cast, and keeps you involved as it runs at a steady clip. But its not amazing, and I think even Nolan gave up on its coherency at a certain point. Perhaps the element of the film that most amused me was the use of the Edith Piaf song La Vie en rose, as one of the triggers to alert the dream raiders that it was nearly time for there target to wake up. As one of the films major stars, Marion Cotillard, had won an Oscar for playing Ms. Piaf in a film, perhaps that was a totem from the director to remind us that its all just a movie. Grade: B

The Kings Speech (2010)

The possibly media created rivalry of this years awards seasons was chiefly between people who favored the 'sharp and now' sensibilities of The Social Network, and those who preferred the more traditional, inspirational fare of The Kings Speech. Now I haven't seen The Social Network yet, though by general aptitude that seems like the kind of film I would prefer; I must say having now seen The Kings Speech, The Social Network's going to have a hard time topping it in my lose and unofficial list of the best films of last year.

It's straight forward, the true story of the stutter prone royal who would become King George VI, and his Australian speech therapist. The movie is made by the interplay of leads Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, playing the king and therapist respectively. The supporting cast is strong too, with Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, and Helena Bonham Carter (who a friend of mine commented, and I think rightly, is particularly arresting in her role as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). Also the direction by Tom Hooper, a relative newcomer to feature films who has a background mostly in British television, feels perfectly tuned. In fact Hooper may prove to be to British Drama, what his fellow television veteran Edgar Wright is to British Comedy, a breather of new life.

The film is inspiring, and Colin Firth really makes you feel for George VI, a monarch who is actually a nice and humble guy. I came into this film a little skeptical, fearing the trite, but walked away rather impressed, having just enjoyed a thoroughly satisfying film going experience. Grade: A

Collapse (2009)

I know I am writing this review too early, having just seen the film and there's a lot to process in it, but I feel like writing about it. Michal Ruppert is an ex-Los Angeles cop, largely freelance/niche writer, who has a background vaguely in the intelligence community. He's in what appears to be a basement or a warehouse, and he talks for about 82 minutes. He's surprisingly riveting, and presents a scarily plausible scenario for the collapse of industrialized civilization.

I think its safe to say, with the rapid pace of change, and a goodly number of our long time societal bills coming due, the 21st century is going to be one of tremendous change, probably even more then the 20th. Ruppert believes he knows where things are headed and he makes his argument tremendously well. Though he has critics that deride him as a crazy conspiracy theorist, the central point of his thesis is terrifyingly true, most of our stuff comes from oil, and we've probably already reached the peak of its production, so the trip down the other end of the bell curve could be a decidedly unpleasant one.

I think the staging is interesting, 'the bunker'. Director Chris Smith occasionally asks questions, but seems to shy away from taking a definite stand on what he's hearing, you can't quite tell if he believes or is just humoring the man. The global collapse of which Mike Ruppert goes on at length, is almost hauntingly mirrored by what seems to be the collapse of Mike Ruppert the person. He's kind of haggard, smokes, is over the hill, lives in a rented property with his dogs, and though its never explicitly stated in the film, seems to have never married or had children. He seems lonely, obsessed, yet also reasoned and believable. He's a Rorschach, I can't quite tell what I'm looking at. I do however find that I feel like showing this film to other people, so what does that say about me? Grade: B+

The War of the Roses (1989)

Dark comedy about divorce helmed by Danny DeVito. I love how many of the sets look like sets, it emphasises the over wrought theatrical quality of the film. It's like many 80's film comedy's, most obviously The Money Pit, but also a lot of Chevy Chase and John Candy's work, that just keep building, and cycling, ramping up and up in the craziness to a crescendo of ridiculousness. Yet I think its still genuinely insightful about non-functioning relationships. In short this has the quality of the sort of film that likely improves with each viewing. I wasn't sure going in, but this thing is exquisitely done. Grade: B