Movies
July 31
I just got home from seeing The Dark Knight.
1. Heath Ledger was brilliant.
2. The movie, not so much.
3. The motorcycle was pretty cool.
And a couple of questions:
1. Does anyone actually think that Maggie Gyllenhaal is attractive?
2. Was the mayor wearing eye liner?
June 21
Although there were a lot of clichés in Things We Lost in the Fire, and Halle Berry can be kind of overwrought sometimes, this was rather touching. I liked Benicio del Toro a lot. And the kids’ haircuts!
June 18
I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from Interview, with Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller. It was by turns irritating and interesting, and ultimately I liked it pretty well. Nice ending.
June 14
I watched The Feast of Love tonight. Every cliché in the book, and yet I liked this movie. I guess I’m sort of a sucker for these stories about the redemptive power of love. And is it possible for Morgan Freeman to be in a bad film?
May 27
I haven’t written any movie reviews for a year! Not sure why - I’ve certainly seen a lot of things I liked in that time. But anyway, here’s part of a discussion I had with a couple of friends, as we argued (via email) about our various tastes in film:
B you brought up a few emails back the differences in appreciating music vs. appreciating film. Your point was that music is aural and abstract, whereas film is visual and concrete. But I think that we can apply a similar argument here, to different *types* of film. Clearly J can appreciate certain films that are not about beauty and the elevation of the human spirit, e.g. Reservoir Dogs. So I don’t think this is as clear cut as simply a matter of “taste in movies.” You two both pooh-pooh Dances with Wolves, but I remember liking it quite a bit (I only saw it once, when if first came out, on the big screen; I think one of the things that most impressed me was the cinematography. And was that not a “realist” movie?). J was bored to tears by In the Mood for Love, but I think it’s one of the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen. Go figure.
For my money, a good/great movie depends on how well it accomplishes what it has set out to do, *within its chosen genre.* Whenever someone asks me what my favorite movie is, I sigh and explain once again that it is impossible to choose a single film. Now, ask me what my favorite movie is within a specific genre, and the task becomes much more straightforward, if not always easy. It’s like food, right? I like steak, but I also like strawberries. Choose one food?! What, like, for the rest of my life?!!!
But, back to the discussion of realism, hyper-realism, watered-down realism . . . This got me to thinking of a couple of things:
1) I HATE when in a fight scene, a guy takes a beating that absolutely would have him out cold, unconscious if not dead, and he gets up and comes back for more. Sometimes even fairly “realist” movies get this wrong. Have you ever been punched square in the face? It doesn’t take that much to knock a man out. But these guys get their heads bashed into steel columns, whacked by 2x4s, and spring back like cartoon characters . . . HATE it!
2) Any storyline that depends on magic to answer questions . . . HATE it! That is so unsatisfying! It seems so lazy and contrived and . . . unsatisfying. When magic enters the picture, literally anything is possible, and no human volition or skill or intelligence matters any longer. It can always be topped or thwarted or subverted by . . . something without explanation. HATE it!
So that makes me sound like a true-blue realist. And yet, give me a film like Sin City, or a film like The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover, or a film like Moulin Rouge, and I will sit enthralled . . . Go figure.