Geum.ru

Gsc films e-m the Eagle

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


Journal d'une femme de chambre
Judgment at Nuremberg
Julie and Julia
Kate and Leopold
Kennel Murder Case
Key Largo
Подобный материал:
1   ...   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   ...   33

Journal d'une femme de chambre 1964 Luis Buñuel (wr. Jean-Claude Carrière) (France) 3.5 Jeanne Moreau as the chambermaid Celestine who arrives at a French manor house for service, Michel Piccoli as the ineffective, weak husband who pursues servant girls but who has so little to offer that he can't sometimes go hunting since he has no money for ammunition, Françoise Lugagne as shrewish, seemingly evil wife who cares primarily about her material possessions (constantly telling Celestine not to break the china, the lamp, etc.), Jean Ozenne as the father with a serious foot fetish. An uncompromisingly bleak look at early 20th century French life in a small town. Virtually everyone is wicked and bizarre – the foot fetish father who dies in bed with Celestine's dress boots lying next to him; the servant Joseph who murders the little girl after raping her; the feuds between neighbors over petty issues; the wife who is obsessed with the vases and statuettes in the house and who has some secret sexual practice (she has a laboratory in which she brews some sort of mysterious chemical (sexual?), and she confides in her priest friend that she masturbates (?) her husband to keep him happy [he is so 'vigorous' and she can't satisfy his needs; the priest seems to accept her practice, but insists that she must derive no pleasure from it]); a lot of extreme rightwing politics on the part of Joseph and his friends, who rant how the "métèques" are ruining France and how the more Jews we kill the better. A visual highlight is the two snails crawling over the leg of the dead girl who has just been murdered by Joseph. The film is shot in beautiful widescreen black and white that is crystal clear with perfect framing and camera movement to tell the story; the scenario is straightforward, clearly written in classical French, always moving the story forward, concentrating on the story of the murder of the little girl and Celestine's efforts to prove that Joseph was responsible for it. Moreau draws us into the story – beautiful if not pretty, always a bit mysterious (what did she do in Paris before she came, why does she semi-encourage the sexual advances of the father and Piccoli, what does she want out of her stay in the country?), good-hearted, since she goes to bed with Joseph to find out whether he murdered the little girl; she ends up well, marrying the prosperous retired officer living next door; but we aren't sure what she is plotting at the end…. The film ends abruptly with Joseph being cleared of the murder (what happened to the piece of evidence planted by Celestine?), and his having set up shop running a rightwing café in Cherbourg with another woman – then the parade passing in front of the cafe disappears in snapshot like shots, and the film ends with a cartoon depiction of thunder and lightning! Film is less surrealistic and more narrative than Buñuel's other films, but he still manages to pack in a lot of bizarre behavior.


Judgment at Nuremberg 1961 Stanley Kramer 3.0 Spencer Tracy as back country, aw shucks judge chosen to provide over a war crimes trial of four German judges who served more or less willingly under the Nazis, Richard Widmark as dedicated and hard-hitting prosecutor who is determined to put the defendants away, Burt Lancaster as Ernst Janning, the decent German scholar who decides to serve the Nazi state, Judy Garland in cameo role as poor German woman accused by the Nazis of being the lover of a Jew, Maximilian Schell as bombastic, rhetorical defense counsel pulling out all the stops to get Janning off the hook, Marlene Dietrich as bitter widow of high ranking German SS officer executed by the Americans, Montgomery Clift in jaw-trembling portrayal of a low IQ German testifying about being forcibly sterilized by the Nazi state, William Shatner in small role as the clerk of the tribunal court. Interesting, earnest, well acted, but somewhat static and overlong film about one’s responsibility when as a judge (or civil servant) one is faced with unjust, inhuman laws and policies. Takes place in Nuremberg in 1948 during the beginning of the Berlin Crisis; all of which dramatizes the arguments, often made, that the United States needs to go easy on the Germans (verdict of not guilty) so as to enlist German public opinion in the fight against the Communists; in any case, most of them were just taking orders and doing their duty when they condemned men to be sterilized or sent a woman accused of having an affair with a Jew to a concentration camp. Most of film takes place in courtroom with long statements or speeches; the camera has some trouble deciding what to do – results in a lot of slow camera movement around a witness testifying, and then it frames two actors just as the witness mentions another person in the courtroom. Highlight of the film is Burt Lancaster coming to life two thirds through the film, when with great passion, credibility, and eloquence he avows the shame of his role in going along with the Nazi state and opines that Germany will never again find its soul until it has come to terms with the horror of its past. All the judges on trial are found guilty and condemned to life imprisonment. Tracy has top billing, but his character is quiet and unassuming (he is inexperienced and admits that he was “not the first choice” for the job) and he keeps his own counsel until the final session of the court when he deplores the actions of the accused and sentences them.


Julie and Julia 2009 Nora Ephron 3.0 Meryl Streep warbling just like Julia in one of her better-than-an-impersonation inhabiting of the joy and energy of Julia Child; Amy Adams utterly charming as ever as the Queens girl 50 years later who decides to cook her way through Child’s cookbook in a year and write a blog about it; Stanley Tucci as the impeccably neat and romantic diplomat consort of Child – he encourages her indefatigably throughout the exercise; Chris Messina engaging dark-haired husband of Julie – he is also supportive except for the time he loses his temper and walks out for a while. Interesting, food-laden, invariably upbeat double story of Julia Child and one of her acolytes many years later; even though Child is about 90 when Julie does her trick, they never meet. The screenplay labors to find the parallels between the two women: the focus is on their love of delicious food (Is there anything more divine than butter? Isn’t it a great achievement to end the day by boning a duck, then wrapping it dough and serving it piping hot to your admiring guests?), their upbeat attitudes, the unvarying support of their doting husbands (and there are no children to get in the way), their hard, focuses labor, and their ambition that pushes through to completion and fulfillment for both (Child finally hears from Knopf that they will publish her book, and Julie’s blog becomes famous and she starts to work on her own book). The film focuses on the ability of women to find their dream and to push through to its realization; in both cases it was done with the full support of their men rather than in the teeth of and despite the male world. The film is set colorfully in the Paris of the late 40s and early 50s where Tucci is on a diplomatic assignment and – less colorfully – in New York after the turn of the millennium. It embraces the French idea that good food is the content and the symbol of the pleasures of life and a life well lived. The part of the story following Child is far more interesting and evocative than the travails of Julie in her run-down apartment over the Queens pizza parlor. One wonders whether a film focusing exclusively on Child’s story might have had more dramatic focus and excitement. Streep’s performance is very entertaining, and Adams is her usual amiable self. Pleasant movie.


Junebug 2005 Phil Morrison 3.0 Embeth Davidtz as Madeleine, who as owner of avant garde art gallery in Chicago visits her husband’s North Carolina family and cultivating a visionary artist in the vicinity; Amy Adams lights up the screen with her portrayal of sweet and loving expectant mother in North Carolina family; Alessandro Nivola as rather under-written husband of Madeleine, George, who seems always to sleeping while visiting his parents’ home; Ben McKenzie as Johnny, most unhappy and alienated husband of Adams – he works in kitchen equipment mail order store; Celia Watson as Nivola’s and McKenzie’s generous-sized mom who takes an instant dislike to Madeleine – “she can say more with a glance than most actors can say in a soliloquy”; Scott Wilson as her extremely taciturn, perhaps depressed husband. Engaging, sometimes hollow-seeming story about a homecoming to a family in North Carolina. The culture of a Southern family is carefully drawn – green lawns, no sidewalks, talking about Jesus and his blessings, church-going and hymn-singing, ladies at the baby shower with carefully coiffed hair. Much of the film is about the contrast between the big city, Chicago sophisticates – Madeleine pulls out all the stops to secure a contract with the local visionary artist that paints his Confederate characters with very large, erect penises – and the Southern, Bible-toting people who have plenty of feelings but keep them hidden and rarely talk openly. Madeleine belies her cold, business-oriented style by throwing her self into an intimate relationship with Adams, who enthusiastically and naively worships her sophisticated urban sister-in-law; she severely disappoints her husband when in a time of crisis she chooses her professional goals over his commitment to family loyalty. Adams’ husband Johnny is beset by severe alienation – he doesn’t appear to want the child his wife is carrying and he resents the limits that she places on his juvenile life style (he seems most happy when he is farting around with his fellow employees at work); he mistakes Madeleine’s somewhat exaggerated attempts to comfort him for sexual interest, since he can’t believe that brother George is stud enough to keep his wife satisfied. Film focuses a lot on the two parents: Mom shows wit in her put-downs of her hapless son Johnny and she still worships George as the favored son; the father lurks in the background and remains loyally attached to his wife. It is always a pleasure to return to Adams, whose naïve and enthusiastic personality entertains and gives us hope that her marriage with Johnny will somehow turn out. Despite Adams’ still-born child (she was going to name him Junebug), the film ends on a modified hopeful note: the two parents remain attached, Adams is upbeat even after losing her child and talking to her hapless husband, and George forgives Madeleine for her breach of family solidarity as they return to Chicago. Observant and honest Indie film that offers nothing particularly dramatic or exciting, but just a little honest truth.


Juno 2007 Jason Reitman (wr. Diablo Cody) 4.0 Ellen Page small, thin, peppy, smart mouthed, savvy much beyond her age, good-hearted and sincere as 16-year-old high school student who discovers she is pregnant after an impulsive fling (her idea) with her sort of boyfriend; Michael Cera understated and equally sincere as the boyfriend who complies with Juno’s wishes and then stands aside until the end; Allison Janney (who has a memorable meltdown with the ultrasound technician when Juno is having an examination) and J.K. Simmons as refreshingly supportive and good-humored parents of Juno, although they are often bewildered by her; Jennifer Garner as the more-or-less control freak yuppie-style woman that Juno chooses to adopt her gestating baby; Jason Bateman as her husband, who has a lot of growing up to do; Olivia as her kind of flaky but supportive girl friend. Heart-warming, humorous, insightful little film about non-conformist Juno: she gets pregnant, but is thoroughly turned off by the abortion industry (her decision to have the baby is aided by a humorous appeal by one of her schoolmates); she decides to have the baby, and seems to find the perfect couple to adopt it. However, things don’t turn out exactly the way she expected; although the viewer is at first skeptical about the effusive Garner, it is her husband who becomes the wrench in the monkey works; Garner proves herself a dedicated would-be mom, despite her annoying yuppie ways, and Bateman, who develops a bond with June based on a predilection for grunge rock and bloody slasher movies, ends making a play for Juno (!) and deciding to leave Garner. Juno however is also growing up and her good sense enables her to recognize Bateman’s childishness and Garner’s maturity (in a lovely scene where she observes her behavior in a shopping mall) and gladly hands the newborn child over to her. Confronted with her problem and the spectacle of the adoptive couple, Juno also goes through a small transformation wherein she recognizes that she is trying to act way too grown up. The film ends with her giving up the baby and relapsing into an age-appropriate boy-girl relationship with Cera; the film ends with the two of them sitting on the front doorstep and singing one of Kimya Dawson delightful lyrics-rich, naïve patter songs as the gaggle of cross-country runners go running by, this time without Cera who is spending time with his girlfriend. Script is outstanding with its fully realized characters, clever, pungent and memorable dialogue (its zappy one-liners are perhaps a bit precious in places), its many heart-warming moments, its gentle satire, and its love and respect for all the characters. The reaction of the audience – happy to be drawn into this delightful experience – oscillates between recognition, laughter, and happy tears. The movie is buoyed by outstanding performances from every actor, all of whom remain fresh and appealing in the viewer’s mind days after seeing the film.


Kaidan 2007 Hideo Nakata (Japan) 3.0 Takaaki Enoki as pretty, effeminate young man with samurai haircut who falls in love with a succession of pretty women; four pretty Japanese women (Reona Hirota, Tae Kimura, Hitomi Kuroki all wearing different shades of Japanese kimonos so that they are very difficult to distinguish one from the other) who successively fall in love with Takaaki and usually meet a sad fate. Japanese combination soap opera and ghost story that lacks some suspense but has outstanding décor and cinematography. The attractive Takaaki falls in love with the older Hirota without realizing that their relationship is cursed by the fact that his father (a samurai) killed her father (a debt collector); Takaaki is accidentally responsible for the death of Hirota, but before she dies the insanely jealous mistress vows that she will haunt him if he marries another; the first woman he bonds with, a pretty teenager, is killed with a cycle slash in the back (Kool-Aid looking blood pouring from her mouth) by the vengeful Hirota appearing in CGI sequence; when Takaaki marries a third woman, their baby now carries the curse and seems to drive him mad with her passive-aggressive stare; in a final samurai-like sequence Takaaki is pursued by imkplacable villagers (most of whom seem to die in the outrageous action seuqence) and is then pulled by ghostly white-grey hands into the lake where his father’s victim’s body was buried. The film moves slowly and is only mildly scary: the tell-tale livid scars on the face of the women and the baby, the intimations of Hirota peering down at Takaaki from the gaps in the bamboo ceiling, Hirota’s body suddenly descending upside down right next to Takaaki, the flies emerging lazily from the mouth of the impassive baby, the three (?) grey-white hands that pull his body into the fatal pond, the final picture of Hirota holding the severed but living head of Takaaki in her arms as she stands on the surface of the pond. The camera work is fluid and elegant, moving and turning in modest increments to keep the principals in focus. The art direction is usually excellent: the camera gliding along the matte-colored streets of a small town, the cool, spare interiors of the home dwellings, the lush vegetation of the exteriors, the rain coming down in sheets as the characters walk through the streets with parasol hats attached to their heads , the soaked, gleaming vegetation in the woods, the dark-colored water of the fatal pond with steam rising from it. Graceful film that lacks shock value.


Kansas City Confidential 1952 Phil Karlson 3.0 John Payne effective as existentially distressed protagonist who is trying to find the real perpetrators of a bank heist for which he was arrested; Colleen Gray as rather too sunny token female, whose job it is to provide some redemption for Payne; Jack Elam, Lee Van Cleef, and Neville Brand as three classic tough guys who participated in the holdup and who are looking for their cut of the dough; Preston Foster as the mastermind of the heist – he happens also to be the father of Gray. Good gritty, realistic, sometimes rather documentary-style approach to a story of a bank robbery and its aftermath. Most of the movie takes place in a fishing resort in Mexico, where the participants are waiting to get their money from Foster, who turns out to be the father of a law student and a devoted fisherman. Events in Mexico revolve on who will double-cross who, who will get the money, and whether Payne will fulfill his dreams – which might include getting a cut of the money him, or getting the reward, or getting the girl, who rides with him from the airport to the resort. Script is rather complex – it is hard to identify the characters (they all wore masks during the holdup and thus don’t recognize one another), and it is hard to know what the different characters are up to. A nice twist is that Foster has apparently no intention of splitting up and spending the money (too hard since all of its is marked), but – at least toward the end of the film – he plans to give it back, blame it on the other three men (there were only three participating in physical robbery) and then collecting the reward money. Film ends with all the bank robbers dead; and as he dies, Foster endorses Payne’s relationship with his daughter and recommends to the police that he be given the reward money (about $300,000). Photography tends to be dark and shadowed; some nice double shots of one face in the foreground and another – perhaps slightly out of focus – in the background. Enjoyable film for the performances (especially the three hoods) and for the story of complications; it suffers however from lack of clarity in the plot.


Kate and Leopold 2001 James Mangold 2.0 Meg Ryan cute as a button with straight hair working as an executive in an advertising firm in New York and looking for Mr. Right; Hugh Jackman handsome and a bit rumpled as English noblemen ne’er-do-well who is brought back from 1876 through a time warp to the present, where of course he meets Meg; Liev Schreiber as marmot-resembling ex-boyfriend of Meg and the inventor who figured out how to use the time warp (dive off the Brooklyn Bridge a certain time of the month); Breckin Meyer pretty cute as Ryan’s brother who aspires to be an actor; Bradley Whitford as the bad boss who hits on Ryan and of course is rejected (inexplicably, after she rejects him, he still promotes her to a higher position). Cookie cutter romantic comedy that depends on the cute charms of the two principals. Very genre driven so that the attentive viewer (not myself) can predict the ending within the first ten minutes of the film. The time travel business is pretty hackneyed, but one supposes that the Cosmo girls watching the film know little about the subject. The plot intrigue depends a lot on photographs taken by Schreiber in 1876, which have Ryan in them (somehow this doesn’t make much sense). Jackman and Ryan do not seem to have chemistry: when they are together, they appear to be going through the motions – are you comfortable with me snuggling you in this position? Some scenes are extremely clichéd: e.g., the romantic dinner with a gypsy violinist and candles that Jackman organizes for his new-found beloved on the rooftop of Ryan’s apartment (did he also cook that gourmet dinner?). Ryan is always harried and never seems comfortable in her job (many of the things she does are incompetent), and even after she is promoted, she willingly abandons her whole life in New York to follow Jackman back to his stuffy aristocratic environment in the 19th century to live, one supposes, happily ever after. The excellent Sting song “Until” is not used until the final credits!


Kennel Murder Case 1933 Michael Curtiz 3.0 William Powell, Mary Astor (small role), Eugene Pallette, etc. Considered the best in Philo Vance series. Warners. Powell as Philo Vance playing his wise-cracking, quick thinking Nick and Nora role without Nora or the cocktails; he does have dog but with much less prominent role (he does discover one injured dog behind closed door). Takes place in upper class atmosphere – wealthy set in bow ties and smart suits that is interested in dogs and dog shows. Ably directed by Curtiz, who adds some interesting shots – prying camera, wipe dissolves, shots behind bookshelf and behind suits hanging in closet, mirror shot, etc. Said to be origin of standard parlor murder mystery: mysterious murder (turns out to be two), and we develop list of suspects, including Chinese cook interested in Chinese antiquities, the mistress who is about to run off with another man, and the niece who hates the stingy uncle who refuses to let her have her inheritance – all had reason to hate Archer, the victim; script follows investigation of Vance, who has been welcomed by the not-so-bright police sergeant and district attorney; climactic finale, where Vance reconstructs the crimes through flashbacks, and then not being sure who the guilty party is, sets a trap with a dog inducing the real guilty one to reach for the telltale poker (not very credible ending!).


Key Largo 1948 John Huston 3.0 Humphrey Bogart in low-key role as World War II veteran Frank McCloud who goes to hotel on Key Largo to meet the family of his war buddy; Lauren Bacall looking young and lanky and without a lot to do as widow of the war buddy; Lionel Barrymore as Temple, the noble hotel owner and father-in-law of Bacall; Edward G. Robinson as brutal, scowling, unattractive crime boss who has essentially taken over the hotel and is willing to kill anyone who gets in his way; Claire Trevor in AA role as Robinson's boozy, classily dressed girlfriend. Stage-bound film adaptation of Maxwell Anderson Broadway play that features intense interchanges and good acting among the main characters and an extremely bloody finale on a small boat heading toward Cuba. Although almost the entire film is shot on a Warner Brothers soundstage, the Florida Keys atmosphere is fairly convincing – frame hotel with storm shutters, dock on the outside with sea rippling in the background, fake-sounding thunder claps when the hurricane hits in the middle of the film. Huston directs with his usual finesse – e.g., one of the final shots with Bacall walking toward Bogart who she has just discovered is alive is elegant: the camera tracks backward keeping focused on Bacall's worried face. Huston seems to have tried to put some of himself in the rewrite of the script – e.g., McCloud is put in the Italian campaign at Monte Cassino and he is in an Hustonian existentialist situation having to choose whether to take dangerous action to rescue the Temple family from the brutal Robinson. However the theater script dominates: interchange among the characters continues a very long time (Robinson isn't even seen for about 20 minutes) before action kicks in toward the end; Bogart's character is often silent and indecipherable, and it is difficult to decode his motivations. Film is viciously violent in the last third: the sheriff allows himself to be tricked into killing two local Indians (depicted as noble and mistreated by whites) and once Bogart gets hold of a gun, he uses it with ruthless efficiency, killing five Mafiosi on the fog-bound small boat heading toward Cuba. Because of the focus on the mafia and the possible return of Prohibition, the setting of the film seems a bit anachronistic for 1948. Film wonderfully restored with sharp, artfully composed images. Good performances from Robinson and Trevor, but the film fails to get a grip on this viewer.