Beyond The Black Rainbow (2010)

"...cannot be unseen."

Beyond The Black Rainbow perfectly encapsulates my favorite kind of horror and/or sci-fi film: atmospheric, visually stunning, synthesizer soundtracked, dystopian psychedelia. Being a fan of these types of movies that came out of the 1970's and early '80s, I'm thrilled to have seen such an homage. I imagine that if David Lynch made a THX1138-like movie with the texture of Stanley Kubrick, this beautifully horrifying film would be the result. Not to mention influences from Cronenberg to Kenneth Anger.

I'm not going to give a plot summary, as the film is extremely slow and mostly atmospheric, and the plot is slightly vague. However a definite narrative is there. I think there are also definite metaphors regarding the selfish Baby Boomer generation and their treatment of their Gen-X spawn. Not to mention the nature of true evil.

I absolutely loved this film. Watch in high-def if you can.

10/10.

Skyfall (2012)

Sam Mendes came pretty close to ruining the newest James Bond outing a couple times. It seemed as if there might have been some kind of battle behind the scenes to make it either a classic superficial Bond film, or one of his characteristic weirdo/twisted character study dramas. The combination was barely pulled off in this case. Javier Bardem's Mendes-esque bizarreness and the long takes during his scenes were pluses as they made him an even more personally threatening and creepy villain. However, exposing Bond's bout with age and weakness was a kind of disheartening turn. In the last two he was such a steely killer that exposing his frailties felt like a betrayal. I understand they've been trying to take a different approach to the franchise since Craig's casting, but this time around they may have taken it a bit too far. Things did manage to slowly grow back to normal by the end though, with Bond's cool veneer shining again.

I'm also adding a full point to my rating because of Roger Deakins' amazing cinematography. I was in complete awe of the Shanghai tower scene, not to mention all the quality dusk/night shots. The Cohen brothers are fortunate to have him on call for their films.

Altogether it was an enjoyable Bond film, but for different reasons than the last two. 7/10.

The Hunger Games (2012)

3/10. In a dystopian society, two children from each of twelve districts are sent to a ruling capitol to play in "The Hunger Games", a survival match to the death where there can be but one victor. To protect her sister, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to play.

This film had the biggest opening weekend gross for a non-sequel ever when it was released. It piqued my interest because of this fact. I thought I should check it out, for cultural relevance's sake. Hadn't seen any trailers, but I had an idea basically what it was about.

Saw it... didn't like it.

I didn't like it for two reasons:

First, the direction by Gary Ross. Specifically, his decision to use the deliberately-shaky-handheld-extreme-close-up shot favored by the last two Jason Bourne movies' Paul Greengrass. Only Gary Ross takes it to an all new, highly annoying level. Imagine the shakiest parts of the car chase scene from The Bourne Supremacy, multiply it by a shaky factor of two, zoom in to just their faces, and use this recipe when people are having a conversation or simply walking. Now use it for over half the movie. This should give you an idea of what it was like trying to watch this film in the theater.

Second, the juvenile and predictable script by the original novel's author Suzanne Collins and (again) Gary Ross. I don't fault the script as much as the direction, as it is already based off a juvenile and predictable trilogy of novels aimed at youth. But, not being a fan of, nor having ever read the novels, my eye was untarnished with any expectation of adherence to the source material. Thusly, I couldn't care less if the dialogue is just as dull as the novel, I just care that it's dull and that I can pretty much predict the whole movie after the first half hour.

The only reason that I didn't rate this movie a one or a two was the acting. All of the younger actors did a pretty damn good job with the material they were given, as did most of the adults.

If you're a fan of the books, wait for it to come out on video. This way you can at least marginally see whats going on during the shaky scenes and won't have a huge screen of blur to try and sort out.

If you're not a fan of the books, save your time an money and skip it.

A Dangerous Method (2011)

9/10. As Dr. Carl Jung takes on patient Sabina Spielrein in the newborn field of psychology, he consults with Dr. Sigmund Freud regarding her case.

Despite a terrible Russian accent, Keira Knightley has won my respect for her acting ability through her performance in this film. Playing Sabina Spielrein, her character's physical and mental contortions and pains are expertly portrayed.

The film as a whole may have surpassed Scanners as my favorite by Cronenberg. To see the founders of psychology laid bare as fallible human beings unable to overcome their natures and sins in spite of their awareness of them or their attempts to overcome them... it was riveting.

Simple direction and cinematography. Expertly written script. Subtle and nuanced acting. A near perfect film.

Warrior (2011)

9/10. So I LOVE Rocky (1976). It's in my all time top ten movies. As far as fighting movies go, Warrior is now a close second.

It's mostly about two estranged brothers training and fighting their way through mixed martial arts battles (MMA), but the inter/intra-personal relationships are the real story here. Don't get me wrong the fights are intense and well choreographed, but they would fall flat without the drama going on behind the bouts.

Behind the camera, Miracle (2004) director Gavin O'Connor returns to the sporting world with a vengeance co-writing and directing a gritty movie about a broken family. Nick Nolte outdoes himself as the recovering alcoholic father of the two brothers. And like I said, the fighting sequences are excellently choreographed by J.J. Perry and are totally believable.

I'm shocked that this film bombed in the theaters only raking in $13 Million with a budget of $30 Million. I just hope that the DVD sales can make up for the loss because this film truly deserves recognition. Even critics like this movie, garnering it an 83% certified fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer as of this posting.

And this movie has one of the best song placements of any film I've seen, climaxing with a live version of The National's "About Today". Listen to the song below, then watch the movie, I'm pretty sure the film will outdo whatever you picture going on in your head.

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

5/10. No surprises in this genre mash-up blockbuster.

You can read the synopsis of this film on basically any movie site, as it was one of this summer's biggest films.

I like Jon Favreau, I like Daniel Craig, I like Olivia Wilde, however this film was just too silly, I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to go along for the ride. I blame this on the writing. It is my understanding that Cowboys & Aliens was in development hell for a long time, and went through many rewrites (this is evidenced by the writing credits), but even super-writing team Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof couldn't save this exercise in ridiculousness. Favreau's directing was crisp, but if you're going to combine two drastically different genres into one film, you need an exceptional script to make it believable. This one fell flat.

I would not recommend this film to anyone, it was just a below average outing upped a notch by all the money they put into it. Even the actors seemed like they weren't really trying.

As an aside, I would like to vent my frustration with the new all CGI monster's that seem to all look the same in today's movies. I call them the "J.J. Abrams Monster", as I feel it all started with Cloverfield. Tell me the alien from Cowboys & Aliens below doesn't look like some rehashing of an Abrams monster from, say, Super 8. Who knows, maybe I should blame Andy Chung.

The Turning Point (1952)

7/10. William Holden shines in this run of the mill fifties noir.

Edmond O'Brien heads up a city wide crime commission set to take down syndicate boss Ed Begley. William Holden is the cynical crime desk reporter who reluctantly joins the cause.

In all honesty this is a pretty forgettable story. a film that would have stood out a decade earlier, but was past it's prime on it's release. Aside from the well written dialogue, William Holden is this films saving grace.

Caught between his performances in Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard and Stalag 17, Holden outdoes everyone in this relatively unheard of noir. It's easy to see why, it's basically a rehash of early noirs, only with conservative camera work, and not-so-special art direction. The other players are well known but fail to offer anything exceptional. Maybe I'm prejudiced, as Holden is my favorite actor of his time, but he really earns the top billing he receives. I would have loved to see what could have been accomplished without what appeared to be director William Dieterle holding him back. I'm not badmouthing Dieterle, but he seemed to be running things like it was still the thirties or forties. It really took a modern innovator like Billy Wilder to let Holden cut loose and show his chops.

Oh and criminal standby Neville Brand makes a brief appearance as a hitman. Love that guy too.

So if you're a Holden fan like me, you should check this one out. If you're just looking for a good noir to watch, there's better stuff out there.

Cry Vengeance (1954)

6/10. Classic mid-fifties second-tier noir set in Alaska.

When ex-cop Vic Barron gets out of prison, he travels to Alaska seeking revenge on the mob boss whom he believes murdered his wife and child and framed him for bribery.

This film is Mark Stevens directorial debut. The actor best known for playing Olivia de Havilland's husband in The Snake Pit does an admirable job in helming his first feature, whilst portraying it's main role. There's nothing particularly memorable done on the back end of the camera, save some unique-for-it's-day aerial and dolly shots. The movie as a whole is probably pretty forgettable.

The cast does a standard job for mid-fifties noir. Skip Homeier stands out significantly as the despicable thug Roxey Davis, mostly due to his unique looks as opposed to any acting forte. The beautiful Martha Hyer does an average job portraying love interest Peggy Harding, but as I said before, nothing truly memorable. Mark Stevens is more stone-cold than anything, which is what the character called for.

The only real thing of note about this film is the fact that it's a noir story set in the lumberjack capitol of Ketchikan, Alaska. The two don't obviously go together in one's mind, but the writers manage to pull it off, primarily by having the central ensemble all hail from San Francisco.

SPOILER ALERT

I would have cared for this film much more had it followed classic noir and climaxed in a dismal ending. The writers however chose the happy route and all is resolved with no true consequences. So although this movie was noir in style, it was really just an average Hollywood thriller.

Citizen Kane (1941)

5/10. I watched Citizen Kane for the first time today. I must say it was a disappointment. Most likely this is because I had built it up in my mind my entire life. Loving movies, you can't not know about Citizen Kane's greatness in history.

As there are already so many reviews and studies of this film I'll just give my wholly subjective opinion.

I honestly didn't care for it. The movie made me feel four out of ten stars, but I'm bumping it up to a five simply because it is such an artistic feat. I can see it's groundbreaking style, it's camera work, special effects, dialogue and acting that was a grand avante-garde departure from it's contemporaries. However, despite all of this it left me feeling empty.

Perhaps that was Welles' intention. Perhaps it was meant to be a jumbled confusion of imagery and half remembered dreams... I don't know for sure. This is the only movie that I've ever marked higher than I subjectively felt it rated...

Would I watch this movie again? Probably. Would I watch it repeatedly and study it? Probably not. I'd prefer to study The Trial, Welles' masterpiece in his own book. An opinion of which I share. A film which I actually liked.

Perhaps I've been so conditioned for the "Hollywood Narrative" that I completely missed the train on this one? I just don't know.

I may post more on this film later. But as it stands as a first impression, I'm sticking with my above rating.

Retiring An Old Friend

When people ask me what are my favorite movies, I list my top ten. Ten movies which I could watch over and over again, amazed at their greatness every time. One of them throughout the years has consistently been Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Perhaps it was nostalgia, I remember seeing it in the theater with my father in 1991. Perhaps it was because I considered Nick Meyer's script to be so intellectual and entertaining. But upon viewing the movie today for the first time in several years, I must retire this old friend. Though I could recite the dialogue along with the movie, my tastes appear to have changed. If you had asked me not too long ago my rating of this film, I would have told you wholeheartedly "10 out of 10 stars." That is no longer the case. This old friend seemed dated and slightly boring in parts, it no longer held my rapt attention as it once did. The script seemed quasi-intellectual, and somewhat forced. The acting, poor. The direction full of holes. It is with a bittersweet heart that I send this film on it's merry way from my top ten list. I can't say I'll miss it terribly, but I can say I enjoyed it while it lasted...

Now I must find a new friend to take it's place. I must determine which film out of the thousands I've seen is worthy to be placed in my personal top ten. It will be a tough decision, but like phases in my life, a new film friend will most assuredly present itself.

R.I.P. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. 8/10.