3/4
Is this film all about the duality of man? Is it about something else? Or is it just a neutral observer, an emotionless picturette. With Stanley Kubrick, it could be any of the three. Or we can consider him an unreliable storyteller, perhaps slightly mad, and assume there to be no purpose here. Maybe it is a statement, maybe it is just a story, maybe it's nothing. It may be nothing.
But it holds your attention, and that's enough. The dialogue isn't anything special, the characters are uninteresting, but it's Kubrick so there are subtleties that make it enjoyable.
Perhaps it is just dated. People consider this great--sometimes the best war film or Vietnam war film. I don't see it. It is eight years after Apocalypse Now, so the great Vietnam war film was already done. What more does this possibly add? It is brutal in its morality and visuals, but so is Apocalypse. Apocalypse has more tone and purpose. FMJ isn't really linked to itself and doesn't affect you much. There's no beauty, only meaningless brutality. And maybe that's the point. The meaninglessness of the brutality of war.
I'm really not sure why drill sergeant Ermey is appreciated so much for his acting. It's not acting... He was literally this role in his own life.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Monday, June 16, 2014
Make better adaptations
Inspired by Apocalypse Now.
We need to start making movies worlds of their own. Especially in adaptations of books. I hate being able to tell that a movie is an adaptation... because then that's what I'm thinking about the whole time. Then when something is out of place, I can simply say "oh, it's a line from the book. They just put it in. Not everything from the book can be explained in the movie". This is terrible.
Think about Apocalypse Now. The two books on Kurtz's desk.... they don't mean anything with respect to the movie. They're just references relating to the book. So the viewer tries to analyze this.... fruitlessly. Same with Kurtz's final words. They're from the book, and they're quotable, and seem deep, but they have nothing to do with the movie. They're out of place. Just keep a movie within itself....
I'm not mad, but I mean what I'm saying. It is truly lame when screenwriters just defer to the book for answers when they should be writing lines of their own that make sense within the movie. That connect to the viewer who's only seen what you just showed him, not every in-between line in the book.
We need to start making movies worlds of their own. Especially in adaptations of books. I hate being able to tell that a movie is an adaptation... because then that's what I'm thinking about the whole time. Then when something is out of place, I can simply say "oh, it's a line from the book. They just put it in. Not everything from the book can be explained in the movie". This is terrible.
Think about Apocalypse Now. The two books on Kurtz's desk.... they don't mean anything with respect to the movie. They're just references relating to the book. So the viewer tries to analyze this.... fruitlessly. Same with Kurtz's final words. They're from the book, and they're quotable, and seem deep, but they have nothing to do with the movie. They're out of place. Just keep a movie within itself....
I'm not mad, but I mean what I'm saying. It is truly lame when screenwriters just defer to the book for answers when they should be writing lines of their own that make sense within the movie. That connect to the viewer who's only seen what you just showed him, not every in-between line in the book.
Novels vs. Movies
I watched Apocalypse Now and Revolutionary Road recently.
I just think that novels in general have more quality than movies. There are so fewer cliches... you don't always know what will happen to a character. That's because the plots and characters are well-constructed. They don't follow such a formula. There is more room to explore, not give the rom-com quick-fix of comedy-struggle-happy ending.
But then there are some films that I feel rise above literature. Maybe I just haven't read enough, but how could my Synecdoche ever be portrayed in a book?
I just think that novels in general have more quality than movies. There are so fewer cliches... you don't always know what will happen to a character. That's because the plots and characters are well-constructed. They don't follow such a formula. There is more room to explore, not give the rom-com quick-fix of comedy-struggle-happy ending.
But then there are some films that I feel rise above literature. Maybe I just haven't read enough, but how could my Synecdoche ever be portrayed in a book?
Review: Revolutionary Road
3.5/4
This is very much an adaptation of a novel. Pure movies don't have characters this real or lines this good. You can tell.
And it is an impeccably executed film adaptation. The acting is incredible, of course. The script and direction do their jobs and the music is composed with talent, although at times the harmonies don't always exactly fit the tone of the moment. Overall, this film is very very well-made.
However, I will say that my 3.5 rating is generous. This is if we consider the rating a representation of uniqueness or value. I don't believe that there's anything life-changing in Revolutionary Road. It feels just like a modern novel. It has quality in it, great lines, characters, emotions, a great plot. But there's a reason I don't read----there's just nothing special about it. I can't find things like this to be worth my time, no matter that this has as much quality as any other modern novel of its kind....you know....the book club kind. Is Water for Elephants really worth anybody's time? The Help? Really?
-Hey, no disrespect to The Help, I enjoyed the film.
So, lo, my rating reflects the quality of film represented by this movie. It is very good, and intriguing, and speaks on humanity, and things like this.
This is very much an adaptation of a novel. Pure movies don't have characters this real or lines this good. You can tell.
And it is an impeccably executed film adaptation. The acting is incredible, of course. The script and direction do their jobs and the music is composed with talent, although at times the harmonies don't always exactly fit the tone of the moment. Overall, this film is very very well-made.
However, I will say that my 3.5 rating is generous. This is if we consider the rating a representation of uniqueness or value. I don't believe that there's anything life-changing in Revolutionary Road. It feels just like a modern novel. It has quality in it, great lines, characters, emotions, a great plot. But there's a reason I don't read----there's just nothing special about it. I can't find things like this to be worth my time, no matter that this has as much quality as any other modern novel of its kind....you know....the book club kind. Is Water for Elephants really worth anybody's time? The Help? Really?
-Hey, no disrespect to The Help, I enjoyed the film.
So, lo, my rating reflects the quality of film represented by this movie. It is very good, and intriguing, and speaks on humanity, and things like this.
Review: "Pilot", Orange is the New Black
3.5/4------ for a TV show pilot
I am so happy that people are nice to Piper in prison....
Although I know that no show can be judged by the pilot, I am writing this review believing that I will probably never watch an episode of this show again. It don't see it being worth my time; however, this is a good first episode. It's light-hearted, the workings and nature of prison are intriguing, it's restrained, I like the way it gradually reveals information... I can see this being a very enjoyable show to watch. It makes all the difference in the world that some people are kind to Piper. In the typical series, the main character would be hated on by EVERY SINGLE PERSON when they're pushed into a foreign situation, especially in a case as conventional as the high-strung middle-class white woman amongst poor black criminals. But this series is set apart for me, at least from the first episode, in the realism that not everyone is awful. Also it is distinguishing that Piper is not entirely high-strung middle-class white woman. Perhaps the writing for the pilot is slightly inconsistent, as the writers haven't gotten a great hold on the character, but we seem to see different sides of her. Sometimes she is the cliche that I mentioned, but other times she swears casually, has lesbian sex, runs drug money, is laid-back..... etc. Overall, the character is much more realistically multi-sided than the norm, which is terrific for the show and enjoyable for the viewer. Her husband... I'm not sure how to feel. It feels great how realistic and supportive he is--he's really just a great guy and he plays it well--but he's not very interesting to watch at all. The bad part of you wants her to get back with the girl, just because it's interesting.
I am so happy that people are nice to Piper in prison....
Although I know that no show can be judged by the pilot, I am writing this review believing that I will probably never watch an episode of this show again. It don't see it being worth my time; however, this is a good first episode. It's light-hearted, the workings and nature of prison are intriguing, it's restrained, I like the way it gradually reveals information... I can see this being a very enjoyable show to watch. It makes all the difference in the world that some people are kind to Piper. In the typical series, the main character would be hated on by EVERY SINGLE PERSON when they're pushed into a foreign situation, especially in a case as conventional as the high-strung middle-class white woman amongst poor black criminals. But this series is set apart for me, at least from the first episode, in the realism that not everyone is awful. Also it is distinguishing that Piper is not entirely high-strung middle-class white woman. Perhaps the writing for the pilot is slightly inconsistent, as the writers haven't gotten a great hold on the character, but we seem to see different sides of her. Sometimes she is the cliche that I mentioned, but other times she swears casually, has lesbian sex, runs drug money, is laid-back..... etc. Overall, the character is much more realistically multi-sided than the norm, which is terrific for the show and enjoyable for the viewer. Her husband... I'm not sure how to feel. It feels great how realistic and supportive he is--he's really just a great guy and he plays it well--but he's not very interesting to watch at all. The bad part of you wants her to get back with the girl, just because it's interesting.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Review: Saving Private Ryan
3/4
Two days ago I watched Apocalypse Now. Saving Private Ryan is much more of a "war film" than that; in fact, this film redefined the war genre for me. Now that I have seen this extremely high level of realism, I have realized that Apocalypse felt like a movie. FMJ as I remember felt like a movie. In fact, most other movies feel like movies compared to the intimacy of Saving Private Ryan. It is truly excellent filmmaking with respect to its vision--to place the viewer in the center of the action and connect him to the characters so as to achieve a filmgoing experience that is intimate and emotional and tense and exciting. The emotions run high in this film due to the realism.
I gained immense amounts of respect for Steven Spielberg in the last few hours. I fully expected family-friendly cinema, good feelings, drama, justice. But what I respect most about this film is its injustice. Its statement, again and again, that its characters are not invincible. What an emotion when a certain character gets a knife slowly pressed into his chest after the typical struggle that would always end in victory for the good guy. It's disbelief for anybody who has ever seen a morally typical movie (99% of movies). No director that's playing at this level of Hollywood respect and big budgets does something like that.
I am not calling Stevie a revolutionary. At least not in this sense. I suppose I have forgotten that he did not write the film... He only gave it its epic scope and dramatic touch. He gave it John Williams, and millions of dollars. So I guess we can conclude that the writer, Robert Rodat, deserves much respect for his boldness and unpredictability, and Spielberg is applauded for deeming this screenplay worthy of his direction, and then Spielberg is praised for excellent direction. I feel odd congratulating him like this, as I would never have called myself a Spielberg fan in the past and am much more interested in the anti-Hollywood of Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson and such, but perhaps it is time I give him some more respect. Even critics who recognize the conventionality in Spielberg movies recognize his talent. Schindler's List is considered an all-time great movie, isn't it? Perhaps I should watch more from him and consider his direction, independent of the screenplay, even if it was he who wrote it.
This was a very enjoyable film for me. I had emotions running through me during it: nothing earth-shattering, but I can't remember the last time I experienced that. Particularly I love the war of it. Apocalypse Now was about other things. It was a journey, and it spent no time in one place. It was psychological. Philosophical. Allegorical. With Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg obviously made it a point to portray war extensively and in a realistic fashion so as to educate viewers. And I was incredibly interested in the military tactics, behaviours, patterns, nature, operations, etc. I suppose I'm just very interested in war. Maybe this is from Call of Duty. Maybe I'm destined to become a soldier or militaryman of some sort. The idea always excites me, though it is so far off from my life. In any case, if you like war, watch this. You will be watching maybe a solid hour of pure battle footage altogether. Maybe more. I would like a film that is 100% focused on military operations. That learns me tactics. The inner workings, and the big picture.
I leave this film with only 3 out of 4 stars. But I said it felt like less of a movie and more of an experience than Coppola and Kubrick, didn't I? Yes, but there's something more to those films. They have layers and meaning. There is some very interesting moral conflict in SPR, and some terrific decisions as plot devices, but it is mostly only an experience. It pulls on emotions and some interest strings but doesn't dig quite deep enough. I could never put it in the same league as the intellectual revolution of Kubrick or the dark, strange beauty of Apocalypse Now. The dialogue is too conventional. That said, the battle scenes are terrific, maybe the best I've ever seen. Kudos, Stevie.
Oh yeah, and Tom Hanks' character is morally questionable, but not in the anti-hero understandable kind of way, just in a "is he even nice? Idk. This is just weird" kind of way. But that's only at some points, not overall. Overall he's a definite hero. It's just odd. I think I would have preferred for him to have been a better man. Just so that the ending would feel stronger.
And I could be John Williams. It's sickening how lauded his music is...
Two days ago I watched Apocalypse Now. Saving Private Ryan is much more of a "war film" than that; in fact, this film redefined the war genre for me. Now that I have seen this extremely high level of realism, I have realized that Apocalypse felt like a movie. FMJ as I remember felt like a movie. In fact, most other movies feel like movies compared to the intimacy of Saving Private Ryan. It is truly excellent filmmaking with respect to its vision--to place the viewer in the center of the action and connect him to the characters so as to achieve a filmgoing experience that is intimate and emotional and tense and exciting. The emotions run high in this film due to the realism.
I gained immense amounts of respect for Steven Spielberg in the last few hours. I fully expected family-friendly cinema, good feelings, drama, justice. But what I respect most about this film is its injustice. Its statement, again and again, that its characters are not invincible. What an emotion when a certain character gets a knife slowly pressed into his chest after the typical struggle that would always end in victory for the good guy. It's disbelief for anybody who has ever seen a morally typical movie (99% of movies). No director that's playing at this level of Hollywood respect and big budgets does something like that.
I am not calling Stevie a revolutionary. At least not in this sense. I suppose I have forgotten that he did not write the film... He only gave it its epic scope and dramatic touch. He gave it John Williams, and millions of dollars. So I guess we can conclude that the writer, Robert Rodat, deserves much respect for his boldness and unpredictability, and Spielberg is applauded for deeming this screenplay worthy of his direction, and then Spielberg is praised for excellent direction. I feel odd congratulating him like this, as I would never have called myself a Spielberg fan in the past and am much more interested in the anti-Hollywood of Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson and such, but perhaps it is time I give him some more respect. Even critics who recognize the conventionality in Spielberg movies recognize his talent. Schindler's List is considered an all-time great movie, isn't it? Perhaps I should watch more from him and consider his direction, independent of the screenplay, even if it was he who wrote it.
This was a very enjoyable film for me. I had emotions running through me during it: nothing earth-shattering, but I can't remember the last time I experienced that. Particularly I love the war of it. Apocalypse Now was about other things. It was a journey, and it spent no time in one place. It was psychological. Philosophical. Allegorical. With Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg obviously made it a point to portray war extensively and in a realistic fashion so as to educate viewers. And I was incredibly interested in the military tactics, behaviours, patterns, nature, operations, etc. I suppose I'm just very interested in war. Maybe this is from Call of Duty. Maybe I'm destined to become a soldier or militaryman of some sort. The idea always excites me, though it is so far off from my life. In any case, if you like war, watch this. You will be watching maybe a solid hour of pure battle footage altogether. Maybe more. I would like a film that is 100% focused on military operations. That learns me tactics. The inner workings, and the big picture.
I leave this film with only 3 out of 4 stars. But I said it felt like less of a movie and more of an experience than Coppola and Kubrick, didn't I? Yes, but there's something more to those films. They have layers and meaning. There is some very interesting moral conflict in SPR, and some terrific decisions as plot devices, but it is mostly only an experience. It pulls on emotions and some interest strings but doesn't dig quite deep enough. I could never put it in the same league as the intellectual revolution of Kubrick or the dark, strange beauty of Apocalypse Now. The dialogue is too conventional. That said, the battle scenes are terrific, maybe the best I've ever seen. Kudos, Stevie.
Oh yeah, and Tom Hanks' character is morally questionable, but not in the anti-hero understandable kind of way, just in a "is he even nice? Idk. This is just weird" kind of way. But that's only at some points, not overall. Overall he's a definite hero. It's just odd. I think I would have preferred for him to have been a better man. Just so that the ending would feel stronger.
And I could be John Williams. It's sickening how lauded his music is...
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Review: Apocalypse Now
4.5/4
Coppola's Apocalypse Now must be the darkest movie of all time: visually, thematically, morally. It doesn't get this way until the end; before the last quarter it's basically just an excellent war movie. But in those last scenes... it transcends.
This film is based around the conceptually awesome device of a physical and metaphorical journey, in this case a journey into the heart of darkness, a journey up a winding river from Vietnam into Cambodia. This was probably an inspiration for Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising.
The atmosphere set by the director is unbelievable. The beauty of the visuals is contrasted by the grotesque moral quality of everything happening. Is this an anti-war movie? It makes us think deeper about the subject than any other movie. The way Kurtz speaks at the end made me question the moral assumptions involved in war and justice.
The last quarter of this film is what gives it the extra half-star. It places this picture beyond the realm of four-point cinema. It has legacy. It has layers. It cannot be given the same rating I would give Silver Linings Playbook.
Additions:
Just in case you're not aware, Apocalypse Now is one of the greatest movies of all time. It was released in 1979 by the writer/director of things such as The Godfather and features some of the most iconic moments or characters or lines in all of cinema. I say this only to encourage you to respect it and subsequently watch it; now that I've seen it I care less about the legacy and reputation and everything that happened to the film outside the film and more about what happened onscreen. I just experienced two-and-a-half hours of beauty and horror. The horror... the horror........
See post "Make better adaptations".
Coppola's Apocalypse Now must be the darkest movie of all time: visually, thematically, morally. It doesn't get this way until the end; before the last quarter it's basically just an excellent war movie. But in those last scenes... it transcends.
This film is based around the conceptually awesome device of a physical and metaphorical journey, in this case a journey into the heart of darkness, a journey up a winding river from Vietnam into Cambodia. This was probably an inspiration for Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising.
The atmosphere set by the director is unbelievable. The beauty of the visuals is contrasted by the grotesque moral quality of everything happening. Is this an anti-war movie? It makes us think deeper about the subject than any other movie. The way Kurtz speaks at the end made me question the moral assumptions involved in war and justice.
The last quarter of this film is what gives it the extra half-star. It places this picture beyond the realm of four-point cinema. It has legacy. It has layers. It cannot be given the same rating I would give Silver Linings Playbook.
Additions:
Just in case you're not aware, Apocalypse Now is one of the greatest movies of all time. It was released in 1979 by the writer/director of things such as The Godfather and features some of the most iconic moments or characters or lines in all of cinema. I say this only to encourage you to respect it and subsequently watch it; now that I've seen it I care less about the legacy and reputation and everything that happened to the film outside the film and more about what happened onscreen. I just experienced two-and-a-half hours of beauty and horror. The horror... the horror........
See post "Make better adaptations".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)