jgcole Reviews

Sin City (2005)

Comic-neo-noir

[7/10 · 28 July 2012]

Sin City, Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez,and Quentin Tarantino (special guest director), 2005

Frank Miller's comic book comes to life in a movie that has all the elements of noir but none of the sensibilities. It's quite a leap from the gritty realism of noir to comic book figures who are just affectations of the basic noir characterizations, but this one isn't shy about making the attempt. And it has all the elements: voice-over, tough guys, dangerous femmes, hard-boiled dialog, fringe characters, the 'bad part of town,' nihilism, and a dark ending that resolves nothing.

The film makes no apologies about being a comic book which is, after all, a big part of its appeal for its fans. And the cast is top notch with more beautiful women than I can remember seeing in a film - ever. And the tough guys - there are three of them - are tough like only comic book characters can be (those guys can either take a punch or they were shot with really small bullets). But, really, they all come off as cheap knock-offs of noir characters. But hey, it's a comic book.

And the movie is lots of fun. Jessica Alba's cowgirl bar top dance is a great Hollywood moment as she pulls off something that can't be easy: very effectively playing a stripper without taking her clothes off. There really is no plot just three loosely woven story lines but it really doesn't matter. This film caters to adolescent male fantasies about violence and women.

But the movie is what it is. The real problem is that Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino think that violence is funny. And that's not noir

The Foreigner (1978)

No Wave Cinema : Underground, Obscure and Influential

[6/10 · 3 July 2012]

The '70s, being perhaps the most creative decade in modern cinema, produced some obscure stuff and No Wave is pretty obscure. I can't say this is great film making, but it sure is great that people made stuff like this.

Amateur actors plus a bad script can be a pretty deadly combination but this film is interesting enough to warrant curiosity among those interested in the No Wave/post-punk era in New York City. Poe's style is artistic with long takes (too long) that includes some good night scene shots of New York street life that remind of early Godard, and a great severe angle shot of the World Trade Center. But, if nothing else, Poe certainly had a finger on the pulse of New York's underground c.1977. There are some great live club performances highlighted by a nihilistic punk/mosh pit beat up of our protagonist at CBGB's.

The budget was reportedly $5,000 (I believe it) which along with the amateur actors and location shooting on the streets, resulted in the worst sound I've heard in a film. The dialog was often inaudible. But the music track wasn't and is worth watching the movie for: electronic/tonal pieces, very good acoustical numbers, and the live performances. Most of the actors were undoubtedly Poe's friends or art students or, I don't know, maybe just runaways he found in Times Square. But he did have a couple of pros: Debbie Harry (she was probably the best actor and had only one scene) and New York underground actress Patti Astor.

Also this film has a running time of 90 minutes, not 77 as IMDb says. The film is not in great shape and I don't see the UCLA Film Archive doing a restoration of it any time soon.

The Killers (1964)

The Killers strike again

[7/10 · 4 February 2011]

This 1964 remake of director Robert Siodmak's 1946 masterpiece again uses Ernest Hemingway's short story as the catalyst for a crime story: A man learns that there is a contract out on him. He is about to be killed but accepts it passively, not attempting to save his own life. The man in question is Johnny North. Johnny gets involved with a dangerous dame and lets her talk him into participating in a robbery. The robbery goes wrong, the money disappears, and all things point to Johnny as the culprit. But Johnny is consumed by guilt and betrayal and has lost the will to go on, the will to live. Like the original, much of the story is told in flashbacks but in this one it's from the killers point of view. Lee Marvin plays Charlie, one of the killers hired to do the hit on Johnny North (played by John Cassavetes) and Charlie wants to know why a man doesn't run, why he allows himself to be killed. He also wants to know what happened to the money from the heist. Johnny doesn't have it and the guy who hired him didn't ask him to find it. That's not right and Charlie sets out to find out what happened and where the money is.

This film is part of an impressive lineup of '60's crime and detective stories that came out after the end of the film noir period - Harper, Point Blank, Bullitt. This one was originally shot for television and was intended to be the first feature length made for TV movie. But director Don Siegel, who wanted the job in 1946, made a film that he had to know would never get past the censors. And, of course, it was rejected by NBC after completion because it was unsuitable for TV audiences. And the film looks like it was made for TV. The cinematography seems a bit uninspired with rather flat color and stark set designs and some really bad process shots. But while it visually lacks the moody film noir feel of the 1946 version, there is no lack of bad behavior, violence, misogyny, corruption and greed.

Marvin was great in this film and Clu Gulagar was the perfect psycho-killer sidekick to Marvin's understated thinking thugs' thug. Angie Dickinson plays Sheila Farr, the gun moll that Ava Gardner played in the 1946 original and is every bit the sociopath that Gardner's Kitty was and just as fatal. Angie was a very good looking girl and her star was on the rise in '64. They had her in a collection of sexy dresses that showed off a wonderful physique and of course she had that hair going. And in his last screen role (though he wasn't done acting), Ronald Reagan plays Jack Browning, the head of the criminal organization that pulls off the heist. Of course this went against type for Reagan who usually played sympathetic roles and, really, it is hard to picture Reagan as a criminal mastermind. Anyway, the affable Reagan was unsure about playing a bad guy. He later said it was a mistake for him to take the part and felt bad about the famous scene where he slaps Angie - hard! Angie also gets roughed up by Gulagar and Marvin in a scene in Sheila's hotel room and later said that she thought they were too enthusiastic and that Marvin actually scared her. She said she would never work with him again but relented a few years later when she played opposite him in Point Blank. She has a scene in that one where her character gets some free shots on Marvin and Angie hits him like she means it.

All in all it's a fun movie and definitely worth a view. If you've seen the 1946 version you'll find that while it pales in comparison, it is different enough to still be enjoyable. And if you haven't seen the original you'll find this an entertaining film. Either way it is an interesting look at the state of the television art c.1964 and just what wouldn't get past the censors.

The Long Good Friday (1980)

1970's Gangsters - London style.

[8/10 · 25 January 2011]

This film opens with several disjointed scenes that leaves the viewer a little breathless and confused: A chauffeur murdered in his car, two men counting cash in a suitcase who are subsequently murdered, a man being knifed in a swimming club and a car bomb exploding outside of a church. We are able to catch up as the story slowly reveals itself but this one does require some viewer participation. While a very intelligent and well scripted film, the action is intense, the body count high and the violence more graphic than is usual for a British film of its era.

The central character in this crime drama is Harold Shand, a highly successful East End gangster who has just returned to London after a business trip to the U.S. Upon his return he finds his mob under attack, several of his employees killed and his organization the target of an unknown foe. Meanwhile he's trying to put together a semi-legit real estate deal, with American Mafia participation. Harold has to keep his American friends from getting nervous with an all out war going on and get to the bottom of whatever has gone wrong while he was away.

Harold is aided in all of this by the classiest moll ever: Victoria. She's beautiful, educated, well-mannered and high class (she brags that she went to school with Princess Anne). Her cool as ice exterior is quit the contrast to the crude thug, Harold, who fancies himself a businessman and hobnobs with politicians and legitimate entrepreneurs but is really only a tough Cockney hood (or 'ood as they say). Victoria tries to handle the Americans while Harold and his mob round up the usual suspects in an attempt to find out where the heat is coming from. Harold is at once a ruthless brute and a lovable and vulnerable little man and by the end of the movie it's easy to find yourself falling for him. He actually has real affection for his crew and treats them as family. This may leave him exposed as, like most movie gangsters, his arrogance and belief in his own invincibility are what will bring him down.

Bob Hoskins, in his first starring role, plays Harold in a performance that conjures up images of other little big men of the silver screen like Edward G. Robinson or James Cagney in some of their great gangster roles. While not as well known as his award winning role in the under appreciated "Mona Lisa", it is the one that put Hoskins on the map. Victoria is played by Helen Mirren and it's hard to take your eye off of her in all of her scenes. Helen was a very good looking girl in her day and was already an established star (having survived her role in "Caligula"). Eddie Constantine, Europe's favorite American, plays the American mafioso and a young Pierce Brosnan, in his first movie, plays an IRA killer.

The plot is a bit complex with a lot of characters to keep track of and the almost incomprehensible Cockney accents and slang are hard to follow (subtitles are helpful for non-Brits). But the story moves along smartly, the direction is very good and the lighting and photography excellent. This film is well done from its start to its memorable conclusion and is highly recommended.

Branded to Kill (1967)

Cult Masterpiece

[10/10 · 30 November 2010]

Seijun Suzuki made 42 films for Nikkatsu Studio, 1967's "Branded to Kill" being his last. It was his last because he was fired (while still under contract) for making a film that made no sense and no money. Suzuki sued the studio for breach of contract and as a result was blacklisted by the Japanese film industry. Undeterred, he worked in television for ten years before returning to the big screen in 1977. But time loves an artist and his art and in recent years "Branded to Kill" has been championed by film makers, film students and critics and is now considered a classic.

Hanada is a yakuza hit man with ambition. He is the No. 3 ranked assassin and wants to be No.1. But things aren't going right. He botches an assignment to provide protection for a boss then blows a hit when a butterfly lands on his rifle sight as he is ready to pull the trigger. The mob then puts out a hit on Hanada and he is on the run. But he has more problems than that. His sexy wife (who has more gratuitous nude scenes that I thought possible in a Japanese film of this era) is sleeping with Hanada's boss and Hanada is stalked by the mysterious No.1.

A straightforward plot is completely lost in a totally confusing narrative that has events out of chronological order, changes in space and time, and shifts in tempo that leave the viewer thinking that they are either watching the worst edited film of all time or they have somehow slipped into a David Lynch parallel universe. Suzuki's film grammar is that there is no grammar. You can do anything you want as long as it keeps the film interesting – and entertaining. The result is a fascinating, bizarre and mystifying film that is not only highly original but dazzling to look at. The black and white Cinemascope looks as good as anything I've ever seen and the camera direction is inspired.

But the look of the film is not disconnected from the story. The expressionist style – amazing lighting effects, surreal widescreen images and the confusing edits – all create a nightmare film language that mirrors the nightmare that Hananda is experiencing within the story. There is a femme fatale who has a dead bird hanging from her cars rear view mirror (which, actually, would be better than one of those ghastly air fresheners), lives in an apartment full of dead butterflies strung up into a lacy embroidery and has an attraction for water that leaves her glistening wet in most scenes. BTK also has an absurdist comic feel to it: James Bond loves his vodka martini's, Hanada loves his boiled rice. And in a scene that has since been copied, Hanada shoots someone by firing a bullet into a basement drainpipe, the bullet traveling up through the pipe and out of a sink on the second floor and into the eye of an optometrist. It all seems to work as it plays with the usual yakuza themes: loyalty and honor, an existential loner hit man, double crosses and hit men assassinating other hit men.

This film is not for those who prefer a straightforward narrative or a film with a logic that can be discerned by simply watching it again. But others will find this fascinating film something they will want to watch again...and again.

Pale Flower (1964)

Japanese Film Noir

[10/10 · 29 November 2010]

Upon his release from prison for killing a rival mobster, Muraki strolls the streets of Tokyo and muses that nothing has changed in three years and that people are little more than half dead stupid animals whose lives are meaningless. In voice-over he asks "What was so wrong with killing one of them?" While he was away the two Tokyo gangs have reached a truce in order to eliminate a third gang from Osaka. Muraki is unsure of his role in the new alliance and places little value in the yakuza (gangster) code. He is a lone wolf who, while a dependable team player, is a risk taker who takes action on his own and finds consolation from his weary existence in the Tokyo nights and its' gambling dens.

Saeko is a well dressed, beautiful young woman with lots of cash and, like Muraki, is a creature of the night. They meet at a card game where Saeko recklessly wagers, loses and wants more. A woman in such a place is an oddity and all the players are fascinated by her, including Muraki. When she asks Muraki if he knows of a game where the stakes are higher he knows that he has found what he was looking for. The two are immediately drawn to one another and their fates are sealed. Together they combat the boredom of life with high stakes gambling, high speed joy rides (she drives) and other thrills that come with living on the edge. They agree that whatever they do, they can forgive themselves. "I have no use for the dawn. I adore these evil nights," says Saeko. A truer noir couple there never was. But when Saeko becomes drawn to another mid level yakuza – the half-Chinese junkie Yoh - Muraki feels a sense of loss. To win her back he asks Saeko if she wants to watch him as he assassinates the head of the Osaka syndicate. She cannot say no and he knows it.

While it is not a typical yakuza film as there is little bloodshed and killing, it is a gritty portrait of yakuza life: gambling dens, night clubs, racetracks and doing things they have to do and feeling good about it. It is their life and it is unquestioned. It is this that the film is really about: fate and the impending doom that hangs over all of the characters. It reflects the end of the old Japanese tradition of honor and obedience to a patriarchal system that was in disarray after their defeat in WWII and the occupation that followed. The American film noir existentialism and stunning expressionist photography in monochrome Cinemascope create a film experience that is the equal of anything that came out of Europe and the U.S. Even the card game scenes, a game called hana fuda with a deck that has twelve suits all named after flowers, have an intensity that is very noir. There is also a bizarre dream sequence that adds to the stylized strangeness of the film as does the avant garde soundtrack by Toru Takemitsu. The strange and confusing percussion and brass of Takemitsu's score somehow seems in perfect sync with what we are seeing on the screen. This is a complete film experience.

Ashes and Diamonds (1958)

One of the greatest films in Polish cinema

[10/10 · 29 November 2010]

This film is set on the last day and night of WWII in Europe. Poland is liberated from the tyranny of Nazi Germany and falls into the hands of Joseph Stalin. At the time the Poles were not sure what this meant but they feared the worst. The end of the war, of course, meant something quite different for Poland than it did for France or England. The "liberation" of Poland was just another invasion and occupation and the Resistance shifted targets from Nazis to Polish communists and in doing so went from heroes of Poland to criminals.

The story follows Maciek, a young Resistance fighter. His assignment is to assassinate a Polish Communist leader who is in town for a banquet to celebrate the end of the war and his subsequent promotion. It's a long night with lots of drinking, reminiscence, hopes and fears for the future and the unexpected crises of confidence that conflicts our protagonist, Maciek. He falls for the beautiful young barmaid at the hotel and for the first time sees a different life for himself and questions what he is about to do. A heavy feeling of impending doom hangs over the film as the fates of people and a country are in doubt. Into this the director weaves some comical characters and a tragic romance. Good stuff.

The look of the film is very expressionist as opposed to the neorealism which was a common style of directors in Europe at the time. The ideal was American Film Noir which the director was a big fan of – The Asphalt Jungle being his favorite. The entire hotel was built and lit artificially so they could create the look and feel they wanted. And, there were a lot of very artistic, purely visual effects and what some might call overly expressionist scenes: a drunken polonaise at sunrise, an upside down crucifix in a bombed out church, a white horse wandering into the frame in a scene in the hotel courtyard. Beautifully photographed in shadowy black and white, this film succeeds as a work of art on every level.

The film is based on a book that depicted the assassination target, Szczuka, as the sympathetic figure. And, really, he's not a bad guy. However the director went the other way and made a minor character in the book (Maciek) the lead player. The role was played by one of the leading young actors in Poland, Zbigniew Cybulski. The director let Cybulski keep his trademark long hair and dark glasses even though he knew no WWII resistance fighter looked like that. Even though the Party watchdogs made sure Maciek's ultimate fate was punctuated (in another overly expressionist scene), the Polish movie going public perceived the film as it was intended and Maciek was seen as the hero. Too late to censor the movie in Poland, they were determined to not let it get out of Poland. They were successful in stopping it from going to Cannes but a Party Minister relented and let it go to the Venice Film Festival, allowing it to be seen "out of competition." It won the Grand Prize anyway, Cybulski became the James Dean of Poland and the Party Minister was fired (at the very least). The film is considered one of the greatest films in Polish cinema. 10/10.

Vampyres (1974)

The world needs more vampires like these two

[7/10 · 10 February 2008]

As a kid I grew up watching the Hammer films of the sixties. While they were true to the vampire legend, they pulled back from the base elements of sex and eroticism that is implicit in the vampire story. However their atmosphere and visual imagery was unsurpassed. The films were well acted and the narrative true to Bram Stoker's "Dracula." But the variations on the theme were pretty much worn out and the vampire story was ready to go in another direction. And so vampire erotica became Europe's contribution to the sexploitation films of the 1970's.

While directors like Jean Rollin and Jess Franco cared little about being faithful to the Stoker legend, their departure from Hammer's formula did bring some originality to the vampire story. And while they did incorporate some very bizarre imagery as well as sex and nudity in their films, they lacked the production values of the Hammer films. And like many of the sexploitation films they used nudity as the lure to get people to watch their films. Often their efforts merely substituted nudity for eroticism, coming up short on both counts. But the formula was a winner: lesbian vampires. Really, you almost can't screw that up. While the classic "Daughters of Darkness" by Harry Kumel stands head and shoulders above all others, Franco's "Vampyros Lesbos" and "Female Vampire" as well as Rollin's "Requiem For a Vampire" are worthy contributions.

Jose Ramon Larraz's "Vampyres" is among the higher quality films of this era. Starring two beautiful women, Marianne Morris and Anulka, this film is long on atmosphere, imagery and eroticism. Our two hungry beauties spend their evenings lurking by the dark and lonely roads of the English countryside, waiting for their next victims. Their long black capes, flowing hair and vacant stares as they creepily hide behind dead trees waiting for their chance is an incredible contrast to the statuesque model quality beauty of the two stars. They, of course, live in a creepy old mansion in the country where they take their victims. And it is here, in Larraz's carefully constructed sets, that the movie is on its most solid ground. Larraz creates some striking scenes that more than make up for the films uneven pacing. In one such scene the girls are each in their rooms partaking of their victims. One of the vampires, in that telepathic communication that they have, becomes alarmed and rushes out of her room to find her blood covered sister, in an almost catatonic state of euphoria, wandering the corridor with a sexy, vacant look in her eyes. In another brilliant scene they retreat to the catacombs to rest where one sleeps on top of some kind of coffin and the other crouches in a stone alcove with her cape pulled up over her head. Strange but effective.

The storyline takes a back seat to what we are seeing and is not what we take from this film. Even for those who believe that story is what matters there is little chance of becoming bored. Plenty of sex, nudity and blood will keep your attention very nicely. However Larraz has done an excellent job of giving the film the feeling of foreboding and excitement that we all crave in a vampire movie. Definitely worth a view.

Knocked Up (2007)

Why do we think this stuff is funny?

[1/10 · 21 January 2008]

Hollywood's formula for comedy today is, with few exceptions, a slap in the face to movie goers who actually have to pay to watch this drivel. It's pretty simple. The men,as always, have I.Q.'s less than 90 and operate under the belief that their behavior is appropriate for all situations, or worse yet, "cute" and endearing to the female of the species. The women, on the other hand, appear smart (well sort of), mature (but only in comparison to the men) and competent (but not for long!). However, this movie is an equal opportunity offender as the women quickly get dragged into the abyss and are exposed as facilitators of male behavior at best, or just "part of the gang" at worst. The story really doesn't matter because we'll be laughing too hard to keep up with any annoying details, plot points or nuance that could make this anywhere near an "intelligent comedy." And this, Hollywood informs us, makes for a great night at the movies and is, after all, what we want. And, for those who think that things are only funny when you're drunk or stoned and like their characters that way, Hollywood is right on the mark.

Well, this one couldn't be more formulaic and touches all the bases. Our male lead is an immature, self-centered, 23 year old slacker who spends all his time (of course he has no job, what would be the fun in that?) smoking pot and watching porn. He is supported in this mindless endeavor by his equally hilarious roommates who deliver all the stoner and toilet humor we could want. Our female lead, is a smart, beautiful career woman who is quickly rendered incredible by actually falling for this loser who gets her (yes, you guessed it!) "knocked up." She soon looses her job and spends her time helping her boyfriend "review" adult movies proving, once again, that comedy is best when everybody gets stupid.

And, you know what? The acting wasn't bad. Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl did all they could with this stinker of a script. This movie puts to rest, once and for all, the question of which is worse: bad acting or bad writing. Unless you think there is an inherent humor in everybody "gettin' stoopid," then there is absolutely nothing funny about this movie. If, in reality, men were as childish as this and women fell for it, there would be no one laughing. But, I guess that's why they call it comedy and why humor means something different for everybody. But aren't there enough humorous situations in life that we could play on without having to resort to characterizing ourselves as idiots? This one does not pass the "What Would The Aliens Think If They Saw This" test.

This movie may have made an attempt to touch on an appropriate subject: the choice to have a baby instead of an abortion. Of course, there's nothing "funny" about that so they glossed over it (in about 30 seconds of screen time) and concentrate instead on moronic humor and completely unbelievable human interaction that is all stupidity based. But that 30 seconds of screen time was enough to have the critics calling this mess a "smart comedy."

The movie does succeed in making one (unintended) point: if people this irresponsible bring children into the world, we're all in trouble.