Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

When you think of the legends of rock music, names like Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, and of course Dewey Cox come to mind.  Well maybe not Dewey Cox but in the world of this film it is certainly true.  Walk Hard is a very funny and out there comedy that ruthlessly parodies countless rock and roll dramas.  The film fallows the journey of Dewey Cox from his youth in the south and his rise to rock immortality.  Along the way the film seems to take some very funny shots at the all too serious rock and roll films of the last few years.  

         What makes this film so funny is that it takes a chapter out of almost every rock biopic and actual artist lives.  In the course of the film it covers nearly all of rock history and gives it a good run for its money.  Like the Scary Movie or Naked Gun films it arrows in on a genre and makes fun of it vigorously.  This film just happens to be one of the better film parodies and for me is the best rock and roll comedy next to This is Spinal Tap.

         A highlight for sure in this film is the great performance that John C. Reilly. He is the plain-faced actor who has appeared in and has been good in countless films.  Reilly usually has to play second fiddle though, as most of his rolls are supporting ones.  Reilly has formed a niche for himself in the last decade or so as one the best character actors out there, and in this film it is nice to see he can cut it as a lead.  His talents are rather evident in this film and he gives one of the best comic performances in some time.  He is just so silly and at the same time he is perfect at delivering lines a straight man.

         Along with the comic aspect of his role he is also rather talented in his singing abilities.  In the film he does an impressive job of mimicking multiple styles of music.  Reilly has a range that goes from Johnny Cash, to Roy Orbison, to Bob Dylan, and does them all well.  His voice is actually perfect for the music because the songs come off as perfect parodies.  The songs themselves are hilarious and very sharp.  In some strange way they also are rather catchy.

         The film also can boast on of the larges and best assortment of cameos.  The film features some of the best and brightest of comic actors.  It features tons of SNL veterans, cast members of The Office, and tons of other modern comic actors.  Paul Rudd, Jack Black, Justin Long, and Jason Swartzman are all very funny as The Beatles in the film.  

         My only complaint of the film is that it seems rushed along.  I have the feeling that there were a good amount of scenes cut out and that it was shortened considerably.  It does not harm the film too much but I would like to see what kind of deleted scenes there are when it comes out on DVD.   Over all the film is a solid comedic effort and I laughed hard quiet a few times while watching it.  With a strong performance from John C. Reilly and some really clever song parodies this film is worth seeing.  If in search for a silly and very funny film then look no further.

 

3/4 Stars

Sweeney Todd

What a strange beast Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd is.  It is an incredibly strange film that is complex in how it mixes so many different elements into one film.  On one hand it is a film filled with nearly wall-to-wall music and on the other hand it is an utterly gruesome and gothic horror movie.  The continuous music numbers may turn off some people and others may be turned off the very dark subject matter. I personally found the film to be a healthy mix of both, and some how it blended both together to make one strangely entertaining film.  

         Now when I say this film has a dark story I really do mean that.  It is one of the darker and stranger ones I have seen in some time.  The film tells the tale of Benjamin Barker, played by Johnny Depp, a young barber who is falsely imprisoned by the evil Judge Turpin.  When Ben returns some years latter he is told his wife took her own life and that the evil Judge Turpin has raised his daughter while he was in prison.  Broken by the news he vows to have his revenge on all those who did him wrong.  He soon changes his name to Sweeney Todd and begins to enact his revenge.  Now that’s not the real dark part of the story, as he waits to get revenge he reopens his old barber shop and begins to kill his customers by gruesomely slitting their throats, as he now feels no one is innocent and every deserves to die.  With the help of his new partner Mrs. Lovett, he disposes of the bodies by making meat pies out of them.  The pies are then served to the public at Mrs. Lovett's restaurant.  Now that's not what I call too lighthearted of a story.

         Now do not get me wrong, this is a bleak and dark film in many aspects, but it also is filled with some great black comedy.  There were some scenes that I laughed at and was not sure if it was meant to be funny.  It was just so darkly funny it was hard to tell at some points.  There is a very funny montage of Sweeney killing all of his customers that is so gruesome I could not help but laugh out loud.  There is also a very comical scene where Sacha Baron Cohen, of Borat fame, and Johnny Depp test each other’s skills as barbers.  There are other little moments of dark humor spread though out the film but not in an overwhelming way.  

         The music itself I found to be excellent and rather catchy in many scenes.  The film itself is based on the famous Broadway musical of the same name, which was written by the legendary Stephen Sondheim.  Sondheim is a great writer and his music is more character and story driven than anything else.  Other musicals may have a number here or there but this on has music nearly from beginning to end.  Most every word the characters speak is in song and through the songs the story is told.  The lyrics are often brilliant and sound like poetic verses put to music.  Sondheim has an ear for the spoken word and his song are sharp and very smart.  People might know him best for his work in West Side Story.  The songs are also catchy as well.  I found myself humming the songs after seeing the film and more specifically I really liked the song called Pretty Woman.

 

         Johnny Depp in this film gives one of his best performance, which is hard to say because he is usually so damn good or at least interesting in all his films.  This film though he proves his talent once again.  He plays Sweeney Todd in a grim and moody style that comes across a rather intense.  He also plays a good straight man in some comical moments in the film. What really took me off guard about him in this film is how effective his voice is as a singer.  His voice is no powerhouse or anything, but he has a strong enough voice that more than gets the job done.  Depp is able to express emotion and passion as he sings in this film with his simple but effective voice.  I do hope he gets an Oscar nomination for his work here, and I think he will.

 

         The rest of the cast is actually strong as well.  Helen Bonham Carter is wicked and funny as the pie maiden Mrs. Lovett.  Carter as well has a good voice and plays well against Depp in this film.  Alan Rickman as the films villain, Judge Turpin, is good too.  Rickman just always seems to be particularly good at playing these kinds of villains and does it well in this film.

         Tim Burton's visual style is all over this film, and even though he had nothing to do with the story, it seems like one destined for him to direct.  This dark tale is right up Burton's alley and no one can do this kind of gothic material like he can.  He creates a grimy and depressed vision of London that seems like it own contained world.  The film looks great even with a lack of colors.  Burton paints a vivid world with using only shades of grey and black, with a little red blood thrown in there.  The lack of bright colors of the film is really visual pleasing and elevates the mood.  If you like Tim Burton, I can almost promise you'll like this film.  

         Now I may see this film pushing some people away if they don't like musicals or horror, or people who don't like the too mixed.  Now when I say that I am not saying this film is bad at all, I am just saying that it may not be for the picky film fan.  For a real film fan though I think the film willed be liked if not loved.  It is a film I enjoyed on many levels and was refreshed by its strange originality.  After seeing it and the more I think about it, the more I like it.  This film is a sure Oscar contender and on of the best films of 2007.  A dark littler Opera, that impressed and entertained me more than most other films this year.

4/4 Stars

Strangers On a Train

Many modern film viewers seem ignorant towards the classic films of the past.  They complain about how old they are or that there not in color.  One thing though that even modern film fans can not denied is the brilliance and genius of Alfred Hitchcock.  He is one of the very few film directors whose popularity has transcended generations and has been entertaining film goers for the last eighty years.  No matter the decade or era Hitchcock’s films still seem to be fresh and darkly interesting.  Even if you do not care for older films I guarantee that you can find at least one Hitchcock film that you will love.  One that I have always been fascinated by is his slick 1951 thriller Strangers on a Train.  This may not be the most famous of Hitchcock thrillers but it certainly is one of his most appealing.  It is an effective and playful thriller that has some great Hitchcock humor mixed into it.

 

            The film begins as tennis pro Guy Haines, Farley Granger, is riding on a train from Washington to New York.  While on the train Guy is confronted by a stranger named Bruno Anthony, Robert Walker.  The noisy and strange Bruno insist on talking to Guy and begins to makes Guy feel uncomfortable.  Soon they begin to talk more openly about their lives and there problems.  Guy explains that he is heading back to his home town to get a divorce from his cheating wife so he could marry his true love Anne.  Bruno tells Guy about how he hates his father and how he wants him to go away.  Soon Bruno realizes that they both have someone in their lives that they would want to just go away.  With this realization Bruno then suggest the unthinkable to Guy.  He suggests that Guy should kill his father and that he should kill Guy’s wife for him.  They would swap murders so neither crime could be traced back to either of them.  Guy hears this and thinks Bruno is crazy but agrees to the plan thinking Bruno is only joking.  The two men part ways and the next day Guy’s wife is found murdered in an amusement park.  Guy is shocked and now has some real problems.  On one hand he has the police who suspect him of the murder and he also now has to deal with crazy Bruno who now wishes for Guy to fulfill his part of the deal by killing his father.  Guy naturally disagrees with the idea and must find a way to prove his innocence and escape the insane plans of Bruno Anthony.    

 

This film’s plot sounds slightly contrived or even improbable but that does not really matter.  I don’t think as a viewer you are supposed to take this film completely serious.  In many places it has a dark sense of humor and does not get too serious.  Then on the other hand it also has eerie scenes of suspense and thrills.  It is actually a healthy mix of both a tight crime thriller as well features some subtle comedy touches.  The script is actually well written with sharp monologue with sinister touches dashed in.  The script is co written by the legendary crime writer Raymond Chandler so it has plenty of bite to it.

 

            One note of praise I just have to give is to Robert Walker in his hypnotic performance as the menacing and insane Bruno Anthony.  Walker brings a kind of charm and swagger to his role of a murdering sociopath.  Yes, Bruno is the bad guy but he is too interesting to hate him.   He gives sinister and strangely funny speeches through out the film with an evil ease.  Speeches like “Everyone has somebody that they want to put out of the way. Oh now, surely Madam, you're not going to tell me that there hasn't been a time that you didn't want to dispose of someone. Your husband, for instance” are delivered perfectly by Walker.  Walker is so good in this with his evil charm that he is easily one of the greatest villains of all Hitchcock films.  Walker stands alone in this film and undoubtedly gives the best performance of the film.  Sadly this was also Walker’s last screen performance because the next year in 1952 he dies of an allergic reaction to medication at age 33.  Walker was a talented actor who I would have enjoyed to see more of.

 

            Now this film would almost be nothing with out the monumental talent of the amazing Alfred Hitchcock.  He brings his brand of style and wit that is like really no other director.  In this film he sets a fast pace along with a stylish visual style that made him so famous.  When watching a Hitchcock film it is striking to see just how daring and innovative he is with the camera.  Hitchcock would use shots and techniques that no one else had used then.  His visionary style can be seen all over this film.  A scene like the murder of Guy’s wife where the entire murder is seen through the reflection of her glasses is just visually perfect.  Not one little detail ever seems to escape the eye of Hitchcock and his films only benefit from his meticulous planning.  His style is just second to none and unmistakably noticeable.  Hitchcock's films are based in a kind of hyper reality that is more cinematic than realistic.  Hitchcock’s films were never really about plot but about style and amazing thrills.  The plot is simply a set up for Hitchcock to wow us with out of this world thrills.  In almost every one of his films he was really more worried about keeping his audience guessing than anything else.  The film’s of Hitchcock were not message films and focused more on subjects examining the dark side of the human species like crime and murder

 This film is just plain and simply great.  Strangers on a Train is a well paced and darkly funny thriller that is just a blast to watch.  It is one of Hitchcock’s best but does not get the same amount of love as let’s say Vertigo or Psycho but deserves its own praise.  Hitchcock is one of those directors that no matter what he makes it is impressive in at least some facet.  Many people say they do not like older films but even if you are one of those people, I defy you to not like at least one Hitchcock film.  This is certainly an excellent Hitchcock film to start out with.

4/4 Stars

I Am Legend

Walking into I Am Legend I really wanted it to be good.  I walked out of it disappointed.  It is not a terrible film but it falters.  It has moments of that show potential and aspects of the film are effective, but I felt it was a case of a film being flawed just enough for me not to like it. 

 

         The film revolves around Will Smith as the "last man on earth", or at least the last human.  After a deadly virus is released and kills off most of the population of earth, the remaining survivors become vampire like creatures.  Smith's character, now being the last man on earth, must survive among the hoards of the living dead.  He spends his days looking for supplies and looking for a cure for the virus, as he was a scientist before the outbreak.  Soon his survival becomes more difficult as he struggles to find the cure and he fears his mind is slipping.

 

         The film is actually based on a novel of the same name by Richard Matheson.  The novel I can say is honestly my favorite book.  It is a dark and intelligent book that really captured my imagination.  This film is as faithful as it could be to a fifty-year-old novel, and I do not complain about that.  Its fine if a film is not a hundred percent faithful to a book but this film I think missed the all-important mood of the book.  This film should have been a mush darker character study then it was, like in the novel.

 

         My avid admiration for the book aside, I did not like the movie for other reasons then its adaptation of the novel.  What actually frustrated me was nothing happened.  There are little moments of emotion that I felt worked and the action was scarce.  The action also was nothing really special either as it gave me only minor thrills.  As far as being scary there is only one scene that I thought was mildly creepy.  The films pacing and execution was just mediocre to me.  

 

         What were highly impressive in the film were the great special effects of an emptied and worn New York City.  It is utterly eerie how believable the effects of the deserted city look in this film.  All the empty streets and beaten exteriors of the city make it one of the better looking special effect landscapes ever.  On the other had the creatures in this film look awful.  They look very fake and resemble bad video game graphics.  The way they bounce around the screen looks really fake.  It is very evident that the effects team on this film spent much more time getting the landscape of the city right and less time on the creatures in the film.  

 

         Will Smith also does an admirable job here.  In the past some have questioned his talent in as an actor.  Here though he tones it down and gives a fairly good job with a flawed script.  In almost every scene he must act by himself and he does a good job to carry many of the scenes.  I only wish he had a little more to work with because I became bored after awhile of him just by himself.

 

         The film also made the a big mistake in its ending.  One thing is that it comes out of nowhere and ends abruptly.  The ending, without giving anything away, is dull and lackluster.  You would think all those quiet moments would lead up to a big ending but it just did not work.  The payoff is very little in this film.

 

         I Am Legend is the third adaptation of Matheson’s book and is my least favorite.  It was first adapted to the screen in The Last Man on Earth in 1964 and was a creepy Vincent Price vehicle, and the second was the cheesy but fun Omega Man in 1971.  Of all the films none were great or really got the book right, but the other two were at least good in some way.  I Am Legend is a film that is paced poorly and has little excitement.  The emotions of the film I did not buy either, and I did not enjoy it as a drama.  It has some memorable special effects of a deserted New York but very bad effects in other scenes.  Will smith is also good with some mediocre material.  The film just never had a good rhythm to it and the film never grabbed me.  Not a terrible film but don't go out of your way to see it.

 

2 1/2 / 4 Stars

The Mist: What is Evil?

Creepy crawler films like The Mist are a rarity these days.  With the exception of maybe Slither from last year, the cheesy B movie monster film has disappeared.  Is it a good or bad thing, I don't know?  Being a mild fan of the cornball monster films of the past though I found there was more then enough to like in The Mist.  Sure it works as a fun and gross monster film but that’s not what I liked the most, as the film surprisingly offered much more.

         The film takes place in a small rural town, most likely in Maine as it was based on a Stephen King novella.  The film opens on the lead, Thomas Jane, having to go into town after a strange storm nocks out his power and damages his property. Going into town with him is his young son, so they can get some supplies to repair the damages.  Once in the local they soon encounter a strange "mist" which appears to have creatures lurking inside of it.  Naturally they, and the other town’s people, lock themselves into the grocery store.  All the towns people are now trapped in the very Night of the Living dead type situation with gruesome creatures outside waiting to eat them.  Now trapped inside they must struggle to survive!  How dramatic!

 

Now I know this sounds incredibly cheesy or maybe even clichéd but there is more to this films then just creepy crawling creatures.  What had me going in this film are not the monster outside of the store but the monster that were inside of the grocery store.  Once they town’s people are locked within the store they soon dived into factions, and then those factions divide further.  They soon begin to turn on each other and a power struggle ensues.  As scary as the creatures on the outside of the store are, they are no match for the monsters on the inside.  The store eventfully divides into two different groups.  One of the groups is lead by the cool headed and reluctant Thomas Jane character, and the other group is lead by the insane bible-thumping madwoman, played by Marcia Gay Harden.  Soon their battle for power become brutal and creature’s moments that had me on the edge of my seat.  With out giving too much away all I will say is that many of the humans in the store resort to animal like actions and many tense moments result.

 

         Marcia Gay Harden in this film really does a remarkable job.  She is perhaps the best villain I have seen this year, with exception to Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men.  Harden is truly frightening in this film.  Her hell, fire and brimstone speeches are just chilling and utterly effecting.  Her character is the perfect example of someone who does awful thing in the name of religion.  I would actually love to see her get an Oscar nomination for best supporting actress for her work here.  She made me hate here character like few others, and I mean that in a good way.  Harden's intense performance really heightens the film in so many ways.

 

Aside from the psychological thriller aspect of the film, I will have to admit liking the goofy monsters in the film too.  The gross and weird looking creatures were very well done and looked actually cool.  There were a wide variety of creepy crawlers and they looked good for the most part.  There were a couple exciting action scenes in the film with the monsters and the film actually made me squirm in a few moments.  The monster actually made me laugh in a few part just because they were so goofy and fun.  The monsters almost serve as a relief from the intense psychological action on the inside of the store.

 

The Mist is also one of the better Stephen King adaptations.  It seems to capture Kings style and attitude better then most.  King’s dark edge is presented well here and King’s style is all over the film.  This trueness to King’s work is probably due to The Mists director Frank Darabont.  This is not the only King adaptation of Darabont as he also directed The Green Mile and the great Shawshank Redemption.  He is perhaps the person best to adapt King’s work, as most others make bad films from King’s books.  Darabont is a talented director and seems to know how to balance elements well in this film.

 

This film is not a perfect one by any means.  The beginning is weak, the ending didn’t work for me and Thomas Jane over acts from time to time.  That aside the majority of the film thrilled me.  The great power struggle within the grocery store was some of the most thrilling things I have seen in awhile.  It is also a fun tribute to 1950’s monster movies.  The Mist has is partially flawed but when its good, its really good.

 

3 ½ /4 Stars

The Tall T: A Lonesome Western

 

            Very few things in film are as American as the western film is.  It is one of America’s major contribution and invention in film, along with the musical and the gangster film.  The western was the biggest kind of film in the golden age of Hollywood as countless westerns were churned out year after year.  After awhile the western became more or less its own genre and became but of the American experience.  Among this large out put of western some of the best films ever made were released, classics like The Searcher, Red River, My Darling Clementine and High Noon.  Films like these are some of the most prestige American films ever made.  Yet among all these well known classics lurks a gem of a film that is equal to or better than any western out I have seen.  This film I speak of is the rarely seen and criminally underrated Budd Beotticher film The Tall T. 

 

            The story of The Tall T is one that settles around a small rancher named Pat Brennan who on his way back to his ranch looses his horse in a bet.  While walking home he hitches a ride on a stagecoach whose passengers are a newly wed couple, Doretta and William Mims.  Soon into there travel they fall into the path of a trio of outlaws lead by a man named Frank Usher.  The outlaws soon find out that the newly married bride’s father is the richest silver miner in the territory.  Quickly the outlaws change their plan as they now decide to kidnap the Doretta and hold her for ransom.  They send the Williams into town to deliver the ransom note and take Brennan and Doretta into a mountain hideout to await the ransoms delivery.  Now Brennan must try to escape the outlaws because he knows when the ransom comes he is as good as dead.  From their on it is a battle of wits as Brennan tries to stop Usher and escape with Doretta and his lives.

 

            The key to the film is that on the surface the film appears to be almost simplistic or straight forward.  This appearance is a deceitful one because below the seemingly simple exterior lays a tense and complex tail.  That is one of the most beautiful part about this film is how surprisingly deep and intelligent it is.  It is a western that opens and builds slowly.  It is not a western that opens with wall to action or treat violence casually.  Essentially the film replaces the shoot out with a more intelligent and intensely tension filled approach.  Perhaps the best word to describe this film is tension.  Tension certainly is at the center of this film and is what gives it its power.  From the moment Usher kidnaps Brennan and Doretta the film becomes an elaborate game of chess.  Each passing moment blisters with the possibility of what could happen next.     

 

            The relationship between the hero Brennan and the villain Usher is a very interesting one in this film.  This is a film where the good guy and bad guy are not as simple as black and white.  The characters in this film are more like gray than anything.  Both Brennan and Usher have extended scenes of dialogue in this film and appear to have a lot in common.  The only thing that really divides them is Brennan is an honest worker and Usher is a man who took a life of crime.  Usher looks at Brennan with hope, he sees much of himself in Brennan and wishes that one day he could leave a life of crime and become a rancher too.  On the other hand Brennan looks at Usher with disgust as he soon sees himself in Usher and can see himself in his shoes.  They are really duel characters and have a kind of a Ying Yang relationship.  In another life and another time they could have been friends but they are now doomed by fate to be one another’s enemy.

 

            The script is a rather sharp one adapted by Burt Kennedy a short story written by the great Elmore Leonard.  For a western script it is strange in the sense that it is one with little action but lots of dialogue.  The dialogue though does more than a gunfight ever could.  The conversations in the film are intelligent and hard boiled.  The dialogue builds tension more and more as Brennan and Usher engage in their battle of the wits and survival.  Each sentence the men speak to one another is like a landmine that explodes on its verbal delivery.  With this more character driven and intelligent approach the viewer cares more for the characters and when someone does die the event means something more.

 

            As far as acting goes the film has a tight little ensemble that all do pretty good work.  In the film Randolph Scott plays the hero nearly perfectly.  I could not act for an actor to play a western hero any better.  Scott seems like an actor who just naturally seems right to play a western hero.  He is a tall and sturdy actor with steely eyes and a rough leathery face.  He actually looks like the rugged and experienced character he is playing.  Along with that Scott portrays Brennan as a defiant and strong character that can stand his ground.  In the films I have seen of Scott’s he always seems so good in them.  As an actor he was more or less just out side of being a big star like John Wayne.  Now he seems to be rarely talked about but he is a very talented actor.  Richard Boone is also quit exceptional in the film as the multi layered villain of the film.  Boone brings kind of a reality to his role of villain that not many other western villains had.  He is the films villains but he is really not that bad of a man, just one caught up in a life of crime. 

 

            Budd Boetticher as a director would get my vote as easily one of the most underrated directors in film history.  Boetticher is a director that knows how to make a western the right way.  He makes them in a style that is also original and uniquely his own.  His films are all hard edged and tough western that focus more on tension and suspense than shoot out.  He was a director that had made a string of westerns in the mid to late 1950’s that all seemed so different and smart.  They were all standout films in their own way for the most part.  His career sadly fell apart as in the 1960’s as he made an expensive and ill fated documentary about the famous bull Carlos Arruza called Arruza.  This film extremely hurt his career and he soon had a near impossible time making another film.  From the 1960’s on he only had a handful of film credits and essentially retired peacefully.  Though his out put of films was small they are films that influenced and impressed directors as wide as Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino. 

 

            Now of days The Tall T is a film that is largely forgotten or overlooked.  Most of the films made by Boetticher have been forgotten and that is very sad to me.  They are just too good to be ignored.  Scott and Boetticher made many films together and I can say out of the five I have seen not one has disappointed me.  All have the same tough spirit, intelligence and tension that set them apart from other westerns.  These films are largely forgotten because their availability on video has been very limited.  Only one film they made together, Seven Men from Now, is on DVD as of today The Tall T certainly deserves a DVD release.  All the films of theirs I have viewed were either old VHS tapes I had to dig around to find or I had to stay up late to watch them on cable.  If you are ever lucky enough to view a Boetticher film savior it because it’s a cinematic experience to enjoy.  I can honestly say that this film and another Boetticher film, Seven Men from Now, were the best films that I saw last year in 2006.  Few films have captivated me as much as this one has.

 4/4 Stars

            

Requests Anyone

Hey if anyone out there wants me to review a certain film or tell me about a film please speak up.

Purple Rain

I have been a big fan of Prince lately.  I have been listening to his music almost religiously lately and for some reason I'm just digging the guy.  So I figured it would be worth watching his huge hit film Purple Rain.  With great hope I popped the DVD into my player and man I was really disappointed.  I thought it might be worth my time but I was wrong.  

 

For starters this film is beyond cheesy and maybe even beyond camp.  The once hip culture trends and styles just come off as very dated.  This film has aged horribly and holds up very poorly.  All the over the top and glossy MTV visuals of the 1980's just come off as really silly to me.  Now I do openly admit to indulging once in awhile in campy guilty pleasure films but this one just didn't do it for me.

 

What got to me the most though is perhaps the fact that the acting is just do god-awful.  Many of the actors appear to be amateur actors, as most of them are real musicians and not actors.  Line after line just comes off unintentionally funny and lacks the impact of a real actors performance.  After awhile the bad acting started to drive me nuts because it distracted me in the scenes that were meant to be serious.  I just ended up not buying the drama of the film.  Prince himself doesn't even show much chops as an actor.  As a stage performer he is rarely matched, but here as an actor he shows little charisma.   The man is great on stage but is only a mediocre actor.

 

The plot is more or less autobiographical one for Prince.  It is about a young musicians desperate attempt to become a rock star in the Minneapolis club scene.  Along with that basic story line of Prince's character, The Kid, trying to become famous, there are also other side stories thrown in the film.  We get a side story about The Kid's rival trying to ruin his career, another about The Kid's troubled home life involving his abusive father and also a love story between him a hot young singer.  None of these story lines really did it for me to be honest though.  They all failed for me as they tented to be flat or like I said silly.  The drama of the film just never got me.  The supposed tension that should have been in the film just was not there.  By the films end too it felt to me like there was no real conflict resolution either.  Questions are left open that should have been addressed.  I'm not going to give too much away, but the film really leaves us hanging on the out come of major plot points and character relationships.  The film really does need some closure.

 

The film in all farness is not bad in every sense.  It actually can boast one of the best soundtracks of all time and the music is amazing pure and simple.  The film features one catchy song after another and the concert scenes are tremendous.  In fact the best part of the film would have to be the great concert footage.  When Prince is on stage he comes to life and shows emotions that he lacks in his acting.  While watching the musical scenes I was riveted and was very entertained.  Thats more than I can say for most of the film.

 

In all fairness this is not a terrible film, it is just not a well made one.  If the script was a little tighter and the acting a little better then maybe I would like the film more.  Those are the only two reasons that I cannot recommend this film.  I could even learn to deal with the cheesy 1980's style if the film was a little better.  Part of me wants to like this film but my critical side just can't allow me to do so.  This film may have been so exciting at its release in the 1980's that people loved it, but its flaws shine brighter today with hindsight.  My advice is skipping the film if you can and just buy the sound track.  Purple Rain has some of the best music of the decade, but it is a flawed and dated film overall.

2/4 Stars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8AsOVNwPV0

The Conversation

Harry Caul: I'm not afraid of death, but I am afraid of murder.

 

 

            In the decade of the seventies few directors were as respected and talented as the legendary Francis Ford Coppola.  Coppola’s career exploded early in the decade with the release of the monster hit The Godfather.  Coppola then followed up its tremendous success with its sequel The Godfather part II.  These films are considered classics now and two of the best of all time.  In between these two giant successes for Coppola, is another film he directed worthy of equal praise.  It is called The Conversation and it is a stunning thriller made with care and the skill of a master director.

 

            The film is a thriller that focuses on an expert wire taper who is considered the best in his field named Harry Caul.  The film begins with Harry taping a conversation between two young people in a busy city park for an unknown client.  As he delivers the tapes events arise that make Harry feel very suspicious.  He is led to believe that the tapes he made could lead to the possible murder of the two young people in the park.  Fearing the death of someone because of his work he races to figure out the truth behind the tapes.  Caul feels he must save the lives of the couple and save his own life as well.

 

            In all honesty this plot outline may appear slightly vague but this film is not an easy film to follow in all respects.  The films plot itself is vague and does not give us a clear picture about what is going on.  At the end of the film many twist are made and most of the plot comes together in a sly way.  Yet many questions are left unanswered. By the end of the film we are left in the dark about who betrayed who and whose side the characters are on.  This may frustrate some viewers but I loved how there is not complete closure in the film.  In an era where so many movies endings come so nicely wrapped it is refreshing to see a film like this that gives us enough pieces of the puzzle to figure out the big picture but to leave a few pieces out to create doubt in our minds.  Those few missing pieces help create a mysteries aura around this film.  As a viewer you are in the dark as much as Harry Caul is while he is figuring out the mystery.  I also am being sketchy with some details because I don’t want to give away anymore of the plot then I need too. Trust me; you’ll want to discover the plot’s many twists yourself.

 

            Coppola’s film is not a thriller with elaborate action scenes or huge payoffs every few seconds.  It is more a film that is more concerned with mood and atmosphere then with creating false thrills.  The Conversation is a film that takes its time to develop and trusts its audience’s intelligence to stay with it.  It is a mystery that builds upon its self and when the big events fall into place it is well worth the wait. 

 

            On top of it all I have always thought the film to be a very interesting character study of a lonely and paranoid man consumed by guilt.  Gene Hackman gives one of his best and most subtle performances playing the troubled wire taper Harry Caul.  It is a performance that captures a very memorable character that has as many internal conflicts as he does external.  Hackman plays Caul as a man that is constantly paranoid and hopelessly stricken with guilt.  In the best scene of the movie Caul is forced to recall a case that has haunted him for the last few years.  Harry explains that a conversation he recorded indirectly lead to the death of a man and his entire family.  This scene is very meaningful to the film because it is when Harry realizes that potentially he may again cause the death of some one else because of his work.  This scene sets up the main undertone of the film, which is guilt.  Harry tries to close himself off from his work but this time he feels morally obligated to prevent the sins of the past from repeating themselves. Watching the film once again I found myself actually more interested in Harry Caul then with the story itself.  His struggle with his personal flaws and demons only makes the film stronger.  Harry Caul is a role that Hackman seems so right for.  He plays this quiet and sometimes prickly man with masterful subtlety.  In the beginning of the film it is hard to get an idea of who Caul really is.  Through careful work from Hackman we get to see how truly alone and troubled Caul is.  Hackman is one of America’s best actors.  If you look back he has done strong work in many great films.  Hackman has given fine performances in films as varied as Night Moves, Superman and The Royal Tenenbaums.  This performance is easily near the top of all his great performances.

 

            The Conversation is a film that also is a great success for Coppola as both writer and director.  His directing is precise and he handles some complex scenes wonderfully.  The opening scene in the park with the couple’s conversation being recorded is an expert example of film making.  This opening scene is a technical achievement with all the elaborate editing and for its complex structure.  The script that Coppola wrote is a complex and interesting one as well.  The films complicated and diced up plot is all well thought out and executed wonderfully.  Coppola’s eye for character development is also very evident in scenes like Harry’s dream where the viewer finds out truly what makes him tick. 

 

             For me the irony of the film is that it is so good yet thirty years after its release it is not talked about that often.  It is a worthy film that any film maker would proudly call there own.  Like many other directors Coppola’s bigger films over shadow his smaller films such as this one. When it was released in 1974 it was nominated for an academy award for best picture of the year.  Ironically is lost to of all films, The Godfather part II.  Honestly it was really a win-win situation for Coppola with both films being directed by him.  The film also garnered rave reviews from most critics and won the coveted Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival.  By no means was it a failure but it just was not as prominent as Coppola’s other films.

 

            Now I am not saying that this film is better than The Godfather films but it is a wonderful little gem.  It is a film that holds up well thirty three years after its release and still seems unique.  After repeated viewings this film still fascinates me and has yet to become stale or bland in my eyes.  The Conversation does not build itself on cheap thrills but instead goes for a more intelligent and psychological impact.  Above all The Conversation is a smart film that builds its story carefully and weaves the viewer into its tangled web of mystery.  You may not get all the answers you want but the film leaves you fascinated.  Coppola creates one of the most sharply intelligent thrillers ever with one of Hackman’s best performances.  The Conversation is a perfect balancing act between an interesting character study and a moody mystery.  It may not be The Godfather or even Apocalypse Now but it is a great film carved into American film history by Francis Ford Coppola.   

4/4 Stars   

 

Hello Out There

Well this is my first blog that I have done.  I intend for this blog to be focused on cinema and film related subjects.  I have been a great admirer of films for some time and love films more than most.  I often spend much of my free time and most of my money on film related things.  I started to write my own reviews of films a few years ago and to my surprise people seemed to like them, so here is a place that a will post many film reviews and give my own take on things in film.  I also plan to talk about both modern and classic films. (I like all films.)  So please enjoy and be vocal if you disagree with me or have anything to say.  Thanks a lot.